Case Report summarizing the WTO DSB case between the United States and the Europe on the US Copyright Act's homestyle exemption for music licensing; in comic book form.

1. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz
WTO Dispute Report: United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act - WT/DS160/R Aurelia J. Schultz
Basic Information about the case: Title: United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (not nearly as much fun as “Tuna- Dolphin”) Parties: The United States and the European Communities and Member States Claim: The EC claimed that 17 USC § 110(5), an amendment to the Copyright Act contained in the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998, violated the US’s obligations under Berne and thus the US’s obligations under TRIPs via its incorporation of Berne. 3rd Parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Switzerland entered the case as 3rd parties (basically on the side of the EC). Panel Members: Ian Sheppard (Australian), Arumugamangalam V. Ganesan (Indian), Chair: Carmen Luz Guarda (Chilean) What the Parties agreed on: 17 USC § 110(5) does implicate two provisions of Berne, Art. 11(1)(ii) and Art. 11bis (1)(iii). What the Parties disagreed about: Pretty much everything else –
1. Whether or not TRIPs Art. 13 (allowing exceptions) can be used for rights in Berne
2. Whether the minor exceptions doctrine is accepted, still active or incorporated in TIRPs
3. Whether or not equitable remuneration needs to be granted when rights are limited
4. The meaning of “certain special case” in step 1 of Art. 13’s 3-step test
5. The scope of effects to be examined when analyzing the conflict with normal exploitation under step 2 of Art. 13’s 3-step test
6. Whether to look at potential or actual prejudice when analyzing the reasonableness of prejudice to the right holder under step 3 of Art. 13’s 3-step test
7. Whether or not exceptions need to serve a special purpose
8. And of course, whether or not § 110(5) passes the three steps of the test
The Panel did not address every issue raised by the parties. They completely brushed over any domestic reasoning for why the US amended the section. They also dismissed the EC’s claim that Berne Art. 11bis (2) should be used to analyze exceptions to the rights granted in 11bis. The Outcome: The Panel found that § 110(5)(A), the homestyle exemption, did not violate Berne/TRIPs but that § 110(5)(B), the business exemption, did violate Berne Art. 11(1)(ii) and Art. 11bis (1)(iii) and thus TRIPs Art. 9.1.
The Arguments: The next 9 pages outline the parties’ arguments and the reasoning of the Panel. WARNING: You may want to increase your view to about 150% for best reading experience. It can be difficult to put nearly 100 pages into 10. This might not be how it actually happened – ok, I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen this way, but you’ll still get the general idea. And now… Adventures in Acronym Land: EC, US and the WTO DSB…

2. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

3. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

4. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

5. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

6. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

7. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

8. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

9. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz

10. CC-by Aurelia J. Schultz
The End…?