Case
DS160: US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
Implementation by the United States of the panel
report The
United States presented its communication DS160/9. It
said it intends to implement the panel’s
recommendations and rulings, which were adopted by the
DSB on 27 July), and that it has begun to evaluate
options for doing so. The US proposed a 15-month
implementation period.
The
EU said that 15 months is too long because the US does
not need so much time to make the required legislative
changes.
Australia
said that it has a strong interest in the implementation
as some Australian musicians are still deprived of this
copyright protection in the US. Australia also said it
believes that implementation should not be complex.
The
case arose because the EU complained that US law violated
WTO agreements because it permitted, under certain
circumstances, the playing of radio and television music
in public places (such as bars, shops, restaurants etc.)
without the payment of a royalty fee.
See
ruling
Case DS194: US — Measures treating export restraints
as subsidies
Canada’s
second request (WT/DS194/2) for a panel
Since
this was the second request, the DSB agreed to establish
the panel for this case. Canada argues that certain US
measures treat exports restraints as subsidies and
therefore “provide that the United States will
impose countervailing duties against practices that are
not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the [Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures]
Agreement.”
The
EU, Australia and India reserved their third party
rights.
Case DS 161 Korea — Measures affecting imports of
fresh, chilled and frozen beef
Appeal
by Korea of the panel
report (WT/DS161)
The
item was dropped from the DSB agenda as Korea appealed
the panel report a few hours before the meeting. The
Appellate Body has between two to three months to examine
the appeal and submit a report to the DSB.
The
case was brought by the United States and Australia who
complained that the Republic of Korea’s quantitative
restrictions, regulatory schemes and other measures on
imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen beef violated WTO
agreements, including Korea’s domestic subsidy
commitment in agriculture.
|
