Panel to examine Canadian complaint

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.