Copy Right Act Of Usa And European Union

The international conventions and treaties on copyright law compel its member countries to amend the country’s Copyright Act to harmonize it with provisions of various international treaties. In deference to such compulsion, USA, UK, EU has made certain amendments to its IPR Act. For instance in the USA, Napster company has been sued for the infringement of copyright laws by A& M and other music companies. At last, Napster lost the case as the court ruled that internet consumers share music is not a suit of fair dealing. In Eldred V.

Ashcroft, the US court openly declared that there is need for the USA to synchronize its copyright law with that of European Union council Directive 93/98/EEC of 93. This directive has authorised the EU member states to widen the copyright protection for an extra 20 years to protect the creator’s right. The general assumption that The Bono Act has said to be triumphantly harmonized United States Copyright law with that of European Union but in reality this is not being the true as USA and EU is providing different copyright terms for a considerable number of works.

For instance , in USA the protection extended for work-made-for-hire is for 95 years whereas in EU the same has been provided for 50 years . Of late , many famous sound recordings have fallen into the public domain in Europe and recording industries of USA have started to ensure stronger protection against such analogous cheaper foreign imports without consent of the creators .

USA is of the view though these are fall under public domain in Europe, as these are protected under copyrights of Act of USA, any unlawful importation of these recordings still constitute an act of infringement. As regards to fair use, database protection, the work-made-for-hire agreement, the first sale doctrine, the safeguard against free downloading in digital atmosphere, there is a difference of opinion between USA and EU on enforcement of these copyrighted items.