The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIP) has universally established the link between international trade and intellectual property (IP). With the rise of disruptive technologies and the advancement of emerging technologies, discussions have taken place to reform the provisions of TRIPS. The implications of the digital era for international IP and the need for a transformation of traditional standards and modes of enforcement of IP rights cannot be ignored. It is appropriate to track the impact of the copyright provisions under the TRIPS and to understand the role of copyright across national borders in promoting the need for revision of the TRIPS provisions, particularly in the area of intellectual property. The changes brought about by the shift from the analogue to the digital age have raised a multitude of issues, particularly with regard to the international adjudication of copyright claims with the WTO as a platform, and how the implementation of the TRIPS provisions at the national level is hardly reflected in the policy work carried out by the Member States. The Centre for International Governance Innovation panel briefly addressed some of these issues in 2018 and speaker Wolf Meier Ewert, advisor, presented an alternative perspective at the WTO IP, Government Procurement and Competition Division by focusing on two-fold issues, such as the issue of transformation, the application of rules that were pre-conceived for changing situations and the changing circumstances. Let us revert back to the inception of copyright provisions in the TRIPS agreement before proceeding into the current scenario and application of copyright. The copyright provisions of the TRIPS originate entirely from the Bernes Convention, which did not aim at uniformity in the level of copyright protection but rather wanted to respect differences between the Member States, provided that national treatment (reciprocity by States with regard to copyright protection) and minimum copyright protection standards to be adhered to by the Member States were mine. However, it was not possible to strike a balance between the Bernes Convention and the national copyright protection frameworks due to the autonomy granted by the Convention to the Member States in enjoying national discretion in determining exceptions and limitations to minimum rights. The Bernes Convention undoubtedly paved the way for the transposition into national regimes of international copyright law, but it is not possible to bridge the differences in implementation, amendments and legal enforcement. By introducing the WTO platform as a dispute settlement mechanism for the Member States to impose sanctions against offending countries, the TRIPS sought to bridge the gap between member state policies on IP. Perhaps the biggest mistake committed by TRIPS was to rely on the existing protection offered by the Berne Convention instead of moving towards the reconstruction and revision of international copyright protection from scratch, in line with the digital climate of the future. In hindsight, differences between countries have only widened the various problems involved in adjudicating copyright claims. In addition, the vague and directional role of the Bernes Convention has also created problems for both the Member States and TRIPS jurists with regard to interpretation. The need for a balance between the TRIPS and national law and also the difficulty of maintaining it has been noted by many jurists. It is clear that infringement of copyright affects business functions and TRIPS signatories have often developed divergent approaches and amended their laws in order to comply with TRIPS. However, it appears to be a massive undertaking for TRIPS jurists when it comes to creating a balance, to offer an objective assessment of national law and to protect the rights and obligations of the Member States in the dispute settlement process. The lack of national TRIPS implementing copyright laws and the ineffective implementation and enforcement of copyright piracy measures have been identified as balance-building threats. Although the Member States have strict and advanced copyright regimes, due to their failure to unify differences by adopting TRIPS standards, their relative impact cannot be seen in the light of TRIPS. Similarly, in areas of enforcement, even in states that have integrated TRIPS into their IP protection regimes, they fall short and often condone copyright piracy. The ambiguity involved in the TRIPS treaty relating to the subject of new rights which fall under the copyright umbrella is another major problem that cannot be overlooked. In the digital era, where new rights in the field of copyright have been created, such as those introduced by User Interface platforms in terms of user-generated content, this is extremely prominent. Due to cloud innovations, the cross-border flow of information and the international sharing of data through AI poses a real challenge to the national character of copyright. Increasingly, the solution of multi-territoriality of copyright information has been proposed, taking into account how copyright registers are not made public, unlike patent registers. Advocacy for a provision of multi-territoriality in the revised TRIPS is inevitable if states are to be deferred in determining the exclusive rights of authors and future authors who have access to copyrighted works. Theoretically, it may seem easy to unify and minimize national differences in copyright protection, but the progression of copyright in the digital era clearly depends on the steps taken towards the revision of the TRIPS treaty. The need to revisit TRIPS in the digital era is a must in the process of globalization. As popularly demonstrated by the Open COVID-19 pledge, the post-pandemic world poses various challenges to the restoration and strengthening of IP protection due to the easing of IP restrictions by the international community. Only with a revised interpretation of existing national laws in the light of the revised TRIPS can the post-pandemic IP challenges coupled with the issue of emerging technologies be adequately addressed. The issue of copyright is unstable and unpredictable, it is constantly subject to change with emerging technology, and the process of change can only be slowed down immediately through transposition and transformation and eventually unification over time.

This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code Legal and Tax shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.