copyright owners' legitimate concerns. Reliance parties have invested
capital and labor in the lawful exploitation of public domain property;
the sudden restoration of copyright divests them of these investments.
Without some provision addressing this potential loss, there could be
challenges based on the ``taking'' clause of the Fifth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, it is important that the United
States restore copyright protection in certain foreign works. The
United States arguably failed to conform its law fully to the Berne
Convention in 1989 when it declined to interpret Article 18(1) on
restoration <sup>5 as being mandatory. The U.S. Justice Department in
its review of the URAA legislation concluded that under existing
precedents interpreting the Fifth Amendment, the Notice of Intent to
Enforce the Restored Copyright avoided an unconstitutional ``taking.''
6 Thus, the Justice Department considered these provisions as
critical.

\5\ This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the
moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public
domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of
protection. Berne Convention art. 18(1)(Paris text).

\6\ See Memorandum from Chris Schroeder, Counsellor to the
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States
Dept. of Justice to Ira S. Shapiro, General Counsel, USTR, on
Whether Certain Copyright Provisions in the Draft Legislation to
Implement the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations Would
Constitute a Taking Under the Fifth Amendment (July 29, 1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------</sup>