Editing Berne three-step test (section)

== Interpretation ==
The technical legal reasoning which has been applied to suggest how this wording should be interpreted is arcane (see the references below). To date, only one legal case (before a [[WTO Dispute Settlement Body|WTO dispute settlement panel]], involving U.S. copyright exemptions allowing restaurants, bars and shops to play radio and TV broadcasts without paying licensing fees, passed in 1998 as a [[rider (legislation)|rider]] to the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act]]) has actually required an interpretation of the test. 

The three-step test may prove to be extremely important if any nations attempt to reduce the scope of copyright law, because unless the WTO decides that their modifications comply with the test, such states are likely to face trade sanctions. Exceptions to copyright protection are required to be clearly defined and narrow in scope and reach.<ref>Sam Ricketson (2003), [http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=16805 WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment]</ref> For instance, the three-step test was invoked as a justification for refusing certain exceptions to copyright wished for by members of the French parliament during the examination of the controversial [[DADVSI]] copyright bill.