Personally if the USA signs a treaty in good faith that they themselves heavily influenced, I would expect them to follow it. Sometimes that may come into conflict with other expectations, such as public domain works becoming copyrighted again. So then the expectations have to be compared and that's what the justices did.
To be honest, I think it's the attitude towards copyright vs freedom that is skewing the perception here. It's true that copyright provides government monopoly and special interests are able to extend it, and I don't like that. But when we sign a treaty we should be expected to uphold it.
Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that the treaty was heavily influenced by the USA?
"The Berne Convention was revised in Paris in 1896 and in Berlin in 1908, completed in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, in Brussels in 1948, in Stockholm in 1967 and in Paris in 1971, and was amended in 1979"
"The United States initially refused to become a party to the Convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the United States Senate ratified the treaty, making the U.S. a party to the Berne Convention,[4] and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.[5]"
Doesn't sound like the USA had anything to do with it. All seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. Another country creates a treaty, you ratify it, and suddenly your "hands are tied". (I'm not saying I have any opinion on the treaty itself, but the process seems a bit concerning.)
I disagree, if we sign a treaty and find that it is in direct contrast to rights afforded by US law, we should either nullify the treaty or correct the US law not back door legislation via signing a treaty and have the judicial branch overrule the US law. They are compiling a strategy to utilize this very tactic with the UN gun bill. To me it reeks of a way for the legislative branch to dodge accountability for unsavory laws.
To be honest, I think it's the attitude towards copyright vs freedom that is skewing the perception here. It's true that copyright provides government monopoly and special interests are able to extend it, and I don't like that. But when we sign a treaty we should be expected to uphold it.