dmv wrote:

The Supremes seem to be saying that intellectual property rights are on par with real property rights. which is all well and good. But does this mean that local governments can condemn the "unused, decaying or underutilized" intellectual property of its citizens and use that
intellectual property for their own - the greater good- economic benefit???

That's a hot little comment there, mixing the major SCOTUS decisions of last week and this one. Could a local government -- or the federal government -- seize material that should be in the public domain, and put it there, provided it shows a plan for why that is good for economic development (neglected otherwise) and pays a reasonable amount for it (off the backlists for 5 decades -- call us to claim your shiny dollar).

Now, lets say you publish a manifesto the government doesn't want you publishing. They claim ED on it (for the public good), seize it, and claim that if you continue to distribute it you've violated their copyright. There you have it. Censorship with no first amendment messyness. You don't even particularly need legislation. The executive branch can just do it.

RE: The Big Picture: Grokster Decision is meaningless to filesharers