Decius wrote:

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.

Fair enough, although I don't see that working very well. Because the manifesto can be rewritten or reviewed or cited or quoted under the doctrine of fair use, and we haven't gotten rid of that yet. And we haven't gotten rid of the First Amendment, or the ability to challenge ED decisions. You have to strip those away before you can have a useful censorship.

What I was talking about was the material for which there is no financial or person motivation about protecting. The stuff that has been neglected, fallen through the cracks. Right now, professionally you don't want to touch source materials since Mickey that don't have a clean history of origin, for fear of a later suit. ED gets around that -- it has been claimed by the state for public good.

There is a question of jurisdiction.

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