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.

I'm not sure it would really work, but its a door you'd open. The court would have to say that the first amendment wins. Furthermore, a large work like a movie or book would be harder to make fair use of if the government was using copyright to control it. I'd much prefer a more limited standard that says the government can use it but only if you aren't useing it and they cannot take any of your rights to it away. But the idea does have merit. You might consider talking to the eldred crowd about it.

Particularly in the case of abandonware a program at the Library of Congress that claims ED on works and rereleases them is unlikely to be challenged in court because abandoned materials are by definition impossible to clear. No one will be able to get standing to prevent you from making use of them. Ultimately such a program would be challenged in some way, but by them it may have sufficiently demostrated its value that people would be sympathetic to it.

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