Re: repeal of section 412

>
> >>Don Berman writes:
> >>
> >>one could ask why a collection should be built at
> >>the expense of the authors and creators rather than the
> >>taxpayers?
>

  I don't see how the fact that a project is
> expensive excuses the government from complying with the Fifth
> Amendment. Clearly, it seems to me, the deposit requirement
> is unconstitutional unless the government makes just
> compensation for the property it takes.
>
> I should note that these arguments have been made before, and
> rejected. See Ladd v. Law & Technology Press, 762 F.2d 809
> (9th Cir. 1985). I humbly suggest that that case is wrongly
> decided.
>

Wait a minute. I'm confused. I thought the Government was giving something in return for the deposit-- copyright protection. And the taxpayers (or readers) are paying by paying monopoly profits on goods that otherwise would be subjected to competitive market pricing. How do we get a 5th amendment claim when the government gives back something of value and moreover does it only if you voluntarily ask for it?
Harvey Perlman Received on Thu Jun 09 1994 - 12:55:51 GMT