> Oh dear. So in other words we have an explicit Congressional statement
> that a copyright is property, and is to be treated as such? Are
> compulsory licenses under various provisions of the act now subject
> to takings claims?
Only if previously there was an unrestricted right. With sound recordings and cover records, e.g., the compulsory license gave rights where there were none, so could not be construed as a taking.
OTOH, if Congress were to say to, say, novelists, that rights in any *existing* novels were now subject to a compulsory license, that might be a taking. But I doubt that it would be for novels-yet-to-be-written.
Trotter Hardy
<thardy[_at_]facstaff.wm.edu>
Trotter Hardy / William & Mary / (804) 221-3826 Received on Thu Apr 11 1996 - 19:11:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT