4 ms·
Publishing a copy is not taking. Taking would be something like declaring exclusive use over the work (taking the copyright itself). Publishing a copy of somet
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
Publishing a copy is not taking. Taking would be something like declaring exclusive use over the work (taking the copyright itself).
Publishing a copy of something that already exists is an independent action that doesn't affect copyright holders' use of their property.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Publishing a copy is not taking. "Property", whether real, tangible personal, or intangible personal, is a legal power to exclude others from certain actions with reference to some thing. Limiting some part of that exclusive power while leaving the owner title to the property and with the rest of the exclusive rights is still a taking of property, so even if what the government did with regard to copyrights was less extensive than actually seizing the copyright, it would still be a taking (similar to using eminent domain to take an easement or right-of-way, leaving the owner of land the title.)
- nicerobot 10y agoI see it as taking the copyright holder's control over their material, not taking the material itself. In other words, if someone publishes your works for free that you would otherwise charge for access, they haven't taken your work, they've taken your control over the access to it.