As PIPA and SOPA make their way through the cloaca of the legislative process, I pause to wonder why Congress is only interested in protecting private property when it belongs to Hollywood studios, media companies, and publishing houses? What about the property rights of the Chrysler bondholders, or of property owners brushed aside by eminent domain, or the small businessperson shaken down by lawyers wielding Federal private action statutes? You don't see our solons launching any bipartisan juggernauts on their behalf. So what's so special about intellectual property, I wonder?
Duke Economist Mike Munger recently said on the excellent EconTalk podcast, that Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between profits and rents. So for the benefit of those who might have lost this discretionary ability, I will write very slowly:
Federal IP protection statutes are entirely motivated by and written for the benefit of rent seeking corporations. Congressmen and Senators don't care about private property. They care about the cash and in-kind contributions of entertainment and media companies, and in return for those contributions they will eviscerate your First Amendment rights without a moment's hesitation.
I know this is somewhat less ... detached than my usual posts. But this stuff just makes me sick.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Feb '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Well said.
Don't forget about medications that are cheap and/or over-the-counter in the rest of the world yet are bone-crushingly expensive here.
To keep us safe, we're told. We're not supposed to recall that- for example- democrat turned republican Billy Tauzin stuck a provision in the Bush medicare part D bill that prevented the US government from using its position as a monopsony buyer to bargain for discounts with drug companies.
That cost taxpayers many billions and made Billy Tauzin many millions.
It won't end well.
Jan '12
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Let me guess, the Hollywood moguls and their ideological ilk are the folks who have contributed most lavishly to the Dems.
2 plus rep for comparing the legislative process to the operations of the cloaca. Lucius Vorenus is ready to induct you into his collegium on the Aventine.
Sep '10
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Hollywood.
Dec '10
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Even my liberal and politically unaware friends (but I repeat myself) are worked up against this and circulating the Google petition against it.
Edited on Jan 18 at 4:51amDec '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Movie and music purchases are down. Their product sucks, so they have to pick up revenues somewhere.
Of course, the only reason I buy music anymore, I havent illegally downloaded since 1998 either, is because I like well produced music with competent audio engineers.
Oct '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Intellectual Property, especially patent law, is corporatism at its worst. It's corporation funded regulation caked in the language of "property rights", which really only refers to its method of transfer; it certainly isn't scarce like true property, and while the transfer may be more economically efficient, the net efficiency for the public is often negative. The same people who would have a problem calling pollution the public's "environmental property" have no problem with IP (I know the diffuse nature is different, but you get the idea - exclusivity of using existing private property is regulation).
Richard Epstein has a nice Federalist Society talk on IP, and while I disagree with his conclusion (and his opener), it's really an empirical disagreement, which I don't expect him to know as one not practicing in the field. For those of us that do, it's pretty shameful stuff. I've written patents that were pure carveouts of existing art and had nothing to do with our research; the only point was to seek rents with the club of expensive litigation. Research wasn't rewarded, and "science and useful arts" certainly weren't progressed.
Oct '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Just another quick note, I don't want to hijack the post with points we already hashed out in Valiuth's excellent October post on IP. It's not that I think corporations are evil, but they react to incentives like anyone else. The purpose of IP isn't to advance corporation profits, it's to progress science and art. If corporations also profit, that's great, but it shouldn't be the focus of the legislation. You can bet the big corporations are the ones lobbying for stronger patent laws, not the little guys or the public. That's generally true in all industries, but it's especially true in IP.
Jul '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Not having studied the PIPA and SOPA bills, I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. My industry (Oil and Gas) deals constantly with patented technology and processes and almost as many that are trade secrets. IP theft is (to my knowledge) not a very serious concern in the US, but a big problem in countries like China and Mexico. I worked for the John Zink Company (which develops and manufactures state-of-the-art process burners) and found out that they had refused to do business in China because they knew their patents and trade secrets would not be safe there. I'm sure that many other companies have similar concerns.
I don't know if or how PIPA and SOPA address these issues, but IP protection is a serious and worthy goal for congress to pursue.
-E
Oct '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
E, I think there's a place for "intellectual property", just as there's a place for many focused, scope-limited, and reasonable government regulations; I think you could make a good case for the pharmaceutical industry, at least so long as the FDA strangles it. But it doesn't necessarily follow that what's best for your company is what's best for the public, who the IP laws are supposed to benefit. All companies want a monopoly, and all would rather move their resources to a more profitable area.
I think one problem with international IP infringement is a problem of information; goods may be counterfeit or bypass the innovative premium for which a first mover can command. A lot of that can't be accounted for, for which IP laws may have a place, but much of that is a fraud issue. Also, I don't have a problem with trade secrets, since those are mostly contractual.
Jul '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
QBF, you're clearly more informed on this issue than I am, and I appreciate your reply. However, I'm not sure that I agree that IP laws are supposed to benefit the public, at least not directly. The way that I see it, IP laws benefit the creator/inventor/artist/whatever by ensuring that they will have sufficient rights to profit exclusively from their IP. This incentivizes the creation of new inventions, processes, entertainment, literature, etc., thereby benefiting society. After a time, the IP becomes non-exclusive and it does become public domain.
Is this not to model? Or are you arguing that it is the model to follow, just that current laws, SOPA and PIPA don't support that model?
-E
Oct '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
E, you're right on all that, at least it's the theory. Those are the parties that directly benefit from the laws, though the profiteers are more likely to fall into the "whatever" category. And IP laws can incentivize research and development, just as oil and gas subsidies can (though not in the same way, of course), it's just whether or not it's the most beneficial way for society to progress science and the arts. That's a hard determination since there are so many unknowns, but I generally prefer less restrictions and regulations unless it's pretty clear. I think if we're going to do IP, it needs to be more limited in scope and duration, and that might require generally shorter periods, a categorical system, or a pre-existing use regime.
In theory I'll probably never be okay with IP, but it isn't going away, so I guess I'm arguing the latter. It's hard because the economic theory of IP is pretty sound; it's really in practice that it starts falling apart. The authors of Against Intellectual Monopoly have a nice intro here.
Apr '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
An excellent post. No one can own ideas, yet that's what intellectual property laws authorize. Intellectual property is a very, very bad idea.
Mar '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
And this kind of reaction is exactly why I think the enemies of stuff like SOPA are as bad or worse than SOPA itself. SOPA is an overreaction to piracy, while cries of "Information want to be free!" are utopian nonsense.
Dec '10
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Douglas
And this kind of reaction is exactly why I think the enemies of stuff like SOPA are as bad or worse than SOPA itself. SOPA is an overreaction to piracy, while cries of "Information want to be free!" are utopian nonsense. · Jan 18 at 10:18am
By "information want to be free!" they really mean I want goods and services without paying for them. When I saw the SOPA stuff cropping up on facebook from my less politically thoughtful friends and remembered EJHill writing about it I knew there was something worth investigating. Turns out that it is being opposed for both the right reasons and the wrong (left) reasons. Perhaps this provides a teachable moment with our liberal friends.
Apr '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
CandE: QBF, you're clearly more informed on this issue than I am, and I appreciate your reply. However, I'm not sure that I agree that IP laws are supposed to benefit the public, at least not directly. The way that I see it, IP laws benefit the creator/inventor/artist/whatever by ensuring that they will have sufficient rights to profit exclusively from their IP. This incentivizes the creation of new inventions, processes, entertainment, literature, etc., thereby benefiting society. After a time, the IP becomes non-exclusive and it does become public domain.
Is this not to model? Or are you arguing that it is the model to follow, just that current laws, SOPA and PIPA don't support that model?
-E · Jan 18 at 7:50am
Well, copyrighted material no longer becomes public domain after a time; there's theoretically a time limit, but as long as that time limit is retroactively extended by 20 years every 20 years it will never, in practice, expire. So that's a difference between current practice and the model you espoused.
May '10
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
E, if you read QBF's link to Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution, which established the principles of IP, you recognize that the objective emphasis is different from what you stated (highlighted above). You have the words, not the focus.
Yes, the constitutional goal of IP is to get things written and developed and into the marketplace, and then the public domain, for the benefit of the citizens.
The way to accomplish that is to offer a limited monopoly sufficient to encourage deployment, but no longer than what is necessary for that goal. Perpetual IP lobbying after about 1799 is pure rent-seeking.
Oct '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
The King Prawn
By "information want to be free!" they really mean I want goods and services without paying for them.
King, I think you're right that a lot, maybe most, of them want freebies and aren't concerned with the more established property rights principles we conservatives consider when dealing with property, and for which our interests may overlap with theirs in this area. But I do think a lot of them understand that online material is both practically (digital) and principally (non-scarce) different than physical property, and that those differences should be considered in an enforcement regime. The Electronic Frontier Foundation does a good job of convincingly discussing online IP matters without coming off as extreme.
As for information wanting to be free: we should all want information to be free, but we should also all consider that restricting it may make it more available in the first place. I think the latter's a pretty high bar to show, but I'm willing to consider it.
Apr '11
Re: Why is the only private property that interests Congress "Intellectual Property"?
Oh man two IP discussions going and I was MIA...sad pandas. Next I'll miss the Evolution Threads..
I will second everything Quick Brown Fox says on this issue...I just wish to chime in with my own two cents on China and IP theft.
I think that what keeps the American technology sector going is the innovation of new technologies and capturing the new adopter market. While China manufactures cheep knockoffs of many american products they make last years models, and they are mostly sold in China at lower prices, but to people who could never afford to buy the latest model or even last years model (at the higher retail price). The people who buy the knock offs were never potential costumers of Apple and their iPad. The Chinese who can afford the iPad at market value will go for the latest model just like we will.
The problem Apple would face from China is not the forged iPads. It is int he potential that a Chinese company will develop the newest iPad before them. What is interesting though is that China does not develop new technologies. If they did though, they would soon want patent protection.