I've argued in the past that copyright is a non-partisan issue, in that the concepts behind fixing a broken copyright system shouldn't be specific to either major political party. Unfortunately, historically, that's meant that there's been bi-partisan interest in helping Hollywood expand the system over and over and over and over again (15 expansions in the last 30 years). However, as we saw over the weekend with the wonderful RSC brief that was released and retracted in a day, there is significant interest in some circles to explore the idea of substantial copyright reform, which includes recognizing that the existing system is not functioning up to the standards set forth in the Constitution.

Along those lines, it's interesting timing to see that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University is about to publish a book on why conservatives and libertarians should support copyright reform called Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess. The book was put together by Jerry Brito, and he describes some of what's in the book as follows:

• Yours truly [Jerry Brito] making the Hayekian and public choice case for reform
• Reihan Salam and Patrick Ruffini arguing that the GOP should take up the cause of reforming what is now a crony capitalist system
• David Post explaining why SOPA was so dangerous
• Tim Lee on the criminalization of copyright and the a use of asset forfeiture in enforcing copyright
• Christina Mulligan explaining that the DMCA harms competition and free expression
• Eli Dourado calculating that the system we have today likely far exceeds what we need in order to offer authors an incentive to create
• Tom Bell suggesting five reforms for copyright, including returning to the Founders’ vision of what copyright should be

It's good to see more analysis of why the copyright system is in dire need of reform. While I still think this should be a non-partisan issue, rather than a strictly partisan one, it's interesting to see one side of the political spectrum popping up at this time to make the argument. Over the past few years, it's seemed like many of the arguments in favor of copyright reform came from the more liberal/progressive side of the spectrum anyway, so hopefully this "balances" out the calls for reform a bit and makes it clear: the time to fix the copyright system is now, no matter what your political persuasion might be.

Arnold Kling rips apart a particularly silly New Yorker article by James Surowiecki which attempts (and fails) to show that libertarian economists are hypocrites. The basic reasoning from Surowiecki is that libertarian economists believe strongly in market forces -- but, at the same time, the stock market has reacted positively to news of a potential economic stimulus package. Thus, he concludes, libertarians should support the stimulus package (the market says so!) even if the concept of an economic stimulus package goes against libertarian ideals.

This is silly and wrong for a number of reasons, but it brings up a mistake that I've been seeing made around here all too frequently: the idea that if one market benefits from a certain government handout, then clearly "the market" has benefited overall. So, of course the stock market is looking forward to a government handout -- because those involved in the stock market will benefit from such a handout. However, that does not mean that it's really the best thing for the wider economy. Surowiecki's mistake is thinking that the stock market is a proxy for the overall economy. That's the sort of mistake made by someone totally unfamiliar with the stock market -- so it's a bit surprising to see Surowiecki make it.

As for the similar arguments I've been seeing around here, some of our more vociferous patent system defenders have been posting links to studies that have showed that certain industries have benefited from patent protection. Well, duh. But, of course, those industries don't represent the larger market. So, for example, there is some evidence out there that pharmaceutical companies have benefited from patent protection, but there's also even more evidence that doing so has come at a huge cost to actual healthcare, which has a huge multiplier effect on the economy (in a bad way). The fact that one single segment of an industry benefits from government handouts -- whether in the form of a stimulus package or a gov't granted monopoly -- is hardly proof that the wider market is aided by it. In fact, historical evidence suggests just the opposite. Investment is put towards these more inefficient (on purpose!) markets, rather than what would best serve the wider market.

I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, though I tend to agree with libertarians on many policy issues (to be clear: I don't consider myself anything politically -- not even the dreaded "independent"). However, the split among libertarians over intellectual property rights fascinates me. There is a large group of libertarians who are against intellectual property rights (or, at least in favor of weakening them drastically). And then there's another camp that are very much in favor of intellectual property rights (and for making them much stronger). It's one issue where there's a huge split. The reasoning is pretty straightforward. Libertarians are big property rights supporters. Those who think IP is real property tend to be supporters of the system. Those who realize it's not at all like regular property have problems with the system. See Stephen Kinsella's presentation for a good overview on why intellectual property, such as patents and copyright, does not seem to match up with libertarian philosophy.

However, don't tell that to the guy running on the Libertarian Party ticket for the Vice President slot, Wayne Root. Tim Lee points out that Root appears to be your garden variety patent hoarder who has been successfully forcing a bunch of online sports betting websites to pay up over a patent that seems to very broadly cover an online prediction market (a concept that has been both talked about and been around for quite some time). Not that the party has even the slightest chance of getting anywhere, but I guess it's safe to assume that the Libertarian Party's platform won't have much about patent system reform this year.

If you've got a spare 40 minutes to an hour, it's worth watching patent attorney Stephan Kinsella's presentation: Rethinking Intellectual Property Completely, as given in March. The video is embedded below, and it fits in nicely with my ongoing (yes, there's still plenty more) series of posts on intellectual property. It's pretty rare to see a patent attorney explain so lucidly the problems with patents (and copyrights): He does a very nice job ripping apart the "property rights" arguments that some, especially some libertarians, use in favor of patents, explaining why that doesn't make sense. It's an excellent presentation, and well worth watching.