Profiles in Rent Seeking

by Tim Lee on August 9, 2006 · Comments

The Property Rights Alliance, an arm of Grover Norquist’s American’s for Tax Reform with a history of producing error-ridden propaganda in support of stronger IP law, is urging Senator Specter to push two “property rights” bills through his committee. One is the Senate version of H.R. 4128, which denies federal funds to projects that rely on eminent domain abuse. The other is the Perform Act, the music industry’s top legislative priority for the year.

As I explained last fall, the tactic of linking the RIAA’s pet issues with the fight over eminent domain is cynical and deceptive. The owners of real property across the country are genuinely under seige in the wake of Kelo, as the legal system abandoned them, and legislatures have failed to protect their rights. In contrast, the holders of intellectual property have had an unbroken streak of legislative and judicial victories over the last decade, giving them far more sweeping powers under the law than they’ve ever had in the past.

The Perform Act has nothing to do with shoring up property rights. It’s an ill-advised technology mandate that would limit the functionality of digital music devices.

But that isn’t to say that there’s no similarities between the RIAA’s lobbying effort and the legislative fight sparked by the Kelo decision. What the two issues have in common is this: in each case, well-financed and well-connected corporate interests are lobbying for special favors from the legislature. Fortunately, in each case, a coalition of public interest groups and ordinary citizens is fighting back.

Comments Posted in: Inside the Beltway (Politics)

  • I share your utter disgust with the Kelo decision.

    What is even worse, from my perspective as an architect is the pernicious effects that the use of eminent domain has had on the quality of the built environment.

    Instead of seeing organic development of city form, in which many small projects develop over time and contribute to the richness and vibrancy of a city's life, I am seeing more and more mega projects that look the same from city to city.

    To be fair the architects are aware of this problem and are taking some steps to mitigate this in their design, but better to have small scale organic development in the first place, that the designers wouldn't continually be confronted with problem of how to make something large look small.

    Also, these large projects tend to go to large firms, and there's been a big decline in the small to medium sized architectural office (say about 20 employees) These offices had connections to communities, and although small played important part in their communities cultural life. No more.
  • Tim
    An excellent point! I've been struck by the parallels between the debates over urban planning and the debates over technology policies. Jane Jacobs's arguments for policies that nurture urban diversity and small-scale competition within cities are strikingly similar to the arguments for technologies that nurture vigorous competition on open platforms. In both cases, the policy conclusions are the same: government ought not to put its thumb on the scale on the side of centrally-planned monopolies, whether those monopolies are malls or proprietary platforms.
  • Well, the average defender of strong IP, such as the average member of the PFF, is highly cynical (if one goes on their blog posts). They are academic capitalists who live in a world of theory. Good look getting them to see what is obvious to everyone else, which is that the DMCA amounts to a direct assault on private property ownership because it pits two classes of property against one another. Only one of those two types, unfortunately, is actually owned by a majority of the public.


    Strong IP advocates see everything as a zero sum game. To them, nothing short of reducing all buyers of IP to renters is sufficient to protect "property rights." The day that DVD data is regulated under normal physical property laws is the day the economy will crash in their eyes. No one denies the right to mod a car, but they would deny the right to modify a DVD and sell their license.

  • "To them, nothing short of reducing all buyers of IP to renters is sufficient to protect 'property rights.'"


    MikeT, have you been listening to Max and Stacy again??


    Sounds like something they would say (and I might be inclined to agree with, in this case.)

  • ***the average defender of strong IP, such as the average member of the PFF, is highly cynical.***

    Actually, "strong IP rights" isn't quite the same as enforced IP rights or respect for IP through rule of law. Note that PFF supports raising the non-obvious standard for patents, as reflected in recent amicus filings. http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/050511ks...

    ***They are academic capitalists who live in a world of theory.***

    Hmm, this is why Tim went off about academics and their Newtonian blackboards in his recent posts. Hence, I asked him a question, which I now re-pose: which academics do you find "disconnected" from the real world of patents? I`ll point to the absence of popular OSS proponents Lessig Moglen Weber from patent industrial organization and law and econ conferences in the past decade. OSS supporters Hunt Kahin Varien on the other hand seem to have positioned their way onto very important invite lists. I`m deeply surprised you and Enigma give them the silent treatment when they support your cause w/ more credibilty than others you cite.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: