This weekend is my anniversary, and we're running off to Canada again. Among the many things I want to do before we go is get a post up here to end the latest dry spell.

Before we were married, one of the things Ericka discovered about me is that there are certain things one can say that will set me off on a soapbox speech. Even if I knew I was just being goaded, I still couldn't resist. Sometimes, usually with others around, she would amuse herself by saying the magic words and watching me go off. (Not so much lately, though. I think maybe the novelty has worn off.)

Her favorite of these was identity theft. It's not even the topic I set out discuss today, but due to the soapbox effect I can't just let it go by, so we may as well get it over with. I'll try to keep it short.

Identity theft does not exist. Except in the most metaphoric sense, a person's identity is not a thing that can be stolen any more than one's imagination or one's fashion sense. Like "death tax" and "intellectual property", "identity theft" is a catchy phrase thought up and planted in the public consciousness with the deliberate purpose of framing an issue in a way that (1) is wrong, and (2) favors a certain interest group.

Some common effects of "identity theft": A bank, which is entrusted with keeping your money for you, stupidly gives it away to someone else. A credit card company, which merchants hire to arrange payments for them, stupidly bills you for purchases made by someone else. A credit rating bureau, which businesses and banks hire to give them reliable information about you, instead stupidly spreads unflattering lies about you and continues to do so until you bust your ass to make them stop.

In every case, the issue is not theft; the issue is a financial institution screwing up. "Identity theft" is just a code word for banking incompetence. When financial institutions say "protect yourself against identity theft", it really means "protect yourself against our incompetence". When your bank offers a program whereby, for an additional $10 a month, you can check your record against identity theft, it really means they're charging you money for the privilege of doing their job for them.

Yes, of course, I realize that with all the advances in communications technology, keeping everyone's records straight and not screwing up is a difficult job. Still, it's their job. They're banks; that's what they do. I'm sure there are plenty of difficulties involved in building a house, mending a broken bone, or teaching calculus to teenagers, too, but we don't indulge those industries by believing their ridiculous fictions that blame someone else when they screw up.

But my real topic today is intellectual property, and my inspiration is a breathtakingly ignorant opinion column in last Sunday's New York Times. I will grant you that copyright policy is not an easy topic to take on. Our current system of law and uncodified precedent is convoluted and confusing, and there's no easy answer about how to make the laws right, not to mention the problems of enforcement, new technologies, and how to get there politically. Still, it's a topic that's seen much research and discussion, so you'd think a guy would at least have half a clue about that discussion before leaping in with an opinion piece in a leading national newspaper.

Again, here is the link, for those who want to read it and marvel. For those who don't, here's how it starts:

Yes, that's right. Mr Helprin has discovered that intellectual property and tangible property aren't the same. Well done.

[Later: I had a whole lot more to say about this odious article, but in the days that have passed since I read it, my outrage has dulled and I've fallen behind on other things I need to get done before our little vacation. I really do want to get this post up before I run off, and that's not going to happen unless I cut it drastically short.]

Jump ahead. Halfway into his essay Helprin quotes the very article of the Constitution he seeks to subvert:

Then, near the end, he reaches the pinnacle of Orwellian up-is-down logic. What he says:

What he really means:

The rest of it you can fisk for yourselves because I'm out of time. My prescription for how to fix copyright will have to wait for another day. In the meantime, I direct you to the comments to Matthew Yglesias' post. Yes, the comments. I can't believe I'm actually recommending a comments box on a blog, because typically any good comments get buried in the avalanche of vacuous or stupid ones, but there's a surprising abundance of smart observations there.

The ones that say copyrights need stronger enforcement but (much) shorter terms have it exactly right. Technology has made publishers' profit horizons shorter, not longer, and copyright terms should follow.

Also note the political situation, alluded to in one of the comments but never stated explicitly. Like elimination of agricultural subsidies, reform of copyright law has no natural home among today's political parties. It's a populist idea, as it seeks to restore public wealth that government interference is currently channeling to special interests. The Republican Party, populist in its way and certainly anti-government, is loathe to acknowledge the existence of any common weal that can't be measured in private bank accounts. The Democratic Party, which otherwise might be a more natural fit for this cause, is so thoroughly beholden to Hollywood interest groups that no Democrat could ever support this without getting smacked where it hurts.

So the media mega-corporations, along with corporate agribusiness and the military-industrial complex, continue to use the government an instrument for robbing the general welfare.

Oh, and death tax. I assume you all know all about that one.

7:59:29 PM  [permalink]  comment []