Of all the trends in economics that I watch, the one that concerns me most is intellectual property law. What passes for intellectual property these days is an attempt to fence off all of the commons as private property, and then charge for it. It includes things like the fool who wanted to patent a story line, and this Senator who wants to outlaw fashion (h/t Majikthise):

Mr. Rodriguez designed the white slip wedding gown worn by Caroline Bessette Kennedy in 1996, a style that inspired innumerable brides to don copies, and Ms. Von Furstenberg's signature wrap dresses have been copied so many times that she may no longer wish to be associated with them. They are asking lawmakers to support a proposed fashion design anti-piracy act.

If passed, it could change the retail landscape in ways merchants and designers are only beginning to absorb. Major department stores with private labels, which often include close copies of designer looks, are divided on the proposed law because they also do business with the offended designers.

The basis of all real new work is the copying what other people have done, and adding to what other people have done. The Mickey Mouse bill Congress passed to give Disney even more years to make money off of Disney's creations from over half a century ago; the DMCA, which makes it illegal to get around any form of DRM (and whose other provisions, if properly enforced, would make libraries illegal) are attempts to make rent king. He whos buys it up first (and bear in mind it is buying things up that matters, as is the case with those jackasses who have been patenting plants used by South American farmers for centuries and then trying to force them to pay) is then able to collect money forever.

This isn't about artist's rights, though it is often framed that way. It is about the ability of the past to own the future by charging for anything built on the knowledge of the past, forever.

Because many people can't afford those costs, or because those costs will make many things uneconomical, such rent seeking is a huge drain on the economy, and on the ordinary everday life of people who are going to have human knowledge shut off from them if they can't pay a premium for access to it.

In the digital age those with money will be able to access all knowledge (if not use it, since much of it they will be forbidden to do anything with.) Those without will do without, or pay dearly.

Freedom of knowledge, freedom of art, freedom to build on the work of others is the keystone of a vigorous economy, and of any world worth living in. None of that means that reasonable copyright isn't something that shouldn't be given - but when we're allowing people to own the human geonome; when people are patenting stories; when copyright is being extended not just beyond the life of the creator, but many decades beyond his death; when people are outlawing the entire fashion industry (and as Lindsey points out, copying styles is the fashion industry, we moved into a state of madness and breathtaking greed and abuse of power.