Regulatory capture.

[agamemnus]

Please close the forums after everyone reads this as we now have nothing more to discuss. (Except maybe why my [More] smiley face window doesn't work and opens a blank page...)....

Edit: there are now three parts to this post. The first is an article about theory, and the second about practice -- regulatory capture in copyright laws, and the third is a video by CGP Grey, which (to make things easier to find) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4


PART 1:
http://ethics.harvard.edu/regulatory-capture-and-nrc:

This is What Regulatory Capture Looks Like
Kevin Carson | September 28th, 2013

How many times have you heard a politician, addressing some issue of regulatory policy, speak of “all the stakeholders” being at “the table?” That phrase has become popular recently, in particular among sponsors of maximalist copyright law proposals like SOPA and ACTA. “All the stakeholders had seats at the table — the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft — the whole spectrum from A to B.”

The exclusion of any “stakeholders” who don’t stand to benefit from the regulatory regime they shape isn’t coincidental. The WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) just made that clear. Last year, Pirate Parties International (a federation of national Pirate Parties) asked for observer status at WIPO. The U.S. delegation lobbied strenuously against their inclusion, on the grounds that Pirate Parties “don’t support the objectives” of WIPO. WIPO, accordingly, has just officially blocked the Pirate Parties’ request.

Now if you’re naive, you might think the “objectives” of the WIPO are simply to formulate “intellectual property” policy, with the nature of the policies it hammers out being an open question to be arrived at through a vigorous process of pluralistic debate. You dummy! No — WIPO’s objective is to craft global copyright policies that serve the interests of Big Content.

But this is how it always works. There’s a certain kind of liberal who admits that regulatory capture has happened and does happen, but wouldn’t necessarily have to happen if “progressives” were just a little more vigilant, or if we passed the right campaign finance laws, or something. That’s just not gonna happen, by the very nature of things in a corporate capitalist socio-economic system regulated by a capitalist state.

And no, Chris Matthews — in the unlikely event you’re reading — this isn’t a “crazy conspiracy theory” about self-consciously evil corporate interests gleefully rubbing their hands together and chortling as they pull puppet strings behind the scenes. It’s simply the recognition that, in a society where social, economic and political functions are concentrated in the hands of a few large, hierarchical institutions, such institutions are likely to cluster together into interlocking, functionally oriented complexes. These complexes are more apt to be characterized by cooperation than by competition.

By definition, the state in a corporate capitalist society sees its function as guaranteeing the stability of an economy dominated by large corporations — accepted without question as the normal state of affairs by everyone involved in the policy process. Even “progressive” capitalists and “patriotic billionaires” like Gates, Buffet & Co., see a successful economic policy in terms of guaranteeing stable output, employment and profits over the long run, and avoiding any actions that would result in large-scale capital flight. Those who work within the system see it as inevitable, and any alternative as unimaginable.

Given these structural preconditions, even in the absence of conscious corruption, it is likely that regulatory and policy-making bodies will tend to promote the long-term interests of the regulated as their primary concern. This is because even the most civic-minded people in these circles genuinely believe that “what’s good for GM is good for America.” To think otherwise would entail questioning the most fundamental institutional presuppositions of our economy as it has existed for over 150 years. And to be frank, people who wind up in second- and third-tier cabinet positions and corporate board rooms aren’t the sort to do that kind of questioning.

Of course conscious, deliberate corruption is there. Create a society built on interlocking directorates of a few hundred of the most powerful individuals in politics, economics, culture, and the military, and they’re bound to get cozy and discuss all kinds of stuff after meetings are officially adjourned. My point is, corruption and conspiracy are not essential to the system. The basic nature of the system — a close alliance of state and corporate power, limiting competition and guaranteeing long-term profit — would be the same if there weren’t a bit of corruption. Corruption and conspiracy are just icing on the cake — or if you prefer, grease for the wheels.

So, liberals, don’t think the solution to corporate-state capitalism is to make it less corrupt. The problem is not that it’s corrupt. It’s that it’s corporate-state capitalism.

PART 2:

Hollywood’s Other Piracy Problem: 3-D Printers
Specter of digital piracy hangs over sales of ‘Star Wars’ blasters and other toys long considered immune to such forces
Thanks to accessible 3D printing companies like Sh apeways, DIY hobbyists can turn their designs base d on characters from movies, comics and videogames  into three-dimensional objects and sell them online. And that ’s raising serious questions about intellectual pr operty rights for entertainment companies.

By ERICH SCHWARTZEL
July 20, 2015 3:33 p.m. ET

Right after watching the trailer for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” last April, Ken Landrum began building his own Stormtrooper gun. From his home in St. Louis, he cobbled together images of the “blaster” featured in the ad, and then used software on his personal computer to design nearly 40 separate pieces to be 3-D printed and assembled into a near-exact replica of the Walt Disney Co. prop.

“My goal is to make it better than the studio did,” he said. At a minimum, he has done it faster: Mr. Landrum posted photos of his design on a message board for 3-D printing enthusiasts—some eight months before the movie premieres and five months before most official Disney toys hit shelves. As the movie’s opening gets closer, fans have filled his inbox asking for the files needed to print their own. Mr. Landrum said he handed out more than 100 in one week in mid-July, recently deciding to start charging $55 a file. “It’s gone haywire,” he said.

Mr. Landrum’s hobby is part of a looming problem for Hollywood. The steady rise of 3-D printing as an accessible activity for millions means that the specter of digital piracy, which has wreaked havoc on the media business in the Internet age, now hangs over sales of physical products long considered immune to such forces.

The nascent marketplace for do-it-yourself consumer products means the film industry could soon face the same kind of legal quagmire that the music industry waded into over piracy in the early 2000s. At this point, most of the printing is done by loyal fans who want to trade blueprints and products for free. But that is changing as more 3-D printers turn living rooms into mini-factories and piracy sites list 3-D files alongside illegally copied movies.

Among other likely effects, prices for legitimate products may have to go down when 3-D printers crowd the marketplace with viable alternatives to the toy store.

“You used to buy a CD, and the fact that it was physical lent it certain protections. When music was digitized, it became a pure information good and costless to replicate,” said Brett Danaher, a professor of economics at Wellesley College who studies piracy and digital distribution. “I think there’s a direct parallel to be made with 3-D printing.”

The phenomenon is likely to go far beyond entertainment, he added, affecting everything from auto parts to coffee cups. “It’s not going to be a geek thing,” said Mr. Danaher. “It’s going to be part of our everyday lives.”

The online marketplaces for 3-D printed objects resemble a Wal-Mart aisle full of comic-book heroes and well-known cartoon characters—including “Shrek” statuettes, a recreated prop designed to resemble Angelina Jolie’s headdress in “Maleficent” and a snack dish modeled after the “Star Wars” Millennium Falcon (lightsaber toothpicks included). Gandalf, Homer Simpson and Walt Disney’s head also make appearances.

Hobbyists peer-review designs until they arrive at a professional grade of precision and can respond faster than the studios to a product opportunity. When “Star Trek” actor Leonard Nimoy died in February, a fan uploaded a file that can be used to print a statuette of his trademark “Spock” hand gesture that day.

The nascent market has the potential to eat into one of Hollywood’s most important moneymakers.

DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. has built out its consumer-products division to help when a movie underperforms. Consumer products can also turn a hit movie into a yearslong financial windfall. Disney’s second-quarter consumer-products revenue was up 10%, to $971 million, in large part thanks to “Frozen” toys selling at a fast clip more than 18 months after the movie’s release. (Rudimentary versions of that movie’s Elsa and Olaf characters are available for download on several 3-D printing sites.) Spokespeople at both studios declined to comment on the fan creations available online.

So far, Hollywood has avoided taking significant legal action against 3-D printing enthusiasts, careful not to re-create the fallout that occurred when the music industry sued fans for sharing songs online. Several consumer-products executives at major studios said they’re monitoring the trend with a watchful eye, even if it is unclear how exactly to respond. Some in the industry, like Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Pictures, Disney’s Marvel Studios and Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros., have released sanctioned 3-D designs to promote fan creations ahead of a new movie’s release.

“It’s a tightrope walk between maintaining control…and not getting in the way of the passionate fan embrace,” said Marty Brochstein, senior vice president of industry relations at the Licensing Industry Merchandisers’ Association.

The tools needed to join the printing community are getting cheaper and more accessible by the day, even as the process of building an object layer-by-layer remains time-consuming and expensive. About 217,000 3-D printers are expected to ship world-wide this year—more than twice the number of units last year, according to Gartner Inc. That figure is expected to double each year between now and 2018, and cheaper models costing less than $1,000 are also becoming more prevalent. Free software can be used to design the schematics used to print the objects.

Knowing who to pursue in a court case can be a challenge for studios. Many hobbyists trade designs for free, while others charge hundreds of dollars and accept bulk orders for products. And because a 3-D printed object exists in the digital ether before becoming a tangible item, legal experts say it is hard to know who exactly to target: The person who conceptualized the design, the person who wrote its code or the person who operated the printer.

“Right now, counterfeit products are made from a handful of countries and imported and then sold,” said Michael McCue, an intellectual-property lawyer at Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. “[New printing technology] lowers the barriers to entry for counterfeiting and makes it possible for anyone with a 3-D printer to be a counterfeiter.”

Studio action against 3-D printing has followed guidelines set out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which calls on websites hosting copyright-infringing content to remove it when notified by the rightful owners.

Shapeways, an online marketplace that also handles 3-D printing orders for hobbyists and merchants, said it responds to such “takedown notices” from a studio or other company. Shapeways asks users if they are the rightful copyright owner when uploading a design, but says its marketplace is too expansive to police every item. In a recent search, several hundred products currently for sale on Shapeways were inspired by Marvel properties, including an Avengers logo ring ($10), Incredible Hulk figurine ($170) and wearable Iron Man helmet ($1,847).

One new company, Source3, is in negotiations with several major studios to manage 3-D licensing for fan creations. The company envisions a system that allows rights holders to set rules on how 3-D files are made available.

But there are hurdles: It can be harder to trace 3-D files, and confirm that an infringement is occurring, than it is with music or movies. And no major online outlet like Google Inc.’s YouTube or Apple Inc.’s iTunes Store yet exists for the format.

Still, the Source3 believes it is tapping a growth market. In a presentation to studios, Scott Sellwood, Source3’s vice president of business development, shows a photo of a group of elementary school students who printed 3-D toys as part of a class project. Many hold replicas of their favorite action figures and cartoon characters. “Are these kids infringers?” he asked. “Or extensions of your brand?”

Write to Erich Schwartzel at erich.schwartzel@wsj.com

[GGT]

What's the fourth part, ie the conclusion?

[agamemnus]

There isn't anything to be done, GGT. Except for electing Trump.