The VentureBlog folks have this post discussing the ever creeping terms of copyright.

While Professor Lessig's compromise makes good sense, it should come as no surprise that lobbyists for the content industry (the record and movie studios) are still fighting hard against it. Any dilution of the media world's "hard won" expanded rights is met with resistence, no matter how minimal the impact may be on the media giants themselves. It points to the big danger of government imposed monopolies. The ability to affect legislative change is decidedly easier for market leaders than upstarts and diffuse interests (like those who support Professor Lessig's compromise legislation). As a result, state sponsored monopolies (copyright, patent) necessarily advantage the incumbents.

This is a great specific example of Rent Seeking from Public Choice economics.   Regardless of who's Right, political processes are costly and are fundamentally externality-laden / redistributive.   The process favors outcomes where benefits accrue to a specific audience in a focused manner while the costs are widely distributed.   The beneficiary has tremendous incentive to 'invest' in the political process while the 'opposing force' rarely cares significantly about this issue.   Especially relative to other political questions like, oh, Abortion. 

Single-issue voters provide all the cover these folks need.

This aspect of public choice causes the most fundamental disconnect with the Annointed - it doesn't matter what your intentions are for a given outcome, the process of turning those intentions into reality is Tragically corrupt.   As a libertarian, I believe that in most cases, the only long term option for creating that outcome is via non-political means - a prospect which puts many of our chattering activist classes out of work.