Because the people paying for it only want it to go one way.
> how about anti-monopoly-power technology?
That defeats the purpose of the legislation in the first place.
The goal is to establish monopolies. Why would they introduce a provision to undermine everything they are trying to accomplish with the law in the first place?
It would be counter productive.
maximum consumption with minimum production expense has already eclipsed its zenith in the seventies. evermore impoverished consumers seeing longer hours and lower wages were made to establish credit as an extension of their purchasing power. this credit was made mandatory at all levels of capitalist society, including government.
to permit even the idea of piracy would be to undercut capitalisms current waxing pivot to continued survival. its less a drive from the MPAA, and more a common understanding amongst leaders.
1) Ever-increasing consumption is not a prerequisite for capitalism, but rather a beneficial consequence of the increasingly efficient use of available resources which capitalism enables.
2) Economic growth is about increasing value, not physical materials. Value is a human concept, not a physical one, and can increase indefinitely unhampered by the laws of thermodynamics.
3) Copyright is anti-capitalist. It's a subsidy granted to one group at the expense of another in the form of a monopoly (or rather, many small monopolies) enforced through threat of violence. As a means of directing production toward "social" goals (encouraging the creation of "creative" works) instead of those chosen by the market it has its roots in socialism. Far from enabling further growth, it causes less efficient allocation of resources and in doing so impoverishes society.