> To me, the interests served are the conglomerate of political and corporate powers, which may be at odds with the average US citizen.
That's a fair criticism, and thank you for the insightful comment that I think gets at what I was talking about. I think at the heart of it is the question of whether what's good for American industry is good for the American people, and that question almost never has a good answer.
I have complicated feelings about this issue, because on the one hand, I have experience working with these media organizations and I can tell you they are extremely adverse to change and would prefer dumping money into legal battles than even consider innovating. They will always be dragged kicking and screaming into doing it. And the pressure that piracy put onto the industry did lead to some innovation that was for the better. No example is better than early Hulu, which was an industry collaboration, and at its heart was an admission of failure of legacy business practices to put television and later film on the internet for free (and then later, for a price).
On the other hand, entertainment is an extremely important American industry. It's one of our chief exports and a source of soft power. It gets people around the world to learn English without us shipping teachers to foreign countries, it teaches Americanisms to people who've never visited the country, and helps influence not only the perception of America but allows us to export American values to countries that don't have them (whether or not that's good or moral is up to you to decide). Those are all good things for the American people when we're exporting or importing anything else, and in the globalized economy that's the kind of soft power that has second order effects on every other industry.
When that industry is threatened and they can point to a specific foreign actor that is maliciously targeting them and making it harder for the industry to operate efficiently, then yea, it makes sense for the government to bring down the heaviest hammer they possibly can and flex their hegemony on allies to put an end to it. And in terms of pragmatism, it's easier to shut off the threat at the source than to deal with the effects domestically while suffering those internationally.
This is an antiquated example, but it's why the government invaded Tripoli in the early 19th century. America was dependent on exports of their goods to Europe, and Barbary pirates threatened that. So instead of just accepting what happens overseas, they joined with Sweden and sent naval squadrons and marines to force the state of Tripolitania to enforce peace (through war). You could say that was some conglomerate of political and corporate powers with exporters, but at the end of the day it was crucial for the fledgling state to make others understand they shouldn't mess with American ships at sea. And it's something we do to this day, by putting naval forces on major shipping routes and effectively destroying piracy as an institution. And we, the American people, get lower prices and higher profits as a result.