Which brings us full circle to Copyright reform.
Copyright (as opposed to patents, pushed by Intellectual Ventures et al) is pushed by Hollywood. Hollywood, composed of television and radio media, which heavily cross-hires with film and music. In other words: the same people who own a radio station might use their knowledge of acoustics, their installations, their relationship with relevant engineers, bring in appropriate celebrities, and so forth, so that this form of horizontal expansion is an effective, and therefore common one. Film and TV, radio and music, and all four, are frequently in the same hands. So we have the voice and the asset: entertainment being the asset, news coverage being the opinion-forming political capital.
Hollywood's greatest political asset is not, as many believe, its lobbying. Certainly it engages in lobbying; most industries do. But the true, cocky power of Hollywood is its influence over its viewers.
I forget most of the numbers, but I remember that in Peru, during the Fuji Mori (dictatorship) years, the government paid bribes to members within and without it. Within it: judges, and many others. Without it: television station owners! Yes sir, the largest bribes, far and away, were paid to television station owners; bribes in the millions, in a country where nobody had millions. The moral of the story? Media has a lot of political capital.
So what we're left with is, Hollywood would have a strong, even gravitational, influence over Congress even without lobbying, merely because of the millions of people it influences into voting one way or another.
In other words, it molds the consent of the governed.