In similar fashion, I think Instagram has some value. It lets people share pictures nicely and conveniently, which makes them happy. To the owners of Instagram, the value is probably the *chance* to trade that happiness for money.

Secondly, corporations still misuse even their expanded powers by launching frivolous claims and takedown notices on a regular basis.

Thirdly, nowhere in the law (anywhere) does it state that corporations *must* aggressively litigate every possible claim. This is a decision corporations make to protect their brands and brand images.

I’m sorry, but I have a real problem with the idea that corporations are not responsible for laws they lobbied extensively for—laws in many cases written by or with the cooperation of their agents—which are exercised at their sole discretion and which they then frequently exceed.

It is true, but immaterial, that without IP law, corporations would not litigate. If I didn’t have a car, I wouldn’t drive to work, but that does not make auto manufacturers responsible when I purchase the fastest possible car, drive it recklessly and cause an accident. The purpose of a car is not to crash into pedestrians. The purpose of IP law is not to create undying corporate brand-kingdoms.

But capital is an untrustworthy asshole with only one thing on his anthropomorphized mind and must be carefully watched to avoid the subversion of government–because in the pursuit of a competitive advantage, they’ve managed to create regulatory capture and lock away the content of our youth. It’s our societal failure to fight that capture (and I’m not excusing them, the weapons they bring to bear are much bigger than ours!), I think, leads to the situation we see here.