Originally Posted by kane

The point I have been trying to make is that his example is flawed. Yes, you wouldn't want the same people who make the laws controlling the industry, but those who the laws influence should have a say.

The military base and the blackwater examples are fundamentally flawed simply because of the nature of those involved in it. Let me make the example a different way. His argument is that copyright holders should not have a say in the making of copyright policy. I disagree. I won't go so far as to say they should have a veto power, but they should be allowed a say and at least a opinion/position on the laws when they are formed/changed.

Here is a more accurate example:
Sony pictures makes a movie. They are the copyright holder.
The movie is the copyrighted item.
The theater owners, video store owners and cable providers are simply agents that are making money off of Sony's movie.
The congress/senate is the policy maker.

Thus, Sony should be allowed a voice when it comes to making the copyright laws (Don't shit your pants and get all tweaked out I'm not saying they should shape policy or be the only voice, but they should have a seat at the table). However, the theater owners, video stores and cable providers should not because they are not copyright holders.