Your analogy is like almost all of them flawed, in that it is missing to contain the specific characteristics of the thing in question. You yourself state that, so what is the point? That not all possible things should be done and that's why the industry shouldn't have to change? Please.

But more importantly: that is not the main argument. The article, as i read it, is about the corruptness created by the refusal of industry to change. If the industry controls the US, and the US dares to control Sweden, and the justice-system is not working because of that control, than it is not longer about entertainment. It is about force and control. It's about

  If you don't give up before you're sued, they corrupt the legal system.