Neopluralism and globalisation:The plural politics of the Motion Picture

Association

1

INTRODUCTION

At its inception in 1922, the Motion Picture Producers andDistributors of America – previous name of the Motion PictureAssociation of America (MPA)1 – only nurtured domestic goals. Ledby former U.S. Postmaster General Will H. Hays, the organisationwanted to defend the U.S. motion picture industry againstantitrust threats, censorship campaigns, and widespread criticismwhich accused it of corrupting moral standards (Dart 1968:39-41).But its lobbying quickly took on an international scope with thesuccess of Hollywood productions and the protectionist reactionsencountered abroad. It increasingly got involved in theinternational arena with the forming of the Motion Picture ExportAssociation of America in 1945 — renamed in 1994 the MotionPicture Association.Representing the most important U.S. motion picture companies2,

the Motion Picture Association claims to ′aspire to advance thebusiness and the art of filmmaking and celebrate its enjoymentaround the world.′3 It promotes the largest access to markets forits members-companies and the defence of Intellectual Property(IP) in audiovisual domains all over the world in the context ofthe acceleration of globalisation, the individualisation ofaudiovisual consumption, the rise of new technologies and, aboveall, the emergence of powerful non-state actors. Traditionally,the MPA is remembered for its close relation with the U.S.government and for its harsh stand towards states and foreignsectors opposing free trade and copyright protection. Unlike this commonly-held vision, the policies of this ′meta-

organisation′ (Ahrne and Brunsson, 2008) have taken the form ofclose-knit webs that create interdependent linkages with numerouseconomic fields and governments. This includes actions which aimat framing4 ideally and materially national legislation,intersectoral practices, specific conceptions and consumptionpractices concerning audiovisual domains. Based on all thesetransnational contacts, the MPA activity goes beyond simplelobbying and advocacy, appearing also as a ′global governor′5

(Avant et al., 2010) and as a ′transnational activist′6 (Tarrow,2005). As a result, I will examine the diversity of global

2

relations and actions that the MPA undertakes in order to exertan impact on the politics of copyright in the audiovisualsectors. By the case of MPA′s policies, I will test whether the

transnational neopluralist perspective accurately leads to abetter understanding of global politics, which impliesconsidering its new sources, its strengths but also itsweaknesses. On purpose, I take one of the most emblematic lobbyorganisations7 whose power is presumably based on its symbolicand financial resources, its seniority, the constant U.S.government support and its members-studios′ worldwide economicdomination. Such components could lead to an analysis of thestrengths of this world actor through a monistic view.8 Myargument is that – assuming the plurality of actors, theircombination for more bargaining power, the processual nature ofgovernance and the inherent complexity of situations -transnational neopluralism encourages to look differently atthese too-often assumed all-powerful organisations.

This paper demonstrates that the neopluralist perspectiveoffers a particularly relevant understanding of politics incontemporary globalisation. The next section situatesneopluralism within the perspectives of globalisation. In thethird section, this article illustrates the extensive threefoldlinkage on which the MPA can rely to achieve its transnationalpolicies: sectoral, business, and governmental. With the claim ofIP protection, the Hollywood association has managed to rallymost of the audiovisual sectors and integrate global businesscoalitions in favour of its agenda, while simultaneously the MPAtakes on the role of an advocacy network within governmentalarenas. The fourth section examines how a continuouslypluralising world thwarts the policies of the MPA. The latterorganisation faces countervailing coalitions of other powerfulcompanies and non-business associations while its intenseinvolvement around the world with states turns out to beinconclusive. In the last section, I focus on the main takeawaysof this study for the field of International Political Economy.

3

TRANSNATIONAL NEOPLURALISM AND GLOBALISATION

Globalisation constitutes a major phenomenon, an independentvariable, of pluralisation. After presenting the core ideas ofneopluralism, I will consider how globalising processesstrengthen the plurality of the global sphere, overlooked bydominant neorealists and transnationalists. Pluralism is based upon the assumptions that many groups exist

(or should exist) in politics (Bentley, 1908) and that there arediverse and heterogeneous centres of power in the politicalsphere (Bevir, 2012). For this reason, its perspective favoursawareness and preference for diversity and its suspicion againstabstract and homogeneous concepts. Normatively, pluralists granta higher degree of justice and representativeness to thesituation of multiple groups defending their conflictinginterests. Consequently, they take a critical stand at monistic,organic and legal views of political processes which assertdirectly or indirectly the domination of one group over the other(Dahl, 1961; Lindblom, 1977). Resting on these basic principles,neopluralism integrates various inputs from multiple-elite andsocial movement theories (Mcfarland, 2004).9 By this means, itexamines the complex processes of interactions among many unitswith their own subjective interests, in many more or lessinterlinked issue-areas, that provoked observable changes.In a post-international context (Rosenau, 1990; Ferguson and

Mansbach, 2008), this approach becomes relevant in thatglobalisation constitutes a major pluralising source for fluxes,actors, issue-areas and norms (Cerny, 2010: 79-108; Cerny, 2006;Held et al., 1999). Indeed, it deeply reshapes the world sphere,consisting of a vast movement of ′fragmegration′ (Rosenau, 1997,2003; Holsti, 1980), that is a deep integration and fragmentationat the same time. Through a qualitative and quantative′respatialisation of social life′ (Scholte, 2005; Harvey, 1990),it ′unevenly′ reconfigures the political, economic and culturalenvironment in which individuals live (Jessop, 2014; Djelic andSahlin-Anderson, 2008). Power and policymaking are increasingly

4

shared and diffused; numbers of actors have emerged to thedetriment of the monopoly of state power; and issue area-basedconflicts exist among coalitions of entities discontinuouslylinked by complex interdependence. In International Political Economy, the neopluralist

perspective challenges not only neorealism but also, thetransnationalist school of thought. The former have been thecentre of much criticism in the past decades, neglecting the riseof non-state actors, the deep changes of globalisation and theso-called ′retreat of the state′ (Strange, 1996). Indeed, stateprimacy appears increasingly challenged on its own territory asnon-state actors escape from its control. The interpenetration ofsocieties creates a vast space for ′sovereignty-free actors′where states have limited control (Rosenau, 1990). Theglobalisation of societies and economies has created majorchanges with the rise of transnational firms. But the critics of this dominant state-centred approach have

adopted an ontology closed to their theoretical adversaries.Concerned first and foremost with demonstrating the power of non-state actors, the transnational ′new realism′ (Strange, 1997;Tooze, 2000) placed the emphasis on how, following global changesin the world sphere, business entities shape politics by theirmobility, their global operations and their considerable size.Consequently, along the same line, they fully compete with states(Gill and Law 1989; Gill, 2003; Mosley, 2003; Stopford andStrange, 1991; Bell, 2005). Second, they concentrate on theintegrative dimension of globalisation, which strengthens theactivity of firms, but they overlook the fragmentation underwaymeanwhile. Third, their demonstration based on structural powershowed convincingly the increased capacities of non-state actors(Strange, 1996), concluding in turn that this tilts the powerbalance between states and business in favour of the latter.Arguably, capacities are only resources and dispositions which donot fully determine the result of their policies (Guzzini, 1993).Fourth, these theorists generally regard business as a whole,considering their weight globally and overlooking conflictshappening among and inside firms (Roemer-Mahler, 2013; Falkner,2008; Skidmore, 1997). As a result, focusing on power and its

5

distribution among all actors, they assume that the diffusion ofpower, resulting from globalisation, has reinforced the causalpower of non-state actors.The transnational perspective overlooks that if globalisation

has allowed multinational corporations to expand their activitiesby the integration of the world, it has also made their powermuch more uncertain due to the fragmentation of territories,economies and sectors (Bohas, 2014). Plural dimensions of the

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NOTES

?. Although formally separated, the MPAA and the MPA are closely intertwined,as are their transnational lobbying endeavours combining domestic and globalpolicies. In this article, I will not distinguish the two organizations - MPAAand MPA - which I will call the MPA. Both have their headquarters in LosAngeles, and they also have offices in Washington D.C., Brussels, MexicoMumbai, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Sydney, Tokyo and Toronto. Cf.,www.mpaa.org.2. MPA′s members are the major studios of Hollywood, namely the Walt DisneyStudios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony PicturesEntertainment - which bought the Columbia-Tristar studios and the Metro-Goldwyn Meyer studios - Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal CityStudios and Warner Bros Entertainment.3. This state is quoted from the webpage: www. mpaa.org/our-story.4. I will define framing as the activity of setting schemes of interpretationand perception and encouraging certain practices and consumption behaviour ina theoretical context of social construction. To this end, the MPA intends toshape materially and ideationally the legal, economic, cultural and socialcontexts of world sphere. My approach is much broader than the one of mediaand communication studies (Goffman, 1974; Vliegenthart and van Zoonen, 2011).On the subject, see also Sikkink and Keck, 1998; Tarrow, 2005.5. Global governors are defined as ′actors who exercise power across borderswith some degree of legitimacy and continuity for purposes of affecting policyin an issue area. Governors thus: create issues, set agendas, establish andimplement rules or programs, and evaluate and/or adjudicate outcome′ (Avant etal., 2010:2).6. Transnational activists are termed as ′people and groups who are rooted inspecific national contexts, but who engage in contentious political activities

6

world scene are increasingly stressed by the interpenetration ofpolitical systems, market-oriented economies and individually-based trans-territorial forces. Despite an increasingconcentration of corporations, globalisation brings diversity,instability and complexity to the world sphere. The globaltransformations have provoked a partially integrated and complexpolitical process across many sectors and among many actors. Nosingle actor can solely exert a decisive power. This is a realm

that involve them in transnational networks of contacts and conflicts′(Tarrow, 2005: 29).7. The Motion picture association is similar to trade organisations whichpromote and defend their industry, sector or companies, such as the RIAA(Recording Industry Association of America) or the PhRMA (PharmaceuticalResearch and Manufacturers of America). The MPA has defended major studios′interests domestically as globally, benefiting from an estimated budget of $70million (Mullins and Fritz, 2014). Generally considered the spokesman ofHollywood motion picture, and more widely of the audiovisual workers, the MPAwas called by the magazine Fortune ′the most powerful entertainment lobby′(Paige, 1999).8. Although many studies deal with major studios′ representative (Lee, 2008;Miller et al. 2005; Trumpbour, 2002), most of them underscore the power of theMPA supported by its corporations-members and the United States. The line ofthought is close to the Marxist tradition which submits, in the short or longterm, all institutions to the accumulation of capital. In this respect,concepts and notions such as center-periphery relations, the internationaldivision of labor, imperialism and hegemony generally underlie analyses. Inthis framework, the MPA heavily contributes to the reproduction of capital,setting the necessary legal, economic and social stage for the latter tohappen. Besides, the Hollywood milieu is depicted as a very much structuredsector over which major studios preside. In a corporatist manner, they colludeto predominate successfully at the international level. In sum, according tothese scholars, not much have changed since the classical period of the′studio system′ (Gomery, 2005).9. The pluralist approach holds 4 main assumptions (McFarland, 2004). First,policy process model consists of the complex interrelationships of many unitswhich shift over time, adjust mutually and exert an impact on their interests(Bentley, 1908; Truman, 1951; Lindblom, 1977). Although this can comprise anunequal balance of power and the existence of oligarchical control, it gives amajor place to issue network, coalitions, countervailing interest groups basedon material and ideational interests. Second, political system is divided intomany and separate specific domains where power and policy processes areanalysed. Such an issue-area perspective is a clear stand against quickgeneralisations on policymaking and power. Third, the political power is

7

where strategies, interactions are as important as capabilities.The transnational perspective will be all the more relevant bymelding with the neopluralist approach. At that point on canconduct an analysis of the multifold actions taken by a businessassociation through its linkage.

THE PRISM OF TRANSNATIONAL LINKAGE POLITICS

Many faces of the mpaa in order to rally in a fragmented world adiversity of sectors and actors

Sectoral leadership through a global consensual agendaThe MPA finds its first raison d′être as a representative of major

studios companies and more broadly of motion picture. Althoughoften depicted as a unified sector (Trumpbour, 2002), Hollywoodis crossed by internal conflicts which threaten the survival of a′meta-organisation′, such as the MPA (Ahrne and Brunsson, 2008).While the defence of Intellectual Property is a rather oldconcern, it has intensified since the rise of videotapes in theeighties (Segrave, 2003). The MPA has managed to rally itsmembers-studios, the workers of Hollywood and, more widely, manynational audiovisual centres. Appearing then as the spearhead ofaudiovisual sectors, it has gained some authority and silencedits critics. First, in addition to market rivalry among major studios,

conflicts have always existed. Non-economic factors such astechnology, regulation, talents and concentration, have a majorimpact on the sectoral power balances (Baron, 2006). So, everyobserved in terms of intended causation and behavioural change whilecapabilities are only viewed as resources. Consequently, power is a processualand uncertain result of interactions, strategy and capabilities, which islikely to change over time and according to issues areas. Finally, interestsof actors are given by these actors being studied or inferred by theobservation of their behaviour. The latter can be redefined or reinterpretedin the process of interaction. In this matter, questions of non-issues andquiescence require specific attention in the study of power (Bachrach andBaratz, 1962; Lukes, 1974). For this reason, agenda setting and issue framingwill be closely examined.

8

change gives rise to frictions among majors. For instance, thelaunch of high definition technology has provoked a lastingopposition about the type of medium to adopt between supportersof Sony′s Blu-ray DVD and of Toshiba′s HD DVD (Sweeting, 2005).These past decades, tensions among major studios have arisen withtheir acquisition by global conglomerates which own many assetsin the domains of telecommunications and mass media. For example,Viacom sued Time Warner cable — division of the Time WarnerStudio — for its launch of an Internet application which enablesthe dissemination of Viacom programming on Ipad (Gardner, 2013). Second, major studios have increasingly outsourced their

motion-picture activity, indicating a decreasing concern for theHollywood sector. The ′denationalising′ (Sassen, 2003:1-22)globalisation has opened large windows to produce at lower costout of California (Center for Entertainment Industry Data andResearch, 2006; Elmer and Gasher, 2005). As a consequence,delocalisations have increased, representing more than 23 billiondollars between 2000 and 2006 (DiOrio, 2006; McNary, 2006). Onseveral occasions, California workers tried to mobilise politicalsupport to impose a specific tariff on outsourced films in aneffort to reduce the attractiveness of producing abroad (Boliek,2001). As expected, the MPA opposed such measures, showing thatwhat is good for major studios is no longer good for Hollywood. Third, relations between the MPA and foreign motion-picture

representatives have been conflictual regarding free trade.Severe clashes have regularly taken place by proxy governmentsduring multilateral negotiations such as the Uruguay round, theAgreement on Multilateral Investments and lately the free tradeagreement between the United States and the European Union. Allthe same for the UNESCO negotiations, where the U.S.representatives opposed the 2001 Universal Declaration onCultural Diversity and the 2005 Convention in the Protection andPromotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, therebyendorsing the position of major studios (Laroche and Bohas, 2008;Mattelart, 2005). Notwithstanding these internecine conflicts, the MPA has

restored domestically and globally its legitimacy by emphasisingits fight for IP. Suffering from copyright violations, a lot of

9

talents, producers and distributors have supported its actionsdomestically through the Copyright Alliance. Internationally,based on agencies around the world, its activity has focussed onalliance-building. It claims a network of alliances in 30countries, covering main audiovisual markets, including Westernand emerging countries.10 For instance, it lobbies and exchangesinformation with the China Film Copyright Protection Associationin a country where copyright-violated products represent 90%-95%of audio and video markets (IIPA, 2012b). Joined byrepresentatives of the Chinese motion picture sector, the MPA hassubmitted a report to the government during the 2006 filmfestival of Shanghai. Drafted with inputs from a think tank, thisdocument regrets the development of piracy and expounds howinter-ministerial cooperation can tackle this issue (Landreth,2006; Coonan, 2006). Moreover, the MPA can count on the ties thatits members-studios forge with foreign industries through theiroutsourcing and foreign coproductions.The MPA’s close relations with national associations are very

important for the status of the MPA outside audiovisual domains.They plainly reinforce its legitimacy which originates in itsrepresentativeness of motion picture industries. In addition, theMPA maintains a major part of its expertise and its value forgovernments and non-state actors through information exchangewith national centres. Indeed, the MPA relies on nationalproduction centres to supervise and report the implementation ofinternational and national law. Besides, in the foreign publicarenas, if the Hollywood organisation coordinates lobbyingactions and brings its expertise and support, domesticassociations remain at the forefront. It belongs to them to findthe right channels into the political system and to form thewinning coalitions which will make public authorities enforce IPlaws. According to the domestic structure and the transnationalnetworks literature, their success depends on the national State-society configuration, the political culture and the position ofthe motion-picture lobby in this setup (Risse-Kappen, 1995;Evangelista, 1999). Illustratively, in France, the country of theCultural Exception, where public opinion and national authorities10.See the webpage at www.mpaa.org.

10

are particularly concerned with films (Maxwell and Crowson,2006), the audiovisual industry succeeded in passing the Hadopi law, one ofthe most repressive IP systems in Western countries.The MPA has come to occupy a central position of authority,

giving talks about anti-piracy policies and the future of motionpictures at many conferences such as the Beaune meetings (LeMonde, 2005), India′s FRAMES Convention (MPA, 2012a) or theBerlin Festival (MPAA, 2014). In this respect, the MPA has founda way to regain critical legitimacy in Hollywood and around theworld. It is interesting to observe that other productioncentres, even the old foes of MPA′s free trade advocacy, haverallied with the Hollywood association on IP law (Cendrowicz,2006).

An integration to transnational business coalitionsAs trade associations evolve in interconnected domains, they areled to pursue consensual, friendly or conflictual relations theobjectives of which consist in framing national legislations,intersectoral practices and consumption behaviour. The MPA isallied with many business representatives of other sectors, whichlobbied successfully for better IP protection (Sell, 2010,1999:169-197; May, 2009, 2010). Pooling together their multinodalnetworks, they come to form webs of power and authority.Consequently, they concur to a plural private governance (Ougaardand Leander, 2010; Ferguson and Mansbach, 2008; Hall andBiersteker, 2002; Cutler et al., 1999). In the fight for IP, the MPA has particularly established close

links with representatives of the music industry, including theRIAA and the IFPI (International Federation PhonographicIndustry), with which it takes legal actions at global levels. Inthis respect, music producers were affected earlier and moreseverely than the audiovisual sector by transnational copyrightinfringement. They initiated media-covered cases for repressiveas much as dissuasive purposes. In 2002, joined by the NMPA andthe MPA, they prosecuted websites such as Kazaa and Morpheus inthe name of copyright respect (Holland, 2002). These cases have

11

taken a global dimension since they face networks of globally-interconnected individuals. In Washington D.C., the MPA′s ability goes much further as it

moulds U.S. foreign policy from inside the institution. ThroughAdvisory Committees,11 it participates to policymaking, in thedomain of trade negotiation, multilateral or bilateral, withinthe IIPA (International Intellectual Property Alliance). Bringingtogether representatives of all copyright industries — includingmore than 3,200 companies – this coalition has defended theirinterests since 1984. With other industries, it initiated theinclusion of the special 301 amendment on IP in the Trade Law in1988. In this respect, under the sections 301 and 306, it hasprovided, for three decades, U.S. institutions with reports overforeign legislation, leading to sanctions if IP protection is notensured. In the wake of these reports, the U.S. TradeRepresentative classifies countries in different watch lists: aninscription on the ′Priority Foreign Country′ list brings aboutsanctions which penalise exports to the United States. Since theIIPA first report, coercive measures have been taken againstcountries, such as South Korea which provided no protection forAmerican exports, and consequently suffered from sanctions in1985. The following year, it passed a law on this subject. Butusually incriminated countries take preventive actions before anytrade sanctions. In 1990, Thailand implemented a law sinceCongress had classified this country among the ″Priority ForeignCountries″. The IIPA acts on intergovernmental activity as adviser and

lobbyist, developing close ties with the U.S. diplomacy. In thisrespect, several members of the IIPA even assist Americandelegations during IP-related conferences prepared by the WorldIntellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), such as the two″internet″ treaties completed in 1996 (IIPA, 2012a). Thus, the

11.One of the most influential advisory assemblies is the Advisory Committeefor Trade Policy and Negotiations which consists of forty-five membersnominated by the U.S. President for two years. Thirty other groups can besingled out which are designated by the U.S. Trade Representative and theSecretary of Commerce. Cf., www.IIPA.com.

12

IIPA has strong authority coming as much from the institutionalrole as from the expertise that the U.S. government grants them. In addition to the alliance of copyright industries, the

Hollywood association integrated a wider coalition cutting acrossmany domains and sectors. It must be seen as enmeshed inside thismultilayered and multilevel network of larger firms while itcreated ties with other sectors such as pharmaceuticalindustries, represented by the Pharmaceutical Research andManufacturers of America, whereas one major studio came to sit onthe Intellectual Property Committee. The latter consisted of acoalition of the largest U.S. companies which aimed at bolsteringthe agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty (TRIPS) from 1986 to 1996 (Sell and May, 2006; Sell,2003). Although these rights have come under scrutiny since the19th century, leading to special laws and the creation of theWIPO, multinational corporations succeeded during the 1980s inlinking the respect for these rights within the framework of theWorld Trade Organisation. They coined a commercial conception ofIntellectual Property, which considers copyright uniquely throughfree trade. These business interest groups contribute to the playof power and take advantage of their central position to generatea policy.

An advocacy network among governmental institutionsBusiness representatives play a crucial role towards governments,as advocates of a particular platform shaping policymakers′opinions. Indeed, the MPA behaves in similar ways to Keck andSikkink′s transnational advocacy networks engaging in contentiouspolitics (Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Tarrow, 2005) although it isgenerally regarded as different, possessing more social,financial and political resources. It uses information to raiseissues, reframe the terms of debate and reshape alliances amongplayers while it undertakes leverage and accountability politicsby uncovering foreign government policies and asking the UnitedStates for sanctions. Based on their alliance networks inside andoutside audiovisual sectors, major studios have stronglycontributed to raising the issue of IP, setting agenda anddrawing the attention of governmental institutions. Finally, from

13

a constructive standpoint, it has shaped the worldviews ofpolicymakers, publics and businesses people, who are going todetermine structures of power and ideas (Bell, 2012). Business people engage in close contacts with the political

body and senior civil servants which call upon them for adviceand information (Lindblom, 1980: 71). On this matter, Hollywoodmaintains strong relations with Washington (Sell, 2013). All MPAleaders have been chosen for their relations within the federalbody. Before coming to head the lobby, Jack Valenti was a closeadviser to President Lyndon Johnson. His successors, Dan Glickmanand Chris Dodd, spent several decades inside governmental bodies:for the former, as a member of the Judiciary Committee at theHouse of Representatives and a Secretary of Agriculture; for thelatter as a Senator (Film Journal International, 2004; Johnson,2011). Besides, the lobby exerts a considerable impact onelections, being involved in all sorts of policy campaigns andfund-raising. Major studios have especially benefited from apremium value on this topic since statesmen are keen on profitingfrom the glitter of Hollywood stars to gain votes (Stanley, 2014;Brownstein, 1992). Besides, the MPA raises the IP issue beyondpolicymakers′ spheres. As an example, the 2012 study establishingthe 1-trillion-dollar contribution of core copyright sectors tothe U.S. GDP has been widely disseminated in the public opinion(Siwek, 2013). Although, as previously observed, the MPA remains on the

sidelines in foreign public arenas, it directly enters inrelations with public administrations. These direct contacts withforeign government began in the 1950s, which made the MPAautonomous from the U.S. government (Trumpbour, 2005; Lee, 2008).In 2005, the MPA negotiated in China with the minister forCulture and the Administration of Radio, Film and Television, thesetting up of American-Chinese cooperation in order to protectIP. Signed in mid-July 2005, this agreement foresaw regularmeetings between public authorities and the Hollywoodorganisation which notably led Beijing to close more than fifteenfactories of pirated Compact Discs. During the inaugural session,in Nanjing, capital of the province of Jiangsu, the Chinese

14

delegates met Michael C. Ellis, top executive of the MPA Asia-Pacific (Coonan, 2006, 2005a, 2005b; Le Monde 2005).Based on the information that it gets from ties with national

audiovisual industries and on its institutional involvement inWashington, the MPA engages in ′boomranging′ (Keck and Sikkink,1998). The latter consists in amplifying internationally thecriticism of domestic associations on public policies and incalling on the United States to put pressure on this state.Moreover, the MPA is today led to collaborate with foreignauthorities. Given the clear mechanism of accountabilitymonitored by the IIPA, it is able to exert pressure on otherstates and consequently is granted authority and thus deference(Avant et al., 2010: 10). Besides, the United States has come tosupervise more specifically law enforcement. It identifies a listof ″notorious markets″ which comprises infringing-IP companies.It has a two-tier action, pursuing legal actions against thesecounterfeiters and naming and shaming these companies. Forinstance, after being added to this list, the e-commerce leader,Taobao, which holds a 70% market share in China, has initiated apolicy in partnership with the MPA to eliminate all counterfeitand copyright infringing works on its site (Gardner, 2012; MPA,2012c). However, the representative of motion picture sectors and the

U. S. foreign policy have diverged on some occasions. Indeed, onehas to assess the privileged position of the Hollywoodassociation in Washington compared to the place given to otherindustry representatives. In fact, its weight depends on itslobbying strategy and its political capital. In other words, theU.S. support for Hollywood results from the outcome of MPA′scapabilities and strategies in a particular political context.For example, during the Uruguay round of the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade, when faced with the resistance of France andCanada, Bill Clinton decided to exclude audiovisual domains fromthe agreement in order to save the negotiation process (Behr,1993). Likewise, major studios opposed American interests in 1999during the negotiations for the Korean-American treaty ofinvestment which stalled on Korean protectionism in motionpicture matters (Murdoch, 1999, Schilling, 1999).

15

One can observe how these sets of actions depart from lobbyingand bargaining, which is evoked in triangular diplomacy (Strangeand Stopford, 1991). Firm-state relations are much moreinterwoven within state administrations, political institutionsand the statesmen milieu. This privileged access to governments(Lindblom, 1980: 71, 80) is replicated on the global stage wherebusiness associations engage in much deeper policymaking. Thisintervention within state institutions must be analysed ininteraction with other business associations supporting oropposing the agenda of the MPA. In other words, the MPA actionswithin advocacy coalitions are inserted into the broaderframework of conflictual politics. But, under no circumstances,does this number of actions and relations successfully built withgovernment and non-government entities mean that the MPA isreaching its objectives of durably reducing IP violations.

THE RESISTANCE OF A PLURALISING WORLD TO MPA′S POLICIES

See the origin of the failure of MPA policies. : companies, own sectors and struggle against illegal actions limited and constrained by the diversity of actors and the three fold fragmentation resulting from globalisation. Push for entanglementwith states.

A divided cultural-industry complexAlthough the MPA has developed a multifaceted linkage policy, itis unsuccessful in stopping copyright violations in a pluralisingworld. It runs into growing coalitions of other industries andconsumers while its intense global framing proves to be ratherineffective. Despite their complex interdependence, Hollywoodopposed the computer & telecommunications sectors on giving toconsumers the access of technologies that allow them to breachIP. Then, confronted with the growth of copyright violations onthe Internet, it has tried to impose the same constraints in thisemerging domain, which Internet companies with a broad coalitionconfronted successfully.

16

In their aim to shape sector and consumer behaviour, majorstudios try to alter established arrangements and marketpractices on which other companies turn a blind eye or from whichthey benefit. Notably, they have attempted to force the respectof IP by obliging computer sectors to sell only IP-compliantmaterials or software. In addition, this sector is recurrentlydisrupted by new technologies that often challenge IP-compliantpractices. Consequently, copyright sector representatives, suchas the MPA and the RIAA, have exerted pressure on highlyinterdependent telecommunications and information industries thatshow reluctance to bend to Hollywood demands. This leads toconstant litigations. If both sectors agree on condemning illegalpractices, they diverge on the means to counter them. Especiallythe computer industry wants to protect themselves from customerdiscontent. With regard to this particular matter, jurisprudence maintains

a constant refusal to forbid a certain type of technology becauseof its illegal use. Conforming to previous precedents, such asthe 1984 Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, named the′Betamax ruling′, judiciary institutions refuse to condemn firmsselling copy-capable hardware since they oppose illegalbehaviour, not technology. If the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates created a precedent with the 2005 MGM Studios, Inc. v.Grokster, Ltd. Judgment that makes peer-to-peer websitesresponsible for inducing copyright infringement, it alwaysallowed peer-to-peer activity (Perez and Grant, 2005). The emergence of the Internet opens new ways to develop illegal

practices all over the world. Web-users have become increasinglyknowledgeable in creative ways of using and sharing content,which can constitute many breaches to copyrights. As aconsequence, the IP lobby targets all the actors of this new eco-system: peer-to-peer websites, search engines, and internetservice providers. This policy towards the Internet has beenglobally implemented as the Internet sphere grows rapidlyworldwide. The MPA and the RIAA have directly attacked searchengines, such as IsoHunt and BTHub.com. Several major studiosjoined to sue for copyright-violating services, such as Replay orTiVo, which made it possible for viewers to record and skip

17

commercials (Borland, 2006). Lately, the emblematic searchengines, Google and Baidu, have been accused of directingInternet users to copyright-infringing websites (Verrier, 2013;Clifford and Brzeski, 2013). Nowadays, many studios haveconcluded agreements with online distributors turning these once′pirates′ websites, such as Napster or Hotfile, into IP-abidingproviders of audiovisual content (Boliek and Bennett, 2006; MPAA,2013). While the Internet proves to be the major growing outletfor media content, there is acrimonious struggle between InternetService Providers and creative industries. Although the formerhave taken a stand against their IP-breaking consumers byadopting the ′copyright alert system′, they all refuse to followHollywood on more coercive practices such as internetdisconnection, new snooping and filtering technologies (Kuehn andSantoso, 2012; Gelles, 2011).More importantly, these rivalries among business sectors

reached a climax between copyright industries led by the MPA andInternet sectors headed by the Silicon Valley companies. Thelatter have been decisive in the removal of the Stop OnlinePiracy Act/Protect Intellectual Property Act from further voting,joining a once politically unheard and underfunded coalition infavour of Internet liberties. By this law, IP proponents wantedto go one step further than the 1998 Digital Millennium CopyrightAct which banned online copyright breaches. They would allowonline companies to operate if they remove content once notified.Actually, the new law would have forced Internet ServiceProviders to block access to infringing sites. These past years,the question of IP on the Internet has been increasinglypoliticised. In this regard, the famous group Anonymous tooksides for Megaupload, hacking institutional and emblematicwebsites in retaliation to its shutdown (Philiana, 2012). But,the mobilisation of the Internet companies such as Wikipedia orGoogle was crucial to the rejection of this law in the Congress,confirming the significant factor of business conflicts inexplaining political outcomes (Roemer-Mahler, 2013). This caserevealed the rise of Internet lobbies. Indeed, the transnationalcoalition demonstrated innovative ways of mobilisations,recruiting diverse groups of elites, activists and companies with

18

different interests at multiple levels: local, national, andglobal (Sell, 2013, Sikkink, 2009, Dobusch and Quack, 2013,Tarrow, 2005). It results in the success of a relatively weak,less resource-granted and smaller coalition over a stronger andmore established one. This showdown could appear as a worldwidewatershed since, following this event, other internationalagreements on IP, such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreementproject, have been rejected abroad (Gardner and Roxborough,2012). Let′s notice that the formation of a countervailingcoalition gave an important role to political institutions,indicating that we may expect, in the matters of IP on theInternet, a transition from a ′subgovernment′ to a ′triad′ power(Mcfarland, 1992).

The inconclusive societal framing of the MPAIn its intent to frame market configurations in a favourable wayfor its members-studios, the MPA has conducted a worldwideinitiative in favour of IP involving a close collaboration withstate administrations. Confronted with transnational crimenetworks and individually-based illegal uses, the Hollywoodorganisation has intervened at multiple levels, supporting statesin their core functions, law & order, and contributing toconvince individual users of IP protection. But on the whole thisglobal policy has failed to be completely effective due to theinstable context of globalisation. The global policies of the MPA have led it to be entangled with

states in their core sovereignty competences, police, justice andmilitary. In Rosenau′s words, ′sovereignty-free actors′coordinate ′sovereignty-bound′ policies in the plural era (1990:36), engaging in scale-shifting at the international level.Police operations against pirates are undertaken in closecoordination with MPA agencies. In 2006, in more than seventycountries, the MPA participated in 12,400 raids which led to theseizure of 4,500 optical disc burners, 50 factory optical discproduction lines, and 35 million illegal optical discs (Smith,2007). These vast anti-piracy interventions rest ontransnationally-organised close collaboration of representativesof multiple industries such as the MPA, the RIAA and the BSA with

19

public authorities. In late 2006-early 2007, the TridentOperation comprised 1,874 raids in 12 countries in the Asian-Pacific region, which led to 5 million pirated discs seized and870 people arrested (Boliek, 2004; Smith, 2007). The MPA alsoencourages repressive tracking of counterfeiters, collaboratingwith local police before and during investigations. The Hollywoodorganisation is involved in the research of copyright protectiontechnology. In its movie labs, it analyses the ″digitalfingerprints″ of seized Compact Discs in order to identifymultinational chains of illegal production and distribution(Fritz, 2005).12 In addition, the MPA aims at promoting new behaviour and

practices among consumers-spectators in order to change thesocial consensus on the ways of using cultural content. Indeed,due to sectoral upheavals and technological innovations, peoplehave changed their audiovisual consumption in favour of freecontent, Internet streaming and downloading, which infringeowners′ copyrights. In this respect, Jerry Pierce, Vice Presidentof Universal Pictures, has declared that ′because of downloadablemusic, consumers have been trained to feel comfortable gettingcontent for free, which is hurting the film business′ (Mohr,2004). For this reason, media-covered cases and police operationsare intended above all to encourage people to respect copyright(Variety, 2004). Furthermore, the MPA organises events designedto raise awareness: special campaigns (MPA, 2012b), expert′ssymposia on the subject (MPA Asia-Pacific, 2014), and IP awards(Mohr, 2004). It also resorts to video clips in cinema theatres,which condemn illegal downloading comparing this practice totheft. For example, in 2012, with major Chinese online videosites, it launched a campaign in favour of legitimate onlinescreen content. For this event, a so-called ′Thank You′ videofeatured China′s leading actors and filmmakers (MPA, 2012b). Besides, the MPA adopted a strategy of naming which tries to

frame all types of illegal use, such as DVD burning, peer-to-peerdownloading and video streaming on a massive scale as ′piracy′and ′theft′. By doing so, the MPA aims at changing daily12.Interview with an MPA Vice President in charge of the global fight againstPiracy, Encino, August 2005.

20

practices of ordinary people (Yar, 2005; Yar, 2008; ScreenInternational, 2005) whereas recent studies have pinpointed thediverse populations that are covered by this word and haveindulged in piracy (Cockrill and Goode, 2012). All these framingactions constitute tools which try to reconfigure materially andideationally markets in a favourable way for the respect of IP. However, examining the list of operations that the MPA has

initiated, one can question the effectiveness of these worldwideactions. Although there is no consensus on the figures mentionedby the MPA or other representatives (Bialik, 2013), the fight isstill underway with seizures of massive organisations online oroffline while individuals′ daily practices integrating illegaldownloading are widespread. In fact, there is a strong case forarguing that social, economic and technological developments thatthe MPA aims at overturning are too strong and deep to bechanged. Technological innovations and Internet developments makethis behaviour easy and common. And the access to Internet hasbecome global and mobile, making the fight against illegaldownloading and the track of crime networks much harder (Edwardsand al., 2013; Porter, 2012). Indeed, according to data analysts,432 million unique unduplicated visitors accessed infringingcontent during January 2013 mainly through Bittorrent,cyberlocked direct downloading or video streaming (Price, 2013:81). Among these users, 170 million were located in Europeincluding Russia, 100 million in the Asia/Pacific zone and lessthan 70 million in North America (Price, 2013: 86). These resultsunderscore that copyright violations are a worldwide and unevenphenomenon which escapes from easy dichotomy South/North oremerging/developed countries. Furthermore, the same people can beat times legal and illegal users of cultural content. In otherwords, there is no clear distinction separating consumers oflegal content from consumers of illegal ones, both being morecreative media uses and practices (Jewitt and Yar, 2013; Duhigg,2006).

NEOPLURALISM: A NEW VISION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

21

Transnational neopluralism sheds light on the specifics ofpresent politics, leading to four main takeaways: thefragmentation underway drastically changes global politics; powercan only grow out of broad coalitions of actors; the relationsbetween politics and business need to be reconsidered; finally,economic fields constitute a major source of plurality.

Global politics in fragmented spheresDiffering from the monistic view which would depict the MPA as anall-powerful entity imposing its will on states, our observationsindicate that this organisation acts precariously with otheractors in diverse sectors reconfigured by globalisation. Whatbrings neopluralism to this analysis of changing politics is awider and processual analysis of power by focusing oncountervailing powers, on the end result of strategies andresources and on the scale of issues-areas. Specifically, itconsiders not only that opportunities have increased for the MPAbut also for other companies and other types of non-state actorssuch as crime organisations. And this reduces in turn the scopeof power that can be granted to the Hollywood representative.Besides, the perspective sets a good focus to study emerging waysof governance among a plural world of actors, issues-areas andcontexts.Three main lines of fragmentation appear in this study:

horizontal line involving firms, regulators and practices ineconomico-cultural sectors and a vertical one cutting acrossstates borders altering the degree of state control on itsterritory. In addition to these, a major line appears inconsidering that an increasing number of phenomena can only becomprehended by considering agency at an individual level (Hobsonand Seabrook, 2007; Kostovicova and Glasius, 2011). Multiplepractices, shared behaviour as much as values and loyalties,including their increased ability to speak and mobilise, havecome to exert a global impact, representing a qualitative changeof the world stage. Individuals - ″by aggregation″ (Boudon, 1979)and increasingly ′skilled′ (Rosenau, 1990) - can endanger thesuccess of global industries such as Hollywood companies.

22

Furthermore, as MPA aims at changing individuals′ norms andpractices in their everyday life, it entails some sort of consentor tacit acceptance on their part. As a result, a complex play ofpower is always underway trying to institute the global sphere.All this leads to a wide diffusion of authority which used to

be concentrated in a few states. In turn, depending on issues-areas, authority is only partly reallocated among the stronglinkages and transterritorial webs of relations. This constitutesa new shaping of global politics and a ′new re-ordering′ ofgovernance (Jessop, 2014; Djelic and Sahlin-Anderson, 2008).Alone no actor can achieve its goals and create any authority orpolitical order in a given field at the global level. States facethe limits to its territorial and fragmented power, as actorsinterpenetrate and crosscut political systems, stretchinghorizontally across multiple domains, fields and nations. As muchresearch has shown, this gives wide opportunities fortransnational actions of states and non-state actors (Jessop,2014; Tarrow, 2012). So hybrid sorts of governance have arisen inan increasing number of global issues from the limited abilitiesof actors. As a result, only the constitution of plural,multilevel and multilayered coalition can allow an actor toachieve its goals in world politics. It allows the actor toincrease the effect of its action, mutualise the cost and alsogain legitimacy (Pagliary and Young, 2014). A successful powerstrategy in the globalised era implies a multidimensional policyconducted across many fields. This strategy involves many actorsin order to gather, orient and coalesce authority around a givenissue. In this respect, rallying stakeholders from the sameindustry is insufficient; crosscutting-field partnerships arenecessary in a globalised world where time and space arecompressed and sectors much more intertwined than in the past.

Relational power out of coalitionsThe success of MPA′s members depends on diverse coalitions ofentities coming from different domains, which confirms theplurality of power at play in the global sphere. First, myobservation of the MPA activity is in accordance with extensivestudies on U.S. domestic politics: diverse coalitions play a

23

crucial role, growing out of strategic incentives, informationbenefits, and symbolic benefits (Hula, 1999; Sabatier andJenkins-Smith, 1999). Their increasing resort intervenes in afragmented and atomised environment where relationships arenumerous, complex and transient (Heclo, 1978). As a consequence,at the international level, the MPA must act with others in manyways to weigh on all actors′ practices and spur change in theirbehaviour. In this respect, since its private global initiativegoes from agenda setting to law enforcement - includingintersectoral arrangements and individual practices - the MPAintends through its coalitions to be a ′global governor′ (Avantet al., 2010: 2). But our examination has stressed especially twopoints: as soon as the MPA starts going alone, not actingcollectively, its authority weakens and is curbed; MPA’scoalition-building enters into conflict with other interests andactors which undertakes similar initiatives to oppose it. A second dimension of global plurality comes from the

previously-observed limited control of states on their ownterritories. On the latter, law & order are no longer respected,which allows illegal IP-related usages to grow unmitigated. Thereal entanglement of the MPA with states, in the United Statesand abroad, shows that the Hollywood organisation intervenes atall levels of the state structure but intense activity does notprevent the MPA from real setbacks. Its real success ofmobilising many governments and business organisations turns outto be a Pyrrhus victory inasmuch as the coordination of theseentities proves to be ineffective.Third, at a theoretical level, this study shows that the

actions used by the MPA have much in common with Tarrow′stransnational contentious politics of social movements. Threedifferent foci illustrate this relationship. The two types oforganisations intend to frame domestic and internationalpolitics. Then, they are able to connect domestic contention tointernational politics through the diffusion and scale shiftingof issues. Third, both form transnational coalitions aroundsimilar claims across different countries (Tarrow, 2005: 32;Della Porta and Tarrow, 2005; Della Porta and Diani, 2006). Theneopluralist perspective makes it possible to embrace the

24

interweaving of politics. Although actors, such as businessgroups and social movements, are considered academically andcommonly at odds, they coalesce and act together.The MPA is at the centre of webs of relationships with key

linkages and coalitions the multiplicity of which founds theextent of its power. Mobilising other actors around agendas, itorients information, resources, norms and authority. In this way,arrangements associating actors across specific issue-areas arecrucial for politics. As a result, the power of the MPA isrelational, based on its political, legal, and socio-economic′embeddedness′ among other actors (Zukin and DiMaggio, 1990).

A revised privileged positionThe privileged access of business to government has been widelydeveloped in the sphere of political science, underlined byLindblom as threatening pluralism (Lindblom, 1977: 170). Thisrelation has been observed in this research, which drives us toother conclusions than a reductive alliance of both or allegianceof one to the other. First, the classical strength of thecloseness between the firm and the country of origin is completedby direct contacts with other governments. Indeed, they aregranted a special place as many states try to attract investmentin their countries (Cerny, 2000:117-138).Second, this specific access does not always lead to political

success. As examined, this closeness to major governments impliesthat neither will authorities inevitably follow the views of theHollywood organisation and nor do policies always reach theirobjectives. Even if the MPA is present inside the process of U.S.foreign policy, it undergoes the political game which entails apower balance with the intervention of other lobbies andinterests. The latter can prove to be more powerful andpersuasive. This explains why the U.S. government has at timesdeparted from the recommendations of the MPA. Abroad, whateverthe connection of the MPA with the government may be, the MPAneeds allies inside the political arena to convince publicopinion and to obtain a favourable law. At the national andinternational levels, political processes remain autonomous and

25

complex, which results in unpredictable and indeterminateoutcomes. Third, what needs to be underlined here is the radically

different stand that the MPA takes towards state institutionscompared with the mid-20th century, a time when it was nicknamedthe ′little State Department′ (Lee, 2008). If coercive formsagainst other states remain through the U.S. foreign policy, therelations towards states is then oriented on mutual help, support

26

and advice about law-making and law-enforcing, suggesting thatthe MPA has a real role in the states confronted withtransnational crime and networks. Previously, MPA′s relationswith foreign states took the form of direct blockade andblackmailing which were more or less endorsed by the U.S.government (Trumpbour, 2002). For instance, supported by Americandiplomacy major studios′ representative organised an embargo ofBritish film markets in the late forties after an import tax was

13.The transnational aspect of illegal counterfeiters makes their control bystates difficult and the global policy of the MPA all the more crucial(Salles, 2005). Indeed, counterfeiters rely on worldwide networks whichquickly distribute their products. According to one of its senior executives,a study on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace shows that pirated copies were onsale in the Pacific zone from Malaysia to Australia only a week after itsrelease in the United States (Wang, 2003). Since this study, this trend mayhave accelerated with the rise of the Internet. Moreover, reports mentionedthe resort to elaborate means such as tunnels with electric railway andsubmarines for transportation (The Hollywood Reporter, 2003).

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR

REFERENCES

Ahrne, G. and Brunsson, N. (2008) Meta-organizations, Cheltenham, UK: EdwardElgar Publishing.Avant, D., Finnemore, M. and Sell, S. K. (eds) (2010) Who Governs the Globe?, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1962) ′Two Faces of Power ′, American Political ScienceReview 56(4): 947-952.Baron, D. P. (2006) Business and Its Environment, Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.Battersby, P. (2014) The Unlawful Society. Global Crime and Security in a Complex World, NewYork: Palgrave/Macmillan.Bell, S. (2005) ′How Tight Are the Policy Constraints? The Policy ConvergenceThesis, Institutionally Situated Actors and Expansionary Monetary Policy in

27

imposed on American films. With the same harsh stand, after WorldWar II, the Blum-Byrnes agreements between France and the Unitedstates planned, in exchange for debt forgiveness, loans and laterthe largesse of the Marshall Plan the erosion of the supportsystem in favour of the French cinema sector (Jarvie, 1992; Ulff-Moller, 2001). Since then, the behaviour of the MPA has radicallychanged. Now, states face transnational crime networks(Battersby, 2014), straddling state borders and using state-of-

Australia′, New Political Economy 10: 67-92.Bell, S. (2012) ′The Power of Ideas: The Ideational Shaping of the StructuralPower of Business′, International Studies Quarterly (56): 661-673. Bentley, A. F. (1908) The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Bevir, M. (2012) ′A History of Modern Pluralism′, in M. Bevir (ed) ModernPluralism: Anglo-American debates since 1880, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 1-20.Bohas, A. (2014) ′Transnational Firms and the Knowledge Structure: The Case ofthe Walt Disney Company′, Global Society, forthcoming.Boudon, R. (1979) La Logique du social. Introduction à l′analyse sociologique, Paris:Hachette.Braudel, F. (1985) La Dynamique du capitalisme. Paris: Arthaud. Brownstein, R. (1992) The Power and the Glitter: the Hollywood-Washington Connection, NewYork: Vintage Books.Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research (2006) The Global Success ofProduction Tax Incentives and the Migration of Feature Film Production From the U.S. to the World, Year2005 Production Report. Available from http://www.ceidr.org/2005CEIDRReport.pdf;accessed in 28 August 2007.Cerny, P. G. (2000) ′Restructuring the Political Arena: Globalization and theParadoxes of the Competition State′, in R. Germain (ed) Globalization and its Critics.Perspectives from Political Economy, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 117-138.Cerny, P. G. (2006) ′Plurality, Pluralism and Power: Elements of PluralistAnalysis in an Age of Globalization′, in E. Eisfeld (ed) Pluralism. Development inthe Theory and Practice of Democracy, Opladen and Farmington Hills: Barbara BudrichPublishers, pp. 79-108.Cerny, P. G. (2010) Rethinking World Politics: A Theory of Transnational Pluralism, NewYork: Oxford University Press.Cockrill, A. and Goode, M. H. (2012) ′DVD pirating intentions: Angels, Devils,Chancers and Receivers′, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11(1): 1-10.Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., and Porter, T. (1999) Private Authority and InternationalAffairs, Albany (NY): SUNY.Dahl, R. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

28

the-art technology. This leads to a quick worldwide distributionof illegally-copied products.13 The MPA has taken a supportiverole, which epitomises the complex public/private and state/firmpartnership (Graz and Nölke, 2008; Mügge, 2006). Even if businesscan be close to state governments, this does not mean that theirrecommendations are always implemented, begetting Braudel′sassertion in his observation of state-companies interactions

Dart, P. (1968) ′Breaking the Code: A Historical Footnote′, Cinema Journal,8(1): 39-41. Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (2006), Social Movements. An Introduction, Oxford:Blackwell.Djelic, M.-L. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2008) Transnational Governance. InstitutionalDynamics of Regulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dobusch, L. and Quack, S. (2013) ′Framing Standards, Mobilizing Users:Copyright Versus Fair Use in Transnational Regulation′, Review of InternationalPolitical Economy 20(1): 52-88.Edwards, L., Klein, B., Lee, D., Moss, G. and Philip, F. (2013) ′Framing theConsumer: Copyright Regulation and the Public′, Convergence 19(1): 9-24.Elmer, G. and Gasher, M. (Eds.) (2005) Contracting out Hollywood: runaway productionsand foreign location shooting, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Evangelista, M. (1999) Unarmed Forces: the Transnational Movement to End the Cold War,Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Ferguson, Y. H. and Mansbach, R. W. (2008) A World of Polities: Essays on Global Politics,Abingdon: Routledge.Falkner, R. (2008) Business Power and Conflict in International Environmental Politics,Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Fromm, E. (1976) To Have or To Be?, New York: Continuum. Gill, S. (2003) Power and Resistance in the New World Order, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Gill, S. and Law, D. (1989) ′Global Hegemony and the Structural Power ofCapital′, International Studies Quarterly 33: 475-99.Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, Boston:Northeastern University Press.Gomery, D. (2005) The Hollywood Studio System. A History, London:Bfi/PalgraveMacmillan. Graz, J.-C. and Nölke, A. (2008) Transnational Private Governance and Its Limits,London/New York: Routledge.Guzzini, S. (1993) ′Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis′, International Organization 47(3): 443-478.Hall R. B. and Biersteker, T. J. (2002) The Emergence of Private Authority in GlobalGovernance, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change,Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.

29

according to which ′capitalism only triumphs when it identifieswith the state, when it is the state′ (1985: 68).

Economic systems as a source of pluralityCurrent transformations have purportedly brought about largefirms, result of massive fusions and acquisitions, which becomecapable of deploying around the world and turning to theiradvantage the interstate system. Researches have underscored

Heclo, H. (1978) ′Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment′, in King, A.(ed) The New American Political System, Washington D.C.: The American EnterpriseInstitute, pp. 87-124.Held, D., McGrew, D. Goldblatt, A. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations.Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Polity.Hobson, J. and Seabrook, L. (eds) (2007) Everyday Politics of the World Economy,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Holsti, K. J. (1980) ′Change in the International System: Interdependence,Integration and Fragmentation′, in O. R. Holsti, R.M. Siverson and A. L.George (eds) Change in the International System, Boulder: Westview, pp. 23–53.Hula, K. W. (1999) Lobbying together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics,Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.IIPA (2012a) ′International Intellectual Property Alliance. Representing theU.S. Copyright-Based Industries for 28 Years′; accessed at www.iipa.com.IIPA (2012b) ′China (PRC) Specal 301 Report on Copyright Protection andEnforcement′; accessed at: www.iipa.com.Jarvie, I. (1992) Hollywood′s Overseas Campaign: The North Atlantic Movie Trade. 1920-1950,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jessop, B. (2013) ′Dynamics of Regionalism and Globalism: A Critical PoliticalEconomy Perspective′, Ritsumeikan Social Science Review 5: 3–24.Jewitt, R. and Yar, M. (2013) ′Consuming the Illegal: Situating Piracy inEveryday Experience′, Convergence 19(3): 3-8.Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in InternationalPolitics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Kostovicova, D. and Glasius, M. (2011) Bottom-Up Politics. An Agency-Centred Approach toGlobalization, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.Kuehn, A. and Santoso, S. M. (2012) ′Policing the Network: Using DPI forCopyright Enforcement′, Surveillance & Society 9(4): 348-364.Laroche, J. and Bohas, A. (2008) Canal+ et les majors américaines. Une vision désenchantéedu cinema-monde. Paris: L′Harmattan. Lee, K. (2008) ′′The Little State Department′: Hollywood and the MPAA′sInfluence on U.S. Trade Relations′, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business28(2): 371-400.Lindblom, C. E. (1977) Politics and Markets: The World′s Political Economics Systems, NewYork: Basic Books.

30

their power over governments, international organisations andintergovernmental negotiations (Matthews, 2002; Gill, 2003; Gilland Law, 1989). And they pinpoint their resort to politics totriumph economically (Mügge, 2010; Baron, 2006). The strongeconomic dimensions of globalisation, including liberalisation,privatisation, and deregulation, have been depicted asreinforcing the power of transnational companies, reducing thecontrol of states and stifling possible opposition and politics.

Lindblom, C. E. (1980) The Policy-Making Process, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticeHall.Lowi, T. (2006) ′The Plural Forms of Pluralism′, in R. Eisfeld (ed) Pluralism.Development in the Theory and Practice of Democracy, Opladen and Farmington Hills:Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp. 21-38.Lukes, Steven (1974) Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.Mattelart, A. (2005) Diversité culturelle et mondialisation, Paris: L′Harmattan.Matthews, D. (2002) Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPS Agreement, London:Routledge.May, C. (2009) The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures,2nd ed., London: Routledge.May, C. (ed) (2010) The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing.McFarland, A. (1992) ′Interest Groups and the Policy Making Process: Sourcesof Countervailing Power in America′, in: Petracca, M. The Politics of Interests,Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.McFarland, A. (2004) Neopluralism: the evolution of political process theory, Lawrence:University Press of Kansas.Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurrin, J., Maxwell, R. and Wang, T. (2005) GlobalHollywood 2, London: British Film Institute.Mosley, Layna (2003) Global Capital and National Governments, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.MPA (2012a) ′MPAA Chairman Calls for Greated Partnerships and Alliancesbetween U.S. and Indian Film Communities′, MPA Press Release, March 12th;accessed at www.mpaa.org.MPA (2012b) ′China′s Major Online Video Sites Join MPA To Launch Pro-Legitimate Campaign′, MPA Press Release, 12 April; accessed at www.mpaa.org.MPA (2012c) ′Motion Picture Association and Taobao Marketplace Sign JointInitiative to Address Online Sale of Infringing Content′, 7 September;accessed at www.mpaa.org.MPA Asia-Pacific (2014) ′The MPA Asia Pacific Reporter. Promoting andProtecting the Screeen Community′; accessed at www.mpa-i.org.MPAA (2013) ′Hotfile Agrees to $80 Million Settlement, Ordered to Stop FurtherCopryright Infringement′, December 3rd; accessed at www.mpaa.org.

31

This phenomenon is negatively perceived since it is supposed tofavour business interests to the detriment of people’s interests.Although there is no denying the political dimension of

business and the reinforcement of multinational corporations, thestudy has shown that the diversity of business actors gives riseto plural politics. Business constitutes a disunited group withdivergent interests, which cannot be considered monolithically(Truman, 1951). Indeed, the main contenders of the MPA are also

MPAA (2014) ′Senator Christ Dodd Urges Berlin Film Festival Audience andGerman Film Community to Stand United In Protecting Creators′, February 7th;accessed at www.mpaa.org.Mügge, D. (2006) ′Private-Public Puzzles: Inter-Firm Competition andTransnational Private Regulation′, New Political Economy 11(2): 177-200.Mügge, D. (2010) Widen the Market, Narrow the Competition: Banker Interests and the Making of aEuropean Capital Market, Colchester: ECPR Press.Ougaard, M. and Leander, A. (2010) Business and Global Governance, London/New York:Routledge.Pagliari, S. and Young, K. (2014) ′Leveraged interests: Financial industrypower and the role of private sector coalitions′, Review of International PoliticalEconomy 21(3) 575-610.Price, D. (2013) Sizing the Piracy Universe. NetNames envisional Report, September;accessed at website www.copyrightalliance.org.Risse-Kappen, T. (1995) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, DomesticStructures and International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Roemer-Mahler, A. (2013) ′Business conflict and global politics: Thepharmaceutical industry and the protection of intellectual property rights′,Review of International Political Economy 20(1): 121-152.Rosenau, J. N. (2003) Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.Rosenau, J. N. (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring the Governance in aTurbulent World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rosenau, J. N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity,Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999) ′The Advocacy CoalitionFramework. An Assessment′, in P. Sabatier (ed) Theories of public process, Boulder:Westview Press, pp. 117-166.Sassen, S. (2003) ′Globalization or Denationalization′, Review of InternationalPolitical Economy 10(1): 1-22.Segrave, K. (2003) Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry, Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Sell, S. K. (2003) Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sell, S. K. (2010) ′The Rise and Rule of a Trade-Based Strategy: HistoricalInstitutionalism and the International Regulation of Intellectual Property′,

32

multinational companies, belonging to interdependent sectors toHollywood. Their say has been increasingly voiced and heard asthey have rapidly expanded with the growth of the Internet. Inthe SOPA/PIPA case, these contenders have allied with otherassociations, activists and companies in favour of Internetliberty, which, as already mentioned, led to the defeat of theMPAA on Capitol Hill. In other words, conflicts inside businessexplain much of the political outcomes concerning cultural

Review of International Political Economy 17(4): 762-790.Sell, S. K. (2013) ′The Revenge of the ′Nerds′: Collective Action AgainstIntellectual Property Maximalism in the Global Information Age′, InternationalStudies Review (15):67-85. Sell, S. K. and May, C. (2006) Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers.Scholte, J. A. (2005) Globalization: a critical introduction, Basingstoke/New York:Palgrave/Macmillan.Sikkink, K. (2005) ′Patterns of Dynamic Multilevel Governance and the Insider-Outsider Coalition′, in D. Della Porta and S. Tarrow (eds) Transnational Protestand Global Activism, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 151-173.Sikkink, K. (2009) ′The Power of Networks in International Politics′, in M.Kahler, Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance, Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, pp. 228-247.Siwek, S. E. (2013) Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy. The 2012 Report Prepared for theInternational Intellectual Property Alliance, Washington: Economists Incorporated.Skidmore, D. (1995) ′Review: The Business of International Politics′, MershonInternational Studies Review (39): 246-254.Stanley, T. (2014) Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration between LA and DC RevolutionizedAmerican Politics, New York: Macmillan.Stopford, J. and Strange, S. (1991) Rival States, Rival Firms: Competition for World MarketShares, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Strange, S. (1994) States and Markets, 2nd ed., London: Pinter.Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State, the Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Strange, S. (1997) ′Territory, state, authority and economy: a new realistontology of global political economy′, in Robert W. Cox (ed) The New Realism,Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997, pp. 3-19.Tarrow, S. (2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Tooze, R. (2000) ′Susan Strange, Academic International relations and theStudy of International Political Economy′, New Political Economy 5(2): 280-289.Truman, D. (1951) The governmental process, New York: Knopf.Trumpbour, J. (2002) Selling Hollywood to the World: U.S. and European Struggles for Mastery ofthe Global Film Industry 1920-1950, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33

industries, as other have demonstrated in pharmaceutical affairsor in environmental politics (Roemer-Mahler, 2013; Falkner, 2008;Skidmore, 1997). Moreover, present politics escapes from areductive politics between business and consumers, tradeassociations and citizen or the state. The opponents to the MPA-backed SOPA/PIPA draft succeeded in convincing representativesbecause they took part within a broad advocacy coalition based onmaterial interests and political values. Also, they comprised

Ulff-Moller, J. (2001) Hollywood′s Film Wars With France: Film-Trade Diplomacy and theEmergence of the French Film Quota Policy, Rochester: University of Rochester Press.U.S. Trade Representative, 2013 Special 301 Report; accessed at www.ustr.gov.Vliegenthart, R. and Van Zoonen, L. (2011) ′Power to the frame: Bringingsociology back to frame analysis′, European Journal of Communication 26(2): 101-115.Wang, S. (2003) Framing Piracy: Globalization and Film Distribution in Greater China, London:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Yar, M. (2005) ′The Global ′Epidemic′ of Movie Piracy: Crime-Wave or SocialConstruction?′, Media, Culture & Society 27(5): 677-696.Yar, M. (2008) ′The Rhetorics and Myths of ′Anti-piracy′ Campaigns:Criminalisation, Moral Pedagogy and Capitalist Property Relations in theClassroom′, New Media & Society 10(4): 605–623.Zukin, S. and DiMaggio, P. (1990) Structures of Capital. The Social Organization of theEconomy, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

PRESSBehr, P. (1993) ′U.S., Europe Reach Trade Agreement′, Washington Post, 15December, p. A1. Bialik, C. (2013) ′Putting a price Tag on Film Piracy′, Wall Street Journal, 5April.Boliek, B. (2001) ′Studios Fire on Tariff Petition′, Hollywood Reporter, 12December , p. 4.Boliek, B. (2004) ′Pirates Face World of Hurt′, The Hollywood Reporter, 23-25April, p. 1(25).Boliek, B. and Bennett, R. (2006) ′Sides End Long-running P2P Fight′, TheHollywood Reporter, 28-30 July, p. 3(38).Borland, J. (2006) ′MPAA Sues Newsgroup, P2P Search Sites′, CNET News, 23February; accessed at http://news.com.com.Cendrowicz, L. (2006) ′U.S., Europe Ally in Piracy Battle′, The HollywoodReporter, 21 June, p. 4(30).Clifford, C. and Brzeski, P. (2013) ′Chinese Film, Internet Video CompaniesSue Search Giant Baidu in Anti-Piracy Push′, The Hollywood Reporter, 13 November.Coonan, C. (2006) ′MPA, China Org to Share Piracy Info′, Variety, 3 March.Coonan, C. (2005a) ′Org Planning China Antipiracy Push′, Variety, 1 September.

34

members of the civil society and Internet activists, which gavethem more legitimacy (Pagliari and Young, 2014). The social adoption of new technologies happens to be very

disruptive in the sectors of media and telecommunications,destabilising entire sectors, changing power balance insideestablished markets and bringing to birth new entities.Schumpeter′s destructive creation is very much at play. While itendangers business models and, in the long run, the veryexistence of old transnational companies, including members-

Coonan, C. (2005b) ′U.S. Prods China on Piracy Enforcement′, Variety, 27October. DiOrio, C. (2006) ′Runaway Prod′n Costs U.S. Dearly′, The Hollywood Reporter.Duhigg, C. (2006) ′Is Copying a Crime? Well…′, Los Angeles Times, 9 August.Film Journal International (2004) Glickman, Replaces MPAA′s Valenti. August. Fritz, B. (2005) ′Studios Unite For a Piracy Fight′, Variety, 19 September.Gardner, E. and Roxborough, S. (2012) ′Europe Rejects ACTA Anti-PiracyAgreement: What it Means for Hollywood′, The Hollywood Reporter, 4 July.Gardner, E. (2012) ′Hollywood Studios Reach Deal With China′s Taobao on Anti-Piracy Efforts′, The Hollywood Reporter, 7 September.Gardner, E. (2013) ′Viacom, Time Warner Cable Reach New Distribution Agreement′, The Hollywood Reporter, 24 December.Gelles, D. (2011) ′A cyber gangplank sought; As illicit downloading spreads instep with high-speed internet access to emerging markets, efforts to makeconsumers pay are pitting media companies against those that host theirproducts′, Financial Times, 6 December.Holland, B. (2002) ′Common Action Against Morpheus, Kazaa′, Billboard, 21

September, p. 6.Johnson, T. (2011) ′Chris Dodd Named MPAA Chief′, Variety, 1 March. Landreth, J. (2006) ′Chinese Knock Anti-Piracy Effort′, The Hollywood Reporter, 20June, p. 6(81).Le Monde (2005) ′Les 15èmes Rencontres de Beaune explorent la richesse desnouvelles technologies′ [The 15th meetings of Beaune explore the richness ofnew technologies], 21 October.Maxwell, W. and Crowson, C. (2006) ′Piratage et poursuites : la France estplus ′′pénal′′, les États-Unis plus ′′civil′′′, La Lettre des Télécommunications, 27March. McNary, D. (2006) ′Runaway Drain? ′, Variety, 31 July. Mohr, I. (2004) ′MPAA Eyes New Anti-Piracy Plan′, The Hollywood Reporter, 25March, p. 8(25).Mullins, B. and Fritz, B. (2014), ′Movie Industry, In a Switch, Is Courtingthe GOP′, Wall Street Journal, 26 February.Murdoch, B. (1999) ′MPA Asked to Back Down on Korean Quotas′, The HollywoodReporter, 6-8 August, p. 11.

35

studios of the MPA, it brings about new actors and underlyingsocio-economic changes. In turn, it also gave rise to individualpractices and behaviour, putting once again at risk oldbusinesses. On this matter, the case in point is the continuousissues that Hollywood studios have had with computer andtelecommunications companies. The latter have transformed mediahabits and uses, constraining the music and audiovisualindustries to change painfully. Besides, concentrations of companies have not decreased

conflicting interests. To the contrary, sectoral tensions take amuch broader scope involving large companies present in manyother markets. In other words, space compression does not favouran appeasement of rivalries but a development of businesspolitics, involving colossal behemoths companies into sectoralquarries. Globalisation fragments as much as they integrateinstitutions. In this respect, the cultural industries-relatedcomplex, going from content production to dissemination modes andformats, is by no means integrated as expected. Paige, A. (1999) ′MPAA most powerful entertainment lobby, ′Fortune′ says′,Broadcast & Cable, 20 December.Perez, J.-C. and Grant, G. (2005) ′Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster′, PCWorld, 27 June.Philiana, N. (2012) ′Hacktivist Group Anonymous Takes Down Government′, TheHollywood Reporter, 19 January. Porter, E. (2012) ′The Perpetual War: Pirates and Creators′, The New York Times,4 February.Salles, A. (2005) ′La MPA, bras armé des majors d′Hollywood [MPA, the armedwing of Hollywood majors]′, Le Monde, 27 July, p. 20.Schilling, M. (1999) ′MPA Reject Korean Aim to Please′, The Hollywood Reporter,20-26 August.Screen International (2005) ′You Can Click But You Cannot Hide′, 7 January, p.17(20).Smith, T. (2007) ′5M Pirated Discs in Asia-Pacific Sting′, The Associated Press, 7February; accessed at www.washingtonpost.com.Sweeting, P. (2005) ′High-Def Standoff Begs Broader Questions′, Variety, 1st

August, p. S6(2).The Hollywood Reporter (2003) 'MPA Says Pirates Harder to Catch', 22-28 July,

p. 69.Variety (2004) ′MPAA Targets Online Piracy′, 21 June, p. 4. Verrier, R (2013) ′MPAA Report Says Google, Other Search Engines a MajorGateway to Piracy′, Los Angeles Times, 18 September.

36

CONCLUSION

The transnational policies of the MPA aim at shaping discursivelyand materially foreign markets and creating new outlets for itsmembers-studios. Indeed, they intend to stop copyright violationsby changing market configuration, which leads it to maintaincomplex relations with states, sectoral organisations,transnational corporations and individuals. However, despite itsintense activities around the world, the Hollywood organisationremains mostly unsuccessful in this global goal. The pluralist approach considers more thoroughly the

globalisation of scope, actors and sectors with which the MPA hasto cope. It comprises as much integration as fragmentation withfar-reaching implications for actors. Besides, this perspectivehighlights the extent of MPA power with all its strengths but,more importantly, with all its weaknesses while it deeplychallenges the traditional views on politics, economy and firms.Renewing the perception of present global sphere, neopluralismallows us to get a better grasp on current InternationalPolitical Economy.  

37