There are a lot of laws that aren't effective. Empirically, laws that attempt to restrain gamesmanship among investment megabanks aren't effective. Laws against many forms of tax evasion aren't effective. Here's one close to home: laws against breaking into computers, stealing whole databases, and splashing them onto Pastebin aren't effective. That could happen to any of your startups tomorrow, and the likelihood of the law protecting you is very low.
In all of those cases, people routinely flout the law. It's not just that it's hard to enforce the law; it's that people routinely violate it.
The ineffectiveness of laws is not a logical argument that the goals of those laws are bad. It's an argument either that the laws haven't been tuned properly, or that our enforcement priorities need to be changed --- in the case of copyright, probably in a direction you're not happy with.
Long story short: if you believe that this is a powerful argument against copyright, you forfeit a pretty big chunk of any of your arguments against Wall Street.
It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse: more surveillance can make almost any law enforceable. Requiring disclosure and regulatory review of exotic financial contracts doesn't violate individuals' privacy except in some very artificial and theoretical terms, and the downside risk is global in reach and magnitude.
Building the kind of surveillance that ensures individuals will observe all terms of service they unknowingly agreed to and can bring felony charges and large statutory damages against them reliably and efficiently does violate all kinds of individual privacy. It also institutionalizes a privileged place for publishers in the legal system, and brings Big Brother into our homes. None or that can be said for financial regulation.
We don't owe banks or publishers or buggy-whip vendors the ability to continue to do business in any particular way. We do owe people their privacy. There is a fundamental difference here you no doubt see, but ignore.
In all of those cases, people routinely flout the law. It's not just that it's hard to enforce the law; it's that people routinely violate it.
The ineffectiveness of laws is not a logical argument that the goals of those laws are bad. It's an argument either that the laws haven't been tuned properly, or that our enforcement priorities need to be changed --- in the case of copyright, probably in a direction you're not happy with.
Long story short: if you believe that this is a powerful argument against copyright, you forfeit a pretty big chunk of any of your arguments against Wall Street.