The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance in order to promote culture being created and spread.
I'm glad you have avoided the pitfall of "balancing authors' interests
with the public's interest".
In a free market, vendors wishing to sell products crippled by digital restrictions (DRM) should be allowed to do so, however any such product must be clearly labelled as containing DRM, and similarly companies must be equally free to sell products that circumvent DRM.
That may be adequate for cases when one company implements DRM by
itself. However, the big instances of DRM are implemented by
conspiracies of companies. I think that DRM conspiracies should be
criminalized just like price-fixing conspiracies.
Copyright imposes a limited-term monopoly on the work (a public bad), in order to provide an incentive for people to create works (a public good). Copyright is only a good bargain for society when the public good outweighs the public bad. Unfortunately today the bargain has become unbalanced: the term of copyright is far too long, and laws imposing DRM prevent the creation of innovative new business models.
In contrast to the introduction, this takes a purely economic stance
(comparing the benefit with the cost). I suggest that the importance
of the freedom to share should be mentioned separately here as a
non-economic issue that must not be suppressed by mere economics.
Likewise, the harm of DRM goes far beyond the matter of new or old
A patent is an officially sanctioned monopoly on a (supposedly) useful idea. Like copyrights, patents impose a limited-term monopoly on the work (a public bad), in order to provide an incentive for people to create works (a public good). And like copyrights, the bargain has become unbalanced. Monopolies harm society, as they lead to price-hikes and large hidden costs for citizens. Large corporations diligently race to hold patents they can use against smaller competitors to prevent them from competing on equal terms.
Same problem here: it discards the ethical stance of the first section
and adopts a purely economic stance.
Trademarks are primarily useful as consumer protection devices. We feel trademarks mostly work fine today, and do not suggest any changes here.
I basically agree, but why mention trademark law here? There must be
hundreds of laws that you don't criticize, and you don't mention them.
Could this be the influence of the pseudo-concept of "intellectual
property"? The idea that anywhere you talk about copyright law, you
should also talk about all the other "intellectual property" laws too?
The statement denounces that term (which I find very gratifying), but
its infuence may still be at work unnoticed.
Here's an idea. If you move that statement about trademarks to just
AFTER the paragraph which denounces that term, it could become an
example of rejecting the generalization which "intellectual property"
invites, and treating each of these laws on its own merits.
I have no other criticisms -- in substance, it looks good.