This ideas is good, I think. However, there are some of my opinion: 1. You should be allowed to waive the right to be recognized as the author. Also, if someon

This ideas is good, I think. However, there are some of my opinion: 1. You should be allowed to waive the right to be recognized as the author. Also, if someone uses your stuff in the way that you do not like, then you should not force to remove the picture but are allowed to require to know that you do not endorse the use of it. Also, should still be prohibited to claim that someone else wrote something even though actually you did and they didn't write it. 3. Possibly, copyright could be shorter for practical works than for artistic works. I see other comments disagree about what the length should be. I think twenty years is too long even for artistic works; one possibility (although I am not sure what is best) might be: For artistic works, five years automatic and five years requiring payment. For practical works, three years automatic and three years requiring payment. (But, then, you have to define this properly.) 5. Perhaps the ban on DRM should be, instead of a total ban, a combination of: (a) A prominent warning label is required. (b) Some rules similar to like what the GPL3 has about DRM is required ;for example, maybe any DRM system would be required to make available that the user is able to use the rights that the GPL3 provides for the user (such as availability of source code, Installation Information, can share the corrected version, etc). (c) Requirement that the companies do not try to work together to enforce the DRM. Also, I think patent should be abolished entirely so that you are not restricted to do some thing just because someone else patented it. (With the possible exception of "design patents", which perhaps should still be allowed to exist, but limited to a lesser duration and only applicable to commercial use, maybe. And it should not apply to screen layouts that do not include graphics.) (Also, any patent explaining an invention would still be allowed to be published, although it would have no legal value; it is simply one kind of archive.) They also mention, "how should the artists get paid?" I think that, even if it doesn't restrict you from copying it, does not prevent you from selling books.