There's so much in this article it's difficult to be specific.
As I read this article, I wanted to argue for or against over almost every one of Rob Levine's quotes but clearly the article's large expanse prevents this. Nevertheless, there are a few points/observations I'd make, some relate to what he doesn't say in the article (although perhaps he covers them in the book).
Levine covers many copyright/IP issues and his take on them makes sense whether I'm for or against them. He's too pro commerce for my liking. I'm not against commerce benefiting from copyright by a long shot but it's what he doesn't say that pushes him over the line well into the copywriters' camp.
First, Levine implies the anger over copyright is recent and perhaps most of it is. What he doesn't mention is that the anger, which underlies the current rage, goes back at least 126 years to the Berne Convention of 1886. This is when overly loose copyright laws did a complete flip, moved in the opposite direction and morphed into draconian rights we've known for over a century. The then copyright lobby wiped the floor with users' rights, fairness etc., then flushed them away and there's been a simmering resentment ever since.
Second, this resentment had little opportunity to express itself until the Internet. Before the Internet, book piracy, pressing records etc. were very difficult activities, especially on a large scale. Large scale meant that only a large organisation was behind the piracy and thus it was easily dealt with at law.
Third, Levine doesn't deal with the travesty that constitutes orphaned works under copyright law. It's conservatively estimated that somewhere between 75-95% of all copyrighted works over the entire 20th Century are orphaned. This means (a) they've no current viable owner, (b) they're out of print or otherwise unavailable and (c) copies which still exist in libraries or with private owners etc., nevertheless, still can't be copied because they CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN COPYRIGHT. The orphaned works fiasco doesn't financially benefit publishers directly but it does so by removing vast quantities of still-viable material from the marketplace, thus it's no wonder authors and publishers love this section of the Berne Convention. In essence, this is anti-competitive and it ought to be challenged under anti competition laws--or the conflict between copyright and anti-competition laws resolved.
In the meantime, consumers of copyrighted material are ripped off even further.
Forth, stuff that's already in the public domain is far too easily put into copyright. Information that's already in the public domain should always remain there, only genuinely new stuff should be copyrightable. Moreover, the definition of what constitutes the public domain is in desperate need of a precise 21st Century definition. A centuries-old folk song shouldn't be copyrighted just because someone has changed a couple of notes or changed its key; it should be only copyrightable after extensive modification which renders it intrinsically different to the original. The extent of that change being such that although the tune might be recognisable, it is clearly not the original tune to the extent that it may even irritate those already familiar with the tune in its original form.
Another such example (of many and various others) is where an out-of-copyright photograph/artwork is owned say by a museum which rephotographs it and claims copyright, which essentially then takes it out of the public domain because the organisation has ownership and possession of the only original.
Fifth, 'fair use' provisions of copyright law are vague to such an extent that most law-abiding users become so timid that they don't use the law to the extent which they could for fear of prosecution. You see this all too often in Wikipedia photographs where copyrighted images have been rendered so small and so low in resolution as to be nigh on useless.
Sixth, attacks on Wikipedia are very understandable and not unexpected. Any public library that gives such ready/easy access to vast amounts of ever-growing, encyclopaedic knowledge is clearly a threat to copyright holders. Consider Wiki 30-50 years hence, its vast collection of public-domain knowledge with all its nuances, insights and references will be so huge as to be almost unrecognisable by today's standards, clearly poses a serious threat to potential copyright holders who don't have truly original ideas and who only want to regurgitate ideas in a slightly different form. Wiki, if not already, will eventually expose such obfuscation by any would be copyrighter who wishes to steal from the public domain, especially when cleaver AI monitoring will be able to detect even the slightest deception.
I could go on but Rob Levine's comments only convince me more than ever that there MUST be a radical rethink of copyright/IP law to the extent where the 126-year old Berne Convention will probably have to be dismantled and then rebuilt with 21st Century values at its core. ACTA, SOPA and the IPO are all built on Berne's foundations and thus would have to follow suit.
Sounds dramatic, but a decade or two ago no one would ever have conceived that anything like the shutdown demos over SOPA would have been possible. Once change starts it's difficult to stop. Anyone who remembers the worldwide anti-Vietnam war demos will tell you that initially there was either acceptance or acquiescence amongst the populace and then how quickly that changed into violent opposition which essentially ended the war. So too it will happen here with copyright, although expect the entrenched Copyright Industry to fight like the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge: viciously and ferociously to the bitter end with every weapon they can muster but nevertheless still in retreat.
One thing is just about certain, in another 126 years the Berne Convention or its replacement won't vaguely resemble the form it takes today.