We currently have a fairly half assed system that it seems only the movie and music studios are really invested in pushing. I don't see any reason to assume the market would continue behaving the same way if the laws changed.
I think you could reasonably expect the iOS model to become the only way to purchase paid software as well as any number of other things where IP is a concern. You would have hardware backed attestation of an entirely opaque device.
> Likely the optimal balance is close to the original copyright terms
I'm inclined to agree.
> in practice is ineffective at its ostensible purpose and is only used to monopolize consumer devices to try to exclude works that compete with the major incumbents.
I'd argue that was the actual purpose to begin with. Piracy being illegal means that operating at scale and collecting payments becomes just about impossible. DRM on sanctioned platforms means the end user can't trivially shift content between different zones. The cartels are able to maintain market segmentation to maximize licensing revenue. Only those they bless are permitted entry to compete.
> the existing system is so far out of whack that it's not clear it's even better than nothing.
I agree. I think the current system is causing substantial harm for minimal to no benefit relative to the much more limited original copyright terms.
> The assumption is that such NDAs would be enforceable. What if they're not?
So in addition to removing IP legislation this is now a hypothetical scenario were additional regulation barring the sorts of contracts that could potentially fill that void is also introduced?
> The greedy individuals could be addressed by banning their attempts to reconstitute copyright through thug behavior.
You're too focused on copyright. The behavior is simple defense of investment. The players are simply maximizing profit while minimizing risk.
Keep in mind we're not just talking about media here. This applies to all industrial R&D. You're describing removing the legal protections against cloning from the entire economy.
If you systematically strip away all the legal defense strategies then presumably one of two things happens. Either the investment doesn't happen in the first place (on average, which is to say innovation is severely chilled market wide). Or groups take matters into their own hands and we see a resurgence of organized crime. Given the amount of money available to be made by major players whose products possess a technological advantage I'd tend to expect the latter.
I really don't like a scenario where the likes of Nvidia and Intel are strongly incentivized to fund the mob.
It's a huge mistake to assume that no one will step up to the plate to do illegal and potentially outright evil things if there's a large monetary incentive involved. Either a sufficiently low friction legal avenue is provided or society is stuck cleaning up the mess that's left. The fallout of the war on drugs is a prime example of this principle in action.