This one (in PDF form only) can really get you going, though: James DeLong’s Testimony.
The same logic applies to intellectual creations. The argument that these are somehow different and thus should be subject to different rules rests upon misinterpretations of economic principles concerning marginal cost pricing and upon such economic concepts as non-rivalry and exhaustion.  These concepts are indeed important, but they do not undercut the elementary truth that products of the intellect, like physical goods, are best produced by market incentives, and that propositions that are absurd on their face when applied to groceries do not become sensible when applied to the world of creativity.
[…] It is very important that DRM not be undermined by abstractions about “fair use.” If DRM allows producers of IP to tailor their offerings to the desires of consumers, we will all be better off. Let a hundred business models bloom.
[…] Intellectual property is encompassed by the Constitutional protections of property, and by these principles.  And as a higher proportion of society’s collective effort is devoted to the production of information goods rather than physical goods, the need to defend the rights of creators, and their support network of employers and financiers, grows apace.
Then, he closes with a quote from Eldred v. Ashcroft. As Charlie Brown would say, "my stomach hurts."