Originally Posted by rkomar
I'm all for shorter copyright terms, but I don't see what time/technology has to do with it. Why should the terms be different today than they were a few decades ago? I've seen this from a few posters, so it seems obvious to some, but I don't get the connection.
The internet is a disruptive technology (or suite of technologies if you like) when it comes to copyright, and it also expedites the development of more disruptive technologies.
The internet has made it far easier to access copyrighted materials, but also far easier to create them (e.g. ePubs and the rise of self-publishing as a legitimate way to get your book into the market). If the goal of copyright is to encourage the production of copyrightable materials, then it should reflect the actual needs of authors and other creative individuals for a limited distribution monopoly; if technology has made it less necessary to give someone a multi-decade monopoly (i.e. the copyright term) to get them to produce a work in the first place, then laws and treaties should be revisited to make sure they're not giving out excessive monopoly periods and creating a drag on innovation when the goal is to encourage innovation.
The Berne Convention never contemplated the disruptions caused by the internet or the economic realities that resulted therefrom, and should be revisited to make sure it's not causing a drag on innovation and hobbling innovators more than its helping.