And the World in general, and scientific, artistic and cultural creation in particular, have only gotten faster and faster since then, so we can only assume that copyright terms should be much shorter than originally thought up in the eighteenth century.
I don't think that's true. You can create more elaborate works in less time thanks to technology, but you could sketch or compose a copyrightable work in minutes a century ago.
There once was a property case
which was wildly absurd on its face
A camera, an ape
and an unforeseen jape
fell outside copyrightable space
Now this is not such a great thing that it deserves protection until 2084+my remaining lifespan, but my point is that verses of this sort could have been composed and committed to paper in 3 minutes in 1814 just as easily as in 2014.
There's a interesting essay by Stephen Breyer, from before he became a Supreme Court justice, that comes to the opposite conclusion.
He points out that because technology was slow in the 18th century, there was little need for copyright. When a new book was published, for example, by the time those who would make copies could set up their presses and go into production most of the market for the book had been satisfied by the original publisher. The faster things get, the stronger the case for copyright.
That would give a case for a stronger copyright, but not a longer copyright. I would imagine that any 18th century competitor would be able to set up their printing presses within a year at the most. Currently, with 21st century scanning and printing, it could be done effectively immediately. Therefore, the only difference between the situations is within that first year.
Certainly, this argument suggests that copyright should be strengthened relative to its 18th century form. However, this strengthening should not be in lengthening copyright terms, as the only difference is within the first year, which is covered under either copyright term.
I am not arguing for an elimination of copyright. It is necessary as a starting incentive. However, in its current form, the length is far too long.
How would you suggest strengthening copyright? Penalties are already draconian in some cases. Should there be universal Internet surveillance and the dispatch of a SWAT team at the first sign of any violation?
In the law, copyright has already been strengthened quite a lot. From here the only way to strengthen copyright is to increase public support of it. Shortening terms to something reasonable could help.
> Should there be universal Internet surveillance and the dispatch of a SWAT team at the first sign of any violation?
This is not possible, which is precisely why
> Penalties are already draconian in some cases.
This is probably also why the simplest way of strengthening copyright in the Internet era is by lengthening terms. Most other alternatives would infringe too much on personal privacies.
> The faster things get, the stronger the case for copyright.
If that's an accurate summation, Breyer is describing an effect and asking us to assume it's desirable.
But if you compare it to the stated intention of the copyright clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" the opposite conclusion should be drawn. Zero-cost duplication and transmission raises the benefit of works entering the public domain. So that should happen sooner and with less friction.
And the World in general, and scientific, artistic and cultural creation in particular, have only gotten faster and faster since then, so we can only assume that copyright terms should be much shorter than originally thought up in the eighteenth century.
So maybe 28 years should be a wild upper bound.