] To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and
] the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights
] would be enough. The 14-year term of the original
] 18th-century British and American copyright laws,
] renewable once, might be a good place to start.

The economist presents a radical copyright proposal.

Even the Economist recommends maximum 14 year copyrights... but then goes on to blow it:

However, to provide any incentive at all, more limited copyrights would have to be enforceable, and in the digital age this would mean giving content industries much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies. Many cyber activists would loathe this idea. But if copyright is to continue to work at all, it is necessary.

Digital piracy does indeed threaten to overwhelm so-called “content” industries. As the power and reach of the internet continue to grow, the illicit trading of perfect copies may well devastate the music, movie and publishing industries.

No, not devestate. Transform. There is a difference, but it is up to the firms to make a choice as to which they want.

My stance is to repeal copyright altogether. I think it would be a tremendous boon to humanity to have freely flowing content and ideas. At the very least, it would be a grand experiment.

But in the interests of practicality and a smooth(er) transition, at least pull back copyright to something more in line with the shelf life of content. Something like 5 years.