As someone who makes use of copyright to protect my works, I completely disagree that it needs strengthening. I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA disagree with me. 28 years is more than enough. I'd argue for even less.
Edit: and this case drives it home. Copyright makes it illegal to preserve this music history, and the owners don't give a shit.
This has nothing to do with copyright duration, if Netflix takes down its archive tomorrow you will say the same thing. Let's shorten it to 2 years right?
It's not illegal to archive of course. Video recorders were a thing even back in the day of MTV, completely legal consumer devices.
By the same argument, let's lengthen it to 1000 years, right? Someone can still archive it until it falls into the public domain!
I think saying that duration isn't a factor is oversimplifying the issue. We'd be relying on multiple independent archivists to all hold individually-obtained copies of the data for nearly 100 years, and none of them would be allowed to transfer the data to anyone else. That's a very different scenario to one where the data were freely mirrorable after 24 years.
The data should be archivable immediately, no need to wait for 24 years. It likely already is legal. It was never illegal to record a broadcast, so it should be legal to have a copy of a Netflix film for personal use.
Some regulations or clarifications for copyright and fair use could be useful but trying to reduce the term or abolish it is not the proper solution...
It should not depend on types of content but more like intangible cultural value, maybe case by case basis, that would allow to distribute archive if the original is unavailable even before copyright expiration
Edit: and this case drives it home. Copyright makes it illegal to preserve this music history, and the owners don't give a shit.