Depending on where you live, copyright is a part of civil law, not criminal law. Which makes all the difference.
It means that the act of copying itself isn't outlawed. You won't be prosecuted by public authorities for owning a device that makes copies, or having made copies of a work of art to which you don't own the intellectual rights.
Think about it, if you decide to record an episode of Friends on your PVR, didn't you just make a copy? And does that mean that law enforcement could search your house because there's a suspicion you committed a criminal offence?
The Berne convention is literally what it says: the author owns the exclusive right to authorize reproduction. Copyright is about discerning who holds the authority to sanction reproduction. It's not about prohibiting the act of reproduction.
It means that you're free to make a copy of a copyrighted work, and ask permission after the fact. Public authorities don't come into this, unless the rights holder feels that their exclusive rights were violated, and decides to sue you in civil court.
That's what the treaty says. That's correct, and I'm fully aware of that.
First of all, my response is indeed within the context of Fair Use as the example given was background music in a Zoom call.
Second, a big crux is in the part between parentheses which you didn't include:
> (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration)
The Berne Treaty is a framework of first principles. But the legal reality is shaped by how this treaty is then codified in supra-national and national laws. And finally how those laws then get enacted in civil cases within the applicable legal system depending on where you are.
Another example that limits the application of copyright all together is the Treshold of Originality, which of course comes with it's own opposite doctrines of thought:
Finally, Fair Use and Fair Dealing pertains to vast economic domains such as education, press and research. Why does Fair Use exist? Because lawmakers have conceded over time that a strict definition of copyright can't be practically upheld anyway. The application of Fair Use is far from a "confusing" fringe exception in the real world.
Your point would be valid if copyright was implemented straight up by it's first principles with zero exceptions. But that's not how the legal framework has evolved and gets implemented in the real world today.
Hence why I prefaced with "I totally follow you on copyright reform".
You're fundamentally wrong.
You should either delete your comment or preface it with a caveat.
See for example section 2, bullet 7 here: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
"Exclusive right of authorization" to "the right to _make_ reproductions".
Copyright isn't misnamed, it is essentially about copying.
In USA Fair Use can make it seem different to this which may be the source of your confusion.