5 ms·
That just bolsters the point you're replying to. If Shakespeare was doing it strictly for artistic merit, and money didn't enter into it, that's an argument for
by ryanbrunner 6y ago
That just bolsters the point you're replying to. If Shakespeare was doing it strictly for artistic merit, and money didn't enter into it, that's an argument for copyright - since presumably there's far fewer people who are willing / able to pursue creative projects strictly for the artistic merit without any regard for income.
The fact that he was a businessman demonstrates that copyright isn't completely necessary to make creative works a viable business.
- meepmorp 6y agoThe fact that nobody currently follows Shakespeare’s business model indicates that it’s not viable any more.
- burntoutfire 6y agoThere are plenty of people who live off writing screenplays for movies and TV.
- meepmorp 6y agoPlenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Or are we supposed to against independent creators, and insist that artists return to the patronage system so we can eliminate copyright?
- JetSpiegel 6y ago> Plenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Like that never happens now. How many independent creators did successfully sue a studio since copyright law has come into play? How many pitched a script to a studio, only to be rejected, and having the same idea rewritten on a spec by others? Is it worth it to keep Steamboat Willie under lock and key? Might as well tax the IP secondary sales and just give every living author with works registered in the Library of Congress a stipend.
- ryanbrunner 6y agoI'll let the live theatre industry know they no longer exist. Snark aside, I think there are people who make a living creating things that don't rely on copyright (music artists that make their living off merch and live shows, theatre as mentioned above), and even if there weren't, that's not particularly surprising because copyright laws exist - without them, there would be stronger incentives to discover other revenue streams.
- meepmorp 6y agoDoes live theater depend on having a resident playwright who doesn’t copyright their work? I missed that detail in the years I worked as a stage electrician.
- cestith 6y agoLive theater absolutely depends on copyright. Do you think playwrights and musical composers just let all those theaters use their work for free and, what, work as cashiers at Trader Joe's?
- ryanbrunner 6y agoAbsolutely some people earn money based on selling rights to shows. But there's also profitable theatres that just do remounts, where copyright represents a cost, not a revenue source. At least where I am, the festival theatres remounting Broadway shows pull in more money than anyone producing anything original.
- cestith 6y agoWhere do you think those theaters redoing other people's shows get those shows? Do you think Broadways playwrights and musical composers do what they do so the show can run in one theater for a month then in every community theater in the country the next month, undercutting their market? Do you think the show producers would put shows on Broadway and in the West End if those were the economics of it?
- 6y ago