forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

Also maybe bootlegs aren't the way to go because I do agree that the artists and creators should get paid. Maybe they should be recorded and actually put onto TV and streaming services and stuff legally

That would be great. Maybe Netflix or something.

Yeah. Newsies was on Netflix for a while and that worked out well. And people will still watch them irl if they can afford it because the theatre experience is different than watching something on Netflix

Yesss. I don't think the Broadway people realize how big of a market that would be. Like, look at newsies. It was professionally filmed and people loved that. People are willing to pay to legally see a Broadway show digitally, they just have no way to.

Good market opportunity.

They could get a cut from a streaming site like Netflix/Hulu. Or create one for themselves.

If you have no way of being able to view the movie, musical or anything else and, say, will be judge immensely by your peers if you don't, then yes. It's necessary.

I don't agree with this. At the end of the day no one really cares what movies/shows/etc you have and have not seen.

I'm writing a musical, and honestly I'd be honored if someone liked it enough to upload it onto YouTube so people who otherwise wouldn't be able to see it could.
Based on the context, when I actually write I'll aim to have it performed locally, maybe up in Door County, so people who can't travel to the Midwest wouldn't be able to see it unless it was recorded.

Well that's great. And honestly it would be awesome if people did stuff like make all their books etc. free. I would cheer anyone on for doing that. But it's a matter of consent. If the author didn't explicitly say it was okay, than it isn't.

Personally, if I had spent months or even years trying to write and perform a musical, bought hundreds of dollars worth of props, hired some actors, found a place to perform, advertised it as much as I could, went through countless hours of intense work, sometimes even completely burning myself out, and then finally managing to successfully have it performed in front of a paying audience, only for some guy in the crowd to be like "this was good, but definitely not worth the $10 tickets. I guess I'll just post it to my YouTube channel full of all the other musicals I've stolen-"

I wouldn't be rejoicing that someone broke the "no filming" rule in order to share my creation with people who aren't willing to pay. No, the whole thing would just feel like an absolute slap in the face, especially since according to my (very quick and limited) research, musicals can often cost over 30K to perform.

Now, if the person was granted permission to film and upload it to the internet, that's an entirely different story.

_{(Also, I'm aware I don't know much about musicals, theater, money, or really anything. I'm mostly basing my opinions on a similar problem regarding drawing/art, which I realize is a very different thing from theater arts, but I don't have enough time to actually research at the moment. Sorry if I seem like an absolute idiot)}

It's not that it's 'not worth the money', it's that going to see a show (specifically a popular show) is a time and money consuming effort. If you're not near a theatre, you need to take off work or have a parent take off work, drive/fly/take a train there, buy tickets and account for food, lodging, and everything else. Not everyone can drop everything to zip to NYC to see Broadway shows, and even people who live in Chicago or NYC can go see shows every night. We're not talking $10 tickets, we're talking $200+, especially if you want good seats. Plus paying for gas or tickets for transportation, a hotel room, possibly parking, taxis/uber, and such.

To put things in perspective, I live in Wisconsin, and I went to Star Wars Celebration Chicago with one of my parents. We needed to book a hotel room, and he needed to take off work to drive me there and back, plus buying tickets to get in, food to eat there, and souviners and stuff when there. We spent over $500 on everything combined, which is what one (1) ticket to a show like Hamilton can cost.

I think the point still stands though. Even if she terribly underestimated the costs etc.

Speaking as both a writer working on a musical and as a person very deeply involved in theatre, it makes me really happy to know that some of the shows my friends and I have been in are on YouTube (unfortunately Sock Puppet Hamlet isn't) and we can rewatch them, and so can friends and family who missed it.

I feel you, but your feelings have no bearing on the use of another's work without their permission.

So to Ella’s point, it’s not that people want to watch bootlegs over seeing the show. Personally, if I’ve seen the bootleg of a show (and obviously I never do that psshh I never do anything illegal), I would still pay money to see the show live. Bootlegs don’t keep people from paying money to see shows, they make them accessible.

True, but the people are still enjoying another's work free of charge.

So should libraries be banned for letting people enjoy work free of charge?

Quick question:
How is this much different from the whole "I should be allowed to steal/repost other people's drawings without their permission because tHEy'LL get pAid iN expOsure" thing?

I know the way this is phrased probably sounds super bitter but I really don't mean it that way, I genuinely want to know the differences so I can better understand the debate.

Well, with art, you get the same experience whether you pay for it or not. If you pay to go to a play, you really do get a better experience.

Well, with art, you get the same experience whether you pay for it or not. If you pay to go to a play, you really do get a better experience.

Yeah, that's exactly why people watch bootlegs. They aren't anything like being at the show, but they give the experience of seeing it to people who normally can't. And every theatre experience is different since no 2 shows are ever alike so a lot of people go anyways, to see it live and support it, to see a different cast, or because it comes to their home town.
A drawing online is just a drawing but a show is an experience that differs with what day, time, cast, etc. there is.

So should libraries be banned for letting people enjoy work free of charge?

I think the libraries pay for the books.

So should libraries be banned for letting people enjoy work free of charge?

I think the libraries pay for the books.

But the patrons don't

Heck I'm stumped. I'll come back to it later hopefully.

Jynnie has a good point. I think the arts should be exposed as such. Why else would people be performing/ writing, if not for the enjoyment of the patrons?

Once doesn't get paid for a job they did forever. It would make sense to have things be accessible.