So I find it saddening when people shut down conversations by declaring the curtains are just blue for no reason.

Because a bit of curiosity can be SO rewarding!

I love watching live theatre, and you can *see* how 'this is happening in real time, and they need to put on a show tomorrow, too' drives creative decisions down to how many costume changes there are and how a production uses (or doesn't use!) fake blood.

And coming at things from the creator side, *why* the curtains are blue can be absolutely fascinating.

Like, I'm working on my audio drama, and which characters speak is a combination of which characters I choose to write lines for and *which characters I had voted actors for*.

Uh huh. And also the thing that prompted this specifically was a Malevolent fan feeling hurt that their fellow fans interpreted Arthur telling John "I love you, too" as romantic. In the episode where John gives up his corporeal form and Arthur gives up his vision so they can be together.

There are fans who will absolutely abuse social issues to try to win fandom arguments, but with the fans I'm thinking of, I think the underlying issue is them craving external validation and seeking it in an unhealthy way. (I.e. expecting fandom to have a consensus.)

It's that there is already so little money in the arts (for artists, that is) that I'm extremely skeptical at the idea of doing away with one revenue model.

Particularly because, in this case, kickstarter style funding already exists.

If it was sufficient to replace copyright, it would have.

It's not even that copyright is the *best* revenue model. They all have pros and cons. (Like, artist UBI is awesome right up until Fox News whips up a moral outrage over tax payer dollars going to fund queer art or explicit art.)

And it's not that kickstarter style funding is bad! It can be a big help. I just don't think it alone is sufficient to do away with copyright.

At lot of those costs get rendered invisible because there's already SO much work writers do for free!

And this is for an audio drama.

That means no set design, hair/makeup, costumes, or visual special effects!

Fully funded for my audio drama doesn't mean just "money to pay the voice actors who aren't me".

It would be wages for the writing I did, money to cover the editing Stitch is going to do, and wages for the time I will spend on rewrites, voice acting, sound effects, and putting it all together.

And even then, I *really* think people underestimate the amount of work writers do.

To use my in work audio drama as an example, that would mean either

A. I pay out of pocket (or barter for) two voice actors to voice the pilot or
B. I convince two voice actors to do labor for me for free for the pilot.

Which leaves artists needing to secure funding at the start of the project.

Which, as the person concedes, means doing some amount of work for free to persuade paying audience members that they'll deliver.

The investors might also front the cost of lawyers to enforce copyright.

But even if they don't, platforms have (however wonky and imperfect) processes for stopping copyright infringement.

Without copyright, those protections (however meager) go away completely.

Backend revenue means it's at least possible to convince investors who hope to get a return on their money.

Copyright allows revenue to be generated on the backend either through direct sales of the artistic piece or by running adds.

Since otherwise someone else could just take your work and sell it for less. Or give it away without ads.

I finished the rough drafts for all the scripts for my audio drama The Mark of the Tulip!