At the brownbag on Tuesday, I found it interesting to hear about two polar opposite approaches to copyright in the theater. On one hand, Arabian Nights gave the opportunity to completely manipulate and change the script with only a single catch: tack on the word “abridged.” Creative freedom was unlimited. Parts of the script could easily be cut if necessary. Bits could be modified for convenience. Aside from the freedom of decisions, it would be an easy script to work with.
On the other hand, Rent completely prevented extra creation. The play would have to be performed as it was written, with copyright infringement looming over otherwise. A fully formed script and play, ready for use. The tradeoff is the inability to modify it for convenience.
These two plays show the opposing aspects of copyright: loose law and strict law. Even with permission, how much can be used? How much can be changed? One side vouches for freedom, the other for safety.
It is easy to see the argument form both sides. Those advocating for freedom want the works to be produced as much as possible, so that many people can watch and appreciate the story. So, writers focused on this would have no problem with some changes being made. On the other hand are those more in favor of safety. These people want the meaning and integrity of the original work to be preserved. They recognize that some changes could alter a play in its entirety, and so chose to simply prevent such changes from being made. Neither viewpoint is necessarily right or wrong.