The New York Times have a well twittered piece on the value of copyright - that has a central tenet the role that closed theatres had in Shakespears time in stimulating creativity.
The argument is curious as a basis for supporting copyright... there was no copyright back then ... and the monopoly held by the Stationer's company is probably not a shining example of a system designed to stimulate creativity. On the other hand you could point out that it was performance not writing that was the source of revenue and draw useful parallels to the situation today where live performance is proving increasingly important for artists as a source of revenue - including of course in the cinema where showings remain strong.
And as for their closing remarks on the fate of Shakespears Globe - pulled down by authorities in the 17th century to stem the flow of unsettling ideas reaching it's audiences? Doesn't that sound more like a warning about defending an uncensored internet than a call to constrain it in the name of monopoly?