I like Gregg Easterbrook's take: if the stadium is built with public money, anything that takes place inside the stadium cannot be eligible for copyright protection.

That would pretty much end all concerts in that stadium, and almost every conference.

The point is that the owners would quickly, very quickly, decide they don't need the public's money anymore.

By wasting more tax payer money making examples, I am pretty sure that solution is worse than the problem.

From where I'm sitting, forcing those that enrich themselves from publicly-funded stadiums to shoulder the costs (if not all of them, than substantially more of them) is better than extorting communities to pay excessive amounts for dubious returns. Which one of those is wasting taxpayer money, again?

You could tweak the idea however you like. Whatever portion of the stadium is publicly funded could entitle the community to a matching portion of revenue generated from stadium events, for example.

At any rate, the idea (from both Easterbrook and myself) is more philosophical and humorous commentary.

I don't want the government building the stadium in the first place, any plan that has the government spend money is bad.