I don't think that's true. Copyright isn't more than a few hundred years old. Humans have been making and performing creative works for thousands of years.
Did Shakespeare or Chaucer need copyright? What about da Vinci? And the cave painters of Lascaux?
Sure you may argue that copying had costs back then and doesn't today. Maybe that's the only difference but maybe it isn't. I think creativity and art are human compulsions. Not mere commercial endeavors.
All this to say: it would be a very different industry. But it wouldn't cease to exist.
We had way, way less, and less polished, entertainment a few hundred years ago. Without copyright, you would mostly only get productions like what now exists as fan/amateur projects. Virtually no creator would be able to make a living from it, other than from stage shows (theater/opera/music concerts).
Did Shakespeare or Chaucer need copyright? What about da Vinci? And the cave painters of Lascaux?
Sure you may argue that copying had costs back then and doesn't today. Maybe that's the only difference but maybe it isn't. I think creativity and art are human compulsions. Not mere commercial endeavors.
All this to say: it would be a very different industry. But it wouldn't cease to exist.