While reading Chapter 5 of Copyright Highway by Paul Goldstein I stumbled upon a quote that made me think about how the structure of our government shapes our copyright laws.  Goldstein says “The European culture of copyright places authors at its center, giving them as a matter of natural rights control over every use of their works that may affect their interests.” (Goldstein, 138)  About the American copyright laws he says it “centers on a hard, utilitarian calculus that balances the needs of copyright producers against the needs of copyright consumers.” (Goldstein, 138)

Goldstein goes on to mention how this shows the difference in European and American lawmakers.  I agree with this analysis and would like to go a step further.  As I read the quotes mentioned above I noticed a parallel between how Goldstein was describing the respective countries copyright policies and the structure of their governments.  In other words the American copyright laws mirror it’s government structure and so does Europe’s.  The American government is structured so that the citizens choose their lawmakers and therefore have a say in how the country is run.  They are given rights and what the American citizens want is considered.  This is paralleled to the copyright laws  as Goldstein describes them; considering the needs of the consumers as well as the producers.

Generally Europe’s governments also mirror their copyright policies.  Their governments as a whole aren’t as concerned about what the typical citizens think.  This is similar to their copyright laws because they are concerned entirely with the author and not the consumer.  All in all, government structure seems to have an effect on how copyright laws are written up.

On Wednesday night, I actually decided to go to the student run play The Good Body. This was an incredible experience. The entire play consisted of an entirely all female cast who each played a character with a very unique story about their bodies. The play focused on making people specifically women more empowered by their bodies. The cast did a phenomenal of over exaggerating common frustrations women have about their bodies. I think this really aided in showing people how silly and useless it is to be so focused on our body image 24/7. The actresses all had copies of the play in their hand during the performance. The actually read straight from the play, which allowed to violate no possible copyright laws. However while watching them read straight from the play book, I thought of a comment Professor Lodge made about how although you can follow a play line for line you can still make your performance of a play unique. I really think the actresses and director did this with the Lafayette performance of The Good Body. I had heard the story of The Good Body before however when I watched this play I felt like I was hearing the story for the first time, which I think is a huge accomplishment for the cast.

I found the brownbag on Tuesday very interesting. It was interesting to hear a first hand account of someone who deals with copyright laws all the time. I especially appreciated learning about how some plays have stricter copyright deals then others. When Professor Lodge described the differences of working with Rent and Arabian Nights, I was surprised to learn about how these differences really made her person directing experience unique. She mentioned that each one had its difficulties, however, she really enjoyed the creativity allowed in Arabian Nights. I am interested to see what she decides to do for her next play. Stick to a more well-known play with stricter copyright laws or a lesser known play with more freedom?

I found the brown bag this week to be very interesting. I now have a much better understanding of how copyright law plays out for directors. I also enjoyed hearing the process of how the play came to life–how the copyright was obtained, the original ideas for the play, why particular scenes were cut or crafted, how the impromptu scene was actually kept impromptu, etc. It was also interesting to learn about the copyright extremes in theater–how Arabian Nights can be modified in almost any way and how Rent cannot be touched.

I Googled Arabian Nights to try to find different reviews of the play. I ran across this article from a youth theater troupe in England. The summary is just as familiar as it is foreign. While the backbone of the play was the same, the stories included and the way different theaters modify the play is very different. Prior to the brown bag, I would have thought that the differences could only be attributed to creative liberties. Now, however, I know that copyright laws play just as big a role, if not bigger in some instances, as directors’ creative interpretation and execution of a play.

When I walked in, I expected to see a classic type of ballet, more so after reading the program. What I saw surprised me. The choreography, coupled with the classical music created a combination that was beyond me. Personally I’ve never been a fan of classical music nor ballet, and this being both still did not create any interest.

What was interesting however, was the fact that the music could be used to create such an interpretation, an interpretation owned by Compagnie Marie Chouinard. The music may not belong to her, but the choreography inspired by it wholly belongs to her. In the direction of copyright, this brings the question: where do works created from inspiration, rather than a work directly, lie in terms of copyright? The dances were inspired by the works of Chopin and Stravinsky, and while the music is used for the dances, are the dance and choreography themselves considered separate?

In her article, NCAA Tournament Hoop Dreams Impact Society, Professor Alison M. Wrynn analyzes how March Madness highlights many different aspects of American culture. She writes, “[T]he jump shots, layups, dunks and free throws that reflect the score also tally points about race, gender, politics, economics, media and other key components of U.S. sensibilities to a vast audience.”

Media includes copyright and licensing. “In 1994 CBS purchased the rights to broadcast the NCAA Tournament for seven years at a cost of $1.725 billion. Today, CBS covers the entire tournament, having paid the NCAA $6 billion for the rights for an 11-year pact through 2013.” These numbers begin to explain why our humble LSN network could not broadcast the championship game at Bucknell. CBS literally invested billions of dollars to broadcast games related to the tournament.

At the arena and game itself, trademark stood out to me more than copyright. The court was surrounded by sponsors’ logos: Coca-Cola, Dasani, etc. The popularity of basketball, especially during the playoffs, creates lucrative marketing opportunities. I assume these opportunities are what make the rights to broadcast the tournament so expensive, yet so profitable.

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.

In this case a book publisher (John Wiley) went to court against a United States graduate student (Supap Kirtsaeng) who is from another country.  Kirtsaeng was receiving cheaper and almost identical copies of books being sent to her from her home country of Thailand and then selling them for a profit in the United States.  This has been appealed to the United State Supreme Court and a decision is expected by June.  It is also important to note that Kirtsaeng sold about $900,000 of books making a $100,000 profit which brings me to the argument of this blog post.

Earlier this week in class we had been arguing if sharing media depended on the   intention of the person sharing and if the number of shared copies factored into the law.  As I read this case I see a parallel: what is the limit on re-selling books?  I know that I, along with many students re-sell their textbooks online but what is the limit to that?  In the case of sharing Goldstein discusses in his book Copyright Highway  that the sharing of Xerox copies if used to give to other Supreme Court justices was ok but if used in a library it is not acceptable.  This leads me to believe that if something is shared for a purely un-profitable endeavor and to a limited amount of people it is ok.

Relating this to the Kirtsaeng v John Wiley court case I believe it’s quite similar.  If the graduate student simply bought her books in her home country and used them in the United States there wouldn’t me a problem.  However instead she made a profit off of another authors work with commercial intentions.

Link to case

Recently, I have been wondering about the purpose of words. At the most basic level, we use them to communicate, to express a point. But more than that, why do we choose the words that we do?

Brooks spoke briefly on this topic yesterday. She discussed the history of the word chief, which comes from the Roman caput (captain) and French chef. When she chooses to use the word chief to describe a character, her readers draw pictures in their minds because of the history of the word and its connotations. Brooks says the character speaks before he opens his mouth.

Although we are all not historical novelists, the words we use still have history and meaning. Recently, the words gay and retarded have been used in derogatory ways. I found these images by artist Alison Rowan to be especially powerful (Image 1 Image 2). Why use gay and retarded to describe situations when there are plenty of more fitting alternatives? Hatred? Laziness? Ignorance? Stupidity?

Words help us connect with an audience. They are the vehicles we use to share our ideas and stories. They can move people, hurt people, excite people, bore people. In a day and age when we are constantly communicating with others via text, email, and in person, we use words so often that we forget the power that they hold.