The dance performance I saw on Wednesday was like no dance performance I have ever seen before in that it was uniquely creative and incorporated a great deal of hidden meanings within the dance. The dance certainly did not follow the typical norms for dance performances, or at least that was my opinion while watching it. I found a short article discussing the dance, and it brings up many different aspects of the dance that had been previously unknown to me. Apparently, when “The Rite of Spring” debuted in 1913 it nearly caused a riot in Paris due to the sexual nature of the performance. This does not really shock me, since the play does incorporate sexuality quite blatantly as a major theme. I wonder if the play has been altered since then to tone down its sexual nature, or copyright laws have prevented this from happening and society has simply become more open?

The brownbag on Tuesday was extremely enlightening – I didn’t know that most plays had to be performed exactly to a T, note for note. My mom had been telling me about a boy who was performing in his high school drama club, and dropped the “f” bomb because it was written in the script. The boy was suspended from school, and is pending charges; he was also supposed to be valedictorian, but that was revoked with his suspension. The director and the boy came under a lot of fire for that comment, but if each play is supposed to be performed exactly as written, then it is interesting because had he not dropped the F bomb, then it would have been an issue of copyright infringement. Either way, the director and student would have been screwed. Perhaps they should have picked a less provocative play.

Like Brian, I wasn’t able to attend the game but I did watch it on TV, to support my friends and classmates that are on the team. I thought it was really interesting that the game itself “belongs” to CBS sports – that CBS was the only one who would play it, and as a result most of campus couldn’t watch the game because it wasn’t available online or on regular cable. I thought that was kind of unfair, especially the fact that they weren’t streaming it online. That also opens up some interesting questions about copyright, and who “”owns” the game. Does that mean that if a parent in the crowd, recording the game, could be sued for copyright infringement if they post it on YouTube? How could you copyright something physical that occurs over a period of time?

The lecture by Geraldine Brooks was an amazingly funny lecture, something I definitely didn’t expect. She opened my eyes to the world of historical fiction, and just how difficult, yet engaging, writing such a novel is. By explaining the extensive amount of research she puts into each person before writing the novel, she really “gets”to know someone – it must be strange as well to get to know somebody so well, even though they are deceased. Again, putting yourself in that person’s shoes must be even more strange, even though you now know them in a more intimate way than most people do. Trying to think in a way that a real-life person would have is such a daunting, challenging, yet exciting task – her lecture opened my eyes to just how exciting writing historical fiction must be.

For the Lafayette vs. Bucknell Patriot League final for basketball I wasn’t able to go to Bucknell but I did however find a way to watch it.  I held a floor program because I sensed a numerous amount of students would like to watch the game but couldn’t travel the three hours to see it in person.  This experience of watching it on TV sparked a question about copyright.  As the television ads were shown it struck me that they had been made with the intention of being entertaining.  This led me to ask the question: what are the copyright laws for advertisements if any?

I researched this question at this website Link to find some answers.  It turns out that advertisements have the same legal boundaries as any other media does in terms of copyright.  Although I understand that the writer of the advertisement doesn’t want his work to be used by another company (even if it’s not put on television) I find it puzzling why companies would restrict consumers from spreading their commercials. The entire point of an advertisement is to grab the attention of many consumers about the companies’ product so they can sell more.  It doesn’t make sense to me that the companies would try and cap that spreading of it with copyright laws.

It seems to me that the copyright laws of advertisements should be revised so that other companies can’t steal ideas of ads as their own while still allowing consumers to share it with no limits.  It is essentially free advertising for consumers to spread a funny or entertaining commercial to their friends, which in turn would create more awareness of the product being advertised.  Companies need to take a look at the copyright laws to help themselves.

The lecture by Geraldine Brooks was one of the best lectures I have ever seen. She was an amazing speaker who had so many great and funny stories to tell. However I found the topics she wrote about the most interesting part of her lecture. I went in not knowing anything about her. Honestly, I did not even know she was an author. However she is an author and not only just an author, but a historical fiction author. I did not even know historical fiction was possible. How do you combine a our very factual history together with fiction which means non factual? Mrs. Brooks answered this question for me with her writing style. She writes about real people in history but she fills in the blanks and the questions about them with fiction. However, her fiction is not just whatever she wants to put it she researches every little detail possible before starting to write. Then, she “connects” with the person she is trying to write about. I was amazed by her ability to connect two huge ways of writing with such style. After her lecture, I decided I was going to read one of her books over Spring Break.

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?