Comments on: Roger Ebert: Two Thumbs Up…for a Movie You’re Unlikey to See

By: Nina Paley Shares Some Sita $tats

Nina Paley Shares Some Sita $tats — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:01:30 +0000

[...] Paley Shares Some Sita $tats We’ve followed the travails of Nina Paley, whose beautiful, animated film, Sita Sings the Blues, was hamstrung by sticky [...]

By: Free Movie Downloads From 5 Filmmakers Who Learned to Love BitTorrent

Free Movie Downloads From 5 Filmmakers Who Learned to Love BitTorrent — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:02:41 +0000

[...] Paley got festival prizes and Ebert’s praises for her animated feature film Sita Sings The Blues. However, the movie never got a distribution [...]

By: underwebs

underwebs — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:32:18 +0000

Lets take a look at the stated purpose of copyright law according to the United States Constitution. "To promote the progress of science and arts by securing for limited times the exclusive right of the creator."

It seems that today, copyright is not being utilized for its true purpose any longer. Nor is the company that owns these songs the 'creator.'

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:25:33 +0000

"It’s not like the owners can make the money back on the concert tour or endorsements like today’s performers and composers do."

Julie makes a great point, and perhaps it underscores the problem. Those holding the rights didn't create it, they just want money. Giving them money will not end up furthering the goal of copyright in the US.

In the US, copyright was established to promote the progress of science and the usefull arts. In this case, the copyright is not doing that. It's acting contrary to it's whole reason for being. This is the problem.

By: Roger Ebert: Two Thumbs Up…for a Movie You’re Unlikely to See | Janko Roettgers | Voices | AllThingsD

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:01:05 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this post Print all_things_di220:http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081230/roger-ebert-two-thumbs-up%e2%80%a6for-a-movie-youre-unlikely-to-see/ SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Roger Ebert: Two Thumbs Up…for a Movie You’re Unlikely to See”, url: “http://voices.allthingsd.com/20081230/roger-ebert-two-thumbs-up%e2%80%a6for-a-movie-youre-unlikely-to-see/” }); Sphere Comment Tagged: Berlinale, Janko Roettgers, NewTeeVee.com, Nina Paley, Roger Ebert, Sita Sings the Blues, Voices, Web site, animation, royalties | permalink [...]

By: Nina Paley

Nina Paley — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:31:05 +0000

Sita's distribution plan.

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:34:38 +0000

Why not allow the music be used for free, with a condition that links are provided that send traffic to iTunes, Amazon, Pandora, and other music distribution services?

However, this structure is only relevant if the film is going to use the internet as its main distribution model.

Is it just me; or do other think that it is strange that most of the licensed music videos on Youtube don't send traffic to digital stores? This doesn't make sense to me.

By: The Weekend Reader: Recommeded Reads for the Weekend

The Weekend Reader: Recommeded Reads for the Weekend — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:20:17 +0000

[...] Staff | Saturday, December 27, 2008 | 1:20 PM PT | 0 comments Why Sita really got the blues. [NewTeeVee] Like RIAA, MPAA working with ISPs on 3-strike-and-out policy. [DSL Reports] Tunable [...]

By: Julie Wright

Julie Wright — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:03:27 +0000

That's a great story, and Ebert poses an interesting conundrum: protecting your rights to a creative product prevents it from getting a wider audience, but sharing the creative product without placing a value on it makes it worthless.

It's not like the owners can make the money back on the concert tour or endorsements like today's performers and composers do.

In another example, the creator of the number one viral video with 107 million views on YouTube, Evolution of Dance by Judson Laipply, simply got sponsors to underwrite the licensing of the songs in his sequel so he can monetize his success this time 'round. Perhaps that's the solution here now that the film has achieved such notoriety and interest. $250K is a small sum if the film has the world's attention thanks to Roger Ebert and others who flock to its cause.

By: Gubbi

Gubbi — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:26:08 +0000

Isn't it ridiculous that you can't actually use a public domain work in a sensible manner? It seems pointless for music recordings then.

By: Neno Brown

Neno Brown — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:13:07 +0000

I respect Nina Paley's work, but she went down the indie route only to complain when the copyright holders slapped a tax on the music, This was always going to happen, you can complain about the strangle hold copyright has on creativity or you can be truley independent and use Creative Commons (CC)material.

CC's provides the creative legacy of knowledge and her comment.....“(T)he authentic songs from the 20’s make a point inherent to the film, which fakes inherently cannot make,”.........is regrettable.

The "fakes" are the legacy that will usher in a creative leeway going forward.