This is Tragic

OK, but she should have taken care of this from the beginning. Anyone with any knowledge of filmmaking should know about synch rights and be prepared to either pay them or choose different songs. There are all kinds of ways around it, but you have to make the choice. The reason they cost so much is that they are valuable; familiar songs allow filmmakers to play on audience expectations. If you use popular, familiar songs, you have to be prepared to pay for them. Otherwise, there is a whole industry developing that focuses solely on matching TV and film producers who need music with independent artists who need a break and are willing to put their music out there for little or no money.

You know I usually come out on the pro-music, anti-money side, but this is someone who is looking to profit on her own film by getting a distribution deal, yet doesn't want to pay for the music she used without paying for it and without getting permission to use it. Tough cookies!

Sita Songs

Dear Supergoober,
Do you really believe those 80-year-old Annette Hanshaw songs used in "Sita Sings the Blues" are still "popular" or "familiar," or that they are worth the enormous sums the copyright holders are charging for them? Furthermore, there is a serious problem here. Paley created the film with the inspiration she got from those songs. We have a situation where commerce trumps artistic expression. It is not likely that Paley will make any serious money from a film such as this one, which is very different from the usual commercial fare and likely will not be widely distributed, so I doubt she will even make a profit; she'll be lucky to pay her bills with the receipts. You say that creative artists should profit from their work, and I agree. But the songwriters and the performer (Hanshaw and her accompanists) are all long dead. I even wonder if their children are still alive, but the copyright holders are not their heirs, but these huge, super wealthy corporations that don't really need the money and, in my opinion, are not entitled to it. Sometimes, a law is itself a crime (think of the Fugitive Slave Act), and this new copyright law is one such law. It is not designed to reward creative individuals, but to increase the stranglehold corporations have over our culture. It's no surprise to me that American film and television have gone further down the toilet since this law was enacted. Furthermore, many classic recordings of popular and classical music made by artists long dead cannot be re-released in this country because of this law, even though the copyright holders don't wish to bother to re-release them themselves. Much of our cultural heritage will descend into oblivion as a result. I am against this law, but even if these corporations wish to hold onto their copyrights, it would be fairer if they let people use this material and then reimburse them a percentage of their receipts, which are guaranteed to be minuscule in most such cases, than to demand a huge sum up front. Ultimately, there is a paradox here. Creative artists should be rewarded for their work, but what about Nina Paley? She cannot even get her work released, and this is only because she doesn't have deep pockets. This law not only exploits the work of others in order to enrich large corporations, but it also punishes those whose only crime is not being rich. Finally, it punishes society by denying us access to the work of our artists. This law takes the creation and circulation of art out of the hands of the people and makes it the exclusive domain of corporations. "Artistic expression" becomes merely a function of the profit motive, and only the views of the capitalist class can get exposure. This new copyright law is really a form of censorship. It is nothing less than a new weapon by which the class war is being waged in this country.
Joe Magil

Re: Sita Songs

Hey, listen, I am well aware of the unfairness of the current system, in which royalties and synch rights and all such accrue mostly to people who are far outside the creative process. I'm no fan of it.

All I'm saying is that the time to think about clearing the music you want to use in your film is BEFORE you start showing it at festivals. Whether or not the law is fair, it is what it is, and she is bound by it, just as we all are. This is not "censorship." No one prevented Nina Paley from making her film. It was only once she began trying to distribute it for sale that this became an issue.

I'm a musician, and I've recorded cover songs, and I've paid the royalties for them. Then I put them up for sale online and had to pay a whole new set of royalties. Copyright laws are constantly changing, and it's a pain in the ass to keep up with it. However, that's the price you pay for using someone else's songs. I can do whatever I want with the songs I write myself, and that's awesome. If I want to use someone else's songs, though, I have to do the homework of finding out who owns the copyrights and paying what I owe them before I insert them into my own creative work.

Re: Sita Songs

Stick it, lady.

Keep a civil tongue.

(Asked rwhois.eng.xo.com:4321 about 64.50.72.2)

network: Class-Name: network
network: ID: NET-XO-NET-40324800
network: Auth-Area: 64.50.0.0/17
network: Network-Name: XO-NET-40324800
network: Organization;I: W B Doner (250920-1)
network: IP-Network: 64.50.72.0/28
network: Admin-Contact;I: XCIA-ARIN
network: Tech-Contact;I: XCIA-ARIN
network: Created: 20061019
network: Updated: 20061212
network: Updated-By: ipadmin@eng.xo.com

Your trace blocks at ip65-46-16-46.z16-46-65.customer.algx.net (65.46.16.46)

66.127.174.218 = [ adsl-66-127-174-218.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ]

(Asked whois.arin.net:43 about +66.127.174.218)

OrgName: AT&T Internet Services
OrgID: SIS-80
Address: 2701 N. Central Expwy 2205.15
City: Richardson
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75080
Country: US
NetRange: 66.120.0.0 - 66.127.255.255
CIDR: 66.120.0.0/13
NetName: SBCIS-SIS80
NetHandle: NET-66-120-0-0-1
Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.PBI.NET
NameServer: NS2.PBI.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
Comment: please send all abuse issue e-mails to abuse@pbi.net

RegDate: 2001-05-01
Updated: 2007-05-25
RTechHandle: PIA2-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: IPAdmin-PBI
RTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
RTechEmail: pbiipa@sbcis.sbc.com

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE6-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Southwestern Bell Internet
OrgAbusePhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@sbcglobal.net

OrgNOCHandle: SUPPO-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Southwestern Bell Internet Services
OrgNOCPhone: 800-648-1626
OrgNOCEmail: support@swbell.net

OrgTechHandle: IPADM2-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-SBIS
OrgTechPhone: 800-648-1626
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@att.com

CustName: Decision Mgmt Corp
Address: 268 Bush Street
City: San Francisco
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94104
Country: US
RegDate: 2001-11-15
Updated: 2001-11-15
NetRange: 66.127.174.192 - 66.127.174.223
CIDR: 66.127.174.192/27
NetName: SBCIS-1011114-153658
NetHandle: NET-66-127-174-192-1
Parent: NET-66-120-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2001-11-15
Updated: 2001-11-15
RTechHandle: PIA2-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: IPAdmin-PBI
RTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
RTechEmail: pbiipa@sbcis.sbc.com

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE6-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Southwestern Bell Internet
OrgAbusePhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@sbcglobal.net

OrgNOCHandle: SUPPO-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Southwestern Bell Internet Services
OrgNOCPhone: 800-648-1626
OrgNOCEmail: support@swbell.net

OrgTechHandle: IPADM2-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-SBIS
OrgTechPhone: 800-648-1626
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@att.com

ARIN WHOIS database last updated 2008-10-04 19: 10
Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Your trace blocks in Irvine, CA
dist4-g9-1.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.197)

So it appears you're somewhere in California, Joe. Why no LJ login? I'm all for disagreement, but being anonymous compounded with the pithy epothet "Stick It, Lady" seems beyond the Pale.