From: Matt Helme (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 13:46:58 PDT
Maybe the Artist doesn't want to be on UBU. To put it up anyway is
disrespectful.
Matt
________________________________
From: Beth Capper <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 2:07:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
Jason,
I think you know I wasn't implying that Canyon is making loads of money.
However, is Ubu even a 501-c3? I have to say I don't know the answer to that. I
still think it would be a stretch to imagine that they are putting these works
out there for free to make money and I do think there is a clear difference
between a completely free online resource and a distributor, and I don't see why
both can't exist together - as I suggested by bringing up Doctorow, its just
possible putting work out there on Ubu will lead to more rather than less
rentals. I know from being able to watch films/videos on there I have encouraged
my teachers to use their budgets to rent films/videos from distributors.
Let's deal with the notion of "it's better to ask for forgiveness than
permission." I agree that the way Ubu goes about getting content is not ideal.
However, I'm not sure that Ubu would have quite the archive it does if they
asked permission. The decision to copyright one's work, as opposed to use, for
example, a creative commons license, is so ingrained in our culture that I
think if Ubu were to ask permission, the automatic response would be to expect a
fee. Also, based on their content, I would imagine that they are also dealing
mostly with estates and not with individual artists. Perhaps I am wrong about
that.
When what you are trying to do is promote avant-garde film and sound work, make
it more accessible and give it away completely for free, are the resources there
to pay everyone 50-100 bucks or whatever, for posting their work online? Again,
this goes back again to my original point.. why can't Ubu and
distributors/archives exist together? You might just find that if you let people
watch your work, download your writing, or whatever, that in fact, it gets more
play, published more, etc etc.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
Take care,
Beth
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Jason Halprin <email suppressed> wrote:
Beth,
>
>Despite the fact that Canyon is run as a for-profit company, no one there is
>getting rich either. My understanding is that from a book-keeping standpoint,
>the folks in SF have decided never to incorporate as a 501(c), though this might
>allow them to take donations - easier said than done. And remember, being a
>non-profit doesn't mean people aren't getting rich. Both you and I are
>affiliated with non-profit institutions that have highly paid executives running
>them.
>
>The larger point that a number of people have brought up with ubuweb has to do
>with their method for acquiring materials. I don't know if it is still the case,
>but they used to live by the addage "It's better to ask forgiveness than to ask
>for permision." Ultimately I will always support the rights of an artist to
>determine the methods of distribution for their work. What irked me initially
>with UW was their "wall of shame," a page dedicated to an attempt at publicly
>flogging anyone who requested their work be removed. This page was removed, and
>I believe the administrator's of the site have since changed their position on
>this issue.
>
>
>To people like Peter Rose, I commend them for contributing to the site. It's an
>amazing thing that I can go and watch Secondary Currents whenever I want. But he
>got to make that decision. He had a say in how, when, and where people accessed
>his work. This is one of the eternal and ongoing discussions whenever cultural
>artifacts are concerned: Do the rights and wants of the creator outweigh those
>of the public? My answer has always been that will the author of a work is still
>alive, they should maintain as much control as they desire.
>
>I've had numerous students who have discovered ubuweb on their own, and I've
>gladly shown students the site in class to make them aware of its existence. It
>is an excellent resource, but it's administrator's behavior has been suspect in
>the past. Let's hope that any temporary shutdowns in the future are due to
>technical glitches, and not malicious attacks.
>
>-Jason Halprin
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Beth Capper <email suppressed>
>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 9:48:49 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
>
>
>The difference is for/not-for profit. Canyon, I would imagine, has their own fee
>in addition to artists fees, while I doubt anyone at Ubu is getting rich off
>their free content.
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>Sure, why not do it the right way? Would Canyon Cinema ever distribute a film
>without the makers permission?
>>Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: "email suppressed>
>>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 10:15:36 PM
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
>>
>>
>>
>>Allowing people to see things - people who live in, say, the developing world,
>>not in New York or London or wherever - letting them know there's more to cinema
>>than the latest blockbuster - can only be of value. Not everything is available
>>on DVD. Many countries practice censorship. Ubuweb offers / offered a
>>celebration of the possibilities in creative practice that otherwise people may
>>never get to experience.
>>
>>
>>BTW there's also evidence that people who LIKE stuff they find online
>>subsequently purchase it.
>>
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 14/10/2010, at 12:45 PM, Matt Helme wrote:
>>
>>To not get permission is rude and illegal.
>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
From: "email suppressed>
>>>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>>>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 8:59:12 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
>>>
>>>http://jacksargeant.blogspot.com/2010/10/vale-ubu.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 14/10/2010, at 11:48 AM, Beth Capper wrote:
>>>
>>>And, if you ever read Cory Doctorow, you'll realize that yes, people do buy the
>>>books even when it's out there for free (Doctorow's books are all available
>>>online for download, yet two of them have been on bestseller's lists). Could it
>>>perhaps be a misconception that forcing scarcity (esp. in the case of digital
>>>works) is a good business model?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Beverly
>O'Neill <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dear Jack, Your point is well taken. How do viewers get access to this kind of
>>>>work? However, UBU simply pirated artists films without asking permission, or
>>>>paying a small fee to upload films onto their site. Two years ago this listserv
>>>>spent considerable time arguing about the validity of Ken Goldsmith's (UBU's
>>>>creator) tactics. If you backtrack in the Frameworks archive you can follow
>>>>that thread. Everything that was said then still applies today. Many of the
>>>>responses supported the case you are making now. Obviously I was opposed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't close the library, don't prohibit access but do buy the books.
>>>>>
>>>>>Beverly O'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"good news"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>not for anybody who wants to see one of these movies, read an essay or listen to
>>>>>>some sound who doesn't live in a major urban centre or have access to a museum.
>>>>>>Maybe the copyright is an issue, but they made work available that often isn't
>>>>>>readily accessible, and that counts for something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bottom line is that regardless of anything, it's a resource and a library, and
>>>>>>I've never been one for prohibiting access and closing libraries...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 14/10/2010, at 7:29 AM, Beverly O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, this is such good news. I will refrain from posting a screed about that
>>>>>>site. A Google search offers a number of condolences to Ken Goldsmith, UBU's
>>>>>>founder. One writer wondered if the anniversary of John Lennon's death and the
>>>>>>simultaneous hacking of UBU had anything in common.
>>>>>>>So thrilled!
>>>>>>>Beverly O'Neill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Shane Christian Eason wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So...yeah...um...apparently UBU is offline! Hacked!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Considering what has been discussed in the past regarding this website,
>>>>>>>>does anyone want to comment on this? Additional information? Very odd,
>>>>>>>>considering I was on the site this past weekend. Although, my iPhone
App
>>>>>>>>for WFMU UbuWeb Radio continues to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Curious,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Shane
>>>>>>>>_________________________________________ Shane Christian Eason, BFA;
MFA
>>>>>>>>School of Communication and Multimedia Studies
>>>>>>>>Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters
>>>>>>>>Florida Atlantic University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>O: (954) 762 5246
>>>>>>>>F: (954) 762 5122
>>>>>>>>E1: email suppressed
>>>>>>>>E2: email suppressed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Blog: shaneeason.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>Web: shanechristianeason.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Miami | Fort Lauderdale | Palm Beach
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>>>>>email suppressed
>>>>>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>>>>email suppressed
>>>>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>>>email suppressed
>>>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>>email suppressed
>>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>email suppressed
>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>email suppressed
>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>email suppressed
>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
>email suppressed
>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks