From: Keith Sanborn (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 09:53:41 PDT
Oh well, never mind.
>Hiya Keith! :)
>
>I actually read all that but it didn't seem to take
>the discussion anywhere. I mean yes it's very nice to
>say artists don't make films for economic reasons but
>that is kind of irrelevant to what is being discussed
>because they are subject to economics.
>
>Maybe you were meaning to make a point about this
>somewhere but forgot.
>
>If there are no prints then we will be stuck forever
>with standard definition mpeg2 compressed copies of
>the films. For me that is the big issue with regard to
>the films. It's also about whever films get shown as
>films or not.
>
>I'm not sure the discussion has ever really been about
>the artists getting paid because from that point of
>view they should put out DVD's grab the cash and run!
>
>Perhaps you meant something when you were talking
>about the potlatch, because you lost me in that
>paragraph, as it assumes some knowledge of historical
>economic theory I do not have and you didn't
>elaborate.
>
>love
>
>Freya
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> I find it interesting and perhaps symptomatic of our
>> era that we are
>> speaking of the circulation of "avant-garde" film in
>> terms of
>> bourgeois legal rhetoric and market forces. Yes,
>> everyone wants to
>> get paid, but that's not the primary motivation for
>> why most people
>> make the kind of films the people on this list care
>> about.
>>
>> The better economic and social model is one
>> suggested by Bataille:
>> the potlatch. That is, a public, ritualized and
>> conspicuous
>> destruction of wealth. It's a kind of counterpoise
>> to the rhetoric of
>> capitalist accumulation. Filmmakers on this list and
>> most other
>> artists give much more value to the culture than
>> they can ever be
>> repaid. Some, like Jerome Hill, who inherited a
>> fortune, can
>> comfortably carry forward with their own offerings;
>> Hill was also
>> thoughtful enough to leave a great portion of his
>> inherited wealth to
>> fund the Foundation which bears his name--if I'm not
>> mistaken. The
>> artist needn't be helpless or naive in the face of
>> market--let's
>> don't call it "free market"--capitalism. But it's a
>> fundamental
>> misapplication of basic economic theory to measure
>> what Peter Wollen
>> described accurately as "the artisanal mode of
>> production" with the
>> same yardstick that one uses to measure the forces
>> governing "the
>> industrial mode of production."
>>
>> Hence much of the confusion about justifying
>> "institutional rates"
>> which evidently smacks of creeping socialism, or a
>> naive
>> misunderstanding of the functioning of "free"
>> markets to some. I
>> don't think institutional rates are a bad thing, but
>> if two versions
>> exist, those concerned often have a way of acquiring
>> the cheaper
>> version if there's no difference except of the
>> label. Universities,
>> however, for the most part, keep a close watch on
>> their nickels and
>> dimes. Here legal and economic issues become
>> important for large
>> institutions. It's not worth it for them to be sued
>> over buying the
>> mass-market vs. the "institutional" version of a
>> film, even if the
>> provision of the law referred to above would make
>> the law difficult
>> to enforce against them, rather than the distributor
>> who in bad faith
>> and in keeping with current market practice sold
>> them the copy.
>>
>> Ironically, most "real" (i.e. photographic) film
>> prints in
>> archives--except in the case of post-war avant-garde
>> films--didn't
>> come in the front door for the simple reason that
>> you can't buy
>> prints of most feature films. Most prints of feature
>> films in
>> archives, so I am told, have to "fall off a truck,"
>> before they can
>> be bought and sold, but that's a very long aside and
> > one few film
>> archives will talk about in a public forum.
>>
>> The university has become a de facto patron of
>> avant-garde film, but
>> the university,and nearly all other cultural
>> institutions, operate at
>> a loss, i.e. it costs them more to do what they do
> > than they take in
>> from admission charges. If large universities
>> function at all, it is
>> because they have patrons: either the state, or
>> private individuals
>> who create endowments for them. And sometimes they
>> cannily exploit
>> the work of those who work in them when that work
>> has a market value,
>> i.e. patents, etc.
>>
>> Thus, from within the university, there is a feeling
>> which might be
>> expressed in this way: we're not doing this for the
>> money, but for
>> the greater good of the society, so what does it
>> matter if a few
>> extra copies of things circulate? It's the vaunted
>> free flow of
>> information in a "free" society. And the law
>> referred to in this
>> thread does back up this line of thinking to some
>> extent.
>>
>> On the other hand, nearly all artists operate at a
>> loss, except they
>> rarely have the state or private individuals to fund
>> them, except in
>> the odd case of grants. "All investment is at risk"
>> when a work of
>> art is made, but that's not the only point to be
>> made. While artworks
>> are subject to market forces, they are not primarily
>> made in order to
>> enter the marketplace, but rather something akin to
>> "the market place
>> of ideas" though the latter is so tied up with
>> neo-liberalism, it's
>> pretty much meaningless outside that ideological
>> structure and
>> outside that structure is where I would like to
>> position these
>> thoughts.
>>
>> Paradoxically, many of us use the university as a
>> patron: we teach in
>> the university in order to finance our work, so we
>> mediate our own
>> exploitation and that of our fellow artists. Yet we
>> also bring
>> attention to the work, which compared to the mass
>> media informed
>> distribution of information (i.e. advertising) used
>> by the industrial
>> mode of production is but poorly known. A review in
>> a
>> mass-circulation journal is the major access to this
>> kind of reach
>> any "avant-garde" filmmaker is likely to have. And
>> since most
>> programs which support "avant-garde" film are
>> drastically underfunded
>> we trade cheap dvds among ourselves: I'll give you a
>> copy of my work
>> which you can show in class and you give me a dvd of
>> your work which
>> I can show in class. Simply because the budgets for
>> film rentals, or
>> decent fees for video rentals, are rarely there. And
>> yes, many of us
>> on this list work primarily in video these days
>> though we think of
>> ourselves as "filmmakers."
>>
>> Audiences are being "developed" by these classroom
>> screenings, i.e.
>> people are being educated who might eventually buy
>> dvds, but at what
>> cost to film rental institutions such as Canyon
>> Cinema, or the
>> Filmmakers Coop, or Lightcone, or VTape or any of
>> the others?
>>
>> I find it interesting that several individuals who
>> participate on
>> this list have actually decided to become lawyers,
>> rather than badly
>> paid teachers, in order to support their
>> "avant-garde" film habit. It
>> makes a lot of some kind of sense.
>>
>> I don't have solutions for any of these problems and
>> I think many of
>> the ones thus far proposed are interesting and
>> thoughtful, but I
>> thought some change of emphasis in the thread might
>> offer breathing
>> space.
>>
>> Keith Sanborn
>>
>>
>> >Dominic said:
>> >
>> >>I believe that this law is speaking about
>> copyright
>> >>infringements and not necessarily contracts that
>> are
>> >>drawn and signed by contracts agreed upon by
>> Canyon
>> >>Cinema and certain parties in regards to
>> restrictions
>> >>to tapes/dvds and films sold as "Lease of
>> Videos/DVDs,
>> >>and film Prints)....
>> >>
>> >>I have never implied that showing vhs or dvds in
>> >>classrooms are a violation of copyrights, however,
>> I
>> >>contest that sometimes this is a violation of
>> certain
>> >>agreements that restrict viewing of such
>> materials...
> > >
>> >Dominic's take is probably correct. At the very
>> least, it's less
>> >cut-and-dried than David suggests. According to
>> the commentary to
>> >17 USC 110:
>> >
>> >"Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works.--The
>> final provision of
>> >clause (1) deals with the special problem of
>> performances from
>> >unlawfully-made copies of motion pictures and other
> > audiovisual works.
>> >The exemption is lost where the copy being used for
>> a classroom
>> >performance was ``not lawfully made under this
>> title'' and the person
>> >responsible for the performance knew or had reason
>> to suspect as much.
>> >This special exception to the exemption would not
>> apply to performances
>> >from lawfully-made copies, even if the copies were
>> acquired from someone
>> >who had stolen or converted them, or if the
>> performances were in
>> >violation of an agreement. However, though the
>> performance would be
>> >exempt under section 110(1) in such cases, the
>> copyright owner might
>> >have a cause of action against the unauthorized
>> distributor under
>> >section 106(3), or against the person responsible
>> for the performance,
>> >for breach of contract."
>> >
>> >Thus, making copies of films for future use (as
>> some schools and
>> >institutions do) is a pretty clear-cut copyright
>> violation. And
>> >showing a video sold specifically for "home use"
>> may be a contract
>> >violation. Though I wonder whether a "shrink-wrap
>> license" of that
>> >sort would be enforceable. Frankly, I doubt it.
>> >
>> >Still, I think there's a better lesson to be taken
>> from David's
>> >observations. Namely, that the option wrt video
>> releases is to
>> >either price them at "institutional rates" intended
>> to factor in
>> >lost revenue from rentals (in other words, to
>> conceive of video
>> >releases as effective substitutes for print
>> rentals), or to price
>> >them at consumer rates, and assume that a print
>> rental offers a
>> >value-added experience that institutional customers
>> will pay for. I
>> >really think option 2 is preferable, primarily
>> because a key
>> >weakness of the market for A-G film is its
>> obscurity, or rather,
>> >lack of market penetration. If the response to
>> recent DVD releases
>> >says anything to me, it's that the potential
>> audience is much larger
>> >than is generally realized. And frankly, I think
>> anyone concerned
>> >about the future of A-G film and celluloid in
>> general ought to be
>> >concerned with ensuring that the market for it is
>> large enough to
>> >ensure that it doesn't need charity to stay viable.
>> Because
>> >ultimately, that's the road to guaranteed
>> extinction.
>> >
>> >Brian
>> >
>> >
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________
>> >For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>> <email suppressed>.
>>
>>
>>
>__________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>> <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.