Re: [Frameworks] UBU - Not Pirates. A response to the UBU thread

From: jeanne LIOTTA (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Oct 17 2010 - 16:19:05 PDT

Yes its been tweeted from day one of discussion, and been retweeted by many
others (with various emoticons) yep whole thread. It's alive! :-P

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Mr Chris Lynn <email suppressed>wrote:

> David they are listening they have tweeted about the discussion if you go
> the ubu home page and click on the Twitter link the whole thread is there
> cheers
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:10 AM, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
> I just want to note that I mean nothing I have said to discount the
> specific critiques of Ubuweb Jonathan discusses. To the extent that
> they have shamed anyone, positioned themselves as "the solution" etc.,
> they'll get no defense from me.
> Nor do I intend to advance a brief for crappy lo-fi copies, other than
> to observe that most of the time (but not always) something is better
> than nothing.
> Nor do I dispute that the discovery of a widely distributed,
> unauthorized, poor-quality copy of ones work can engender a legitimate
> sense of violation. I do however hold to my argument that this cannot
> justly be equated to the violation involved in the theft of personal
> objects. (Steve: I do not discount the validity or significance of
> these feelings of violation, only the validity of equating them with
> more serious violations.) Piracy may not be theft, but that doesn't
> mean it's totally OK.
> Jonathan wrote:
> Which is what troubles me to see people so ready to accept the
> anecdotal evidence that UBU has elevated experimental film's
> cultural profile (and rental fees). If anything, I'd say UBU is at
> least as much a beneficiary of this elevation - which has primarily
> been accomplished "from the inside" of experimental film - as a cause.
> Well, as there are no formal studies I know of, anecdotal evidence is
> all we have. And a claim that 'elevated cultural profile' results in
> increased rental fees strikes me as especially dubious. The argument
> of my earlier posts was that the economic value of experimental
> filmmaking cannot be realized through the commodity forms of sale or
> rentals of the films themselves.
> If attendance at Anthology is up, if rental fees at Canyon are at
> stable, if more people are indeed getting exposure to experimental
> film/video, I'd put UBU pretty low on the list of people to credit.
> (I mean this sincerely:) Who/what do you credit and what evidence
> (anecdotal or otherwise) leads you to this conclusion?
> Those who have voiced skepticism, even outright hostility, toward
> UBU can't simply be dismissed as dupes of a corporate ideology of
> intellectual property and copyright,
> Of course not. But what has pushed my buttons in this discussion is
> not the critique of Ubu, but the discourses raised in that critique.
> And, I'm sorry, but anyone who suggests 'copying is stealing' or uses
> the phrase 'intellectual property' without brackets IS a dupe of
> corporate ideology.
> I wonder if anyone at UbuWeb is listening in to this discussion. I'd
> certainly agree that UbuWeb could be improved -- though I'd guess
> that, like many film fests and screening series, it's mainly a labor
> of love with limited resources and the creators are doing their best,
> aware of the flaws, and just very limited in being able to deal with
> them. Nevertheless, we might light the proverbial candle instead of
> cursing the cliched darkness, and try to generate some ideas about
> online versions of experimental work (not just Ubu, there's a lot of
> classic material on Google video as well) could be improved to better
> serve the artform, the community, and the artists whose continuing
> practice keeps the form alive.
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed


FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed