Hi Denver, > b) it is illegal to distribute the audio for free whether it is > combined with the video or not.
Not free, but much less than synched audio. The "mechanical license," which applies to audio CDs, audioDVDs, tapes, records, etc - any audio- only format, without accompanying video - is regulated by the US government. It is currently $.091 cents per song. To distribute the audio pre-combined with the video, a "synch license" is required. Synch licenses are not regulated, copyright holders can demand anything, and deny permission for any reason, or no reason at all. Synch licensing is currently a severe obstruction to speech. Many films have not been made or released because of them. Other films have been mangled. I would have to pay about $1 a disc for the mechanical license to make the CD. It's a pain, but it's not prohibitive. The synch rights are absolutely, positively prohibitive. As long as I pay that mechanical license, I can release the CD any way I want to, with or without DRM. I would choose not to. > To alleviate this, you could buy CDs > off-the-shelf and distribute them with your movie; this will be legal > thanks to first-sale doctrine [1], confirmed most recently by Vernor v > Autodesk [2]. Even this way, it's painful and CDs may cost too much > to make reselling worthwhile. What shelf? I'd be making both the CD and the DVD. Do you mean I'd have to first sell the CD back to myself, in order to re-sell it with the DVD? I think I could just sell both. (In fact I'm wondering how far I could push it - could I put them in the same DVD wallet? On the CD side of the package, mark "official soundtrack, price $1.01," and on the DVD side mark "video $18.99" so the two together would effectively be $20? Is there a lawyer in the house?) "Sita" is a nice poster child for what's wrong with synch licenses, because a. the songs in question should be in the Public Domain already b. I already tried playing nice with the publishers, approaching them through an experienced law firm, and have the lawyer's itemized invoices to prove it c. the amounts the publishers want license the rights are ridiculous, exceeding the budget of the entire film, even though they know it's an ultra-low-budget project I'm also in the unique position of being the sole producer/director/ owner of the film. Even indie films usually have investors, financiers and sponsors from various sources, that require the project to comply with certain standards and practices. But I don't have to answer to anyone. --Nina On Sep 6, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Denver Gingerich wrote: > Your situation seems to be a very small edge case: it is legal to > distribute both the audio and the video for free separately, but it is > not legal to distribute them combined (due to synch rights). In > almost all other cases, it is either a) legal to distribute the audio > and video combined, since the audio is entirely in the public domain, > or b) it is illegal to distribute the audio for free whether it is > combined with the video or not. With a), there are no problems. With > b), you would have to get everyone who downloads/buys your video to > also legally acquire the audio separately, which is a huge hassle that > few people are willing to do. To alleviate this, you could buy CDs > off-the-shelf and distribute them with your movie; this will be legal > thanks to first-sale doctrine [1], confirmed most recently by Vernor v > Autodesk [2]. Even this way, it's painful and CDs may cost too much > to make reselling worthwhile. > > From what I can see of your description, almost all cases are served > well by combining the audio and video prior to distribution. If there > are more common cases where on-the-fly syncing software would be > worthwhile, please let me know. I really do want to understand if > this software would be useful. > > Denver > > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > 2. > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html > > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Denver, >> >> THERE IS AN INCENTIVE! >> >> Independent filmmakers will be all over this, starting with me. >> Independents >> can release content sans DRM, even if corporations won't. If you >> build it, >> they will come. >> >> "Sita Sings the Blues" is a damn viable way to start this. The film >> is in >> much demand, it's going to over 80 film festivals and more >> contacting us >> every day, it's won major awards. >> http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/ >> The film already has lots of press (BBC World, WIRED, Variety, >> Premiere, >> tons more around the world) and lots more press opps on the way - >> so many >> I'm turning down interviews for lack of time. But if this player were >> available, allowing me to release the film this new way, I'd be >> promoting >> the heck out of the player and release at every opportunity. And I >> would >> only be the first. Lots of other independent filmmakers will jump >> on this >> once they understand. >> >> I'll release everything sans DRM, of course, like any respectable >> artist >> would. It would be totally legal. >> >> We CAN do something about this. >> >> --Nina >> >> On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Denver Gingerich wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I have this crazy idea for delivering a blow against synch >>>> licensing. >>>> The article has a lot of hypertext, so it's best to read at >>>> >>>> http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/09/05/the-bright-side-of-the-dark-side-of-the-rainbow/ >>>> This idea will need a lot of help and collaboration to work, but >>>> if it >>>> does, >>>> it has a lot of potential. >>>> Thoughts? Ideas? Help? >>> >>> The main issue with making an open source player to synchronize >>> audio >>> and video from different sources is that most legally-acquired audio >>> and video sources have DRM. There is no technical barrier to >>> breaking >>> these DRM schemes (pretty much every scheme out there has been >>> broken), but the laws of the United States and many other countries >>> make it illegal to create software to break DRM and to distribute >>> software that breaks DRM. >>> >>> So it's a nice idea, but until we have more audio and video sources >>> legally available in DRM-free formats, there is not a lot of >>> incentive >>> to create such a program. As an open source developer, this hurts >>> me >>> deeply, but there's not much I can do about it until governments >>> stop >>> providing legal protection for DRM. >>> >>> Denver >> >> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
