I am humbled by your work by your bravery and by your ideas. I have watched your film last night, and I would like to thank you for this long lasting experience and the inspiration you gave me.

b.-

“Decriminalized” seems pretty reasonable to me, considering that the “other people” who actually wrote the compositions in the film will not see a penny from the rights holders. It also seems pretty reasonable considering that at the time the song-writers produced the works in question, the copyright law only protected them until the mid seventies or early eighties.

If you want to see copyrights extended so as to leave copyrights for your family, I can assure you that your heirs will almost certainly realize virtually no benefit from your work. First, because films don’t keep their broad public appeal for long. As Peter Brook put it in his book The Empty Space, a staging can only ‘live’ for about ten years before losing all but historical interest. The idea that your heirs could collect big money from a film you made a hundred years down the road has its appeal, but it almost certainly won’t come true. In fact, an indefinite copyright extension would increase the division between free culture, protected by copyleft, and corporate-controlled culture. Faced with a choice between paying brokers, lawyers, financiers, and other rights holders exorbitant fees in return for the right to collect a small percentage of the fees charged for the use of your work on one hand, and a free sharing culture on the other, more and more artists will find the copy-left culture freer, more satisfying, and often more financially viable. Extending copyrights may make some lawyers and brokers marginally richer, but it will do little if anything for artists.

I’m an independent filmmaker myself, and go to some not inconsiderable trouble to make my films in a way that does not require using expensive to license music, and frankly “decriminalization” feels like a slap; to me for going to the effort to find a way to make my films without music I can’t afford, and to anyone who’s ever produced piece of music or film in the hopes of providing a descent life for their family.

I’m also dubious of Nina’s “distribution plan”. What kind of a plan generates $1M in receipts but only stands to put $30K – $80K in the producer’s pocket? Especially when the film has $50K in music rights alone. That not a plan, that’s financial suicide.

What about pressing region-free DVDs in Europe or elsewhere?

In any case, Wahoolazuma!

Yes copyright laws are important, no they should not be used to financially strangle artists with their own work.

Looking forward to buying a copy and organizing group screenings wherever I’ll be in the world when it finally gets out.