The "Sita Sings the Blues" Distribution Project

Can anyone help me find the Todd Michaelson tracks for download?

Thats true. I am also inspired by the business plans as discussed by Nina just like you. But the problem is same with me . I also can't donate mush. Please bear with us. I am planning to get a government jobs. If it works, I'll surely make some donations as much as possible.

Should be accessible now; please let us know if you still can't reach them.

Maybe it's a bit late to reply to this thread, but I've only just found the site ... so;

All ideas `belong` to everyone, individually, collectively, and totally. Copyright and other intellectual property protections restrict the development of ideas, and even the development of the `original` creator. Such protections exist only for commercial purposes - and those commercial purposes are warped and, in human, societal, and environmental terms, actually damaging.

Every idea any, and every, one of us has is as a result of the stimulus provided by our exposure to the environment and the culture in which we exist; they are the result of all the other ideas `of and from others` which have been put into us (however, we might then have processed such information). As each new rung of the ladder is added to by a new and `novel` idea it is dependent upon all the rungs that preceded it ... and even stepping sideways into a `new` paradigm is dependent upon all that constituted the paradigm that was stepped across from.

So, I have and idea, I create a `work`, emergent from all that I have assimilated - from the world, and thus too others - but to then take the stance of don`t you dare `infringe` on `my` unique, personal and `independent` work ... does not really hold up to truly objective scrutiny. It only holds up under a perverse and restrictive commercial perspective.

A good few are waking up to this notion now - realising that the completely free-flow, unrestricted and non-commercial distribution of all, `all`, knowledge and of all contributions to existence is fundamental to genuine growth and development (of the race, the species, of comprehension, and even of evolution - not the insane and destructive growth of economics and commerce).

Here is just one example of a genuine copyright notice that exists in a real work:

"All texts and images plagiarized and rearranged by collective process. Anything composed in any language is obviously the handiwork of the millions who developed the words and ideas that constitute it, not just the experts listed in the credits. Please reproduce, translate, and adjust this and all books at will, with or without citing sources." [Crimethinc `Expect Resistance - a field manual`].

To add a final irony to the rule-obsessed, conventionally programmed, jobs-worths - people are also waking up the grand illusion of money itself and how that is a core component in misdirection, confusion and control; economics is not, in any of its guises, a science - it is larely an apologetic for some political or vested interest stance that is intentioned on priviledge and control (this is in part evinced by the fact that there is no actual Nobel prize for economics ... the so-called prize is actually 'awarded' by the banks, via the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and not by communities grateful for the egalitarian improvement in social conditions that some economic theory has provided - even the Nobel family criticise the existence of this 'award'!).

There are 'gifting' communities growing up all over the World, both as distinct communities and as 'tacit' aspects of 'conventional' towns and cities; that is people who do for others not on the basis of 'Local Exchange Trading (LETS)' or 'Skill Swaps' or any form of obligation, accounted, or contractual arrangement, but purely on the basis of 'if I do something for or give something to you, maybe you'll do something for or give something to me or another'; and it works!

Personally, I now exist almost totally free of the need to use money for anything other than the pressured aspects of 'the system', certain services, and for entertainment - yet live a technologically supported lifestyle far in excess of many of those who - while confronted with the reality - tell me it can not be done!? (By way of e.g.: home bio-diesel, green and free fuel - thermal solar, a few old pipes and off-cuts, green and free heat - extrapolate across food, power, water and anyone with any wit can see how needs can be met with a tad of ingenuity and in coordination and cooperation with those of like mind). Thus with the reduction in costs and the availability of cooperation my 'disposable monies' make me appear to be extremely well-off.

The consequent reduction in my 'need' for money allowed me to do more for others simply because I wanted to and could ... this it turned out was a positive feedback loop; doing things for others without pressure or obligation gave them more latitude and, however long or short the chain of connections, people just started doing for me. It's so simple and so effective that it seems to defy all comprehension by those obsessed with 'return', 'profit' or 'value', or anyone who either regards themselves as more deserving than others or who is unable to accept that diversity is actually resource and that alternative and non-conformist views are in fact vital for a healthy gene and meme pool.

If the 'common (wo)man' can continue to communicate across the globe with his/her fellows then the political, corporate, and financial illusions will eventually find it impossible to sustain themselves and, hopefully, one day none of us will need to know about the nonsense of narcissistic or megalomaniac leaders, rules of control or ever consider the concept of money, cash or payment.

But for now - Cheque en route Nina!

>> People who make free content don't get paid anything or else they would not need donations.

Though not exactly the same thing, a very similar model exists with computer software. Check around and see how many people get paid to use, extend, and contribute open source software. A great many do.

[Open source software is software not only given away for $0 (in most cases) but the entire blueprints are also given for $0 so that anyone can modify them to get a new piece of similar software. Of course, some people compile selections of this software and sell it on DVDs or CDs under their own brand.]

A major difference here might be that Nina is currently essentially the only artist for Sita Sings the Blues. Most open source software projects of any signicant size have a small number of main authors (sometimes only one), but many projects eventually grow to encompass many.

Another difference is that Nina probably considers Sita to be done. This is true for some software, but software that replaces that functionality essentially replaces the original. Most open source software is almost always considered to be in a state of growth (because people want to add features or fix parts of it).

Meanwhile, whether simple or complex, people tend to savor existing works they liked. However, in time SStB might morph enough times or there might be variations that even Nina might prefer ( ;-) ).

SStB (R) will eventually involve a large collection of stories and retellings. One work might even focus on the events of Sita's 100th day of marriage, etc. Lot's of new stories very divergent from the original tales might come into being. .. new characters. Look, we need Mickey and Co to be replaced since they are not free. We'll get Sita shorts.

>> Nobody works for free;

Don't look inside the Guinness Book of World Records. Stay away from the tube during the upcoming Summer Olympics. You are bound to be insulted by what many amateurs get away with doing in public.

People play for free.

Nina might get a gig adapting characters or scenes from SStB for commercials for some business or other. She might call that work. She would get paid.

>> No real director is going to make a multi million dollar film through loans, and pay them back by donations.

Using the open source software model, we can see that very sophisticated software can get created over time my many cooperating.

For films and similar works, we would have designers in one part of the world, script writers in another, and many more serving to film, model, etc.

We'd have many variations. Some would be a bit like Frankenstein if standards weren't set and followed, but there would be lots of interesting variations nevertheless.

Sophisticated movies tend to use a significant amount of computer processing. The trend is towards computer aided effects over more and more actors or expensive materials, but open production can accomodate all styles. When broken up into pieces, not that many people need to have expensive equipment, for example. Lots of people would participate to be "extras". We would even find actors around the world (perhaps with some makeup and other aids) that would look very similar to each other and could create different scenes of the same characters.

And what business would not contribute cash towards producing a few scenes if they were filmed near the business location and they would get credits they could leverage?

Yeah, people will never pay anyone real money to help them huck their wares.

>> Have fun paying off your 50,000 dollar loan Nina Paley. I doubt you'll get many donations

A modest contribution to society, honesty with fans, and an attractive and promoting website will get modest expenses out of the way for any artist (once enough eyeballs pass by). There are billions of people out there. 1 hundredth of 1 percent of 1 billion is 100 thousand. At 1 buck a piece, that is $100K. [.01% is very small and is as unrealistic as the 1 billion viewers.]

And Nina can later do talks and workshops and many other things to engage with other artists and admirers who would pay for a good day out.

Don't forget the commercials and custom animations.. oh, and the merchandize.

Nina having gotten in early will obviously present some special opportunities in time. Then again, she will have to experiment more than most will as best practices get established.

Read Nina' website and you'll see that endorsements have power. See eg http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/07/i-2/
 

- Jose_X

Your comment begs the question: do consumers WANT multimillion dollar films?

some of my favorite movies were done on relatively small budgets.

and anyways -- she's not getting paid -- the whole reason shes taking donations is because the ridiculous copyright laws forced her to pay to use old songs.

RTFA dude.

Uh-oh. The voice of unreasonable Reason(TM) strikes again. What obviously hard-won micro-economical wi$edom. We're lucky you arrived just in time to save us from ourselves, Dad. It's almost as if something about the entire creative process troubles you at a cellular level - like, anyone who writes books, paints pictures or makes films are 'against' you and your artless little world of "Well That's-Just-How-It-Is, Buddy Boy" - when perhaps the inverse is true.

Maybe those who are against Everything, who spit upon the creative process and human collective dreaming, do so because the intrinsic beauty & truth behind all Art is like the sun; it's just not something anyone can control, regulate, copyright, commodify, spin, or bully others into believing is scarce. It's there for everybody..

"I doubt you'll get many donations from people that feel they are entitled to everything" - yeah, and you'll probably get even less than that from those who feel they're automatically entitled to open their mouths and demand everyone else agree with the hollow & aggressive unexamined cultural presumptions of a toxic society based on "F'ing one another over for a goddamn percentage."

There's a better way for all - and artists are at its leading edge. Now that really is something you don't have to 'get over' - because they're already doing it and they're to stay..

Good luck w/ your project Nina!

Always here to help, Henry Swanson

Just gave a couple of dollars too. Guess it's workin'. Thanks for the good work Nina and let's change the world!

I just donated a few bucks, because I liked the movie.  ^REALITY.  Your high horse just farted.

um really? are you sure? i suppose this means you have never heard of Radio Head, Nine Inch Nails, Cory Doctorow, Girl Talk, RIP a Remix Manifesto, etc etc etc....

Hmm. All over this site are direct responses and counterarguments to the economic myths about copyright that you seem to believe. Have you read any of that material?

Best,
-Karl

sitasingstheblues.com/store

:-)

Fixed now. Thanks, crowd! :-)