The UK Podcasters Association, set up in May last year, has reached an agreement with the UK-based Association of Independent Music (AIM) to allow its members preferential, legitimate, access to AIM’s podcast licence.

This means that UK podcasters wi…

It does show a great common interest is relly apparent throughout the world. I look forward to hearing much more about this.

What does this treaty mean?

Doe sit mean that a broadcaster retains his copyright to his own stuff longer? If so, what is wrong with that?

Does it mean, podcasters cannot produce their own shows even if it contains their own material?

Does it mean podcasters shows suddenly become a broadcasters copyright?

Does it mean that podcasters just cannot get to use broadcast material without being in breach of copyright?

How do this affect podcasters? Please send me an email I do not really understand.

richard@vobes.com

Cheers

Richard Vobes
http://www.vobes.com
The Richard Vobes radio Show
A daily podcast

Blogged it in the magnatune blog

and put it on my podcaster’s page at magnatune.

- Scott “Ronald-san” Harrison

Thank you for your considered comment.

“The March licence you talk about didn’t extend the remit into speech only podcasts. And the licence that was due to appear in April this year was only intended to cover licenced music within predominantly speech-based podcasts – at least according to the MCPS press office.”

Yes, they have said this to various people on the phone, but so far have not put out any further clarifications in writing. Their initial statement was at best ambiguous and certainly indicated a direction which was questionable.

We will be pushing for a written statement from them that they are not seeking to extend their mandate into speech. However, the “podcast rules” still remain, and are so clearly unworkable that we will have to attempt to explain to them that with the rules in place, podcasters are effectively prevented from paying the license, given that payment indicates acceptance of unnecessary and restrictive practices.

“Perhaps a small rewrite is in order. It’s the kind of change that may encourage some of those currently less inclined to join UKPA to consider doing so in the future.”

I have changed it, in response to your careful comment and others, to a more accurate reflection of what actuallly happened. It now reads: “what concerned them about this license was firstly that it seemed to extend the remit of MCPS-PRS into speech only podcasts, and secondly, that it enforced a set of unworkable “podcast rules”.”

We may yet rewrite the the statement more thoroughly; but more likely, it will be replaced, and the statement will pass into history. We are set to meet the Music Alliance at the end of May.

I am sure that UKPA will find its feet and tread a good path which benefits UK podcasters as a whole, and I do hope you consider joining and adding your intelligent input.

However, under your founders’ statement you say:

“While many of the more commercially-oriented podcasters had no problem with paying fair fees for the use of copyright music in commercial podcasts, what concerned them about this license was firstly that it extended the remit of MCPS-PRS into speech only podcasts, and secondly, that it enforced a set of unworkable “podcast rules”.”

This is factually incorrect or at the very least uninentionally misleading.

The March licence you talk about didn’t extend the remit into speech only podcasts. And the licence that was due to appear in April this year was only intended to cover licenced music within predominantly speech-based podcasts – at least according to the MCPS press office.

Perhaps a small rewrite is in order. It’s the kind of change that may encourage some of those currently less inclined to join UKPA to consider doing so in the future.

Speakers on the night were
Paula LeDieu, iCommons
Cory Doctorow, Writer and Campaigner
Tom Chance, RemixReading and Free Culture UK
Jennifer Rigby, BBC Creative Archive

The meeting was chaired by Rufus Pollock of the Open Knowledge Foundation.

This is a large file circa 100Mb. Lots of Open Rights / Open Knowledge Goodness. You can get the file here:

http://flashing12.blogspot.com/2006/02/flashing-12-podcast-number-65-open.html#links

[BTW this is Martin Green Dragon, I forgot I was signed in under another of my i.d’s]

Never heard of them, never been approached by them and now that I am with UKPA, unlikely ever to be interested in them.

As a representative membership organisation, we must be inclusive. There is nothing stopping anyone else from forming a different kind of organisation or industry body which is exclusive – but that is not our role.

I also disagree with your assertion that “the AOP represents the interests of most of the UK’s top podcasters”. By what measure top? In terms of money? downloads? corporate backing? What about influence, or innovation, or links? I think your terms of reference are somewhat out-dated.

It would be agreat mistake to see podcasting success only in commercial terms.

Having said that, I’d personally welcome the chance to sit down with the AOP, and I am sure they would find that as interesting as we would.

So, are you going to join, now , Digbeth? That’s your best chance of influencing this organisation…

Personally I find the “I do not make a distinction” attitude niave. As I say the two groups have VASTLY different interests and I think that you are in danger of forming an association that will serve the interests of neither.

You didn’t answer my question about talking to the AOP. The semantics of podcasting are irrelevant to the fact that the AOP represents the interests of most of the UK’s top podcasters. I would urge you to talk to the AOP.

Good luck.

1. I do not make a distinction between “bedroom casters” and “pro” – I am both, as are several other UK podcasters I know. UK Podcasters Assoc is for UK Podcasters.

2. Podcasting is not publishing; neither is it broadcasting. It is new and does not easily fit into any pre-existing definition. Hence the need to form an organisation which works in this area.

I then read some of the discussion on Britcaster which seems to involve a group of amateur hobbyists. No offence intended – amateur hobbyists obviously make up the very long tail of several electronic publishing movements. As a professional publisher however I have very different concerns and interests from someone producing a bedroom cast and vice versa.

So are you an industry body or are you representative body for the bedroom casters? Are you expecting BBC, Guardian, Ricky Gervais etc. to sign up? And if so have you talked to the Association of Online Publishers which already represents their interests in this area?

Looking forward to some great discussion and debate.

Paul