What exactly is "podsafe?"

[vox_monitor]

I don't have an ipod myself, though I'd love to get one at some point. But what does "podsafe" mean exactly? I've encountered the word many times, but I've never asked.

I'd hate to find out that we are making mp3's that people with Ipod's somehow can't use because they aren't "podsafe."

[jimk]

It's about the licensing...podsafe is music that is not controlled by ASCAP or BMI primarily, more accurately it's music that you have permission to play without paying fees. The artists can grant permission directly or through something like the Creative Commons licenses.

[vox_monitor]

we're podsafe.

thanks,

eric

[jeffoest]

It's where I keep my iPod when I'm not using it...

[cc_chapman]

I personally define "podsafe music" as any music that you have legally have permission to pay.

So, if it's an unsigned band it means i've got permission directly from the band. If they are on a lablel, I've got their permission as well.

If it's a bigger band, it means that I've got all the BMI, ASCAP and anyone else that needs to be paid taken care of as well.

Just make sure you have all the licensing and permissions in place because we all know that the day is coming when people like the RIAA decides they want to go after podcasters so be careful and be sure of the music your playing.

[jeffoest]

CC. I do agree. My only caveat would be that people like the RIAA will go after certain podcasts only when they start to project that it will make business sense for them to do so. (i.e. when their research forecasts that the revenue lost to their members through lost sales, their legal costs of taking an action as well as podcaster license fees will exceed the revenue boost their members receive from a new and potentially vibrant advertising channel).

This is pretty much what happened with their clamping down on file-sharing. They saw the POTENTIAL of a major revenue loss and acted strongly upon it.

Despite the way these groups are portrayed sometimes around here, their objective still remains to protect their members' best interests.

The key to all this is that advertising channel. This is new stuff. It could be huge or it could be relatively minor. But we dont know and they don't know how important it will be yet. But it could be potentially so big that record companies and similar groups could end up paying certain popular podcasters.

Looking at it in a slightly different way, if you were a RIAA member, would you expect your representation to wait and see what the potential upside is and how large that channel could grow or would you instead expect them to just shut it off?

For those of you in business, you no doubt know that developing and growing your existing sales and advertising channels is extremely expensive. Identifying and growing new ones? Forget about it. Very expensive. This is why many companies merge or form partnerships with those that have existing complimentary distribution channels. The RIAA and the record companies aren't paying for the development of this one. This is absolute GOLD for them. Shut it off before it has a chance to develop? Nah - I can't see it happening. They have even figured out a way to get some payments while getting the development of a new channel for free. Super GOLD. These are smart people. ;-)

All that said, I cetainly would not advocate to anyone to play 128Kpbs or greater full non-podcast safe music on your podcasts without paying the appropriate fees. That's blatantly offering consumers a product for free that they might otherwise buy. Anything else? Just use your head and assess your level of risk-taking and keep up with the dynamics of this channel.

[Hittman]

The RIAA and the record companies aren't paying for the development of this one. This is absolute GOLD for them. Shut it off before it has a chance to develop? Nah - I can't see it happening. They have even figured out a way to get some payments while getting the development of a new channel for free. Super GOLD. These are smart people. ;-)

These are mouth-breathing morons. (Yes, I did notice the smiley.)

We all know of their opposition to VCRs. The Supremes ruled in our favor by one vote, and as a result movies now make more in the aftermarket than they do in theaters. These smart people couldn't foresee it. They are systematically killing internet radio. They killed DAT. These are very short sighted, very unimaginative people sitting on huge stacks of cash in a lawsuit happy country ruled by lawyers. Not a good situation.

Their stupidity goes back a long way. In 1942 the musicians union banned it's members for making recordings. After all, once every song was recorded, who would hire musicians? Around the same time ASCAP got into a fight with the radio stations, demanding more money for rights to air the songs they represented, and ended up prohibiting their songs from being played on the air.

I've been involved in a trademark lawsuit – not the same thing, but close enough. The lesson learned: whoever has the most money wins. My adversary had no case – their claims failed literally a half dozen different ways. But they were willing to drive my legal costs into six figures for me to prove it. The business in question was only occasionally profitable, and then only made enough for a couple of rounds of beers, so I had to give in. In the US you can get all the justice you can afford, and no more. If you can't afford it, don't get too cocky. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, if a big company wants to hurt you, they will, and you will be defenseless against them.

I had been using a piece of music that I really like as a bed for my podcast. Although it's only about 20 seconds in the background, once at the beginning and once at the end, and I talk over most of it (rendering it useless for copying), I was nervous about it not being podcast safe. So I spent an hour on GarageBand looking for something appropriate, found it, and contacted the musicians asking permission. They were delighted and flattered. Problem solved.

[podcastgeek]

This is pretty much what happened with their clamping down on file-sharing. They saw the POTENTIAL of a major revenue loss and acted strongly upon it.

And of course they acted on the wrong beliefs. I'm new to podcasting as far as producing my own show; however, I am definitely not a newbie to technology and specifically file sharing. The **AA loves to spread the mantra of "p2p is killing our business" while they continually take home the record profits. True, 2000-2004 was relatively flat in CD sales, but there are many factors for that. The least of these factors was file-sharing. In quite the ironic twist (or brilliant as the case may be), the **AA actually uses p2p stats to promote artists. That's right, it is hypocrisy at it's greatest when they contract with services such as BigChampagne.com to watch download stats and then contact the local/regional radio stations in those areas to push the artists.

The point from Hittman is right on: He who has the gold maketh the rules. In this case, the **AA generally has the most gold so make sure your music tracks are "safe" to use. You can bet the morons in charge are watching podcasting very closely since the distribution is so disruptive. As Hittman also rightly pointed out, if you find an "indie" band and ask for permission, you will almost always get it. That's what I did for my intro and outro music. I support the band by tagging them in my site footer and leaving Azureus running to help distribute their mp3's through bit torrent.

The **AA can't shut down podcasting any more than they have shut down p2p or bit torrent. The download stats are as strong as ever for p2p so they can sue away. What they are too stupid to do (and iTunes proves) is that that there is definitely a business model in audio distribution via the Internet. In my business (pc and tech consultant) I have many clients who are better p2p music downloaders than I, and we are talking about people in their 50's and 60's. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out, but iTunes proves that you can sell music downloads in spite of the "p2p black eye". There are a ton of very legitimate uses for traditional p2p and certainly for bit torrent (linux distros, game releases, podcasts, and the list goes on). The uses far outweigh the shady ones.

Also, there is sometimes a misconception in the mainstream about the iPod and being "locked in" to Apple's implementation of the AAC format. I own, use, and love my 2G (second generation) iPod. I'm also yet to use any AAC files. I listen to mp3's ripped from my purchased CD collection back from when I supported the **AA. I also download and listen to podcasts in mp3 format on my iPod. The issue of "vendor lockin" to iTunes only comes into play if you are strictly purchasing through iTunes. Otherwise, if you don't mind a lossy format (I'm not a musician so mp3 is fine with me), then you are not locked in at all. I have tried a few other mp3 players and just love the iPod for its simplicity.

Sorry for the long rant on my first pod, but hey I'm in a good mood. 8)

[frankmcma]

Ok..I have people sending me intros for my show and stings and whatnot, some of them have commercial clips, like a sample from a movie, and some will have like 15 seconds of a commercial song. Are these podsafe? Not?

I've been thinking about what to include and not include, because after years working in broadcast and other media places, you never know where your stuff will "go".

It is something we all need to think about. In other words, yes my show is safe as far as podcasting, but what about 5 years from now. Perhaps these will be sold on a CD "Best of", or broadcast on commercial radio, or pay-per-download, or streamed through XBox 360 or offered in a new way we have yet to invent or imagine. It would be a bummer that you could not use a slice of audio on something in the future and its on every single one of your podcasts.

Anyway, just something to ponder. I don't think of these shows as podcasts, I think of them as "content" and where they will head towards in various future plans for all of us is something to think about.

Frank McMahon
http://www.mediaartist.com
Media Artist Secrets
The Podcast for the Creative Professional

[podcastgeek]

Ok..I have people sending me intros for my show and stings and whatnot, some of them have commercial clips, like a sample from a movie, and some will have like 15 seconds of a commercial song. Are these podsafe? Not?

Well -- considering the current temperment of the dumbarses at the **AA, I would steer very clear of anything that may contain commercial content for which you cannot verify permission to use. You might be able to fly under their radar, but even if your use falls under the "fair use" clause they can still sue you into oblivion. Those record CD and movie sales that p2p supposedly harms insures they have very deeeeeepppp pockets.

It would be a bummer that you could not use a slice of audio on something in the future and its on every single one of your podcasts.

See above. Unless it is something "newsworthy" such as a sound bite from an interview, you need to stay clear, stay original (unless you have permission), and stay safe.

[vox_monitor]

That was a hell of a reply Jeff. You're a very smart guy. I'm interested in finding out what you're doing.

eric

[jeffoest]

That was a hell of a reply Jeff. You're a very smart guy. I'm interested in finding out what you're doing.

eric

Well, I don't know about that. I'm just a guy speculating and I'm making a large assumption that the record companies and artists and those representing them act in accordance with their best interests and make wise business decisions.

There are some (perhaps many) that have contributed here and other similar threads that believe that that fundamental assumption is flawed and have personal experience to back that up.

So.... who knows?

[gavin]

Yes, great post, Jeff. As a musician, I've been following this entire mess for years, and the entire music industry has been in a "wait and see" mode for a while. Really, anything could happen.

A little shameless self-promotion: You can use any of the music on our site for your podcast! Just let us know which show we should plug on our 'cast. :)

[RadioLeft]

Musicians deserve to make a living by their music if it is being played. Otherwise, we're saying that you can make a living as a corporate executive screwing people, or as a football player, but, that musicians have to get real jobs because music isn't important to respect musicians enough to pay them.

That's an entirely different issue from whether recording labels rip people off or are sleazy sob's.

So, for me, I'm far more interested in playing independent music and promoting musicians who can create an alternative way for musicians to be paid that either leaves out the recording labels or forces them to split the revenue in a more equitable arrangement with the musicians.

That doesn't mean I don't buy and listen to music from the major aritsts on major labels. But, I'd rather see podcasting used more for promoting new or under appreciated musicians instead of just being one more corporate revenue source.

Geoff

[Insomnia Radio]

I personally define "podsafe music" as any music that you have legally have permission to pay.

CC nailed it. There seems to be a growing misconception that "podsafe" means ANYONE can play it, which is a dangerous stance.

The term itself annoys me, simply because it implies that if someone says "These guys are podsafe" that anyone can spin it.

Be safe and get direct permission from the band. If the band/track DOES have the appropriate creative commons license, however, then you're safe!

[vox_monitor]

Well, Geoff, I empathize. I'm a musician too. But I think that the issue here is just more involved than people realize. Intellectual property is a tricky business. Keep in mind that prior to the invention of recorded media, there was no "property right" associated with music. Musicians made their money by playing live. It was the only revenue stream available. There is no implicit "right" to disseminate recordings for profit. How can somebody steal your digital music?

If it is stolen, then surely you must be able to point to the spot on the shelf where it sat? For someone to steal something from me, I must be deprived of the thing. That's not the case with music.

I think that we need to mentally prepare our selves for the death of intellectual property as we know it. The reality is that it's kicking and fighting, but it is dying. Musicians will need to find some way to subsist without it. I think that one way is to offer your fans more than just recordings, when trying to sell them things. The cd's that you sell have to be desirable above and beyond the music contained on them.

Ultimately, a better term than IP is Intellectual Children. You don't own your children, but you should have some say as to what they do, where they go etc. When they're still new. You should be able to say, I don't want my child (song) being used in commercials. But the longer the child exists, the less control you have over it. And that's as it should be. And even when it is little, you shouldn't ever dream of charging people, just to hang out with it. You know?

You can't own melodies. They belong to everyone.

eric

[jeffoest]

... the lawyers will be kicking and fighting in favor of intellectual property for a long time...

I do have an interesting question though. If musicians did NOT make any money on hit records. No one. No potential. Ever. Would we still have musicians making music? Making good music? Yea, we all know - we sure would. Interesting, huh? In fact it might even be better music than we have today because people would do it with no financial motivation, just pure stuff from their soul.... I can imagine such a world and I like it. A lot.

[vox_monitor]

the argument is often made that without the financial insentives that come along with intellectual property, no creative work would ever get done. What a rediculous notion that is. Whoever came up with it has obviously never made any art.

eric

[Hittman]

Would we still have musicians making music? Making good music? Yea, we all know - we sure would. Interesting, huh? In fact it might even be better music than we have today because people would do it with no financial motivation, just pure stuff from their soul.... I can imagine such a world and I like it. A lot.

I learned a very important lesson about music back when I was a teenager. There was a Italian restaurant I liked to go to for pizza. I went there late one Sunday night, not sure if would be open or not. They were, and they were happy to make me a pizza, as long as I didn't mind sitting in the bar, because the main restaurant was closed.

The owners had invited a bunch of their friends over. They were all older people, and were sitting and standing around a guy who was playing a portable organ. It was one of those cheepies with about three octaves on one side and buttons to play some chords on the other. He was banging out Italian songs and everyone was signing along, in Italian.

Everyone was singing in their own favorite key, with old voices that couldn't reach all the notes. The sound was awful. But as I sat there, drinking a beer and waiting for my pizza, I started hearing the music, the heart and soul being poured out by those unskilled singers, and it started to sound wonderful. I wished that I knew the songs so I could sing along.

Before recorded music people amused themselves by standing around a piano and singing along. I'm guessing that in most cases, the sound was awful, but the music, the music was something to behold.

We've lost that. Recorded music killed it for us. Now we expect our music to be perfect, delivered to us by skilled performers, because that's what we're used to. Now, rather than an active activity that everyone participates in, music is passive, something we sit back and have delivered to us. And it **** well better be perfect, because we're all critics.

the argument is often made that without the financial insentives that come along with intellectual property, no creative work would ever get done. What a rediculous notion that is. Whoever came up with it has obviously never made any art.

The original intent was fine – to allow people to exploit their creations for a limited time. Unfortunately, "limited time" wasn't explained in the constitution. Congress, a wholly owned subsidiary of the entertainment industry, has extended copyright 11 times in the past 40 years. Every time "Steamboat Willy" gets close to going public domain, Disney demands an extension, and congress hands it to them. The Supremes have ruled that extending and extending and extending copyright so that it's now more than two lifetimes was still limited, and just fine with them.

Orren Hatch is now in charge of copyright. Orren, you may recall, advocated allowing record companies to destroy your computer if they thought you had illegal music on it.

IP won't die without a fight, but it's a loosing battle. Technology is making it an obsolete idea, impossible to preserve. But it's going to be a long, bitter fight, and lots of people will be shot down in the crossfire. With that in mind, it's foolish not to protect yourself. Creative Commons music is a free flack jacket.

(Did I beat that simile to death yet?)

[RadioLeft]

People will create art, music, and literature regardless of the money involved.

If you create paintings or sculptures, do you want people copying them and claiming them to be yours?

What about literature? Do you think that anyone should be able to copy your book and distribute it for free to anyone who wants it?

How about a movie? Apparently, thousands of copies of the new Star Wars movie were downloaded before the first customer paid to see it in a movie theater.

I agree that the way intellectual property is handled by corporate interests is obscene. But, I also think that artists are entitled to the profits from their work product and the ability to control how it is used.

I happen to be an atheist, but, I can understand why a gospel musician wouldn't want his music used for the sex scenes in a porno movie.

A lot of current music can't really be performed because it is created using electronic equipment and was never actually performed by the musician - or at least not in a mannere that it would be meaningful to perform it live on a stage.

A single performance of a symphony has no relationship to the time and effort required to write it. And, in fact, a symphony isn't intended to be performed by the composer. It is written specifically to be performed by others.

If I am a carpenter building houses, I get paid for my time and skill - which can't really be stolen from me. But, if I am the architect, I could spend two years designing a highrise and pay 10 draftsmen and engineers to help me complete the plans. Without any intellectual property rights, a clerk in my office could email the complete plans to a construction company who could then build the high-rise and I would get nothing. But, I'd be out all of the money I used to pay the engineers and draftsmen.

Finally, if you make the argument that intellectual property shouldn't really exist, then what about patents? With no protection, we won't have people investing the money required to develop rocketships, microwave ovens, polio vaccine, or iPods.

Intellectual property and patents protect people's work from theft because certain kinds of endeavors are fundamentally different from others: If I work in a deli for an hourly wage, or

I will readily agree that intellectual property is abused for the advantage of corporate interests. For example, pharmaceutical companies will change the color of a pill when the patent is about to runout and then get the patent renewed on that basis. We pay universities with our tax money to do all kinds of research and somehow the patents for the work financed with our taxes end up in the hands of corporatations who then make the profit without paying the R & D costs.

So, I don't see why we would want to do away with intellectual property. And, I don't know whether ignoring intellectual property rights to music, films, or other art will cause reforms or just cause corporate interests to tighten the noose and give the artists even less than they receive now.

Just remember that at one time, musicians were simply paid by the performance and when thye performed in someone's home, they entered through the servants entrance.

I guess the summary is that we can't do withiut intellecutal property. But, it needs reform so that the people who actually create it benefit from it without being held over a barrell by corporate toads.

[jeffoest]

Wow - really thought provoking interesting replies. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

Hittman, your story reminds me of something that I found (and kind of an inspiration as well) while I was doing research a few years back to buy a piano.

I found out that the piano industry (and this extends to all instruments actually) was thriving in America at the turn of the century. The typical American family spent about 10% of their expendible income on musical instruments. Today I belive that number is less than 1%. About 75% of all families owned a piano (don't quote me on the exact figures - I might be a bit off as my I did this a while back). Like your Italian restaurant, a favorite recreation for most people was to get together and play and sing songs together. Sheet music was the big thing back then - everybody still wanted the latest 'hit' song in sheet music!

Entertainment has changed obviously. I like to think (and I know it's not exactly true but....) that the internet is slowly bringing some of that 'home brewed musicianship back again to our culture. There are so many terrific musicians, singers, composers out there that do it out of love and a hobby. And the internet gives them a way to share their music with family, friends, and even strangers. I'm a home musician with absolutely no financial aspirations but some of my songs have been heard by thousands. Awesome cool. And I'm just one of many out there doing their thing.

I do hope that we have a society that does place enough value to support the virtuoso musicians, singers, composers and producers out there - the very best, those that inspire the rest of us. But I find that I don't really care that much if some new band with a nice song gets a record deal or not.

[RadioLeft]

It is really interesting that right wingers raise hell about the courseness of society and how horrible the music is, how violent the movies, etc. And, they are the same ones who are cutting school budgets and removing visual arts, music, literature and theater from the schools.

I used to travel to Ireland on business. I would stay in the same hotel in Dublin each time.

When I went to the opera, symphony, or the theater, I'd run into - the barback from the hotel pub and the maid that cleaned my room.

I disagree that the new music and art are crap - like the right wingers claim. The art, literature, and music that survive over the years is the great art, music, and literature. We know what's popular, but, it will take 20, 50, 100 years to know what's great. Some stuff from every genre will survive the test of time and some will be long forgotten. But, ultimately, all of it has value - even Freddie Kruger movies or Andres Serrano's Piss Christ (http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html).

I don't know this for sure, but, I don't think there's much great art that wasn't controversial at the time it was produced.

The popular stuff that the right-wingers complain about has it's place and it's here for us to enjoy, or ignore as we choose. And, to piss others off - which is also a function of art.

But, if we learned to play music, create visual art, perform in plays and were exposed to great art, music, and literature, then we would be interested in going to a Tennessee Williams play as well as an Arnold Schwarznegger movie. Or, a klezmer dance party as well as a hip-hop concert. Or a performance of African tribal dances as well as a country and western bar.

Getting art, music, and literature back into the schools in a serious way would improve our lives and our culture tremendously.

I guarantee you that the folks around that crappy organ singing Italizn songs were exposed to a lot more art and music than we are today.

Geoff

[RadioLeft]

It isn't that creativity would die if musicians and other artists couldn't make a living at it.

But, when they can make a living doing art, more art will be produced.

In earlier times, Mozart, Beethoven, Michaelangelo, and Leonardo Da Vinci had patrons who supported them or commissioned their work. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was painted because the Pope commissioned Michaelangelo to do it.

Here's a real question that says a lot about our values: Why do we question whether or not artists should earn a living - or even get wealthy - from their art but we don't question whether professional athletes or corporate executives should get wealthy from their endeavors.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where the artists, musicians, and writers were the ones that made the money and the corporate executives were scrounging to survive. Don't forget that money is the way we demonstrate what we value. Sadly, in our culture, artists, musicians, intellectuals, and teachers are some of the people that we don't value.

Geoff

[Hittman]

People will create art, music, and literature regardless of the money involved.

If you create paintings or sculptures, do you want people copying them and claiming them to be yours?

What about literature? Do you think that anyone should be able to copy your book and distribute it for free to anyone who wants it?

How about a movie? Apparently, thousands of copies of the new Star Wars movie were downloaded before the first customer paid to see it in a movie theater.

And like it or not, that is the new reality. It's not going to change. As the producers get more aggressive in perusing violators, the violators get more creative in ways to violate IP.

I've been downloading 24 because Fox's scheduling conflicted with another show I watch. But if I had been getting it over the air, it would have been on my Tivo, so I wouldn't have been watching the commercials anyway. I don't feel the least bit guilty about it.

I agree that the way intellectual property is handled by corporate interests is obscene. But, I also think that artists are entitled to the profits from their work product and the ability to control how it is used.

Podcasting is one way for that to happen. And, arguably, so is P2P. I have bought CDs from artists I wouldn't have tried if I hadn't been able to sample their stuff illegally.

Finally, if you make the argument that intellectual property shouldn't really exist, then what about patents? With no protection, we won't have people investing the money required to develop rocketships, microwave ovens, polio vaccine, or iPods.

Patents are another good idea that has been incredibly abused. There is a US patent for a "method of exercising a cat." It involves using a laser pointer to make the cat run around. In Australia, to prove a point about how ridiculous their patent office was, a lawyer applied for, and received, a patent for a "circular rotating device to facilitate transportation." He patented the wheel.

I guess the summary is that we can't do withiut intellecutal property. But, it needs reform so that the people who actually create it benefit from it without being held over a barrell by corporate toads.

Never happen. The RIAA got an exeption to the bankruptsy laws passed so that their artists, broke after being screwed by their own record companies, couldn't get out from under the debt via bankruptsy. Congress is completely owned by the corporations who have no desire to see more money go to the artists, and they gleefully pass laws whenever their corporate masters ask them to. The DCMA was a perfect example – there was NO value to end users or consumers – it was a gift on a platter to a few huge corporations.

It is really interesting that right wingers raise hell about the courseness of society and how horrible the music is, how violent the movies, etc. And, they are the same ones who are cutting school budgets and removing visual arts, music, literature and theater from the schools.

Good art makes you think. The far right is comprised largely by Christian Fundamentalists, and thought is a antidote to their bullshit. They not only attack any non-Christian art at every opportunity, they've created their own subculture of "Christian" art to keep their minions in line. You can access Christian comedians, listen to Christian heavy metal, and read Christian harlequin romance style books. This helps keep their minions under control, without having to think.

I doubt, though, that Piss Christ will ever be regared as anything more than crap foisted on the arty hoity toidy who embrace anything controversial, just because it's controversial.
But, if we learned to play music, create visual art, perform in plays and were exposed to great art, music, and literature, then we would be interested in going to a Tennessee Williams play as well as an Arnold Schwarznegger movie. Or, a klezmer dance party as well as a hip-hop concert. Or a performance of African tribal dances as well as a country and western bar.

Absolutely. The more we participate in the creation of an art, the more we consume. When I first heard of podcasts, I figured the best way to learn about it was to dive in and do it. If I hadn't, I wouldn't listen to nearly as many podcasts as I do now.

I used to be a musician. Time and other circumstances resulted in me giving it up for about ten years. When I was able to performing again, I went to some of the open mikes I used to haunt, and left with a "been there, done that" feeling. I wanted to do something else. I ended up getting into Improv. As a result, I've seen more theater in the past five years than I did in the previous forty.

And I still love Ahhhhhhnold movies too.

I guarantee you that the folks around that crappy organ singing Italizn songs were exposed to a lot more art and music than we are today.

Maybe. But they might have only been familiar with the art and music of their culture, and little else. Today, we've got resources that make it a breeze to find a wealth of information about any art, anywhere, and more opportunities to find it, consume it, and even participate in it than ever before.

[roadrageradio]

I really don't want to sound like I'm supporting the RIAA here, but I think we have to let the creator/owner of the art decide how s/he wants to distribute it.

If my neighbor grows vegetables in his garden and offers me some, that's very nice, but it doesn't mean that I can help myself any time I want. After all, their God's vegetables anyway, right? And I am just as entitled to them as anyone else is.

No. The people who did the work or had the inspiration to make something are in charge of what gets done with it. If they sign away those rights to scoundrels, that's a shame, but the principle still applies.

Here's another example. My mother called me, complaining that she needed a prescription filled right away, and couldn't get it done. The old pharmacy on the corner closed 10 years before, and the new chain mega mart two miles away wouldn't deliver. So I asked where she gets her regular prescriptions -- why not go there? She told me she calls an 800 number and they come in the mail, but it takes a week sometimes.

Any surprize that the local store closed, or that the chain store isn't into personal service? If you take away the regular, every day business, there's no way the independents can survive.

[podcastgeek]

Apparently, thousands of copies of the new Star Wars movie were downloaded before the first customer paid to see it in a movie theater.

And apparently it was leaked my a movie industry employee or employee of the movie theatre.

========
Anytown, USA: In other news, movie sales of Revenge of the Sith continued to set new records in spite of the mediocre acting from the cast and crew. Most attributed the success to the awesome special effects just as the original Star Wars awed movie goers in 1977. MPAA executives continued to cry foul and tried to demonize bit torrent over a leaked copy, but the public obviously has become numb to rhetoric. Most movie customers still want to experience the thrill of the big screen since super large-screen HD systems are still too pricy for all but Bill Gates.

In an even odder twist of fate, as p2p traffic on the Internet continues to increase despite lawsuit attacks from the RIAA, music sales were up 10.3% for the first half of 2004 and continue to climb. Although the RIAA blames the 1999 - 2003 slight drop in sales on the infamous pirates with computers, they failed to be able to explain the even worse dip between 1978 and 1983. According to one industry insider, "Those cassette tape pirates back then had..ummm...really fast shoes!"

As digital distribution continues to become more mainstream, many consumers have begun to openly wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA do not adopt a new sales model and strategy. The success of iTunes has clearly demonstrated that the public is hungry for more direct choice capabilities in the buying tastes. Some of the more history-astute consumers have even suggested there is a direct parallel between the Sony Betamax/VHS time period and now the digital distribution time period. As broadband continues to connect more and more households to the Internet, many are looking to more independent resouces for entertainment such as podcasts, so-called indie groups, and other venues.

(see related articles)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4570947.stm
http://www.sric-bi.com/DF/DFnews/2002-07-16.shtml
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041022-4341.html

==============

[JesusGeek]

When I was using other people's material to write term papers in college, all I had to do was add a notation and make a works cited page and everything was kosher. I'm not sure why this doesn't fly for free, not-for-profit podcasts. Give credit to the artist and give a link where people can buy their music (and don't encode at over 128kb).

I've contacted one record company about using one of their artists for a podcast, and the licensing guy didn't even know what a podcast was. It's going to be a long time until they figure out a way to make the lawyers/execs happy and still "allow" "their" music to be played on podcasts. They've made licensing almost impossible to figure out on purpose, that's why a guy like Curry who can [at least try to] convince media conglomerate execs that it's a good thing to let us play their music is so important.

I'm thinking about using sample clips from itunes music store for bumper/background music :P (I'm sure some lawyer will say that's stealing too) and only play complete songs where I have total artist consent (or a CC license).

[mental-escher]

When I was using other people's material to write term papers in college, all I had to do was add a notation and make a works cited page and everything was kosher. I'm not sure why this doesn't fly for free, not-for-profit podcasts. Give credit to the artist and give a link where people can buy their music (and don't encode at over 128kb).

I... ...only play complete songs where I have total artist consent (or a CC license


I think this is the the approach that is best suited for the convergent media landscape of today, with the explosion of broadband access and p2p filesharing (all sorts of cc, or otherwise, media- from mp3's to videos, text), and with "mash-up" and sampling so rampant (ever hear of "rap"?!).

- media sampling is good for the artist (ie, they get more exposure)
- it's even better when there is attribution, so the media "consumer" can track back to the original artist (and likely lay down some fractional $ to them directly through merchandise and/or by going to see them perform).

My approach- use references (thats why it's called a "href"!) within the program notes to link-back to the original sources whenever possible, while getting permission to use full length pieces (which has never been a problem since the stuff I use is generally under some cc lisence and the creators have to date been, like "dude- that was cool, thanks for using my sh*t in your podcast).