PodShow terms of use?

[audiocollective]

What does everybody think of the terms of use PodShow came up with for their Podsafe music network? Here is that part that I thought was strange:

8. You agree that a Broadcast or Music Podcast will not:

a. contain hate material, promote violence, discriminate based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age, or family status, or contain any other materials deemed unsuitable or harmful to the reputation of PodShow or the Licensor;

b. promote or reference software piracy (warez, cracking, etc.), hacking, phreaking, emulators, ROM's, or illegal MP3 activity;

c. promote illegal activities, deceptive practices or violations of the intellectual property rights of others; or

d. be advertised or promoted through the use of unsolicited bulk email.

Those are some strict rules… maybe it’s the only way to do it or they are being overly cautious? Section 8 a. would explain why Adam hasn’t been lighting one up at the end of his show anymore!

You can find more info at these links:
Terms of use (http://music.podshow.com/music/producerTerms.htm)
Boingboing post (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/26/commercial_music_in_.html)
Geek news central article (http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/004819.html)

[docsnavely]

cya.........

[Hittman]

8. You agree that a Broadcast or Music Podcast will not:

…contain hate material, promote violence, discriminate based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age, or family status,

Does that mean you can’t express an opinion on any of those things? How about if I make fun of, say, all religion – then I’m not discriminating, right? Discriminating doesn’t seem to be the right word here.

promote or reference software piracy (warez, cracking, etc.), hacking, phreaking, emulators, ROM's, or illegal MP3 activity;

No problem with them restricting the promotion of such things, but the prohibition of even referencing them means tech podcasts would have to ignore one of the biggest issues out there. Dumb.

promote illegal activities, deceptive practices or violations of the intellectual property rights of others

There goes the NORMAL podcast. Or any show that encourages or even just winks at civil disobedience.

be advertised or promoted through the use of unsolicited bulk email.

This I can agree with.

Sounds like they’re interested in Blandcasting.

[spartacusroosevelt]

I like this part.

>You agree to indemnify and hold PodShow, its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, and other partners and employees, harmless from any loss, liability, claim, or demand, including reasonable attorney's fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of any breach of your representations and warranties set forth above.<

Translation: if someone doesn't like what you do or say and sues you (little guy) and/or them (VC funded big guy), you get to pay everyone's (little guy, big guy, people who work for big guy) attorney fees, even if you are found in the right in the end.

Way to look out for the little guy man. Let's bask in his coolness, shall we.

http://spartacusroosevelt.com/podcast/wp-content/images/currystupid-2.jpg

OK. I feel better now.

[podcastshuffle]

What does everybody think of the terms of use PodShow came up with for their Podsafe music network?

They seem like the stuff that corporate lawyers say in their sleep. Its just CYA stuff - typical stuff in all kinds of contracts. If you don't agree with them I'd just contact the artists directly and seek permission. I'd love to use the podsafe music network but my affinity for Red Bull and Stolichnaya make it hard to use a site sponsored by Absolut.

Jeff

[treocast]

c. promote illegal activities, deceptive practices or violations of the intellectual property rights of others; or

Seems to be then that Adam himself either has to give up on playing music from the network, or give up talking about bringing pot into the states and stealing his neighbor's WiFi...

[Zany Aguirre]

I would agree that this is all pretty standard stuff.

As an artist, I would be more concerned with the following:

2. Subject to these Terms of Use, You are hereby granted the following world-wide, non-transferrable, non-exclusive, royalty-free rights

a. the right, and to access the Music database and reproduce each Work included therein for the purpose of Broadcasting the Work, including the right to use and incorporate each Work into a Collective Work, which may itself be Broadcast.

b. the right to create a Derivative Works from each Work, provided that that the Work is not materially disparaged or materially injured in the Derivative Work. This right specifically permits you to use the Work in combination with other works as part of musical "mashes."

I wouldn't want anyone else taking my work and messing with it, especially without prior consent from me, the owner of copyright. The verbiage above doesn't allow for an owner of copyright to have the ability to say no to such a Derivative or Collective Work. As an artist, I would want the ability to grant permission for use of my work in this manner. That's not cool...

Now, it does say this in 4.a.
If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.

Tha's still a little shakey... who determines the definition of "extent practicable"? As owner of copyright, I want that authority to determine the definition. It's also not clear regarding the content, the work, just the credit

4.b. doesn't clarify it either...

Arbitration in the state of Delaware. Again, basic stuff, apparently that's where Podshow was Inc'd but as owner of copyright, if a dispute occured regarding my copyrighted material with another producer/podcast and not Podshow, I would want jurisdiction in my county.

Just my 2 cents

[jimk]

So anyone else notice that Adam violates the TOS every time he does a show?

Mashups are the intellectual property of others. So is the material on the hit test.

[Zany Aguirre]

The concern is growing: http://www.podcastingnews.com/archives/2005/08/podshow_network_1.html

[kickasspodcast]

I would agree that this is all pretty standard stuff.

As an artist, I would be more concerned with the following:

2. Subject to these Terms of Use, You are hereby granted the following world-wide, non-transferrable, non-exclusive, royalty-free rights

a. the right, and to access the Music database and reproduce each Work included therein for the purpose of Broadcasting the Work, including the right to use and incorporate each Work into a Collective Work, which may itself be Broadcast.

b. the right to create a Derivative Works from each Work, provided that that the Work is not materially disparaged or materially injured in the Derivative Work. This right specifically permits you to use the Work in combination with other works as part of musical "mashes."

I wouldn't want anyone else taking my work and messing with it, especially without prior consent from me, the owner of copyright. The verbiage above doesn't allow for an owner of copyright to have the ability to say no to such a Derivative or Collective Work. As an artist, I would want the ability to grant permission for use of my work in this manner. That's not cool...

Now, it does say this in 4.a.
If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.

Tha's still a little shakey... who determines the definition of "extent practicable"? As owner of copyright, I want that authority to determine the definition. It's also not clear regarding the content, the work, just the credit

4.b. doesn't clarify it either...

Arbitration in the state of Delaware. Again, basic stuff, apparently that's where Podshow was Inc'd but as owner of copyright, if a dispute occured regarding my copyrighted material with another producer/podcast and not Podshow, I would want jurisdiction in my county.

Just my 2 cents

I would take this as GOOD advice and input.
Allan know's his Stuff- if you don't believe me, listen to his music. If not- check this out.




First:

Look at This picture of Adam Curry's Podcast Complex?
http://photos24.flickr.com/37065784_f2a684f70d.jpg








Now Check out Allan in HIS studio, and I am pretty sure there is a huge section of it that we can't even see in this picture.

http://abc.go.com/primetime/wifeswap/images/gallery/ep110_aguireray/ep110_17_360x240.jpg

Seriously Nice, Drool-worthy nice.

The only thing that stops me from coveting that setup is the fact that I don't know how to use 1/2 that gear. ;)

Have fun-

If you don't like Podshow- Don't use it.

I use the music people send ME to play, or I use http://archive.org (way better tunes there anyways) Plus at Archive.org you can read Each band's specific policy and see if you are legally allowed to play that in your show.
Quite nice!

Just my 1 cent.

I google that stuff in his signature and start to feel dizzy with glee.
Jack b.


****ADDED**
I wanna know if the people from Podshow are all coming to the Expo in Nov? Do you think Curry is going? I have no idea, maybe we can ask them in person what they really want from us podcasters. It seems like the policy is just setting up the very restrictions on content that podcasting transcends.

Just another cent.

[docsnavely]

Do you think Curry is going?

hah!

he's too busy lighting his roaches with 100 dollar bills.....

and why does he stand up to do his cast? does his hair brush across his desk too loudly if he sits down?

[Hittman]

and why does he stand up to do his cast?

If you’ve never tried it, give it a try. I find it makes for a more animated recording, because I can gesture.

[podcastshuffle]

FYI - You may have heard on today's DSC. The terms have changed:

8. PodShow is not responsible for the content of the podcasts on the network. You acknowledge that you are fully responsible for your content and you acknowledge that it is your responsibility to obtain any and all necessary licenses, rights or grants, for your podcast and any other material that is in it. You also agree and acknowledge that PodShow will not act as an arbiter of any disputes, and all claims are your sole responsibility.

Jeff

[Barefoot Radio.com]

If anyone doesn't like those terms, I say take steps to obtain music directly from the artists or whoever has the rights to what you're seeking.

I also think it's noteworthy to say that just because someone claims to reject liability in writing, it does not NECESSARILY mean that they are indeed free from liability. From what I read they make claims I imagine they can't defend 100%, but it makes sense to try and cover one's butt in this as of yet undetermined industry. So I don't fault them, but they seem to be a bit overreaching.

I've worked for months on getting music directly from bands with permission. Im finally reaching a point where I have a nice little archive to pull from. What I really like is that most if it you won't hear on other podcasts because I've sought out permission from these groups directly. I ask for written permission and either way I keep the packaging they send to "Barefoot Radio." Why else would they send it to me? It's something very clear and implied because the cds aren't falling into the mailbox and winding up with me by accident.

You know what makes bands happy? Getting their cds purchased! My biggest goal with the bands I play is to sell their product(if they have it ready for sale). Who would complain if you're really selling their cd? Especially if they sent it to you for airplay?

The Podsafe Music Network is for a million people doing shows. I recommend people seek out more special artists. This is not to say there aren't special artists in that network, only that everyone and their dog will be playing those tunes. Want to be special? Find special groups willing to enrich your shows!

In anycase, even though I think it's awesome that the Zany Aguire dude has the digital Mackie, it's important to USE gear. Any shmo can HAVE gear! The important thing is to USE it! So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm totally curious to hear the Zany Aguire show now because I love gearheads. MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm....digital Mackie! Yummy! Here I go to listen so I hope I'm impressed.

[docsnavely]

and why does he stand up to do his cast?

If you’ve never tried it, give it a try. I find it makes for a more animated recording, because I can gesture.

you can't gesture while sitting? well, i might give it a try for one episode, but only because my chair creaks and i'm too lazy to find the WD-40

[notyourusualbollocks]

Just say NO to the podsafe music network.

There are numerous other ways to source music for your podcasts and it's completely legal (contrary to what the Podsafe Music Network people say) as long as you make sure you're not profiting from the tracks. That means those silly tip jars, sponsored ads etc.

www.insound.com
www.download.com
www.garageband.com

and many more....

MK

[audiocollective]

The terms of use have been changes and they are now much better. It is great that people are listening and working together to make this better for everyone. I will happily go over and signup for the Podsafe Music Network (http://music.podshow.com/)!
Thanks for listening

[docsnavely]

i use PMN for every episode for intro and outtro music. it works great and have received awesome responses form artists and listeners alike.

then again, i don't do a music cast so i guess it doesn't matter much