onetonnemusic

So a little time has passed and due to the sheer volume of people downloading podcasts has reached the point that big music is surely going to start to take an active interest. This FMQB article discusses some of the big issues surrounding podcasting. Not the least of which is which laws they are covered under, the fact that the vast majority of music in podcasts isn't licensed in any way.

While of course the audio quality is almost always much worse than standard music mp3's as the files are compressed for obvious bandwidth constraints, podcasts published with lossless audio compression cannot be far away. Especially as the amount of bandwidth to users inexorably increases.

The problem

This poses a few issues, as once you start distributing music online, no matter how noble your intent - to put together an independent radio program effectively - that begins to violate basic acceptable use policies no matter where you're from. Sadly, I forsee record companies continuing their neanderthal approach towards digital music which has hallmarked the story so far. Which has been nothing if not antagonistic so far. Neil Leyton from Fading Ways says it best "Oh. And another thing. "Music Publishing", as a concept, is wrong. No one creates songs out of thin air..."

Right now, things are good, podcasts are plentiful and big music is slow to react. And like big companies, perhaps it's time for us to get our collective shit together. As the FMQB Article mentions Creative Commons copyright may provide a valid way out for everyone concerned.

While the existing copyright structure provided by creative commons copyright cant't apply to most of the existing podcasting, as the podcasters don't own the copyright. However, if anybody is likely to successfully try and eek out some form of license that people can release their podcasts under - the creative commons folks might just be the the people to help us make it pallatable for both parties. The quality is inherently low, and the podcast shows are certainly no danger to commercial radio in terms of production values - but people aren't looking for something slick and professional when they download a podcast, they're interested in other people's opinions and music. It's a genuine word of mouth old style broadcasting, and this term keeps on cropping up in my mind - independent radio.

The problem with radio in general is that there is only so many licenses available and in most countries, getting a license to get on the air is an expensive and heavily regulated area. Community radio stations, and non-profit radio stations are still relatively rare, even here in Australia where there is legislation in place to allow for community broadcasters. This effectively means that there is limited opportunity for anyone to just put together some songs and their thoughts into a radio show as there is simply not enough radio stations and not enough commercial reasons for everyone to have a radio show.

a possible solution.

So podcasting, which is by far and above a non-profit labour of love is the bastard child of a lack of availabity for public speech brought forth into the digtal age. So what I propose is that there be some structure put in place to encourage music lovers and satisfy big music that their next big threat isn't from independent podcast/radio shows - but from music that no longer interests or inspires their customers.

Simply put, podcasts aren't an attempt at mass duplication and a vehicle for music pirates. It's literally an extension of the blog ethos - whereby people want to create content, and they want to be able to also include music of the time as it's part of the language which we all use to communicate - the vernacular of right now. In a blog, it might be a sideways link buried in an article or a discussion such as this, in the real world it might be someone quoting The Simpsons, and with podcasts it's playing music which we respond to.

If podcasts were able to be legally covered with a No Derivative works license saying that the file cannot be duplicated or changed legally it means that anyone seeking to extract audio from the podcast would be in breach of copyright.

I'm aware that the podcaster doesn't own the copyright for the music that they put in their shows, but also by the very same token, they're value adding by providing more exposure for the artists, also providing vocals and dialogue that obviously the end user is interested in. When you download a podcast is most often for the style of show it is, not for the music explicitly in most cases.

Things are needlessly complicated by the world we live in, and voices like the creative commons provide a simple way forward that respects ownership, but also provides a framework for people who want to produce content and self publish it to other like minded people. What happens with podcasts will largely be reliant on what the blogging community do as a whole to protect itself, and encourage responsible use by us the end users, and an responsible and intelligent attitude by big music companies.

Related Links:

Creative Commons for Audio
FMQB Article that inspired this editorial
Fading Ways a Canadian label that is championing the Creative Commons cause.
dmusic.com allows you to publish your songs under Creative Commons.
Wired Magazine's look at Creative Commons - to celebrate they released an issue with a cover music CD & made it available as MP3 download. It features the Beastie Boys, Gilberto Gil, Thievery Corporation & Le Tigre just to name a few.
how-to to podcast by PodCast411.