Hopes for legal music podcasts rise | CNET News.com
Hopes for legal music podcasts rise | CNET News.com: "Hopes for legal music podcasts rise | Digital DJs, record labels are discussing ways to simplify music podcasting, in talks that could help accelerate format's ascent. | June 16, 2005, 12:45 PM PT | John Borland"
This article and the revelations contained therein underscore some major problems with both journalism and podcasting. On the journalistic side, once again an author presents a narrow picture that lacks depth and fails to present both sides of the story. The fact is that we don't need "hope" for legal music podcasts. There are already hundreds of legal music podcasts and counting. They represent the majority of the music podcasts that you'll hear on the internet. So we don't need hope because there is a thriving community of podcasters playing independent (non-RIAA) music with the direct permission of the artists and record labels. Hell, we've got Sub Pop, The Association of Music Podcasting, Podcast NYC - Podsafe Music , Daily Source Code and much more. So I've got news for the author of this piece. Hope ain't on the way dude, it's here!
My second gripe has to do with podcasters like the dude from Coverville who insist on playing RIAA owned music in their podcasts and then spend their time trying to ask permission of the RIAA for doing so. Sure, the guy has the right (or maybe he doesn't according to the RIAA) to play what he wants. But why engage in free promotion for artists, many of whom are backed by record companies with marketing budgets in the tens of millions of dollars? What's the point? Here this guy is providing free promotion, playing songs that you wouldn't hear on the radio in a million years and he still has to go hat in hand to the RIAA and any number of other music licensing agencies in order for it to be legal. Does that make sense? Of course not. The RIAA has never shown itself to be a rational or intelligent organization, so why should they start being one now? They remind me of a group of people trying to prevent falling snow from hitting the ground.
So here's my advice to Brian Ibbott (and podcasters everywhere.) Play the music you want to play on your podcast. If you take my advice, you won't play any music controlled by the RIAA and indie musicians everywhere will be better off. If you do play RIAA controlled music then ignore the RIAA. Act like they don't exist. The RIAA has yet to prove that playing RIAA music within podcasts is illegal. If you want to be a pioneer, make them show their cards. But by going to them and asking permission, you allow them to control the dialogue and make them feel important. Make them feel as disconnected from technology and the music listening market as they are. Isolate the RIAA and make them want to beg the controllers (podcasters) of this new world distribution network to work with them on a partnership level. Once you've done that then (maybe) things will change.
This article and the revelations contained therein underscore some major problems with both journalism and podcasting. On the journalistic side, once again an author presents a narrow picture that lacks depth and fails to present both sides of the story. The fact is that we don't need "hope" for legal music podcasts. There are already hundreds of legal music podcasts and counting. They represent the majority of the music podcasts that you'll hear on the internet. So we don't need hope because there is a thriving community of podcasters playing independent (non-RIAA) music with the direct permission of the artists and record labels. Hell, we've got Sub Pop, The Association of Music Podcasting, Podcast NYC - Podsafe Music , Daily Source Code and much more. So I've got news for the author of this piece. Hope ain't on the way dude, it's here!
My second gripe has to do with podcasters like the dude from Coverville who insist on playing RIAA owned music in their podcasts and then spend their time trying to ask permission of the RIAA for doing so. Sure, the guy has the right (or maybe he doesn't according to the RIAA) to play what he wants. But why engage in free promotion for artists, many of whom are backed by record companies with marketing budgets in the tens of millions of dollars? What's the point? Here this guy is providing free promotion, playing songs that you wouldn't hear on the radio in a million years and he still has to go hat in hand to the RIAA and any number of other music licensing agencies in order for it to be legal. Does that make sense? Of course not. The RIAA has never shown itself to be a rational or intelligent organization, so why should they start being one now? They remind me of a group of people trying to prevent falling snow from hitting the ground.
So here's my advice to Brian Ibbott (and podcasters everywhere.) Play the music you want to play on your podcast. If you take my advice, you won't play any music controlled by the RIAA and indie musicians everywhere will be better off. If you do play RIAA controlled music then ignore the RIAA. Act like they don't exist. The RIAA has yet to prove that playing RIAA music within podcasts is illegal. If you want to be a pioneer, make them show their cards. But by going to them and asking permission, you allow them to control the dialogue and make them feel important. Make them feel as disconnected from technology and the music listening market as they are. Isolate the RIAA and make them want to beg the controllers (podcasters) of this new world distribution network to work with them on a partnership level. Once you've done that then (maybe) things will change.
Recommend Podcast NYC To Your Friends
posted by PodcastNYC.net at 11:46 AM
2 Comments:
You might want to rip into this dude during a future rant:
http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1828748,00.asp
-paul.
The guy makes a couple of points that are true, like:
Over time, I expect the "most listened to" Podcasts will be products of existing media companies that use Podcasts as a means of repurposing content.
and
Similarly, audio tools make it possible to create a Podcast, but aren't much help in creating interesting content. At some point, the tools give way to human intellect.
I'm already starting to listen to podcasts from Bravo and TV Guide. And I agree that creation tools don't equal quality content.
But then he loses credibility when he makes the ridiculous statement that: Personal Podcasting, like personal blogs, is a fad and will fade. Just like personal sites were a fad in the early days of the Web.
Have personal blogs faded? I don't think so. Podcasting is just one of many new technologies that people will use on their blogs and websites to connect with each other. Some will connect with family and friends and others will be successful in the commercial world because they create interesting content.
Post a Comment
<< Home