Outside inside
Published by on May 15th, 2006
Together with, though in diametrical opposition to, the unknown surge of members to the new and now logo-enriched UKPA (United Kingdom Podcast Association), which promises to ensure podcasters in the UK are not subject to all manner of perceived exploitative and legislative evils, have been a number of exchanges voicing concerns about the nature of the organisation and unwanted association with it.
Some of the most prominent - by which I define as having a long-standing and consistently high listener base - have been in contact with me voicing their concerns. Why me? Well I have perhaps been the most publicly and vigourously vocal in opposition to the organisation; suggesting it’s level of formality is wholly unnecessary and that it’s inception was initially based upon a misinterpretation of a poorly worded press release - a premise firmly denied of course, yet evident to anyone with the spare time to wade through the long discussions on the Britcaster forums. If nothing else it gives me a little confidence that I am not alone in my concerns.
I will respect the privacy of those out of the public eye conversations on the subject, but concerns can be summarised into two themes:
1. Who decided they should be the ones to represent the UK podcasting community; and
2. I do not like being inadvertently perceived as being represented by the UKPA.
Well, in answer to the first one, there’s nothing stopping anyone gathering together in a group and shouting as loud as they can muster that they are the answer to all our problems (what problems I hear you cry… well, personally, I’m not entirely sure there are any, you know, real problems). Anyone could have done this if they cared enough, someone did so they get to play in their sandpit. Let’s hope the cat didn’t get there first after getting hold of that old tin of salmon.
For the second point, well that’s quite difficult to deal with. You see the UKPA strapline states “Representing the interests and protecting the rights of UK podcasters”. As a UK podcaster, to those beyond these borders I will clearly be perceived as being part of this organisation, or at least supporting it, but unless they want to change it to “Representing the interests and protecting the rights of some UK podcasters”, the only way to try and break the default association is to openly voice objections to it.
There has even been one suggestion - I hope a little in jest - that I ban anyone with UKPA affiliations from access to the Britcaster website. Erm… no, that would go against almost everything Britcaster stands for.
I have suggested we should create some form of banner to slap on our websites that clearly states our complete independence - or something along those lines. But I wonder how many would be so public with the visible underlying, slightly sugary viscosity of those not wanting to damage relationships get up other people’s noses. If you are a podcaster and feel the urge, drop me a line or better still comment here (go on, be brave… though I’ll not permit this space to become a pro/con debate, that is for elsewhere - the UKPA blog or Britcaster forums are most appropriate - and odd as it may seem this website is not a democracy), and if there is genuinely enough interest then I’ll throw together some kind of banner stating a podcaster’s non-recognition of the (or any) UKPA. Maybe even an audio sweeper…
Hopefully we will see the UKPA ‘in action’ soon when they meet with the MCPS-PRS alliance regarding music licenses for podcasts. The subsequent noises coming out from them about this meeting will give an indication of their potential potency as an organisation. I do hope we will see specifics reported openly, not merely sensationalist generalities about what was discussed and agreed. An attitude of openness will help to deter a potential divide amongst UK podcasters - yes, some really do take it that seriously. For the first time, I do now, sadly, see a potential divide if the UKPA do not handle their relationship with non-members with care.
One thing I am very interested in seeing, though unlikely to find out with any accuracy, is the breakdown of UKPA members. Particularly the mix of long-standing active participants in the UK podcasting community compared to the newer arrivals and contributors, of which there has been a brief surge in recent months. The UKPA have stated they expect at least 50% of the 250 main UK podcasters to sign up. I have no prediction on either point, just interested in whether there are any noticeable trends.
Technorati Tags: UKPA, britcaster, podcasters association
38 Responses to “Outside inside”
May 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
I was actually thinking about this topic (again) this morning. Some way of showing that we aren’t part of UKPA would be good for those of us who want to make that point clear although, as you say, I’m not sure how it can be done without getting up people’s noses.
So, count me in for any audio or graphical goodness and viva la resistance!
May 15th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I’m in agreement here; I haven’t asked anyone to represent me anywhere anyhow as a podcaster. And the reasons for this are simple; I can fight my corner in most arenas, on-line and off, therefore the need for me to be represented by anyone else goes against my independant Glaswegian grain. So I’m not entirely hip-hop-happy about any claims of one group representing me, by default.
Also, I’m not entirely clear on what we need help with. I’m not aware of any threats to me as a podcast producer that I need ‘hauners’ (Glasgow colloquialism for needing help from your pals in a square-go, aka fight) with. No one has been able, as far as my limited research bears forth, to quantify issues from governments or other meddling civil servants that could hamper me doing what I do, namely produce a podcast that’s hosted in North America and downloaded around the world.
Now, if Neil D where to have come out and said, ‘Guys we need to band together formally, I feel it in my water’, then I’d sit up and listen carefully because I respect Neil’s position in the podcast community. Yes, I give more credance to old hands, ‘inner circle’ types like Neil than I do others that are newer to the community here in the UK. Sue me. Or, alternatively, prove to me that I’m wrong and we DO need official representation.
I still see the punk in podcasting, and while I may be a mid-30s white guy with a wife, 2 kids and a mortgage, I say that we can deal with any threats - real or imagined (and let’s face it, how are any threats going to be carried out? People still evade paying their license fee and Council Tax…) - as independant podcasters. Why? Because we’ve each got a voice and an audience.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
You and Neil should definately start a club. You like being uppity don’t you
May 15th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Sometimes
May 15th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Such irony.
May 16th, 2006 at 12:09 am
I thought my personal sugary viscosity was pretty overt
Personally, I don’t want to be seen to be represented by an organisation I’ve not joined. But … to find any kind of legitimacy the UKPA will surely publish a list of members on its site.
If it doesn’t indicate who its members are, it will have no legitimacy. Therefore, as you might expect, I think banners saying ‘I’m not a member of UKPA’ are completely unnecessary.
What is far more important is that any UKPA statements which are wrong or misleading, are challenged. Something I’m happy to do in the future, as I have done in the past.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:05 am
As someone who has never produced a podcast, perhaps I have no right to argue either way. The UKPA wouldn’t have me as a member anyway I presume - it isn’t the UK podcasters and listeners association after all.
Still, I can say what bothers me. And what bothers me is that people are joining this organisation simply because it exists, and really for no other reason. There seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to things like this where people, particularly early adopters, rush to join everything (and to some extent I am guilty of that myself), without really considering why.
Protect the interests of UK podcasters? Why? From whom? We know the ‘MCPS takes over your right to free speech’ argument is specious at best but it is still being used to create a perceived threat and sign people up.
In the end I suppose, I don’t really care much whether the UKPA exists or doesn’t, but I do care that people are being drawn ito something for entirely the wrong reasons.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Things you might like to include in your “Im not a member of” series of banners:
Podshow
Any union
Labour Party
Anti vivisection league
Tesco’s Club Card scheme
MI5
How else would we know that you are not a member of these organisations unless you display a series of prominent banners?
Public list of UKPA members: Good idea
Banners for UKPA members: Good idea
Banners proclaiming your non-membership of UKPA: Toss idea
Neil, I generally respect your arguments whether I agree with them or not, but come on. This idea is just plain idiotic. If you want to make your self look childish, this would be a good way to go.
Could I suggest that you speak to Dean at UKPA and ask him to clarify that the UKPA strives to protect the rights of UKPA members and that such members undertake to display a UKPA banner? Or would that just be way too easy?
Off to SL…
May 16th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
The banner idea is a little tongue in cheek, Paul, get a grip. The list of organisations you supplied do not openly advertise that they represent a group I am a part of, and the Tesco club card gets us a free bottle of < £3 wine now and then - maybe that’s where UKPA are going wrong…
SL? Are your the dungeon mathter with pluth five armour..?
May 16th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
“I have suggested we should create some form of banner to slap on our websites that clearly states our complete independence - or something along those lines. But I wonder how many would be so public with the visible underlying, slightly sugary viscosity of those not wanting to damage relationships get up other people’s noses. If you are a podcaster and feel the urge, drop me a line or better still comment here (go on, be brave… though I’ll not permit this space to become a pro/con debate, that is for elsewhere - the UKPA blog or Britcaster forums are most appropriate - and odd as it may seem this website is not a democracy), and if there is genuinely enough interest then I’ll throw together some kind of banner stating a podcaster’s non-recognition of the (or any) UKPA. Maybe even an audio sweeper…” Tongue in cheek?
BTW, the list was tongue in cheek. Doh
As ever, an iteresting blog Neil. Just a bit mad this time.
Take care
P
May 16th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
You sure know how to make a guy feel welcome.
Neil, you couch it in terms of geniality and you use comic terms, but your writing is full of not very veiled snipes.. … the scorn! the salmon! the sandpit! It’s funny, but at the same time, slightly creepy how aggressive this all actually is.
“new and now logo-enriched” = pompous upstarts
“all manner of perceived exploitative and legislative evils” = paranoid
“interested in seeing, though unlikely to find out with any accuracy..” = deceptive
“if there is genuinely enough interest then I’ll throw together some kind of banner stating a podcaster’s non-recognition of the (or any) UKPA. Maybe even an audio sweeper…”
Neil, you are issuing threats… ! and not very nice inferences either.
You make the case that UKPA is creating “a potential divide amongst UK podcasters” - yet we are not slagging off anyone, let alone organising a campaign against people who do not want to join!
Then there’s: “long-standing active participants in the UK podcasting community compared to the newer arrivals and contributors, of which there has been a brief surge in recent months.”
- by which I presume you seek to include myself. Well matey, I may not have chosen to comment on your forum until recently, but I have been podcasting since November 2004, and that makes me just as active and long-standing as anyone, thanks.
Plus, you go on about our supposed agenda but what about yours? “That would go against almost everything Britcaster stands for.” - which is laid out where? At least we have published a statement of aims.
And you have the cheek to tell Paul P to “get a grip” - honestly, look at yourself, man.
Alex: ” I don’t want to be seen to be represented by an organisation I’ve not joined”
How on earth you can seriously believe that we in any way are claiming to represent people who are not members is beyond me. You must think we are totally stupid. I put this in the same category as “scaremongering” and “paranoid”.
Adrian - another very narked person, who said we made him “queasy” - here, “what bothers me is that people are joining this organisation simply because it exists, and really for no other reason. There seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to things like this where people, particularly early adopters, rush to join everything (and to some extent I am guilty of that myself), without really considering”
You are seriously demeaning aren’t you? Paying no attention to the very articulate reasons people have opted to give for joining - completely unasked for - Nige101 for e.g.
“I’m going to join the UKPA. Why? a long time ago I was freelance working in a well known theatre in Central London. It was my first ever paid freelance job, I was young (19 I think) and as such I was treated like I was a bit wet behind the ears and had a lot to learn. Anyway, the tech manager at this theatre was, shall we say, not completely on the ball and I told the theatre admin as much. I was given the ‘you have no right to say such a thing when you’ve only been here 5 minutes’ speech and never worked there again. I relayed this story to a much wiser and tech savvy collegue a few weeks later and was told that it’s always easier to fight from the inside rather than criticise from the outside.
Therefore I will join for free, see where this organisation is headed and if I don’t like it, I will leave. It’s not costing me anything and it’s easier to influence policy as a member than as an outsider. Seeing as my primary podcast plays copyrighted material (with permission) I quite like the thought of someone fighting in my corner the day this all goes pear shaped (and it will come).”
Look guys - I appreciate that what we have done is, in these quarters at least, unwelcome. But criminal, it isn’t. Divisive, it isn’t. It’s just our version of common sense.
Until/unless I / we start issuing threats or engaging in muttering and sniping against you, I’d appreciate a little respect, and dare I ask for it, some solidarity, not as a member of anything, but just as a podcasting individual who happens to believe that the time has come to take some collective action. What is it that you find so threatening about that?
I don’t have any issues about belonging, not belonging. I am acting in good faith on behalf of podcasters whether they choose to join or not. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I gave the example of the MU - which I am a member. In bands, nobody gives a flying fuck if you belong or not. It’s just good for some things, for some people. You get free legal advice. Cheap insurance. You get listed in the directory. You get to use some decent, basic contracts. The MU try to keep the playing field green and playable for all, it negotiates with agencies, and it warns members about dodgy companies. UKPA can do these things. What’s wrong with that?
May 16th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Before anybody siezes the opportunity to indulge in another slagging:
“How on earth you can seriously believe that we in any way are claiming to represent people who are not members is beyond me.”
“I am acting in good faith on behalf of podcasters whether they choose to join or not.”
These statements may appear to contradict, but they don’t.
UKPA (we) is representing its members only and not claiming to represent anyone else.
I (me personally) am acting on behalf of podcasters - not representing them - whether they join or not. I am doing this when I argue for freedoms and rights which will benefit all. It doesn’t matter whether this matters to an individual or not - everyone benefits. That is what I mean. There is a difference, I hope I have made it clear, so please do not now use this to try and prove the reverse of what I have said.
Thanks, and goodnight.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:42 am
From Dean “slightly creepy how aggressive this all actually is.” I’m only passively watching the comments going back and forth, and I still don’t have a problem with the existence of a UKPA (but I’m not a podcaster… I’d be a little more involved in the discussion if I were) but what did strike me is how Neil’s been called aggressive for standing up for what he believes in. That’s aggressive? I’m afraid the accusations and retorts being so ‘passionately” expressed seem a bit knife-in-teeth coming from the UKPA camp Dean.
Since I’ve worked in Animal Rights and Animal Rescue for over 10 years, I’ve seen plenty of passionate people dish out the same attitude that they perceive around them as opposition, but what you’re not willing to see is that it’s OK for Neil (and other podcasters) to walk a different path and be vocal about it — it’s not aggressive to be equally passionate in what they believe is right. It’s fair.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:47 am
> please do not now use this to try and prove the reverse of what I have said
I’m not in the business of proving anything, just voicing an opinion in a space it seems where contrary positions are preferred to be kept quiet and subdued. Like I said, this is not a space for debate, though I’ll leave the posts here since you went to so much trouble to type them.
> couch it in terms of geniality and you use comic terms, but your writing is full of not very veiled snipes
Hardly veiled. It’s the way I choose to write on my own blog about subjects I feel strongly about.
And Dean, stop taking things so personally - I would be voicing my objections to a UKPA regardless of who was doing it - as I did when podcastpaul brought the subject up ahead of your appearance. It is the principle of a formal organisation I am against not any particular individual.
Don’t panic, there won’t be endless comments on the matter here unless the is reason to do so and like the vast majority of posts here content is triggered by conversations, exchanges and happenings around me, not merely my opinions. Without a number of unsolicited conversations on the subject recently, this post wouldn’t have happened as the subject would not have had my ADD-riddled focus for a few hours. Expect more in the future on the subject at some point of course, but most visitors to this site find podcasting no more than a passing curiosity.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:12 am
The four stages of team building:
Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing
Guess where the ‘podcasting team’ is …
May 17th, 2006 at 9:42 am
[...] Neil Dixon’s excellent post - and check out the comments! [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 10:02 am
You have completely avoided answering my serious points, Neil.
“Don’t panic”
There is no panic here. I have responded at length, in detail. I am pointing out the contradictions between your “philosophy” and your actions, in particular, your grand claim that UKPA is being divisive.
Who is actually creating this divide?
“long-standing active participants in the UK podcasting community compared to the newer arrivals and contributors”
- if that’s not a them-and-us description, what is?
“An attitude of openness will help to deter a potential divide amongst UK podcasters - yes, some really do take it that seriously. For the first time, I do now, sadly, see a potential divide if the UKPA do not handle their relationship with non-members with care.”
Sure, but I do not see you treating us with care. All I see is scorn, and sniping, and discouragement.
“If you are a podcaster and feel the urge, drop me a line or better still comment here (go on, be brave…”
then you write “if there is genuinely enough interest then I’ll throw together some kind of banner stating a podcaster’s non-recognition of the (or any) UKPA. Maybe even an audio sweeper…”
And you claim this is “tongue in cheek” !!
One word for your attitude: disingenuous.
Your claim that you are not being “personal” is derisory, when you are indulging in some not-so-subtle character assassination and doing your best to undermine our efforts towards social organisation. And despite your assertions to the contrary, you are being personal. You did your best to shoot down Podcast Paul when he first suggested the UKPA, and now the suggestion is that this somehow means that I should accept the same behaviour. Well, I’m not Podcast Paul, and I’m going to react differently. I don’t have any grandiose ideas about being the “Daddy” or “The Man Who Created UKPA” - I am just the guy who stepped up to the mark and did something I (and others) felt needed doing.
Britcaster is a club - and not a bad one. I like it. I’m pleased it’s there. I didn’t start that thread about the “inner circle” - but its bloody obvious there is one, and that you resent there being any other option for podcasters. Surely the podcast world is big enough that everyone can do what they want without laying down the law for others? Like, thou shalt not be in an organisation unless I see the point of it. You sound to me like a pre-reformation priest, who doesn’t want to see his profitable line in selling indulgences taken away.
Having slept on it, I’ve realised that I have done my best to answer every single question and challenge that has been put for months - and I do not see you doing the same. So, why not answer some of the questions I raised, like, where is your statement of aims? and why do you feel so threatened? And more importantly - where is your generosity?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Deek said “Sure, but I do not see you treating us with care. All I see is scorn, and sniping, and discouragement.”
If that’s what you see happening, rise above it! You’re going to be expected to defend the rights of UK podcasters to governments and they may play dirtier than the perceived Britcaster inner circle.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Dean, the reason I didn’t answer your comments in full this morning are two-fold: it was early and I had a train to catch for a meeting in London first thing this morning. Business and commercially podcast related as it happens.
Bottom line Dean, I disagree with the need or a formal association and have voiced that in the appropriate places and here one and a half times now on my blog - the most appropriate place for my personal opinions, don’t you think? Motivation, aims, whatever do not go beyond that. I doubt you believe that, but hey, that’s the way it goes.
I have never tried to tell anyone not to join UKPA or anything els,e I have merely voiced my personal opinion about it’s relevance. I leave everyone to make up their own minds as most people are intelligent enough to do just that. You really seem to have an over-inflated sense of my own importance.
> where is your statement of aims
Aims? Erm… earn enough to pay the rent, get enough time to do some watercolours, do a podcast now and then. Pretty much covers it. Oh and there’s to post on my blog about the things that matter to me.
Britcaster is nothing more than an aggregator and a forum - an open forum at that… a rare entity in this day and age, but there you have it. It’s not particularly precious to me, just something I did which others find useful. If you or others see it as some kind of club, then it is a unintentional result of it’s surprising popularity and visibility. I thought it might not have lasted even as long as it had, but there you go.
You say I am ‘disingenuous’ then you know nothing of who I am. Passionate, opinionated - sometimes vigourously so - yes, but you get what you see. Others see hidden motives, plans, schemes and conspiracies everywhere, great, keeps their lives interesting. When I don’t like something, I say so. If I wanted to have a go at you personally, I would be direct and say so - trust me, there would be no ambiguity there. I usually walk away from political situations because I have no time for them, but I will also not be bullied into keeping quiet just because another party cant deal with an opposing view.
> I am just the guy who stepped up to the mark and did something I (and others) felt needed doing
Good for you, hope it works out, enjoy the ride.
> Surely the podcast world is big enough that everyone can do what they want without laying down the law for others
Yes, of course it is. What ‘laws’ am I laying down? I feel like a parrot here, but I am just expressing my personal opinion.
> why do you feel so threatened
I don’t feel threatened. I do feel that a formal association presents an unhealthy external perception of UK podcasters (that parrot who seems to be ignored again). That opinion has been expressed several times elsewhere. It is the UKPA that see podcasters being threatened - by governing bodies, licensing authorities, etc, etc.
> And you claim this is “tongue in cheek” !!
I said ‘a little tongue in cheek’. The whole principle of organising some opposing group is just absurd. But, there are others than me who are unhappy about the existence of a UKPA as the initial comments here demonstrate. That’s just the way it is, get on with what you have to do, there’s no campaign here, just opinions. If there were a campaign against the UKPA then these comments and opinions would be far more strategic and targeted than posts and comments on personal blogs. I do not have an activist mentality, there’s little I care about to that extent other than the people close to me. If people stop talking to me about UKPA, then I’d likely forget to mention the subject here or anywhere else. Feel free to keep it going if you want to waste more of your valuable time.
> “long-standing active participants in the UK podcasting community
> compared to the newer arrivals and contributors”
>
> - if that’s not a them-and-us description, what is?
Not at all. Let me paint the picture. In the initial months of Britcaster’s creation there was a surge of signups to the forum and new podcasts. That dies down a little and most of the activity since then - discounting a brief surge around Podcastcon - was from a core bunch of people regularly posting. no offence to any of those, but they’ll likely admit it was getting a little stale here and there and days went by without substantial posts and discussions. Then in recent months with a little help from being mentioned on DSC a few times, there has been a new influx of registrations and some welcome new blood to the forum. You see, two distinct periods in Britcaster’s life span, which is what I was referring to.
> where is your generosity
You don’t need it. Go off, do your stuff, prove us wrong in our opinions.
There, some specific questions answered.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
And I think Neil’s last comment is key, and it’s a comment that’s been reflected in part by others who have joined UKPA, or expressed an interest in doing so; if it works out it works out, they’ll stick around, if it doesn’t work out they’ll leave. And those of us who, as of May 2006, feel there isn’t a need for UK podcasters to have their rights officially represented, may be proved wrong in 6 months, 1 year or however long from now.
I’ve been struggling all day to come up with an analogy for how I see the forming of UKPA presents UK podcasters to the rest of the world. The best I can come up with is that the UK podcasters are seen like an twitchy, OCD neighbour who’s worried that another neighbour’s car will block their drive, even though at present no other neighbours on their street even own cars. But that hasn’t stopped this twitchy neighbour putting up ‘KEEP CLEAR’ and ‘PRIVATE PROPERTY’ signs all around their drive just in case someone does buy a car and parks it too close to their driveway, all the while compounding the perception of ODC induced twitchyness.
Not the best analogy, I admit, but the UK is at risk already from marginalising itself due to an almost xenophobic fear that the rest of the world isn’t taking us seriously enough and sees us as uppity, backwater, tea drinking, garden shed potterers, when in reality we’re probably being seen as actually taking ourselves far too seriously. Hence the concern among some that the formation of a UKPA doesn’t help our public image…
May 17th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
> where is your generosity
I considered this a little more, so just to add some clarification… my generosity and respect for those involved is surely reflected by me keeping these opinions within strict boundaries. I am not voicing them indiscriminately all over the place, not even within UKPA’s blog or your own blog, not conversing on other blogs, forums (other than Britcaster, and then only when prompted or motivated) or spreading my ‘preachings’ all across the land, not being spread across emails or IM’s unless I am explicitly asked for an opinion (even this post was prompted by the number of very recent unsolicited conversations about the UKPA). Hopefully that’s enough for you.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Mark, I like the OCD analogy.. but I don’t share that perception of UK. My friends on the outside (i.e. Foreigners) majoritively share the view that we Brits are intelligent, articulate and a lot more clued up than other nations. I am personally confident that we are not scared of our neighbours’ cars.
But where does this “officially represented” tag come from? Not these quarters. It’s all being read into.. nothing to do with actual fact. Nobody I have spoken to re: UKPA has ever made that claim.
Neil, I am not so graceless not to acknowledge your “clarification” for which I thank you, but I still hold that you are disingenuous - just without the link this time - and if you are certain you are not, then you should look at what you have said because it definitely comes across as such.
You are in any case very self-contradictory, and your style of argument is thick with implication. Even now you are still doing it: “will also not be bullied into keeping quiet” - whose bullying? I’m certainly not, but your phraseology pictures you bravely resisting… whom? Nobody is forcing anyone to do or be anything. “I don’t feel threatened.” Sorry, I don’t buy it, because you act like you do.
You love to wind people up, you like being the gadfly. But it’s one thing being a gadfly and another suggesting coordinated wrecking manouvres. OF COURSE I will stand up and make a defense, and I won’t idly stand by and watch community infighting break out, without at least making the case for a bit more cooperation.
I agree that your last sentence is key - “Go off” being the two words in the lock. I bet you wish we would. The only place I might go off to is Cologne, because the German group invited me; but I probably won’t get there, because I will be too busy preparing for the various meetings we have set up.
Neil, I also think you should come clean and tell the people that despite your prominent anti-stance - with which I have no problem - that I did invite you to attend the MCPS meeting. So, that’s hardly exclusive, is it? Not at all the divisiveness you portray.
The issues which we face are real, and they require concerted efforts to combat them. If they were imaginary I do not think we would have attracted the support we have from other groups. This more than anything has confirmed that we ARE doing the right thing. I am thrilled that other nations and other groups have accepted and welcomed us - I think it speaks volumes.
Peace.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Just a note to say that I have seen this thread. I’m saddened that the arguments go on, but there we go.
If you’re not a member of UKPA, but a UK podcaster , you are, will and remain a UK podcaster. If you’re not a member of Britcaster, but a UK podcaster, you’re still a UK podcaster. The MU analogy has been used time and again, and this is how I see UKPA proceeding.
The MU as a collective progress things - on behalf of their members,and as a sideline ,the non members benefit. Groups don’t fall out over the union I guess many are not bothered about the status.
I don’t think there are public protests about the MU, though I could of course be wrong. If you want to form an “Anti UKPA Association” or rally support, go ahead. I obviously won’t join, but I will respect your view. I can’t think I’ll be displaying an “Anti, Anti UKPA Association” banner. I simply don’t have the time or inclination.
You don’t need to be a UKPA member to be a UK podcaster in the same way you don’t need to be a hamburger to visit McDonalds.
The interests will be represented as a collaberative of those members present in a UKPA forum, if you’re not there, they won’t be.
Insisting on a list of members may be a good point. I’ll ask UKPA to ask its members - and here’s the first anomoly. If you don’t recognise an association, you can’t very well ask it to do something. Generally, you won’t find a list of members for many associations though.
I’m remaining diplomatic - I’ve said all I need to say. There are folks equally as passionate at wanting a collective discussion under the UKPA banner. I’m happy to speak to those folks about those goals and aims, and I sincerely hope that UKPA does bring about benefits for members and non members alike.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Disingenuous is what you read, others might also while still others do not - let the individual reader decide for themselves. We both display character traits here which are plain for all to see and make decisions about, rightly or wrongly, such is the nature of life online. Whatever we do, we have to accept that there will be a bunch of people who will be in opposition.
Just as you feel I am disingenuous, I do feel you are bullying as you hit back at each individual here on a personal level as is evident above. You want those who object to be quiet and not question something they feel strongly about because that is in opposition to your view. Unfortunately you have turned this post from what should have been a small little voicing of opinions tucked away in the corner of my blog into a discussion which has extended to other blogs and is being increasingly linked to. There is far more noise now than there should be.
I really do not know what you want from me, Dean. Want me to shut up? Never, not on my own insignificant blog… freedom of speech and all that.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
oops…quick correction - I meant to say - you won’t find a list of members on websites…
I really will say no more now.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Good grief Dean, get a grip. I keep trying to understand why you seem so angry, but I can’t. I actually take offence to the ‘disingenuous’ comment and how you so flippantly apply it to Neil.
I fell in love with him from 4000 miles and saw what an open and honest person he is, yet even though he signs his real name and address to everything he’s been doing on the web, you still attempt to discredit him with such harsh accusations. I’ve tried to be level-headed and fair about everything I’ve said on the UKPA matter, but this discrediting from you is starting to piss me off.
He’s not dragging you personally through the mud, but you are clearly dragging him through it.
You’ve crossed the line into looking like a real jerk. That’s a shame. I didn’t want to think that about you. It’s also a shame that this attitude from you is so plainly linked and documented to the UKPA now. What unfortunate PR for your growing organisation.
(Looks like I’m the first to name-call. I’m not proud, but I’m not sorry either. You can only slander my husband and best friend so long before I get angry. I’m sure that’s understandable. I look forward to what vocabulary word you choose to describe me with, though I’ve attempted to stay inquisitively neutral throughout all discussion around the UKPA.)
Good luck with the UKPA and its future. I do mean that sincerely.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Paul, your neutrality and fairness is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your much needed balance regarding all of this tense discussion.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
I have no problem with dissent, and I entirely reject that I have “bullied” anyone. I am not requesting ANYONE least of all you to keep quiet - and it is wrong of you to suggest that.
What I (quite rightly) took exception to was the coordinated undermining of our efforts. It is no laughing matter. If I had taken a crack at a project you held to be worthwhile, I would expect a similar reaction.
Once again, peace.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:09 am
No bullying. OK. Tomato/potato.
Your conspiratorial and frankly unsubstantiated claim that there is “coordinated undermining” is just plain silly. You’d have those with questions about the motivations and structure of the UKPA shut up and sit down but they won’t. If intelligent questions over the UKPA are not what you bargained for then you’ve been kidding yourself about the very independent podcasters your organisation aims to protect and represent.
It’s also clear that anything I’ve contributed, supported, or inquired about regarding the UKPA is in one ear and out the other as it seems that you (Dean) couldn’t call me ‘childish’ but in a private email to Neil this morning. Sorry, but the language I use and questions I pose have been anything but ‘childish.’ Childish would be to say, “nanni nanni boo boo stick your head in doo doo” but I save that one for the people who really piss me off, and you haven’t quite made it to that level yet.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Hey, is everyone going to Podfest??
May 18th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Count us in!
May 18th, 2006 at 9:20 am
See you there!
May 18th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
when is it?
May 18th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I’m not a podcaster, but I read all the comments with interest. I have a few questions.
1. What are the government threats, etc. that podcasters face?
2. How will joining the organization help them? Will it be like a union? Who will they strike against , and will anyone care?
3. What leverage does the organization give podcasters against whatever interference comes from govt., etc?
4. I honestly don’t understand. Why is Mr. Whitbread so defensive? If what he offers is needed, it will succeed, no matter what. If it isn’t needed, it won’t succeed. Simple.
My personal opinion is that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Ditch the paranoia, give it a rest, and everything will sort itself out.
Just one more question, and this is NOT specific to the subject at hand. It’s just something that popped into my head. Why do humans always want to organize things–associations for this, associations for that? We started with banding together for physical protection (good idea). So how did we get to where we are?
May 19th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I agree with Ginny. There is now so much to read through on so many different blogs that I really have no idea what the whole crux of this is. I missed the start of this whole thing and I’d rather disembowel myself with a rusty teaspoon than dredge through weeks worth of argument / discussion / opinion to find out
So - can someone in the know post up:
(a) the threat(s);
(b) where they claim they heard it/them from;
(c) what UKPA aims to do for members, and;
(d) succinct bulletpoints of the main pros and cons of joining / not joining ?
At least that way, latecomers like me will be able to get a quick induction and thereafter be able to take an informed part in the discussion.
Cheers !
Grant
Three From Leith podcast
http://www.threefromleith.com
May 19th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Grant & Ginny,
I will do my best to give you information without personal prejudice - just what has been said and done as far as I am aware. I would invite others to correct anything factual in this account of the current situation of both sides of the fence, but let’s not get into opinions and perceptions again.
(a) & (b) There are those who say there are threats and other who say they are merely perceived threats.
The originating threat derives form the press release issued by the MCPS-PRS alliance which outlined their plans to give podcasters a licence to play their members’ music in their podcasts. Not the most affordable solution I think everyone would agree. Read it here
The contentious issue was at the end of the press release which read: “Non-music podcasts (e.g. predominantly speech with very little music) will be licensed under a new on-demand scheme for non-music services”
This is where the split of opinion makes its appearance. In one corner this text is perceived as referring to a a license for non music podcasts to use licensed music (presumably as intro, outro or beds) because that is the very subject of the press release. In the other corner is the belief that this wording means the MCPS-PRS are planning on creating a licence on speech only podcasts themselves, thereby making podcasters pay to produce their podcasts.
Both sides of the argument agree the wording is ambiguous.
Dean called the MCPS-PRS press office and they admitted to him that they want to extend their remit into voice-only podcasting - that may not be a precise quote as I”m going from memory, so someone correct it if they know better about that particular conversation. Paul Parkinson and Alex Bellinger have also spoken to the MCPS PRS press office and report that they have refuted the notion that they are wanting to extend their remit into licensing speech only podcasts.
The perceived threat of the MCPS-PRS licensing speech only podcasts was the main initial argument raised for the creation of an association, first brought up by Podcastpaul and a little later by Dean Whitbread, on the Britcaster forums.
In addition to calling on the MCPS-PRS to issue an official statement explicitly stating their position - as Dean has said that telecons with the press office are not appropriate evidence (see these comments particularly Alex’s and Dean’s response for clarification) - the UKPA want also to negotiate a more reasonable license for UK podcasters to use licensed music and to ease up the various podcasting rules the MCPS-PRS are requiring podcasters who take up the license to adhere to (details of those on the press release link above).
(c) See UKPA site here and here
(d) I couldn’t answer that fully without being prejudice to my personal viewpoint and I’m not starting all that fuss again. However, the UKPA state they are fighting for the good of all UK podcasters members or not, and the benefit of being a member is that you should have some influence on how the fight is engaged and how/where the association goes in the future.
Those choosing to remain non-members feel they are perfectly able to fight their own battles as and when necessary, possibly by forming a loose co-operative or simply as individuals.
Someone else might want to step in and comment here with any disadvantages to membership because I cannot express what I feel are disadvantages without injecting my personal opinion.
There are those who fully support an association, those who see the potential need for one but disagree with the initial core issue above, and then there are those who think it is altogether unnecessary as a formal organisation. There are also, unfortunately, directed personal opinions flying around regarding the credibility and motivations driving individuals on both sides of the argument, but that is not for here and only time will reveal the truths from the misconceptions within either camp.
Hope that helps you not to have to wade through the now extremely long discussions on Britcaster!
May 25th, 2006 at 1:56 am
“Dean called the MCPS-PRS press office and they admitted to him that they want to extend their remit into voice-only podcasting”
No this is not what happened.
FYI the reason I decided to defend what we were doing was because I was being accused of things which were untrue which related to the set up and aims of UK Podcasters Association. I’m glad to say that as a result of my robust and prompt defense, I got an apology or three and I have stopped worrying about it. However, I am still concerned not to be misrepresented.
You can read the press release from the MCPS-PRS which sparked up the whole debate here, and you can judge for yourself whether this indicates a move towards speech only. We still have not seen a written explanation. What we want is their express reassurance that they are not seeking to do this.
Meanwhile, everyone here has ignored the fact that MCPS-PRS are still asking lots of money (£400 per year) and seeking to impose restrictive practises (the podcast rules) upon Podcasters who use licensed music.
You can follow the story in full at Podcast Nation.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Thanks for clarifying, Dean, I’ve edited the above account appropriately.