[RFU] Re: [Rfu-barnraising] Re: {leti} Re: the automation question

[Phil Stinard]

Okay, Sascha, I'm an official WRFUer, and I'm planning to have a show of 
Puerto Rican music with my friend Julio.  Here is my opinion.  I think that 
it's great that CUWIN is setting up streaming that can be used by any group 
affiliated with the IMC.  I don't think that anyone at WRFU doesn't want you 
to do this.  The question is whether WRFU wants to stream all of its 
broadcasts, and we've discussed this extensively as a group before and 
decided NOT to do so for now.  You've turned this into a question of whether 
or not to have streaming for the IMC in general, but it's clear from your 
original comment:

>>>I haven't heard  of any negative repercussions from streaming, and unless 
>>>someone  can make the case the WRFU would be differentially impacted, I  
>>>think WEFT provides us with a fairly good (local) precedent.

that you were talking about whether WRFU itself should be streamed, and I 
personally expressed negative repercussions at last night's barnraising 
meeting.  You have not addressed them.  My concerns are (1) cost of 
licensing fees, and (2) restrictions on the number of songs you can play 
from one album or by one artist.  It is not fair to obligate WRFU to concern 
(1) (i. e., it's WRFU's decision to make), and I'm not willing to risk 
losing the station's license for concern (2).  Andrew has additional 
philosophical views with which I'm in general agreement.

--Phil


>From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha at ucimc.org>
>To: Andrew Ó Baoill <andrew at funferal.org>
>CC: WRFU Mailing list <rfu at lists.chambana.net>,rfu barnraising 
><rfu-barnraising at lists.chambana.net>
>Subject: [RFU] Re: [Rfu-barnraising] Re: {leti} Re: the automation question
>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:29:40 -0500
>
>Hi all,
>
>Clearly there's been some miscommunication here.  CUWiN has been explicit 
>from the very beginning that we're interested in the multimedia integration 
>aspects of the Barnraising -- this is one of the main reasons why we got 
>involved in the first place.  We've always been extremely up-front about it 
>and am a little confused as to why this is coming up now, if there's a 
>widely held concern about streaming, etc.  I'd like to hear from other 
>WRFU-ers.
>
>I also think Andrew is quite mistaken in his analysis that setting up a 
>streaming server somehow infringes on WRFU's autonomy.  The streaming 
>server is being set up by Acorn as part of a multimedia system that'll be 
>housed at the IMC, as a part of a project that dates back to last Fall and 
>is a collaboration among the IMC, Acorn, and CUWiN.  WRFU is free to use 
>the service or not; meanwhile, the streaming will also be available to the 
>shows group (think live feeds from the IMC), video and audio groups (for 
>media dissemination), interested organizations, and the local community as 
>a whole.  This server is an extension of the Chambana.net project and has 
>been planned for quite some time.
>
>Clearly, WRFU should decide for itself whether it wants to stream; 
>likewise, the Barnraising ad-hoc committee should decide what's happening 
>at the Barnraising (this is what we created the group to do and the 
>Barnraising is a collaborative effort among multiple different groups and 
>organizations).  So I'll reiterate what I stated previously, we plan to 
>stream during the Barnraising and WRFU can decide what it wants to do down 
>the road.  Are there other folks with concerns about this?  Cause I'd like 
>to get them addressed before we're in the midst of the chaos and stress of 
>the barnraising itself.
>
>Let me know,
>
>--Sascha
>
>P.S.  Meanwhile, we're still looking for volunteers to help with 1st floor 
>construction.  I'm in the space _every_ day (often several times a day) and 
>haven't seen too many WRFU-ers there -- we really need all the help we can 
>get, so please volunteer.
>
>Andrew Ó Baoill wrote:
>>As I mentioned to Sascha off-list, I hadn't realized that the  streaming 
>>issue would be raised again at last night's meeting. We had  decided, a 
>>few weeks ago, to leave the issue of streaming to one side  until after 
>>the barnraising - reflecting also my understanding of  WRFU's current 
>>position - so I didn't realize it would be back on the  agenda. [My 
>>apologies, by the way, for my absence - my students  wanted their grades, 
>>and they wanted them NOW!] I've dropped leti  from the extensive cc: list, 
>>as this is more of an non-techie  internal discussion.
>>
>>The WEFT case I quoted was an analysis of WEFT's decision to increase  
>>power, serving a larger area, so as I said it is not completely  
>>analogous, but some of the same arguments can be raised. The Bekken  
>>article, which I recommend to anyone interested in community media,  is 
>>available online at:
>>http://www.infoshop.org/texts/seizing/bekken.html
>>
>>My concerns with streaming are multiple, though not necessarily  absolute, 
>>and go to the issue of what the role of a community station  is, something 
>>on which reasonable people can differ, and how  structures will impact 
>>content, a possible topic for many  dissertations ;-).
>>
>>Further, however, there's the question of who should decide whether  WRFU 
>>will be a streaming operation - Prometheus staff, the  Barnraising ad hoc 
>>group, CUWiN, or WRFU itself. To say that we'll  set up streaming at the 
>>Barnraising and "see what happens down the  road" seems a rather strong 
>>impingement on WRFU's autonomy and self- determination, though I fully 
>>realize it is not intended as such.
>>
>>I'm open to persuasion on the issue of streaming, but want to make  sure 
>>the decision is made 'right way around.' Purely on a practical  basis, 
>>given our current funding situation, I don't think it's  something we 
>>should embark on now.
>>
>>Oh, and I'll definitely take Sascha up on that offer of grabbing a  beer 
>>to talk these things over! :-)
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>On 27 DFómh 2005, at 16:44, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>Andrew and I should go grab a beer so I can get a better feel for  his 
>>>concerns; but I and other folks are definitely interested in  setting up 
>>>streaming.  I'm not sure I buy that streaming would  necessarily 
>>>negatively impact the quality and/or community  grounding of the station 
>>>-- at WEFT, we streamed for quite some  time and only stopped because the 
>>>price increased.  I haven't heard  of any negative repercussions from 
>>>streaming, and unless someone  can make the case the WRFU would be 
>>>differentially impacted, I  think WEFT provides us with a fairly good 
>>>(local) precedent.  Also,  just so it's noted somewhere, we decided at 
>>>last night's  Barnraising meeting to do streaming during the Barnraising, 
>>>that  part of things is a go.
>>>
>>>Either way, I think there's a core group of folks who would be very  
>>>interested in learning about streaming and how to set this sort of  
>>>system up -- so we should definitely do that.  Long-term, it could  be 
>>>that WRFU decides not to stream their signal; however, other  stations 
>>>(such as WEFT) may be interested and this is an  opportunity to 
>>>demonstrate how this works.  Since we already have a  server 
>>>infrastructure available through the IMC, I think it makes  all the sense 
>>>in the world for us to set this up for the  Barnraising and see what 
>>>happens down the road.
>>>
>>>--Sascha
>
>--
>Sascha Meinrath
>Policy Analyst    *  Project Coordinator  *  President
>Free Press       *** CU Wireless Network *** Acorn Active Media
>www.freepress.net *  www.cuwireless.net   *  www.acornactivemedia.com
>_______________________________________________
>RFU mailing list
>RFU at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/rfu