[Rfu-barnraising] Re: Proposal for WRFU webcasting

[Andrew Ó Baoill]

Phil,

Thanks for putting a proposal together. Four thoughts occur to me:
* My concerns about the impact of being webcast on the type of  
content people will tend to produce generally relate more to talk- 
based programming.
* Many of our talk-based programming will actually have a mix of  
music and talk.   This proposal will only allow those shows that have  
no music whatsoever.
* Taking a webstream up and down on an ongoing basis is akin to going  
on and off air continually. This would be very confusing for online  
listeners.
* My thought is that podcasting - putting static recordings of  
individual shows online, which can be downloaded - makes more sense  
online, as it is a more 'web-native' technology. That is, it takes  
advantage not just of the collapsing of distance facilitated by the  
internet (which I discuss in the first point above) but also removes  
the time-boundedness of scheduling. [OK, time-boundedness isn't a  
word, but I think you get the point!]

Some other brief notes on the overall discussion:
* There's an important distinction between local streaming on CUWiN  
and streaming on the internet. Streaming on CUWiN, being local, would  
not trigger my fears about damaging our conception of community  
(though, like others, I would prefer a focus on facilitating in-bound  
content, which can be redistributed, rather than a focus on the  
'broadcast' element.)

Streaming online is a different matter. First, it doesn't seem  
necessarily anchored in any of the involved working groups, since  
WRFU's stream would, most naturally, go direct from our studio, by  
wire to our internet connection. It could be seen to fall under the  
tech working group, but they haven't been involved in this discussion  
to date. Second, it raises the various points I raised above in  
relation to conceptualizing target community.

* Pete has just added some interesting notes. I'd agree with much of  
his analysis, but disagree with some of his conclusions. He deals  
with two issues. First, copyright, which I'll leave to one side.  
Second, the strategic value to the community media movement of  
establishing online bulkheads. While digitization is very much  
happening, in several forms, it is important not just that community  
media have a space in the future, but that we consider how we want to  
shape that future. In this regard internet streaming is only one  
possible option, and I've given arguments as to why it may not be a  
favoured option.

Andrew

On 28 DFómh 2005, at 08:34, Phil Stinard wrote:

>> From our discussion so far, there seem to be varying ideas about the
>>
> consequences of violating DMCA regulations on webcasting.  I  
> propose that we get all of the software and hardware prepared so  
> that we COULD do webcasting if we decide to go that route.  I  
> propose that we postpone the decision about webcasting music until  
> we have more information about costs and regulations, and have  
> hashed out the philosophical issues, and that IF we decide to do  
> webcasting in the future, that we strictly abide by the DMCA  
> regulations and that individual shows have the option of turning  
> off webcasting for their program if they decide that they do not  
> wish to abide by the regulations.  If we can webcast news and  
> information programs without paying any royalties and without  
> violating any regulations, then webcasting remains an option for  
> those kinds of programs.  Andrew, how do you feel about this?  Is  
> this something we can decide on at our next meeting?
>
> --Phil

--
Andrew Ó Baoill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- -
Inst. of Communications Research, U. of Illinois
Communications / Participatory media / Political action
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- -
andrew at funferal.org / baoillo at uiuc.edu
aim: funferal at mac.com
+353-87-241-7003 / +1-(217) 384-3142
http://funferal.org / Galway, Ireland / Urbana, IL, USA