Good morning, citizen

While Enz fans all over the world wring their hands in frustration at their inability to access what might end up being the most important music documentary ever made in New Zealand (congratulate and thank Jeremy Ansell for me), you can always count on 95bFM's The Wire to deal with the big issues.

I downloaded and had a listen to the Russell Brown interview with Richard Hulse from Radio New Zealand - an interview that was sparked by my open letter here last week.

Russell's approach to the issue was purely a fact-finding mission and he managed to dispel the worst of my fears - or at least, their symptoms. As he explains on today's Hard News:

This doesn't mean that Dubber's philosophy is wrong, or that RNZ shouldn't push copyright holders harder on behalf of the rest of us, but the situation is a bit better than he thought.

I have to say it was good to hear Richard's comments on this, and it was nice to feel that I'd been listened to, even if we don't see eye to eye on everything.

I met Richard when I was in Wellington shortly before I left the country. I was being shown around and I think he was probably a bit taken aback by my forthright critique of his work.

I like to think it wasn't an impoliteness thing on my part, but rather an enthusiasm for what could come out of the work he was doing and a desire to see it become as good as possible.

I told him what I thought of only serving Windows Media and Real Audio. I was quite enthusiastic about both mp3 and ogg vorbis streaming at the time and it does seem he's changed his mind on that front.

It's also nice to hear that the bandwidth issue is a little more enlightened than when we last spoke: 8kbps is still the lower limit, but back in July decisions were being made about whether 24 or 32k would be the top end. Nice to hear that a couple of things are getting up above that (the Enzology series in particular) even if you can't listen to them anywhere outside of the broadcast coverage area.

Of course, he left a far better impression on me than I'm sure I left on him, and I'm sure he knows what he's doing. But having said that, there were a few phrases in the interview that really rang alarm bells.

Asked if there have been discussions with RIANZ, Richard said "yes, and in fact they've been very amicable".

Well, of course they've been amicable discussions. You're not trying to do anything that RIANZ doesn't want you to do.

Like make programmes available to the public, for instance.

He also talked about international reciprocal agreements between record industry associations being "the way it works", but then said he didn't really know how those agreements related to internet content delivery.

Surely finding that out might be considered a priority - especially in light of the fact that every other public broadcaster on the face of the planet seems at least capable of a live stream.

Are we relying on RIANZ for this information?

Here's another one: "We're not doing anything that would allow the material to be pirated. That's just not acceptable."

You've got to be really careful of that word - because it seems to get used in the sense that anything you record off TV to watch later would also be considered 'piracy'. Or providing a document that can be fitted into a photocopier allows printed material to be pirated.

Just because it's music, the term 'piracy' is applied to any loss of control by the record industry over the way that the media is consumed. And because that word is used in every case, the notion that it's morally wrong has been normalised.

The issue here is that control over the potential use of the technology is being given over to the people who fronted the cash (not the people who made it - just the people who paid for the marketing).

This has never happened before. It's a new thing. It might seem normal for record companies to want to 'protect their commercial interests' - but the ability to prevent people from using technologies in the way that they want to is entirely a new thing. The radio industry has been gifted new devices and techniques. The record industry is being allowed to break them.

If this had been the case twenty years ago, you could forget about video rental. And yet it's become the single biggest revenue stream for the movie companies now they've figured out how to use it.

This is the fundamental problem - and the bit about which I get the most cross: RIANZ have clearly been allowed to set the parameters of the negotiation. Like this:

RNZ: "What can we do online and how much will it cost?"

RIANZ: "Almost nothing - and you're going to need a bigger budget."

Here's what should have happened:

RNZ: "Here is a list of everything we plan to do with online content. It includes streaming, downloaded programmes, and a permanent public online archive of music documentaries, live performances and programmes that include music.

"Expect that list to grow as time goes on and new developments arise. We will be making all of these services at as high a level of quality as the public requires. We are definitely interested in CD quality streams and downloads as well as lower bandwidths and file sizes for dialup users.

"Here is a list of reasons we believe we are morally obliged and legally entitled to provide this service to the citizens of this country, wherever they may be - and to promote our culture internationally.

"This third document explains why we expect our annual RIANZ spend to increase only very slightly as a result of all this.

"Out of all this, figure out which bits of these programmes (paid for by the general public) you genuinely believe you need to try and prevent them from hearing in ways that suit them.

"Once you've done that, then we can talk. But you should know that we are very, very committed to our public service remit.

I would like to see a case made by RIANZ that allowing audiences to download, say, a Nick Bollinger review show - or stream Homegrown on a Saturday afternoon - would be detrimental to their revenue stream. I could use a good laugh.

It'd no doubt be the same argument the same industry made 50 years ago when they tried to stop radio from playing records.

But with bandwidth costs dropping, hard drive space becoming cheaper and the demand for online media increasing, why is there no real energy going into the indefinite archiving of at least the spoken material?

RNZ, as Richard rightly points out, owns the copyright on all of the spoken content (including the stuff that I've done for them in the past). Given that's true, where's the difficulty in allowing the public to download files, rather than restrict them to streaming?

Downloaded mp3s - such as Melvyn Bragg's 'In Our Time' programme on BBC Radio 4 - allow listeners to transfer the show onto their iPod or similar, and take the programme with them.


To recap:

A live stream is a basic immediate must.

On-demand streaming would be a good next step. It allows people to listen WHEN they want to.

Downloaded content allows people to listen HOW they want to.

This can all happen immediately. The only part where it gets thorny is when the music kicks in. And I still say that like virtually every other broadcaster on the planet, National Radio needs to just get out there and do it, and force the issue. They need to set the agenda and start acting as if they believe in what public radio is all about.

Radio New Zealand is a public asset.

If you're a New Zealander, you are a shareholder. It's yours. National Radio's content doesn't have to be protected from you because it belongs to you.

It's like those books in the library. You own them too. Collectively. Your rates pay for highly trained and intelligent people to help you find the right ones, and to put them away for you when you're done with them.

Can you imagine how put out you'd be if a book publisher's collective told them you weren't allowed to remove the books from the building, and that the library was to restrict the speed of your reading, the degree to which you could cross-reference from one book to another or whether you're allowed to read a novel more than once.

It's an exaggeration of course, but it is more or less what the record industry is attempting. RNZ is inclined to let them have their way. Nobody seems to mind. And you know what? I blame deregulation.

I think it's starting to turn around now, but the one thing we lost in the late 80s as a nation was the concept of citizenry. Nobody knows what a citizen is anymore. We are all consumers.

We have consumers rights and consumers information services and consumer watchdog groups. But even though nobody uses the word anymore, public radio belongs to the citizens.

RIANZ, by their very nature (regardless of how nice the new guy is) can only think of us as consumers. Or rather - as customers.

As one record company owner told me just last month - "We love customers, but we're not interested in consumers. Consumers are thieves".

These are the people whose interests RIANZ exists to protect and advance at all costs.

==============================

97. Ani diFranco - Knuckle Down Righteous Babe 2005
98. Turin Brakes - Ether Song Source 2003