The Canadian Podcasting Legal Guide was unveiled by Andy Kaplan-Myrth and Kathi Simmons at Podcasters Across Borders and is now available for download (in html and pdf) from the Creative Commons Canada site.

The presentation by Andy and Kathi will be available for download on the Canadian Podcast Buffet in the next two weeks.

I have been catching up on my blog reading over the last few days (I fell behind sometime in late 2006). I’ve made huge progress. In the process, I have been reminded why I want to have Michael Geist speak at Podcasters Across Borders. Actually, there are many reasons.

Two of the posts that I have read so far this morning should be required reading for any Canadian Podcaster who has an interest in licensing issues and/or the use of music on their shows:

• In Good Company
• The Future of the Canadian Music Industry

Michael Geist’s blog is loaded with critical and insightful discussions on matters related to licensing and copyright.

The Podcasters Across Borders program will be announced later this month.

With the publication of the controversial cease and decist letter from Apple to Infostructure Solutions earlier this week on wired.com, we are now able to take a more rational look at the reasons behind the letter. One sentence in particular caught my eye.

…Apple is concerned that certain uses of PODCAST READY and MYPODDER by your clients is likely to confuse consumers into mistakenly believing Apple is associated with your clients’ products and services.

I can’t say that I disagree with Apple on either of these points. First of all, many technology companies have been using the term “Podcast ready” on products that are indeed Podcast ready. For any one company to Trademark that term, particularly so late in the game, does seem inappropriate. Second, one could make a decent argument that MYPOD has a phonetic resemblance to IPOD which could be overstepping the bounds of U.S. intellectual property laws.

The question becomes, is this the beginning of a trend in which Apple tests the limits of its claim on the word POD, or is it a legitimate move to protect the Podcast community and the Apple brand?

By issuing cease and desist orders for the use of the word Pod (note Pod, not iPod), Apple is earning its reputation as a tyrant.  What a shame, particularly since it had done such great work plugging itself into the social media community.

For your consideration, here are just some of the brands with Pod in their name that predate the 2001 release of Apple’s iPod:

• The Pod Caravan
• P.O.D.
• The Pod Camera Platforms
• Line6 Pod
• Portable On Demand Storage

If they keep it up, I may put tape over their logo on my laptop.

I have learned that the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) is working on a FAQ about the proposed WIPO broadcast treaty.  I will post a link when the FAQ is made public.

I was a bit disappointed in Cory Doctorow’s September 9th post, URGENT: Podcasters act now to stop anti-podcasting UN treaty! While he provided a quick explanation of the problem and links to some of the efforts to stop the treaty, there was a noticeable absence of links to the source material. This is one example of how citizen journalism can fail in the “attention to detail” department.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist has blogged about the treaty with a Canadian eye. His post, The Most Dangerous Treaty You’ve Never Heard About, presents a more thoughtful explanation of why we should be concerned. His second paragraph provides the following summary:

The impact of the treaty on individuals and creators could be dramatic, potentially making it more difficult to record television shows for viewing at a later time, locking up content that is otherwise in the public domain, and necessitating that film makers obtain twice as many consents for the re-use of broadcast clips.

After explaining the impact of the treaty, Professor Geist expresses concern over the secretive process that has led to this treaty and offers a summary of the apparently VERY FEW and VERY SMALL public consultations.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office conducted an open afternoon session last Tuesday in Washington that enabled approximately 40 supporters and critics to air their views…

The Canadian approach has been even more secretive.

Canada has not conducted any public consultations on the treaty nor issued any public statements articulating a definitive Canadian position

Michael Geist writes a weekly column for the Toronto Star. His September 11th column is entitled Leaders weirdly silent on sweeping broadcast treaty.

Michael Bell sent me an email to let me know about a BoingBoing entry by Cory Doctorow.  The post suggests an urgent need to protest an impending UN anti-podcasting treaty.

Other than having read the post, I don’t know anything about it.  If I find out anything, I’ll post about it.

Apple has decided that it owns the word Pod and it intends to use legal channels to formalize that claim.  For a company that was attempting to demonstrate leadership in the social media movement, it is going out of its way to prove otherwise.

I don’t know the legal system very well and I can’t begin to guess what Apple plans to do if it does win its claim on the word Pod.  I do have to wonder what will happen to everyone who has a Podcast, what kind of damages a dictionary publisher will be on the hook for, and if the RIAA will treat this as an attempt to reverse engineer the book and movie versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Source: Paul Colligan

PublicBroadcasting.ca has launched a new initiative called Shuffle. The core of the concept is that Podcasting technology is used to push new Canadian music, provided by its creators or their representatives, to those who are looking for music. As the site says, “Let music shop for you”.

Among the unique qualities of this service is its respect of the rights of music creators and copyright holders. The website clearly states “Just because a song is on shuffle, does not mean you can do as you please with it. Nothing is expressed or implied about licensing or copyright status when a song is placed on shuffle”.

While Shuffle may be the new model of consumption for music seekers, there are likely to be challenges in enforcing restrictions on the types of content supplied, and its sources. As with many new concepts, adoption by both suppliers and consumers will be the first hurdle to overcome.