Spalpeen

Around two weeks ago I formally* applied to the NUJ, stating my occupation as “blogger”, and that my full salary came from blogging in a freelance role. A week later I received a call from Paul at the NUJ, confirming that I couldn’t be a full member of the NUJ if I was in full time education, and neither could I get a student membership if I wasn’t a doing a media course / on the student paper. Because my “situation” clashed with the NUJ’s rulebook, I had to admit that I’m taking a year out of my course, and therefore I won’t technically be a student this year (I’m off to work at Mahalo in Santa Monica, lucky me). I have to tell them I’m a student again when I get back and resume my course, which means I’ll probably be reapplying: depending on whether I find the union useful or not of course.

I received a letter a few days back, suggesting I attend a London freelancers meeting today (Friday 12th November) at 6.45PM. Unfortunately I can’t attend, so I phoned up the NUJ to see whether this would affect my application. It will, to the extent that I won’t be able to answer any potential objections that may or may not be raised.

Then, I get an email from Martin Stabe at the Press Gazette, quoting Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the NUJ.

“I also approved the application of the first NUJ member who has blogger as their job title. Whilst we have hundreds, if not thousands of members who write blogs, this is the first person who earns their entire living solely from freelance blogging. Who says we’re not attracting new media workers? Membership in new media was up almost 11% over the past year.”

It sounds like I may officially be the first member of the NUJ with blogging as his/her only profession (as long as no objections are raised at this meeting tonight). But am I really the first to join the NUJ as a full-time blogger? It seems like half The Guardian’s online staff are bloggers by profession (including the co-signer of my application), and I’m sure there are plenty of other mainstream media reporters out there who are members of the NUJ, yet their primary job role is blogging. What’s different about me?

I may be the first person to apply as a new member with the vast majority of my experience being at a blog — that has always been a blog, and will always be a blog — but that doesn’t mean I’m the first blogger member of the NUJ.

Is Jeremy Dear saying that I am the first person who earns a salary solely from a blog (which isn’t associated with a mainstream entity) to apply to the NUJ? But wait, you say that Engadget isn’t associated with a mainstream entity? I thought you got your paychecks from AOL, you corporate whore, you! That’s true. So is it a requirement that every blogger who wants to be in the NUJ must be associated with a “big” media company with shareholders and stuff? It seems so. Either that, or no other non-MSM associated blogger has bothered to apply for the NUJ. That scenario honestly wouldn’t surprise me, considering the archaic application process.

The most surprising thing for me is that I was told to my face, on video by Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur) and Richard Sambrook (the director of the BBC’s Global News division) that I’m not a blogger, because of my blog’s mainstream media association, and the fact that my paychecks exist and come from AOL.

So why did I apply? Mainly to see what it was like and whether I would succeed, partly in an attempt to enact some basic changes at the NUJ using a method other than arguing online with Donnacha DeLong (setting up a form based online application system, publishing The Journalist magazine online, and allowing international members would be a great start), and peripherally because I want advice on unions. Surely in an ideal world, that peripheral motivation would be the only motivation?

Let’s see how it goes.

*Apparently, “formally” means writing a letter, on paper, and getting it signed by myself and two other NUJ members (thanks to Jemima and her colleague!) using a pen. I also had to stick an AOL payslip inside.

I’m currently filling in my public consult of the iPlayer on-demand service for the BBC. Please, if you live in the UK and pay a license fee, fill this in and congratulate the trust on recognising the need for a DRM-free solution, whilst also criticising them for not setting out procedures for opening up the entire BBC archive for viewing online. My questions and answers below:

Do you agree with the BBC Trust’s proposal to approve the new BBC on-demand services, subject to the modifications outlined in the Trust’s report of its provisional conclusions?

Yes, I absolutely agree with the approval of the BBC’s on-demand services: it will significantly add to the value of the BBC’s content. The ratio of costs to benefits makes it a complete no-brainer that the BBC should be persuing a video on-demand service. However, I have reservations with some aspects of the proposal.

The concession for a mere 7-day catch up service is insane. Why should British license payers have to settle for this solution? We’ve paid for the content to be produced, so therefore we should have access to the content regardless of when we want to access it! Eventually I’d expect to see a complete archive of ALL the BBC’s content online at no cost to license payers. The 7-day solution cripples the solution by tying users to a specific time frame in order to watch content (i.e. it’s only a slightly improvement over the convenience of normal TV!)

I’m very encouraged by the report’s approval of a non-DRM solution! This is completely, 100% essential. DRM would completely cripple the BBC’s solution. This is an extremely encouraging development in the report. This HAS to be part of the final iPlayer.

In a market in which most broadcasters are expected to be offering on-demand services, would you agree that it is a priority for the BBC to be investing in this area?

Yes, in fact I would argue that competitors should not be taken into account with the iPlayer solution. It is inevitable that all broadcasters will eventually be submitting their content online, so why not offer the best solution now and pioneer the field?

The BBC Trust has proposed setting a limit of 30 days as the amount of time that programmes can be stored on a computer before being viewed. As this is a nascent market, there is currently no clear standard on the length of the storage window. On balance, the Trust thinks 30 days is the right length of time. How long do you think consumers should be able to store BBC programmes on their computers before viewing them?

Indefinitely. There should be absolutely no limits on when or where British license payers can view the content that they have paid for. Doesn’t this go hand-in-hand with the DRM-free aspect of the iPlayer?

If the Trust cannot accept anything other than a 30-day limit at the moment, then they should make plans for when competitors inevitably get rid of these kinds of limits, and set out plans for increasing this limit until it no longer exists. Again, I think the BBC should be the pioneer in this area.

The BBC Trust concluded that public value would be created by allowing series stacking. This would allow viewers to catch-up with all episodes of a series for the duration of its run. The Trust recognised that although it would provide increased opportunities to view BBC programmes, it could also deter people from buying DVDs or using commercial video-on-demand services. Do you consider series stacking to be a useful feature? What kind of series would you expect to be included? Should there be any limitation on the number of episodes of a series made available for catch-up or the length of time for which they can be viewed?

Why it the Trust paranoid over when or where people watch the BBC’s content? Allow people to watch whatever episodes they like in whatever order they like. Allow them to transfer the content to personal media players and mobile phones without restrictions.

Once the practicalities are out of the way, there should be no limitation on what the public can watch.

How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?

This is the most important aspect of the iPlayer service. I cannot stress how important it is that the BBC does not go down the WinXP + Windows Media Player 9/10/11 route that other broadcasters are mistakenly taking.

Using a Microsoft DRM solution would be justifying Microsoft’s monopoly over the computer industry and would inconvenience or cut off the users of milllions of Mac, Linux, or other platforms. Content should be provided in an open format, so that it can be played on any platform.

Should the BBC be allowed to offer book readings from its radio services as audio downloads over the internet?

Yes. All BBC content should be made available online.

The BBC Trust concluded there was fine balance between public value and market impact in deciding whether to allow the BBC to offer audio downloads of classical music. While such downloads could help introduce new listeners to classical music, they could also deter purchases of commercial recordings. What is your view on whether - and to what extent - the BBC should be allowed to offer radio broadcasts of classical music as audio downloads over the internet?

I find it hard to value “market value” when the public are already paying for access to this content. I repeat, all content that the BBC has access to should be made available online!

How important is it to you that the BBC provides some means for parents to control which of its programmes are accessible on-demand to children? Is such a facility necessary or is it more a matter for parents to exercise controls over how children use the internet?

Since the BBC seems concerned with how its competitors do things, I wouldn’t be worried if the BBC’s parental control system emulated its competitors: a simple warning that the content is adult should suffice, although I’m not opposed to a login system for children that parents could control.

What are your views on whether the BBC should offer content from non-BBC providers on the on-demand service on its website?

Why not? I don’t see a problem here. The BBC should be encouraging third parties to submit their content for display on the web. The BBC should also create an “indie zone” for valuable content from individuals that would like an outlet for their work.

What are your views on whether and how the BBC should make available on-demand content on services run by other providers - such as multi-channel services or internet-based audio and video downloading services?

What would be the point? If the BBC’s on-demand solution is fully comprehensive and accessible to all at any time on any platform, then what would be the need to syndicate the content? Saying all that, I don’t have a problem with the BBC syndicating content, as long as it’s readily available on the iPlayer service.

Do the revisions proposed to BBC Service Licences to allow the new services to go ahead seem appropriate?

Yes, absolutely. I’d be willing to pay even more for a complete system as I have outlined in my earlier answers.

Are there any other issues you would like the BBC Trust to consider in relation to the proposed services?

I’d argue that this is the most important issue that the BBC will face over the next decade as distribution for video content switches from TV to the internet. As long as the BBC goes the route of comprehensive and complete access to all its archives with no restrictions on what people can watch, when they can watch it, and on what platforms they can watch it on, the BBC will pioneer a new era of television.