Yesterday I learned that the USCCB was soon to announce that they will begin to podcast the daily readings beginning on December 3rd. I found this odd for several reasons (see below). Instead of whipping off a blog post I decided to go to the source to verify the information and have some basic questions answered such as: Who made this decision, how was it financed, who will be the lector, who will host and manage the feed, etc. I called Michelle Elizabeth Sperry of the USCCB Permission Office to get comment. The second time I called I reached her I identified my self as being with the 'Online Journal' Podcast Connections. I find so many people do not know what a blog is, I describe it in this way. In the same way I describe podcasting as 'Internet Radio'. It give people a concept of its about.
After about 30 seconds on the phone, Ms. Sperry realized she was being interviewed. My bad, I assumed identifying myself and saying I had a few questions was enough, but it wasn't. She let me know that she had just come out of meetings and would appreciate knowing the scope of the questions so she could gather the info. We scheduled an interview for the next day. In the mean time, I sent her an email regarding the direction I was heading with the questions. Shortly thereafter, I received an email that I assume was a cc to the legal department. She asked 'Bill' whether it was the policy of the USCCB to speak with bloggers. I never received an reply to my email to firm up the time for the interview. I'd been stood up.
In response, I sent the following email:
Please cross-post this to other forums that you think would be interested. It is within reason that the legal office of the USCCB would try to shut me down. Or they might just ignore it. Who knows. I will be posting a full blog on this over the weekend.
###
To: Mary Elizabeth Sperry
Associate Director, Permissions
USCCB
From: Michael Kreidler
Editor, Podcast Connections
Disciples with Microphones
Ms Sperry:
It is disappointing that you have declined an opportunity to be interviewed for Podcast Connections. It is/was an opportunity for you to go on record as to the plans of the USCCB to podcast the daily readings.
I want to make it clear that any correspondence we have at this point is 'on the record' and will be considered fair use for posting on the Podcast Connections blog. I will be posting a detailed account in the next couple of days detailing the events surrounding the planned December 3rd launch of a podcast of the Daily Reading by the USCCB.
The journal/blog post will detail you and your office's issuing a Cease and Desist order to Brian Noe in late 2005. It was you and your office's assertion that Mr. Noe violated the USCCB's copyright held on the New American translation of the scriptures. The entry will detail Mr. Noe's attempts to obtain permission to use the New American translation in his Verbum Domini podcast. This permission was not granted. Mr. Noe has continued to podcast the daily readings using the Revised Standard translation of the Scriptures. This permission to use this translation was quickly granted by the World Council of Churches under, what they considered to be, 'fair use' of their translation.
Now, almost a year after the incident, the USCCB has obtained a "generous grant from the Catholic Communications Office". This grant is funding the development of a podcast of the daily readings. While it is certainly your perogative, as it is anyone's, to podcast using copyrighted material that you own and control, I will be raising the question as to why the USCCB has decided to duplicate the efforts of an already well produced podcast. Specifically you will be duplicating the efforts put forward by Mr. Noe in the Verbum Domini podcast. This is a podcast with which you declined to cooperate in the past. I will raise the question as to whether this is a prudent use of funds raised via the Catholic Communications Campaign.
I also assume from your email of September 13th that it is the official policy of the USCCB to not grant interviews to any blogger. If you do not correct this assumption, I will assume that It is correct and will be stated as such in the blog.
All of the above assertions can be documented via source documents and are not the subject of heresay or conjecture. I will assume that it is you and your office's position that the facts I have presented in outline are substantially correct. I welcome any corrections to any of the statements above.
Again, I welcome the opportunity to speak with you regarding these and other details surrounding your plans to release a podcast of the daily readings. You can call me at any time at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
# # #
I will post a detailed blog this weekend on these events. We'll see what happens.
A while back 
