Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Media Music The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Clear Channel Buys Patent For Instant Live CDs 342

Posted by timothy from the they're-certainly-mine dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to this Rolling Stone article, and this article at P2P, everyone's favorite monopolist, Clear Channel, is bullying DiscLive and other companies in the available-after-the-concert live CD business by forbidding them from operating in their venues. Looking at the actual Clear Channel patent itself, it's obvious that, unlike what is said by their Instant Live program head Steve Simon, their patent is very specific, and doesn't cover all media types and all onsite production, so isn't CC just standing behind a bogus patent to continue to act like a monopolist? Anyone have prior art to invalidate their patent?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clear Channel Buys Patent For Instant Live CDs More

Clear Channel Buys Patent For Instant Live CDs

Comments Filter:

  • Hello? Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:00AM (#9257492) Homepage
    At least they are my favorite monopolist. Who is ClearChannel anyway?
    • I just patented First Posting(TM). Your charge comes to $39,750.

    • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)

      by millette ( 56354 ) <robin@NOSPam.millette.info> on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:20AM (#9257599) Homepage Journal

      They're the ones that banned a bunch of songs [f---edcompany.com] from their huge army of radio stations after 9/11.

      Like:
      • Van Halen "Jump"
      • Peter Gabriel "When You're Falling"
      • Cat Stevens "Peace Train"
      • ...
      • Thats it.
        Now I am mad.
        Death be to ANY radio executive who bans ANY AC/DC for ANY reason.
      • From the list of banned songs:
        • John Lennon "Imagine"
        • U2 "Sunday Bloody Sunday"
        • The Beatles "Obla Di, Obla Da"

        Uhm. John Lennon as "questionable content"? U2? Dear Eris, the Beatles PREDATE the phrase "questionable content", so how can their lyrics contain said content?!

        • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stephenisu ( 580105 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:36AM (#9258176)
          While I strongly disagree with their actions, here are the general reasonings

          "Imagine" : The line "imagine all the people" could potentially trigger some bad images of the victims
          "Sunday Bloody Sunday" : see above "Obla Di, Obla Da" : the line "Obla Di, Obla Da, life goes on." could potentially be construed as a disrespect to the seriousness of the situation. as if to say, big deal, move on.

          While I totally disagree with governmental censorship, this is an instance of a company trying to be respectful to it listeners. The ban was temporary, and based on the fact that things were hard enough on many people as it is.

          So try and keep in mind, that no matter the intention of a song (promoting peace etc...) If the lyrics are taken out of context (say you tune in mid song) I can stir some really upsetting emotions. Last thing I need is someone breaking down in tears on the highway causing a stir when it could be prevented.

          • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Buran ( 150348 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @11:16AM (#9259556)
            It's not the business of some national conglomerate to decide what we can and can't listen to. That's up to individual listeners. If you don't like it, turn the radio off. Or call the station and politely disagree with their play lists. If enough people call and politely express their thoughts, the station might change their play list. But even if they don't, no one's under any obligation to keep listening!

            I'm getting awful tired of NPR talking about war, war, mayhem, death, army, war, and I might write a polite letter to express my views -- but if I don't want to listen on my drive home (and I don't -- whatever happened to the varied stories of all kinds that got me listening in the first place?), I turn the radio off or switch it to the CD changer. That's it.

            Being respectful of people is allowing them to choose. Not doing it for them.

          • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @12:03PM (#9260027) Homepage Journal
            Good Lord, when did we get so damned scared of offending somebody?

            I mean, there is no 'Freedom from being offended' in the Constitution, as far as I know. If there is, then it sure takes a LOT of fun out the 'Freedom of Speech'.

          • If you tune in to a song halfway through and it conjures up a bad image of a past event then you're the one who needs to get help. It isn't up to the rest of the world to use their psychic powers to determine what might offend you. If someone is that freaking depressed then they should just turn off the damned radio and enjoy the silence.

            Songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday have nothing to do with a Wednesday on September 11. And the Beatles recording of Obla Di, Obla Da damn sure has little to do with it.

        • John Lennon

          I think the lines about imagining there's no Heaven, nations or possessions were probably seen as being unpatriotic/un-American or some such nonsense.

          U2

          Sunday Bloody Sunday is about the Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland. It's no surprise it gets banned everytime someone gets killed.

          The Beatles

          I'm stumped.

          Reminds me of the time Radio1 banned songs like Something In The Air Tonight and Walk Like An Egyptian from being played during the (first) Gulf War so as not to offend our A

      • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:3, Informative)

        by viking099 ( 70446 )
        This is incorrect according to Snopes.com. This [snopes.com] page states that it was more of a "list of songs you may not want to play at the moment" than a "list of songs you will not play."

        • You're right, I replied too quickly with poor wording (like now :)

          Still, the presence of a lot of those songs on such a list is "questionnable" to say the least. But Clear Channel knows what's best for us I'm sure.

      • What the devil did they see as "questionable" in this song?

        Louis Armstrong "What A Wonderful World"

        I see trees of green, red roses too
        I see them bloom for me and you
        And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

        I see skies of blue and clouds of white
        The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
        And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

        The colours of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
        Are also on the faces of people going by
        I see friends shakin' hands, sayin' "How do you do?"
        They're r
      • REM "It's the End of the World as We Know It"

        I'm laughing, but I'm crying on the inside. What the fuck?

      • Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)

        by kitzilla ( 266382 ) <paperfrog&gmail,com> on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @09:08AM (#9258441) Homepage Journal
        This was an ill-advised, nonbinding, and entirely ad-hoc list circulated by a few Programmers who were as in shock as the rest of the country. It had no official weight, and was quickly dismissed by CC Corporate once it got on their radar.

        A lot of weirdness happened in the days immediately following 9-11. The list was one of them, but it NEVER amounted to a company ban. Generally speaking, CC doesn't operate this way.

        Another urban legend: that CC banned the Dixie Chicks after they mouthed off overseas. Some CC stations did exactly that, but it was a local decision, not through Corporate. We were told to make the call based on our own markets. The only company I know which actually banned the Chicks was Cumulus.

        • Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Hub_City ( 106665 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @09:47AM (#9258728) Homepage
          Well, here's the thing: if a company conducts itself in such a way that this kind of story gets out, and causes everyone who hears it to kind of nod their head and say to themselves "yeah, it sounds like them"...

          ...whose fault is that? Your company's image is based not just on what it says, but on what it does and how the public perceives it. Right now, the public who care to think about it, think Clear Channel is a conniving bunch of monopolists who curry favor with the neoconservatives (who are ruining what was a perfectly serviceable Republican party) in the interest of expanding their monopolies.

          Can't stand the heat? Get out.

          • Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Dun Malg ( 230075 )
            if a company conducts itself in such a way that this kind of story gets out, and causes everyone who hears it to kind of nod their head and say to themselves "yeah, it sounds like them"... ...whose fault is that?

            The sheep that believe everything they hear?

    • Re:Hello? Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)

      by viking099 ( 70446 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:28AM (#9257639)
      Clear Channel Communications is a huge corp that owns hundreds of radio stations all over the country.
      Ever since the FCC relaxed the regulations on how many stations a corp can own in a given market, CC has bought out most of their old competitors. IIRC, they own like 90% of the stations in some markets.
      These are some of the people to blame when you complain about the "Top 40" and "Boy Bands" that make so much money. They're the ones that put them on the air, for whatever reason.

  • Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:01AM (#9257498)
    Anyone have prior art to invalidate their patent?

    Back in 1988, I recorded a Pet Shop Boys concert on DAT, and got mugged outside the stadium. Does that count as instant distribution?

  • No pity for these venues. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blanks ( 108019 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:05AM (#9257516) Homepage Journal
    If your a big enough venue (read thosands of seats) then most likely your all ready owned by a large corporation. Clear channel does not support small venues, and in most cases goes out of its way to destroy them. So it britney can't play at the target center, so be it.

  • Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gilesx ( 525831 ) * on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:05AM (#9257518)
    Anyone remember the Grateful Dead's policy on bootlegging, how they encouraged it and even gave a special area at the front of the stage for bootleggers to stand and get a decent recording?

    Isn't this an instant recording of a live event? Hasn't this been going on for 20 years?

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)

      by igrp ( 732252 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:14AM (#9257562)
      A lot of artists still do allow live recordings, even some major, commercially successful ones (the "Dave Matthews Band" being one, Phish being another). There's an active scene of music lovers, tapers and traders and the live records are usually of superb quality (the tapers go to great lenghts to ensure high quality recordings) and distributed in lossless formats (usually SHN). Check out etree [etree.org] for more information.

      And, even though I realize that most of these bands that allow live recordings or even actively encourage them aren't exactly your garden variety pop band many of them seem to have quite a following. Maybe the grassroots, word-of-mouth approach isn't that bad afterall...

      • Maybe the grassroots, word-of-mouth approach isn't that bad afterall...

        Nah, thats just hippie bs. Look at the failure of linux, *bsd, gnu, etc.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Canuckanuck ( 235721 )
      Metallica had the same thing going for the first decade of their careers. You'd get a special "Recording Section" pass and get to sit/stand right by the speaker stack for the best sound. Then they did an about face with the whole Napster thing, and we all know how that went over.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)

      by stev_mccrev ( 712012 )

      No, CC are claiming they own the patent to the process of a venue taping the concert, and selling CD's at the merch stand after the gig. Thus "Instant Live CDs" [slashdot.org]

      I think bands like Phish have done similar things [livephish.com] but i'm not sure if that site would be prior art (they're not selling the discs AT the concert - but a day later online)

      • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by plumby ( 179557 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:34AM (#9257670)
        I really struggle with understanding what this kind of patent is actually patenting. People have been selling live recordings for many years, and live CDs since probably around the time that CDs were invented. The fact that you are selling them immediately after the concert seems to me to be neither here nor there. What is the allowable length of time between the end of the show and the selling of the CD before this just becomes another standard live album? 10 mins? 1 hr? 1 day?

        Can I patent the idea of selling MP3 downloads of each track as soon as the track is finished?

        • Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:58AM (#9258376)
          I really struggle with understanding what this kind of patent is actually patenting. People have been selling live recordings for many years, and live CDs since probably around the time that CDs were invented. The fact that you are selling them immediately after the concert seems to me to be neither here nor there. What is the allowable length of time between the end of the show and the selling of the CD before this just becomes another standard live album? 10 mins? 1 hr? 1 day?

          Can I patent the idea of selling MP3 downloads of each track as soon as the track is finished?

          Repeat after me:

          Processes are patented, not ideas.
          Processes are patented, not ideas.
          Processes are patented, not ideas.

          Clearchannel has a process for producing a CD of a concert in time to sell to the people that attended the concert. They are trying to bully others with that patent, but it is unclear (to me, at least) whether or not the others are infringing on their patented process.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Stuwee ( 739059 )
      It's not so much the recording of the concert that's pending patent, it's the immediate duplication of the resultant recording to many audio CDs -- or "a plurality of media recorders" as CC puts it -- for reselling as soon as the concert has ended.

      A great idea if you ask me, I've certainly never seen anything like it here in Scotland.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 )
      Except the patent covers recording it onto a "event capture module" edited live, and then put onto media. Unless someone was recording concerts to some media, editing them, and then distributing them just after the concert the Grateful Dead prior art wouldn't apply.

      I'm certain there's other prior art though as this patent was only filed in 2001. This is also an obvious invention, so it all adds up to a very shaky patent.
      • the patent specifically states that aspects of the process can be left out whilst still performing the same function - ie editing module etc.

        I think I'm going to patent "Process of urinating through big media corporations letterbox" and seeing how far I get :)

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:24AM (#9257620)
      Patents have nothing to do with the real world. They are a legal tool for businesses, so prior art has nothing to do with it.

      Anyway, the dead's policy can be found here [dead.net]. And yes, I remember this, its been going on since 1965 (the year the dead started). And yes, the grateful dead are the most successful touring band in the history of rock. Yes, I have hundreds of CDs worth of their shows. For those of you that are into bands that are into playing music vs. making a buck off of a hit or two there are thousands [archive.org] of great sounding shows to be downloaded. Its legal, its fun. (Thanks for not spelling grateful "greatful" :).

    • Definitely Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:56AM (#9258354)

      I recall seeing a show on Discovery about a year or two ago about how the Grateful Dead have been recording their own live shows and selling the CDs right after said show for several years as a way to side-step the commercial distribution channels. In the show, they reported that their net income increased many-fold over what they were paid from their RIAA member distributor (Imagine that, directly selling their CDs and taking all the profit vs getting $0.01 out of every $!)

      Also, as others have mentioned, this most definitely is both obvious and a natural evolution of recording equipment capabilities. This "patent" should have been denied, since they're attempting to generically patent an existing process by merely putting a few time sensitive words in.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)

      by angle_slam ( 623817 )
      No. Read the patent. Here's claim 1:

      1. An event recording system, comprising:

      (i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform it into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed;
      (ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded onto a recording media; and
      (iii) a media recording module communicatively linked to

  • Texas Uil (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I remember a UIL band contest where the band director received a cd of there performance just after they played. This was somewhere back in 98...

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheUnFounded ( 731123 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:06AM (#9257525)
    The RIAA sues ClearChannel for illegally suing anyone for any reason having to do with music before they had a chance to get in on the fun.
  • Until Howard Stern starts marketing concerts under his banner. Then Clear Channel may have someone to actually compete with and silly patents won't be attractive anymore.

    ~S

  • Prior art? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:09AM (#9257541)
    Why must it be "novel" just because you can't do it in EZ Cd Creator? Cdrecord has had the ability to record from stdin since its creation. Sound has been in a block device (/dev/dsp) since OSS's creation. Piping a block device to stdout has been available since... cat. I have been piping sound from /dev/dsp to oggenc to disk (live) and from disk to oggdec to cdrecord (later) for 3 years in a live environment.

    • Cdrecord has had the ability to record from stdin since its creation.

      The patent covers adding track start/end cues during the performance and then using the equivalent of 421 burners [theregister.co.uk] (or any other plurality of digital media recording devices). Can a user of cdrecord pipe in a .cue file created in real time?

  • Money? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kurth ( 221375 )
    I support the general idea that CC shouldn't be getting a patent on something as simple as this.

    I think, however that you lost sight of the big picture. Making Money. I support Open Source, but what takes priority, the client with 5k in his hand asking for a website, or my to-do list for my blog software, or another OS project.

    Business today thrives on one company working against the others, being first to market still carries some value, I think that this is what CC is doing. Plus, If I'll say, If I s

    • Patenting this idea (is less than)* being first to market. In the patent scenario, they're using the (nanny?) state to avoid having to be first. Hell they could sit on the patent and avoid having to do anything. In the second case, they're competing.

      Maybe I missed the point.

      In general, I'm more interested in where my money goes than what I'm getting. With my discretionary income at least. People are pretty focused on what they want though. Dunno why. My personal desires aren't very high on my list

  • When I saw this on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] yesterday, I was going to put another mark on my slashdot ESP [waglo.com] - I was sure to see this come up. Oups, I forgot it in one of my 50 browsers now open...

    "We want to be artist-friendly," says Steve Simon, a Clear Channel executive vice president.

    Hmmm, crispy. I just hope not everyone will run away scared by this. The patent will hopefully be invalidated, or shown not to cover the whole process.

  • Churches Do It Every Sunday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alpha Prime ( 25709 ) * on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:10AM (#9257545) Homepage
    Check with any large church. They have been recording and releasing their services immediately afterwards, some on CD, some on tape, depending on the size of the church and the length of the sermon.

    Some of us consider that a performance, and its been done on tape for over 30 years.
  • Clear Channel Buys Patent For Instant Live CDs
    Oh no, a Patent fot Knoppix, Morphix CD's,

    Oh wait a minute, Live Music CD's

  • invalidate patent? sure .... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paulbd ( 118132 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:12AM (#9257555) Homepage
    can anyone name any patents in the domains that intrigue most /.'ers that have actually been invalidated because of prior art? any? even one?

  • Patent requirements... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:13AM (#9257557)
    A patent is supposed to be [1] Not immediately obvious to an expert in the field, and [2] provide some new and original technology.

    However, this concept is rather obvious - record a concert from various audio and video sources then compress the data onto a CD. If they have a patent on this process, then it might be defendable. But I can't see how they can defend the concept of recording a live concert onto a CD.

  • This patent (Score:4, Informative)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:13AM (#9257560) Homepage
    Having read the patent, it is for editing the content while it is still being captured. It was filed in 2001.

    IANAL, but it seems as though if you capture each song, and then edit them after the song is captured, then you have invalidated this patent.

  • Clear Channel==Download Festival (Score:5, Interesting)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:15AM (#9257569) Journal
    These are the people responsible for the Download Festival [cclive.co.uk].

    The idea is that your ticket to the event entitles you to "download" up to about 40 minutes worth of music (IIRC) from the event, using a "secure" DRM system.

    My wife and I went last summer and I went to download my "fair share" of the music when I got home. Guess what? The music is in a proprietary format and you need a special client to be able to download and decode it. The client is only available as a Win32 .EXE

    Sorry guys, I only have Solaris and Linux at home. I emailed and protested politely and was ignored. The client is called Wippit. I emailed them and got no reply, despite the fact that allegedly they welcomed feedback from non-Windows users asking for clients for other platforms.

  • church sermon tapes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by donnyspi ( 701349 ) <.junk5. .at. .donnyspi.com.> on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:16AM (#9257577) Homepage
    For years our church would have a cassette of the day's sermon available immediately after the church service. This is going back like 15+ years. Maybe it's not the same as the parent that CC is seeking. I didn't really RTFA :-)

  • Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thirdofnine ( 702646 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:18AM (#9257591)
    The only solution to all this bulls#$t is to get rid of patents all together, or have a major reform of the patent system to being it in line with the majority's idea of a patent system, and not what big business thinks it should be.

    In its current format, it is just being abused by big business to stifle innovation, and as a means to create an income though suing anyone any everyone who even remotely does something similar to what they have a patent on.

    This is the only solution, and should be done as well as a complete re-write of the copyright laws, and civil lawsuit laws, as they too are now just a revenue stream for big business.

    This is also fast becoming the case here in Australia too as Australia becomes America through the FTA (Free Trade Agreement).

    Well that is my AU$0.02 (US$0.014178) worth.

    Third of Nine

  • Ya know what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CarrionBird ( 589738 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:20AM (#9257604) Journal
    I've come to a conclusion, maybe you'll agree.

    Screw patents.

    If you can't get people to buy it from you, then move out of the way of those who can.

    This is getting insane.

  • Prior Art (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HP-UX'er ( 211124 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:22AM (#9257609)
    As far as prior art goes, the patent looks exactly what thousands of churches do every service, record to CD and cassette. Bigger churches actually mix the sound, make special tracks for special events within the service. Now wouldn't that be a nice media circus, big bad CC goes after America's churches, synagogues, and whatever-else-have-you.
    • Ascap regularly takes enforcement action against churches for xeroxing sheet music and the Girl Scouts for live "performances" of campfire songs. Why would clear channel be any different?
  • Come on, records of Live appearances are not a new technique, neither is selling CDs a new technique, so how can one patent the concept of recording and selling a CD, be it minutes after a concert or month?!
  • As I understand the patent, the unique thing is that it's for editing sound and video "live" as the stuff goes to media. Doesn't Tivo pretty much do this, with an ability to edit out commercials at recording time? Of course Tivo is generally used to record off-the-air instead of live, but that doesn't seem particularly relevant - an AV source is an AV source, right?
    • Tivo has no such ability. Where did you get that idea?

      For removing commercials at record time, Tivo is actually less effective than a VCR. On a VCR, I can hit pause when the commercials start, and unpause the recording when they're finished. But on a Tivo, the best I could do would be to stop the recording during each commercial break -- which would mean starting a new recording after each one. Plus, since the Tivo grabs whatever was in its live buffer when the record button is pressed (a very neat feature

  • Nothing more to say ... the once greatest nation on planet earth has become the biggest joke on planet earth.
  • Clear Channel is seeking an injunction against Democratic voters for infringing on voting methods, recently patented to ensue Republican elections....

  • Anyone have prior art to invalidate their patent?

    Howsabout every Grateful Dead concert from the 70's and beyond? IIRC The Dead encouraged bootleg taping and selling of their concerts.

  • can anyone explain? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by golgafrincham ( 774723 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:42AM (#9257721) Journal
    sorry, i'm from europe, so i tend to not understand some things. i can understand if someone puts some nice things together with a lot of duct tape, calls this "bicycle with 8 wheels" or "telephone" and gets a patent for that. however, what i do not understand: someone buys some products and uses them exactly the way they are supposed to be used and gets a patent for that. really, i do not understand that.

  • CC vs Artist vs Pepsi. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jonny Royale ( 62364 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:48AM (#9257744) Homepage Journal
    I noticed on the clearchannelsucks webs site, just a bit farther down from their article, this [clearchannelsucks.org] item is siting there.

    I wonder if CC is looking at the live disk as a promotional opportunity to sell to advertisers, and that's why they're barring artists use of their own live recordings? I guess they figure that if they have the patent, they can control the use of the technology, and then turn around and lisence advertising on the live CD to Pepsi, or Budweiser, or whomever is willing to pony up the cash to have their ads "inserted" onto the live tracks.

    And I doubt there are many artists who would be willing to do that on their own, given the backlash from fans.
  • I mistakingly read the link to the Clear Channel patent as:
    Clear Channels patents itself
    Which made perfect sense to me.

  • Corporate fascism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:52AM (#9257783) Homepage
    Corporate America has been telling us for decades that unregulated free markets, i.e., competition, is the best economic system. Now via patented business plans, they've essentially eliminated all competition. What's capitalism without competition? Corporate fascism.

  • Prior art, everywhere... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @07:57AM (#9257834)
    The patent abstract clearly states:

    "In one embodiment, the present invention provides an event recording system that has an event-capture module, an editing module, and a media recording module."

    That's a recording studio.

    It just happens to be at the event, and the timeline is compressed to enable them to sell copies by the time the concert ends. There is no invention there at all, just a bunch of blue-arsed audio-engineering flies. As for prior art:

    • recording a live concert off the radio
    • recording a live concert off the TV
    • any artist who has recorded a live album (although this obviously has the time issue)
    • church services (we record ours to disk and master to CD when the service ends)
    • any broadcast corporation that archives live programmes. That's all recorded to tape, ready to syndicate to other stations instantly.
    • any of those 'cut an album in an hour' compos
    In short, this is a crazy patent - they've simply patented doing something people have been doing for ages, but doing it slightly faster.
    • Abstracts are worthless as far as patent rights are concerned. They are supposed to be a summary of what the patent is claiming and discussing, although sometimes they don't even accomplish that much. If you want to know what the patent covers look at the claims.

      I should really sit down and write some instant response form paragraph which says this because I invariably end up having to set someone straight about this in almost every slashdot patent story.

  • unoriginal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:06AM (#9257907) Homepage Journal
    I'm really getting sick of all the business process patents. Selling concert CD's immediately after the show is nothing new; how many thousands of live albums are available on the market today? This method is just faster distribution than before; it's not an original process. Would you award a patent to a record company for selling live albums in stores a month after the concert? Of course not! So why do they get a patent for selling it 15 minutes later in the venue?

    Maybe they could patent the actual recording/distribution kiosk design, because that would take some original, creative engineering to make it work. But the idea of "selling CD's after a show" is nothing new.

  • Betcha not a one... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:18AM (#9258011) Journal
    I bet there's not a single software-related patent that's been issued in the last ten years that couldn't be overturned by prior art. Stuff that seems cutting edge now was being mulled over twenty years ago, sometimes thirty or forty years ago.

    At the risk of being off-topic but kind of still on-topic, have you all seen where PanIP's lovely "Automated Sales" patent got overturned recently? Unless PanIP can convince the USPTO to overturn its decision, it looks like there will be no more lawsuits against e-commerce companies coming from PanIP, unless they think they can stand on just their automated transactions patent, and that one under review, too.

    There's a link to the story at the old website of the PanIP Group Defense Fund, at youmaybenext.com [youmaybenext.com].

  • Soul sucking evil bastards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by redwoodtree ( 136298 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:27AM (#9258090)
    They take all the joy out of life! It makes me so depressed. One of the finest experiences I've had in the last year is getting a DiscLive CD right after the Pixies show in Spokane. The artists got a cut, I didn't have to lug around recording requipment and the DiscLive guys are AWESOME.

    You can read more about them on the "All around the world - Pixies live" forum on frankblack.net [frankblack.net] for one. There service is a GOOD THING and it hurts no one but the greedy bastards at Clear Channel. You should have seen the smiles on the 1000 or so people who go CDs that night. Everyone was HAPPY.

    In our corporate run world soon we will all be slaves to the patents and morals of a handful of monopolistic companies. We can line up and listen to whatever clear channel wants us to listen to and pay them a hefty sum to do so.

    It just makes me sick to my stomach. Every GOOD THING in the world gets taken away. Call me a whiner, but this just depresses the SHIT out of me.

  • It's a completely bogus patent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Voice from the mount ( 783076 ) on Wednesday May 26, 2004 @08:36AM (#9258175)
    I just read the exact wording of the patent and the only thing it seems to incorporate beyond just recording sound to the media is that it does so "as it happens". And can be sent to multiple devices to record. Go to any recording studio in the world and they will have that exact same ability. The only thing this patent REALLY specifies is that it can be used at a concert. BS. Also, even if the courts ever upheld it, I believe you could technically get around the patent by just recording the audio first, and then just burn after the performance was over. Sure, you'd maybe have to wait another 5 minutes before you could leave with your disk but I sure wouldn't care if it meant those leeches didn't get my dime.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close