http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:50:14 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-68637 The patent number is 6,614,729 System and method of creating digital recordings of live performances Anyone wishing to nominate this patent as part of a patent busting project headed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation please surf over to http://www.eff.org/patent/contest/form.php and enter it in their contest. Thanks 68637@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:50:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65858 According to the article linked, Clear Channel bought the patent from somebody else, but if that patent was not being enforced and/or it becomes obvious that there was prior art then it could very well negate Clear Channel's claims. 65858@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 May 2004 20:29:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65851 Right, Craig. If CC's patent does indeed describe the same technology/ method that Peabody's has been using (or one suspiciously similar), they're definitely running the risk of having their patent invalidated - if anyone should challenge it. The U.S. patent office goes by the "first to invent" rule, and proof of anyone using or even describing the technology prior to whatever invention date CC can establish would be especially damning. But note the source of the article, as well. Is it really so surprising how one incestuous corporate media giant is portraying the other as being all-powerful and not to be messed with? In reality, though, CC's supposed claim that they "own the exclusive right to sell concert CDs after shows" is complete crap. All they own is what the patent describes, and no patent will provide that degree of enforceable protection. If someone patents a method for wrapping fish, it doesn't stop me from wrapping fish. It only stops me from doing it the way taught in that particular patent. Patenting is an expensive process, and the U.S. patent office actually makes money. It's hardly in their best interest not to be open to other ways of wrapping fish. As far as CC and its ilk stands, the giant has no balls but will keep bullying as long as nobody knows it. 65851@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 May 2004 19:56:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65826 There is no way this will hold up. Peabody's Downunder in Cleveland has been doing it for years now. They will record the show from the soundboard and then give you CD's. They can't patent something that people have been doing for a long time. Eff ClearChannel. I can't wait to see this go down in court. 65826@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 May 2004 18:24:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65822 I'd be interested to know the patent or application number of the technology/method in question. Taking a quick look at the patent office's database, there seems to be quite a few patents or pending applications in the area of cd burning method and apparatus. This never works in the patenting party's favor, as each granted patent must be distinct from those already issued. The more crowded the field, the narrower the protected matter's scope is likely to become. In exchange for excluding others from the technology's use, the patent office makes the granted (or pending) specification available for all to see. So, as long as there's room for design-arounds or alternate methods/apparatus, CC will probably not have a real monopoly. Unless what they've bought is *truly* unique (and I suspect it's not), any position that CC gains would likely be only short-term. Eric, with regard to limiting the field of use to quick burns after shows, there's really no reason to do it unless similar patents have specifically claimed other fields of use. The more the patenting party limits itself to a particular application, the more limited its (licensing) revenue possibilities become. Besides, if CC's patent application is still pending, the breadth of its protection is still only speculative at this point. It's not often the case that the patent office will grant an issued patent exactly as it was originally sought. best regards 65822@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 May 2004 17:15:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65703 Gee, Clear Channel manipulating another aspect of the music industry, who could have seen that coming? I got two words for you people - VOTE DEMOCRAT best regards, Lono 65703@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 May 2004 02:35:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65655 Great post TD and I agree with your position, of course. Tom, I'd sure like to see more on the EN side of the story. I can see a patent on the specific technology they are using to do the quick burns, but how could this apply to quick burns after shows in general? 65655@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 May 2004 18:31:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/25/123218.php#comment-65625 When Einstrurzende Neubauten toured this spring, they burned their own live discs immediately following the show. When I saw them in Tempe a couple weeks back, Blixa Bargeld, the frontman, mentioned that they were doing this and in order to do so they had to take Clear Channel to court - and they won. I wish I could find some info on this, because it seems as if a precedent has been set by Neubauten's suit, but CC appears to be ignoring it. 65625@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 May 2004 16:33:39 EDT