hmurchison Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Or rather your music that was recorded live. Clear Channel Patent\'s live recording at a concert Get a load of THIS! Recent headlines report that corporate mega giant Clear Channel Entertainment has announced they have purchased a patent making it illegal for any band to record their own live show, and sell that recording day of show at the venue, unless the band pays Clear Channel. Now virtually all performing artists including bands like the Pixies, Billy Idol, and even Bruce Springsteen run the risk that if they record their own shows at any venue in the country, then sell the CDs that same night, Clear Channel can and will go after the artists and make them pay. Clear Channels Instant Live director Steve Simon has made it very clear that, It is a business, and it's not going to be we have the patent, now everybody can use it for free. What kind of devilry is this? Is our patent office getting paid by the patent delivered? Man oh mighty are musicians just taking it up the keister at every step. So now you have to pay Clear Channel to sell your live CD. Some of you probably already owe CC. You better call them to square away your license fees. www.osxaudio.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GY Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 It won't happen... it'lll never fly. GY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alon Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 What a bunch of arrogant fucking idiots those Clear Channel troglodytes are. Fuck 'em. Like recording a CD-R of a live show is an extraordinary, unheard of idea that their genius minds have invented. Somebody should sue them for stupidity, as they surely did not invent it, even though they are quite guilty of it. alon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Cool! I've been looking for someone to own me! Oh wait.... it's just the music? Ah, this sucks! Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel E. Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Two words: "prior use". "You never can vouch for your own consciousness." - Norman Mailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djwayne Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I was doing that thirty years ago with my Teac 2340...the truth is, most artists are NOT big fans of live recordings and prefer not to have their live performances recorded, as that captures any screw ups that may occur during a show. Living' in the shadow, of someone else's dream.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovepusher Sly Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The technology exists that you can record a live show and package it for sale by the end on the night. Clear Channel sees this as a large revenue stream, and is trying to muscle in on the profits. If I have MY photographer take pictures of a show, print them on glossy paper for sale after the show, how can the promoter demand a percentage? Doesn't the artist own his likeness and performance? I bet you Prince wouldn't take this shit. I don't think a lot of real artist will either. Sly Whasineva ehaiz, ehissgot ta be Funky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblue1 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The USPO has been in over its head for a long time and they've been handing out patents that are, um, patently bogus for a while, now. Like the US Postal Service (with whom they are sometimes confused, acronymically speaking), they need to have their asses kicked by reality. Unfortunately, there seems little likelihood that the USPO will anytime soon be getting serious about understanding the technology they regularly mis-rule on... bookmark these: news.google.com | m-w dictionary | wikipedia encyclopedia | Columbia Encyclopedia TK Major / one blue nine | myspace.com/onebluenine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOKUMDANO Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Ya know, I often say something about threads like this and then get responses from some of you who don't like what I say..but.. Read more detail about the story. You don't get all the details from the original poster on this forum. A couple of critical details were left out. As usual. You people are commenting on this topic in Rosane-rosana-dana frames of mind. When you get all the details, you pretty much have to amend your comments and say "never mind". The "patent" covers recordings ONLY made at 130 or so venues that Clear Channel has PAID MONEY to for the exclusive right. If you don't like that idea, complain to the owner of the building that took all the "front" money from Clear Channel. ..."patent owns you"....what an incorrect quote. If you don't like Clear Channel's rights in those venues, go scream at the local venue owner who probably bought a few new houses and cars with the money...they're your "bad guys". Go play at any gazillion other venues not owned by Clear Channel and record your brains out. No biggie. If you're an act and don't want Clear Channel to have exclusive rights, don't play shows in Clear Channel venues. Simple. Clear Channel does not have a "patent owns you" situation going in the least. Another guy you can yell at is the guy who started this thread...even HE didn't bother to get all the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by BOOKUMDANO: If you're an act and don't want Clear Channel to have exclusive rights, don't play shows in Clear Channel venues. Simple. Clear Channel does not have a "patent on you". No. But the rate at wwich they buy venuses, means they will be able to firce bands to play shows, and give them the rights to own the recording of that show. I find that downright offensive and reaking of facism. IMDB Credit list President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug osborne Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 This is only in CC facilities...but that is most of them From a news article talking about this issue: Music attorneys said approval is always required by multiple parties, including the artist, record label, music publisher, and venue owner before a live concert CD can be recorded. But Lahr said Clear Channel's market concentration was changing the playing field. "From our past experiences, every venue has been open and willing to negotiate their venue fees except for Clear Channel," said Lahr. "Now virtually all performing artists like the Pixies, Billy Idol, and even Bruce Springsteen run the risk that if they record their own shows at any venue in the country, then sell the CDs that same night, Clear Channel can and will go after the artists and make them pay," said Lahr. The artist, publisher, label, or other interested party have not had more rights to issue a live recording (or internet stream, etc.) than the venue. CC is clearing one hurdle here by laying claim to the right through a technology patent, which is evil. The other hurdle here is that they won't hire an artist without the proper live recording release in the contract. CC is evil. Almost as evil as the RIAA. Doug Osborne Music on Bandcamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by BOOKUMDANO: If you're an act and don't want Clear Channel to have exclusive rights, don't play shows in Clear Channel venues. Simple. Clear Channel does not have a "patent on you". No. But the rate at wwich they buy venuses, means they will be able to firce bands to play shows, and give them the rights to own the recording of that show. I find that downright offensive and reaking of facism. IMDB Credit list President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOKUMDANO Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 .............."I find that downright offensive and reaking of facism."......... Facism would be Clear Channel going in with machine guns, killing the venue owners and taking over the facility. Clear Channel goes in with money and buys the right. By the way...the artists playing the venue, get cuts of the cd sales...something they would not get with Joe Blow out there recording the show. That's called capitalism, not facism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmurchison Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 Another guy you can yell at is the guy who started this thread...even HE didn't bother to get all the details. Oh don't get your panties in a twist. Clear Channel has a right to stipulate rules in their venue but I object to the USPO actually granting these idiots a patent. Personally I'm going to be boycotting these scumbags. Media companies buying governmental favors is an egregious miscarriage in my book. Anarchy must come to subvert this looming tragedy. www.osxaudio.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOOKUMDANO Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 .........."Media companies buying governmental favors is an egregious miscarriage in my book. Anarchy must come to subvert this looming tragedy....." Clear Channel bought an existing patent. They weren't granted a patent by the patent office. The Patent office isn't remotely in the loop of this story. Go yell at the guys who owned the patent and sold it to Clear Channel for whatever millions it was. I don't think they'll care much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
videoeditor1 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 What's also missing from the original post is that the link is on a site sympathetic to the entity fighting Clear Channel. Unlike most people here (it seems!) I've done a LOT of shows sponsored/financed by Clear Channel, or at Clear Channel venues - in one form or another. Maybe 30-40 last year, not including radio interviews etc Yeah, they have a testicular strangehold on radio stations and venues. All (every one) of my "Clear Channel" engagements went 100% smooth - quite unlike some of the humdingers we had to slough thru. They can't patent the process of recording a show, then selling the CD at the end of the show. I did that in 1998, and even then, it wasn't a novelty... NYC Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 <> But they would with the other two biggies, Hyburn and [i forget the other one]. Point is, they're trying to monopolize a field, as Microsoft has done with computer operating systems. It's legal, but... There's an article in a recent Rolling Stone about this as well. If you're really concerned, be aware that something like 90% of the patents that are challenged are overturned. I don't know if this would hold up; I'd need to see the patent to see how narrow or broad the claims are. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wewus432 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 posted by BooumDano: That's called capitalism, not facism. It's called capitalism run amuck. It seems..... there used to be laws in this country preventing monopolies. That has changed. At this point in time corporations like Clear Channel, Microsoft, etc., etc., have became rich, and powerful enough to buy off the last hurdle in their quest for ultimate domination, The Government. I refuse to go to a Clear Channel venue, or even listen to a Clear Channel radio station. Total Boycott. I suggest you do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkid Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 this thread is mildly interesting what surprises me is that this didnt happen a long time ago when you go see a pro sports team,all audio and video recording s made at the facility belong to the nfl or nba or whatever since cc bought the rights and is acting as 'the league ' if you will...so goes capitalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyelmis Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Here's the abstract (exec. summary) of the patent that CC purchased: "System and method of creating digital recordings of live performances Abstract 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. The event-capture module captures an event signal, such as an audio signal from a sound event, and transforms the signal into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed. The editing module is communicatively connected to the event capture module. It accesses and parses the primary event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded onto a recording media. Likewise, the media recording module is communicatively linked to the editing module for receiving the one or more digital track files from the editing module. The media recording module has a plurality of media recorders for simultaneously recording the one or more digital track files onto a plurality of recording media. This allows a plurality of recording media, with the entire event recorded upon each media, to be available shortly after the event has ended" CC does not own the patent on recording a live event and then burning CDs. You can continue to put up your mics, take a feed off the FOH board, record to disk, master with ProTools and burn CDs. They own a patent on one integrated method (note the "in one embodiment" language) of doing that, a method that DiscLive has used very successfully for numerous artists so that the CD is in the lobby 15-20 minutes after the show is over. The integrated approach and speed of turnaround is the key, and apparently what the patented technology addresses. None of this addresses the rights (from the venue, the artist, the promoter, the artist's label, etc.) to record the live concert to start with and sell copies of the recording. My view (from an atty's perspective) is that CC is going this route so as not to use its monopoly power in venues to control another market (recordings), as this can raise antitrust issues (same as Microsoft's monopoly in operating systems when they tried to "control" the internet browser market by requiring OEMs to install Explorer if they wanted Windows). As soon as someone has another method of turning the CDs quickly that doesn't infringe the patent, we're off to the races again (subject to the rights issues with the artist, venue, label, etc.). www.ruleradio.com "Fame is like death: We will never know what it looks like until we've reached the other side. Then it will be impossible to describe and no one will believe you if you try." - Sloane Crosley, Village Voice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The sports analogy is different, a band or an artist are not part of an enterprise - didn't start up with such a goal (except for scams like Britney Aguilera and Backstreet Girls). I don't doubt that CC are able to make things work smoothly, but it's wrong that they can be in control on so many areas. Artists don't have a choice but to play along. "Agree to all our terms" - or you will not get exposure, will not play at venues/stadiums, will not tour. http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
videoeditor1 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 daddyelmis, I hear you - but; I also have a clearly documented method (circa 2000) for doing those same exact things that Clear Channel seeks to patent. I don't see any process or machinery/equipment that is unique to them. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by hmurchison: Personally I'm going to be boycotting these scumbags. I think you should. If artists boycotted all of the bullshit in this industry, there would be a hell of a lot less bullshit! Problem is, artists won't do that. They gladly trade in their souls for a few of the table scraps, and then act like they got a good deal. Then everyone complains about the sorry state the music industry is in. The problem with boycotting is that if everyone doesn't do it, it won't have any affect. And with musicians.....well, there are always more musicians willing to take the job if you don't want it. That's the sad truth. Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyelmis Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by NYC Drew: daddyelmis, I hear you - but; I also have a clearly documented method (circa 2000) for doing those same exact things that Clear Channel seeks to patent. I don't see any process or machinery/equipment that is unique to them. Do you?Unfortunately, figuring out whether one invention infringes the patent of another person is not an easy exercise -- this is patent attorney land. CC is seeking to patent, they've bought an existing, issued patent from the inventors. The real danger is that CC has deep pockets and can afford to use the patent to sue others for infringement -- even if they don't ultimately win the suit. Small companies with good patents can get killed by bigger competitors with patents if an infringement suit ensues -- the big guy bleeds the little guy dry, regardless of the merits. Seems like the real key (and I believe this is likely already happening), is for another company to have a different method of doing the live CD thing, getting a patent attorney to review the CC patent to determine if the alternate method is likely to infringe, and if not, market it. I would think this is the sort of "technology" than has about 100 solutions and, because of its popularity with fans and money-making potential for artists, will have a lot of companies in the market soon. www.ruleradio.com "Fame is like death: We will never know what it looks like until we've reached the other side. Then it will be impossible to describe and no one will believe you if you try." - Sloane Crosley, Village Voice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Why would ANY artist (except those who use playback/singback + autotune) allow instant release of a live recording? Seems to me like they have no choice but to comply if they want to play large crowds. http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyelmis Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Problem is, artists won't do that. They gladly trade in their souls for a few of the table scraps, and then act like they got a good deal. Then everyone complains about the sorry state the music industry is in. Even at the beginning bar band level, you can't convince musicians not to play for free, pay-to-play, etc. Same phenomenon on a different level. www.ruleradio.com "Fame is like death: We will never know what it looks like until we've reached the other side. Then it will be impossible to describe and no one will believe you if you try." - Sloane Crosley, Village Voice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyplayer Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 How is that crap even remotely legal?! That's like me coming to your house and charging you to have a party in it. You: But this is MY House, my guests, my camcorder, my expense! What have you to do with any of this? You're not even invited! Me: Yes but I own many houses and have many friends. So you have to pay me to keep yours. I don't get it. Can anybody else explain this garbage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by Mats Olsson.: Why would ANY artist (except those who use playback/singback + autotune) allow instant release of a live recording? Quite a lot of artists like doing this. They know that in many cases a fan or two is going to tape it anyway (and some don't mind that either), but if it's bootlegged they won't make any money off it. Selling the recording at the show is a good revenue stream, and lots of fans will buy it as a memento of the show. Why WOULDN'T an artist like this? Unless their live performances suck. In which case they have no business being on a stage in the first place, but that's a whole other story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshananigan Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by Keyplayer: How is that crap even remotely legal?! That's like me coming to your house and charging you to have a party in it. You: But this is MY House, my guests, my camcorder, my expense! What have you to do with any of this? You're not even invited! Me: Yes but I own many houses and have many friends. So you have to pay me to keep yours. I don't get it. Can anybody else explain this garbage? No, no... I only own a patent on "parties where there is music and alcohol is available." If people want to find another way of having parties, that's fine. Otherwise, cough up my fee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Originally posted by Lee Flier: Why WOULDN'T an artist like this? Because they can't approve the quality of the recording/mix if the release is instant. It doesn't have to do with a "suck factor". BTW, I know huge bands that thinks that live and recording are very different experiences. If you want to hear what they sound like live, you must come to their concerts. If you see them live, don't expect them to sound exactly like on their albums. Of course they can't totally stop unauthorised taping, but those recordings seldom become available on the legit market and they are never used for airplay. http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.