Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Clear Channel's Patent OWNS you!


Recommended Posts

"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..."

 

A poor recording can make a great artist sound awful. A poor mix can really make a otherwise good band sound like crap. In a studio setting, many things can be fixed, whereas with a live recording, many off key notes will be magnified when heard at a lower volume recording, that wouldn't be heard at a live performance. Alot really will depend upon how well the recordings are mixed, and by who. Obviously the band won't be able to sit in on the mix of every recording made.

 

Whether a band sucks or not is a matter of opinion, and when a good performance is over, it's always best to leave them wanting more, than to wear out your welcome.

 

And just remember, when people determine that YOU suck, be prepared to find another line of work.

 

It also cheapens the whole "live recording" thing. Instead of a band having one great live album out there, they'll have a bunch of mediorce ones, all different, all over the country. And how many fans really want "All 25 live recordings of their favorite band, at say $15-20 a pop...?? And after that, do you think there will be a market for more studio recordings ??

 

I think it really takes the magic of it away, and will make recordings mundane, and boring, if every performance is recorded.

 

Another thing to take into consideration is, who's going to pay for the recording expenses, in the event not enough recordings are sold to cover those expenses ??

 

In my experience, there's hasn't been much demand for live recordings, to be made on a nightly basis. You might sell a few, but most people leave the show, and move on to other things. One or two good live recordings, is usually sufficient for a band or artist.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

According to the "patent" stated earlier. Clear Channel is trying to prevent artists from bringing a truck with 10,000 CD-R decks in it, and running a stereo signal (mix) to it to record on preprinted CD-R's, for sale to the public that evening.

They are claiming (which it not true) that they own the only method of doing this.

They're trying to get into the artist's merchandising pocket.

They are trying to claim that their venues are combination (Record Company, Live Radio, Recording Studios).

I think this will lead to further distillation of music content, toward pure idiot box, moron artist, pabulum.

Just my take on it.

 

Sly :cool:

Whasineva ehaiz, ehissgot ta be Funky!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, some very "sound oriented" bands (including the Allman Bros) have done the "live CD" thing with success using LiveDisc.

 

Sure, a lot of bands (especially pop acts currently occupying the top 40) will likely not got there -- I would also suspect somebody like Steely Dan, who are known for their, shall we say, "finicky" production, will not go there.

 

But bands who are known for their live shows (Allmans, Pixies, Phish, etc.) would definitely do this. I suspect (but do not know for sure) that the rough contours of the mix are agreed ahead of time and someone representing the band's interest is in on the real-time mix.

 

I look at this as "legitimate" bootlegs, of much better quality, and in my experience bootlegs have never cut into the sales of "true" live albums (which, of course, are hardly "live" with all the post-production fill-ins and overdubs).

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

Originally posted by Groovepusher Sly:

According to the "patent" stated earlier. Clear Channel is trying to prevent artists from bringing a truck with 10,000 CD-R decks in it, and running a stereo signal (mix) to it to record on preprinted CD-R's, for sale to the public that evening.

They are claiming (which it not true) that they own the only method of doing this.

They're trying to get into the artist's merchandising pocket.

They are trying to claim that their venues are combination (Record Company, Live Radio, Recording Studios).

I think this will lead to further distillation of music content, toward pure idiot box, moron artist, pabulum.

Just my take on it.

 

Sly :cool:

I think the music cd market is already saturated with thousands of cd recordings released each week, which go unsold, this is just adding more to the heap. Do you know anybody that would like twenty-five versions of the Eagle's "Hell Freezes Over Tour" ?? What's next, are they gonna say you stole the music if you don't buy a copy of the concert you attended ??

 

Sounds like they have a bunch of recording engineer wannbee's trying to drum up work. The problem of all this is that the cost of recording will come out of the artist's pocket, whether any recordings are sold or not.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by djwayne:

A poor recording can make a great artist sound awful. A poor mix can really make a otherwise good band sound like crap.

Yeah but if the band is authorizing the recording, then it's presumed someone who knows what they're doing is making it. A board mix from a large venue, is often quite good, cuz if a band has their own sound man then he's going to know what the mix is supposed to sound like.

 

In a studio setting, many things can be fixed, whereas with a live recording, many off key notes will be magnified when heard at a lower volume recording, that wouldn't be heard at a live performance.
Again... if somebody can't sing on key in a live performance at that level (presuming they have a good monitor engineer/decent monitors/etc.) then I don't know what to say. Most people don't mind a few off notes in a live performance anyway, I doubt the average fan notices.

 

Whether a band sucks or not is a matter of opinion,

Not if you're talking about basic stuff like whether they can sing on key.

 

It also cheapens the whole "live recording" thing. Instead of a band having one great live album out there, they'll have a bunch of mediorce ones, all different, all over the country. And how many fans really want "All 25 live recordings of their favorite band, at say $15-20 a pop...?? And after that, do you think there will be a market for more studio recordings ??

Sure. For decades people have been making crappy audience recordings on boom boxes and trading or selling them. Doesn't affect the band's studio album market or take away any of the "magic" of the live recording. No one but the hardcore fans are going to buy any live recordings other than the one they attended, in all likelihood, and it's not like the live recordings would be distributed at record stores. They're just available that night. People might trade them on eBay or whatever just like they do now with boots, except it'd be legal and the artist would get paid, so there'd be no reason to bootleg a concert anymore.

 

I guess you just aren't familiar with the bootleg scene.

 

Another thing to take into consideration is, who's going to pay for the recording expenses, in the event not enough recordings are sold to cover those expenses ??

Expenses for making a simple live recording off the board are not much at all, and early indications from those who are already doing it are that they DO turn a profit, quite a nice one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Clear Channel are severely overstating what they bought. In any event, if dadyelmis could cut and paste (or link to it, it might be long) the section in the back of the patent called "Claims" we could actually see what the patent actually covers and end any speculation on that front.

 

As far as Clear Channel claiming this applies broadly to recording live concerts in general, that sounds like a matter of copyright law, not patent law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is being missed:

 

a) The idea is for the concert-goer to buy the CD, it won't go to the rack at Tower Records. I've never bought a "tour t-shirt" at Walmart, but I've bought several at the concerts as souveniers. Same with the CD. And I know plenty of people that have bootlegs of every Dead concert, dozens of Springsteen concerts etc. Unlimited market potential in this.

 

b) The patent issue aside, artists bear the same risk with this process as they do having 50,000 t-shirts printed up for tour. If they don't sell, ouch (although in reality, the big bands subcontract this to some company that takes the loss risk).

 

I have not reviewed the patent in detail, but I seriously doubt it can prevent you from bringing in a semi loaded with CD-R's, a pc loaded with ProTools and the necessary cabling to get a feed from the FOH. The issue is that, I assume economically and logistically, the LiveDisc approach is just better.

 

It's like embroidery, which used to be strictly custom, send off your design and wait 10 weeks based on a minimum order of 10,000 shirts or hats. Now, with new, patented technology, they have guys at the mall that can do a single hat or shirt with any freakin' design you want embroidered on it in 10 minutes.

 

In the end, LiveDisc should have purchased the patent themselves -- I assume they didn't have the $$ to get the inventors to sell, whereas Clear Channel did.

 

But standby, someone else will figure out a better mousetrap.

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

Sorry Lee, but you sound like one of those artists that are so concerned somebody might listen to your music without paying, that you lose the whole idea of the fun of the music.

 

The bootleg market is a big loss for you ?? hahahaha.. sorry, but I would be surprised if it included anymore than 1 percent of the total fan base, hardly worth losing any sleep over. But then again, some artists go into fits if anybody were to download a free copy of one of their songs. How cheap can ya get ??

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? I personally don't care about the bootleg market in terms of it being a "loss", most artists don't. That wasn't/isn't the point at all. The point is a good number of fans have always enjoyed having a live recording of a concert they went to, to the point where they are willing to make or buy a boot that's often inferior quality. Live recordings sold right after the concert, legally, give those fans (and maybe a few more who wouldn't normally buy boots because of the poor quality and/or legal issue) a better quality recording than a boot, and make a little extra money for the artist, for very little added cost. It's a win-win situation and people do seem to like it, so why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have purchased a few live concert dvd's, but watch them maybe once in a blue moon. But bootleg audio is not what I'm into. And from what I've seen, there may be a handful of people who are, but it's the rare bird, who collects more than a few.

 

One artist I know of, recorded a concert and included a recorded copy of the concert with the price of the concert ticket, but that was a one time deal, and it was a way for the artist to get a copy of his music into the hands of his fans, but I don't know the outcome if it was a good thing or not for the artist.

 

It might work for a few artists, but I don't think it's new found gold mine for all.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. Patent Office is so full of shit, they wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

 

This is the same organization that granted someone a patent for using a laser pointer as a cat exerciser...

 

Yeah, you shine the laser on the floor or wall, wiggle it around to prompt the cat to paw at it, thereby exercising the cat. :rolleyes:

Signatures can appear at the bottom of your posts. This option may be disabled by the message board administrators at any time, however. You may use UBB Code in your signature, but not HTML. UBB Code Images are permitted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Al-Qaeda:

 

If you're going to assualt the Western World, please start at the offices of Clear Channel.

 

Thank you,

the creative citizenry of the USA.

 

 

Dear FBI, CIA, and FCC:

 

If terrorists do not do so, consider this fair warning that a massive band of totally fed up citizens of the USA will be removing any physical trace of Clear Channel "Communications" by any means necessary. Emphasis on "any". This is the last straw. They will start with CC, and work their way up the Washington ass-trail.

This should give you enough time to pack your personal belongings out of your expensive, whore-ridden Washington, DC flats. You may have time to enjoy a few days of solitude before they come bearing torches, upturning your lawn jockeys, and drilling your deadbolts.

I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teddy Roosevelt, we need you!

 

It's time for a sweeping wave of anti-trust lawsuits along with legislation that will prevent this kind of "business" in the future.

 

Along with that, I would like to see it become illegal to collect royalties or licensing fees on anything that you didn't have a hand in creating.

The Black Knight always triumphs!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by offramp:

Dear Al-Qaeda:

 

If you're going to assualt the Western World, please start at the offices of Clear Channel.

 

Thank you,

the creative citizenry of the USA.

 

 

Dear FBI, CIA, and FCC:

 

If terrorists do not do so, consider this fair warning that a massive band of totally fed up citizens of the USA will be removing any physical trace of Clear Channel "Communications" by any means necessary. Emphasis on "any". This is the last straw. They will start with CC, and work their way up the Washington ass-trail.

This should give you enough time to pack your personal belongings out of your expensive, whore-ridden Washington, DC flats. You may have time to enjoy a few days of solitude before they come bearing torches, upturning your lawn jockeys, and drilling your deadbolts.

:D

 

Remember offramp, they're watching you. If you aren't careful, you might soon find 3 men in suits and earpieces at your door. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll gladly pop a cap in their sorry, robotic asses. Plenty of space out here to bury the bodies. I'm sick of this shit...and it started when the Harry Fucks Agency put the kibosh on a pop music lyrics database website a few years back. :mad:
I've upped my standards; now, up yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unenforcable, unless they have a CC rep at every live concert. And if one shows at one of my concerts, like the roach motel, he may go in, but he won't come out...

 

Dasher

It's all about the music. Really. I just keep telling myself that...

The Soundsmith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that artist are getting some money out of this transaction, which is good. But how do they get around the band's contract with their label. I thought that most contract were exclusive and the label had to give permission for the artist to release otherwise?
Yum, Yum! Eat em up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..............."It appears that artist are getting some money out of this transaction, which is good. But how do they get around the band's contract with their label. I thought that most contract were exclusive and the label had to give permission for the artist to release otherwise?...."

 

Every deal is different. Some include live recordings as part of album obligation, some deals don't. Some deals, like that guy who is a complete unknown in the U.S but a big deal in the UK...Robbie something or other...got $24 million up front from EMI in one single check...but for that particular deal, EMI gets a cut of every single thing Robbie does...tv, tour revenue, releases, coupons from the grocery store, t-shirt sales..everything. Probably also cuts of the profits from live tapings. Supose Robbie cares? I wouldn't if I had 24 million in the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phil B:

As far as Clear Channel claiming this applies broadly to recording live concerts in general, that sounds like a matter of copyright law, not patent law.

I had a VERY quick look at the patent app., and it seems they've tried to tie up 1) the mechanics and 2) the immediate delivery of all concert recordings on any and all physical media.

 

This, to my mind, is so wide and falls foul of so much prior art that the granting of a patent for this use is at the least highly contentious. Stuff like this should be subject to industry-wide peer review after the application has been filed.

J. Eliot Howe (Chief Gear-Pimp)

 

Guitaravenue L.L.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's already one label getting ready to attack the patent, and I've read also that there's a coalition of artists, labels, etc., that is trying to form and raise a legal fund to challenge the patent.

 

I agree based on the breadth of the claims that it's hard to imagine this patent, as written, standing up to a invalidation proceeding.

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

It's time to support the coalitions and public officials who oppose this patent. I'm not personally scared of Clear Channel being involved in any live recording, just as I'm not afraid of Microsoft taking over my computer. The alternatives to Clear Channel's solution seem too enticing to some, anyhow.

 

I just don't like how the profits seem to be handled in CC's favor, and not the artists. Of course, for well-established acts, this may not be much of an issue, but I hope they care enough to oppose this patent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This appears to be the audio analogy of someone patenting the business of having a fleet of trucks to ship goods to and from trains or boats for further shipping, rather than a single truck. How can you patent a system like that? Someone at the patent office has been duped.

 

The system they describe appears to be the common use system employed by digital recording studios everywhere, with one exception. It would seem they split the audio to a single track and individual tracks per time unit (the patent mentions 1 minute increments) so the latter can be edited into song tracks for the finished product which then can be compared to the master single track.

 

As for the automatic duplication, that is something studios have been doing as common practice for almost a decade. At least as long as spindle feed duplicators have been available for several thousand dollars.

 

I think Clear Channel is going to get a rude awakening when recording industry experts testify at any lawsuits concerning the patent.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of a band having one great live album out there, they'll have a bunch of mediorce ones, all different, all over the country
But that's what bootlegs do. And the official recording is going to be taken from the board on good equipment, unlike any bootleg. So you cut the bootleggers off at the knees. And you're not paying for studio time, mixing facilities, or promotion, so it's near pure profit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's near pure profit.
My question would be, "pure profit for whom?" And if the split of the "take" doesn't look acceptable to the band, then what?

 

If you complain does CC pull out their "F*CK STICK?" (A term "allegedly" used by a CC exec in another strong-arm court case.) Is your music pulled out of rotation in that city, or maybe pulled across the country?

"If more of us valued food, cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." - J. R. R. Tolkien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dementia13:

Instead of a band having one great live album out there, they'll have a bunch of mediorce ones, all different, all over the country
But that's what bootlegs do. And the official recording is going to be taken from the board on good equipment, unlike any bootleg. So you cut the bootleggers off at the knees. And you're not paying for studio time, mixing facilities, or promotion, so it's near pure profit.
So why would you want to cut the bootleggers off at the knees, you're only hurting fans, which are helping to promote the band.

 

As far as being pure profit, there will be tons of expenses, such as equipment, truck, insurance, labor, and marketing costs, which will most definitely add up. My personal opinion is that CC has been sold a bill of goods, and may dump a fortune into doing this, and sales may not even cover their expenses.

 

In all my years of going to concerts there was only one I wanted a recording of, and lucky for me, it was recorded that night, but it was almost a year before it was released, properly mastered, and mixed.

 

Many bands record a series of concerts and pick out the best performances to go on a live album. That makes more sense to me. To add video and create a concert dvd, is, in my opinion, the best way to document a band's performance, as it's great to also be able to watch the show. But it should be done properly, and not rushed out.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...