clear channel is satan!

[Inky Goddess]

have you guys seen this obscenity? clear channel is regulating the way you remote guys can do business with a united states patent!!!

i love living in america, but this is one of the things i hate about it. once the corporate beast gets rolling, the only way to stop it is to dismantle it. have you ever seen that happen? no! and then one beast sees another faltering, and instead of destroying it, the stronger one consumes the weaker one...and then it's like the highlander! "in the end there can only be one..." so, who'll be "the one?" the united states or the catholic church or clear channel?
( no offense intended toward catholic individuals.)

[Plush]

Clearchannel has no ability to make this absurd restraint of trade notion stick. If one owns the material, you can do whatever you want with it.

Your linked article is just another hysterical outburst from those who do not know the laws involved.

[fifthcircle]

True... There shouldn't be a patent given for this- how many of us are in the business of recording concerts and selling CDs of it. Thank goodness Kufala Records- who is a great live indy label based here in LA- is standing up to the brute known as Clear Channel. Check out the label, they do cool stuff- http://www.kufala.com

--Ben

[Ted Nightshade]

dfegad dfegad clearchannel

Thank gawd for my monkey piss avatar! It makes all things clean...

Originally posted by jslator
Clearchannel don't have a patent on the concept of recording live shows and selling CD's at the venue. They only have a patent on one certain method of doing it. If you use a method other than theirs, you're OK.

In looking at the actual patent, I have some doubts as to whether it would stand up to a challenge. But even if it does stand, it's not as broad as people are making it out to be.

I do, however, agree that Clearchannel is Satan. But that's for different reasons.

This is true. They cannot patent what is already done in practice, or what is a natural progression of the craft. But that is not how they are presenting it, nor how their attorneys think. String Cheese is giving in to their threats, as are others.

BUT! They still should not be able to patent their process, because anyone can do the same thing, but with other gear. You can stream directly to a CD burner. That's nothing new.

The thing for artists to do it to find a way to mark up the tickets at the door to cover the cost of the CD, vs. making it an option at the end of the night. This would be a "complimentary" CD. This may work for or against an artist, depending on the percentages paid to promotors, management, booking agencies, etc. I would think that it could save money for those artists who have to split merch sales 50/50. Just a thought.

[Walling1]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech....ap/index.html

[Exmun]

Just an FYI, the patent is called "System and method of creating digital recordings of live performances". You can read the patent at www.uspto.gov (the US Patent & Trademark Office). Patent Number 6,614,729. Author is Griner et al. Issue Date: September 2, 2003.

First, don't blame Clear Channel, they just bought the patent. It's not like they themselves funded the patent from the get go. If I were in their shoes (and pocket books). I, too, could see buying it as it makes perfect sense from a business perspective. The real people who need a swift kick in the pants are the patent examiners in the USPTO. These people just allowed themselves to be hoodwinked to the maximum.

I suspect that the patent will not live once challenged in the reexamination process. Or at least its claims should be limited to the specific embodiment of the "invention." Jslator is right in one sense--that what they really mean is that they have a 'particular' method or system for live recording. BUT, the patent (and its claims along with its detailed description) clearly claims much MORE than just its particular method.

It uses the connector "comprising" to describe the components of the invention in the Claims Section. What that term means is that any invention having all of those elements (an event capture module, an editing module, and a media recording module) technically infringe. C'mon--what live to digital recording doesn't have this? Their big disclosure is that the editing takes place 'simultaneously' with the recording--thus making shortening the editing/mastering process.

The Description does no less by claiming other embodiments of the invention using other means that those disclosed. To me, the patent does claim more than it discloses. And, IMO what it claims is not "novel". That assembly line approach has been done with digital media and live recordings for years. Analog too, but they claimed it for digital stuff.

Gotta hand it to the folks who pulled the wool over the eyes of the Patent examiners... a stroke of genius.

[genericperson]

I wonder if someone could beat Clearchannel at it's own game:

Figure out Clearchannel's business models, and then patent them and use it against them.


Maybe something like the "integrated concert sales promotion" patent. "We patent the process of advertising a concert on a radio station we own, and then selling the tickets to a venue we own as well. This method of customer-capture, temporary storage of customer at our venue, uploading of 'concert experience' into customer via sights, sounds and smells (vis-a-vis 'the concert'), and redistribution of said-customer into our parking lot is now patented."

[shproductions03]

Does Clear Channel really have the power to enforce this. If so that scares the hell out of me. I would hate to lose my job as a remote recording guy because of there bullshit . I was originally told that they only owned the patient on the recording and cd-r distributing of the event (like the system they bought from (Disc Live) the truck with the recorders and burners. But after reading the patient I think they have all live show recordings for future uses, and or sale of. And if this is true will they just randomly start suing anyone that seams to be a big super power in the remote recording business.

Someone needs to stop them!!

Do some of you guys do remote gigs for Clear Channel, and is there any word from the company to you about event recording and its future.

[optionshift3]

Hey all... It's actually "Live Nation" now. We split off. The company within Live Nation that is responsible for the recordings is called "Instant Live".
I don't think that we are quite as carnivorous as all that... There are other companies that
record live shows and sell them immediately afterwards. Disclive pops to mind. As far as I know, there aren't any plans to go after any one. Healthy competition is a good thing, no?

[dkatz42]

In my day job I occasionally help our legal team shoot down patents by providing evidence of "prior art" (which basically shows that the filer wasn't first in what it claims to have invented.) It can be like shooting fish in a barrel if the claims are egregious (my favorite was when *I* had done the prior art) but it does cost money, potentially fists full.

The most likely scenario is that nobody will bother with it until the first infringement suit, and then some combination of corporate lawyers, lawyers working on contingency, and outside groups (like the EFF) will rise to the occasion.

Of course, the additional wrinkle is that the folks that actually want airplay of their work are less likely to fight it out with Clear Channel.

It's a sad fact that corporations are filing blizzards of patents (and I have to admit some guilt here) on anything up to and including the sun rising in the east, and that the patent office is overwhelmed and underqualified to evaluate them. They're used as chess pieces in corporate wars--you license mine (for free) and I'll license yours (for free) and we won't sue each other. This is at least mildly sporting; in the Clear Channel case, however, they have no real competition to their juggernaut and the patent blizzard becomes a way of consolidating even more power.

[cdog]

Originally Posted by Inky Goddess

have you guys seen this obscenity? and then it's like the highlander! "in the end there can only be one..." so, who'll be "the one?" the united states or the catholic church or clear channel?
( no offense intended toward catholic individuals.)

LOL clear channel is totally some highlander shit. Hopefully someone cuts its ugly freaking head off.

[dshay]

You can buy these t-shirts at the following location...

http://www.strangefamous.com/

Sage Francis sends his love.

[SoundEng1]

dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad dfegad

[Duffster]

The first live sound gig I ever lost was because Clear Channel put the venue out of business. I have been a avid "HATER" of them ever since. They use the "put the little guy down" policy..... and also the F$%K everyone over one toofuuck fuuck

[Count Dz]

Just received this from one of my favorite organizations, The Electronic Frontier Foundation:

* Bogus Clear Channel Patent May Be Revoked

Patent Office Orders Reexamination at EFF's Request

San Francisco - At the request of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
on Monday agreed to reexamine an illegitimate patent held by
Clear Channel Communications. The patent -- for a system
and method of creating digital recordings of live
performances -- locks musical acts into using Clear Channel
technology and blocks innovations by others.

"The Patent Office agrees that there are serious questions
about the patent's validity," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason
Schultz. "This is a significant victory for artists and
innovators harmed by Clear Channel's patent and for anyone
concerned about overreaching, illegitimate patents."

Clear Channel now has two months to file comments defending
its patent, to which EFF will get to respond. The PTO will
then determine whether to invalidate the patent. In roughly
70% of instances like this one in which a request for
reexamination is granted, the patent is narrowed or
completely revoked.

"Patents serve an important role in our economy," said
Schultz. "Keeping illegitimate patents out of that system
benefits all of us, helping up-and-coming artists and
entrepreneurs."

EFF filed the request for reexamination in conjunction with
Theodore C. McCullough of the Lemaire Patent Law Firm and
with the help of students at the Glushko-Samuelson
Intellectual Property Clinic at American University's
Washington College of Law. The Clear Channel patent
challenge is part of EFF's Patent Busting Project, aimed at
combating the chilling effects bad patents have on public
and consumer interests. The Patent Busting Project seeks to
document the threats and fight back by filing requests for
reexamination against the worst offenders.

For more information about EFF's request and Clear Channel's
patent:
http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/pat...p=clearchannel

For EFF's Patent Busting Project:
http://www.eff.org/patent/

For this release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#004519



Ha, Ha hopefully Clear Channel gets what they deserve fuuck . Maybe if we can get lucky it will be a landmark decision for all the bogus patents they've let through the system the past 5-10 years.