Clear Channel Patent (!)

sammi jo

For any musicians, bands, etc, etc, on this board (or anywhere) who make money from selling recordings of their own music at their live shows, read this:



http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=67169



RIP another area of the free market in America, crushed by privilege and power.

outsider

First Stern, now this?



Boycott CC concerts and stations!

ast3r3x

Quote:

Originally posted by Outsider

First Stern, now this?



Boycott CC concerts and stations!

Good luck, do you know how much they own?

progmac

Quote:

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

Can someone explain this to me? I really don't understand what the patent is. I can't imagine that if i performed a concert for the neighbor kids and sold them cds of the show that clear channel could sue me. it doesn't make sense. it's like patenting the action of ball-scratching.

amorph

It doesn't make any sense, and there are a lot of bands that pioneered this approach — and which have prospered from it — that are going to look dimly on this assertion as well.



Clear Channel needs to be sued out of existence. That would be a good start. Then, the FCC needs to reinstate the old restrictions on how many of what kinds of media you can own where, and enforce them vigilantly. Nothing kills art faster than a publisher's monopoly.

shawnj

Quote:

Originally posted by ast3r3x

Good luck, do you know how much they own?

Don't listen to Clear Channel radio stations or attend Clear Channel concerts. It's simple, really. Scranton, PA has a brand new, beautiful ampitheater only minutes from my house yet I haven't gone to one concert since it switched to Clear Channel. For me, what the company is doing to music is far worse than missing a show or two.

thedustin

I fucking hate Clear Channel. They own a new station in L.A. called "INDY 101, L.A.'s independent rock station." Independent huh? I figured out It is basically just a test market for KROQ. Songs on INDY 101 get popular, then you start to hear them being played on KROQ, then they get played out. It is kinda sad. I just went to see A Perfect Circle in L.A. and the lead singer (Maynard James Keenan) said help support Micheal Moore and Howard Stern...funny because the show was promoted by "the world famous" KROQ. Clear Channel presents almost every major act on the west coast. It is hard to boycott, actually almost impossible. Not enough people care who is putting on the show, they just want to see their band. There is NO way in hell I am going to miss one of the best bands of my time (APC) just to boycott Clear Channel, although I would love to. The show was spectacular of course.



_thedustin

thedustin

Quote:

Originally posted by Amorph

Nothing kills art faster than a publisher's monopoly.

You said it man!



_thedustin

pfflam

It reads like a dark comedy version of Orwellian logic:



"you, sir, are sumoned to court, you were seen 'scratching your balls' without paying Clear Channel their cut!"

ebby

Clear Channel owns a boatload of TV channels too, right?



There is just no avoiding them! They are killing radio. My iTrip broke a few days ago and I tuned into a station for the first time since January. MAN are there a TON of commercials! Normal commercials, host-read commercials, fake-caller commercials, and continuous deliberate product mentions. Monterey Bay Aquarium with some hotel has this really annoying campaign that sounds like the hosts are answering a callers question and always ends up promoting things to do in Monterey. IT IS ANNOYING AS HELL! Each one is different and they are on all the time. I am disgusted by the deception and lack of quality of radio today.



Radio has stopped being about music, but about profit.

shawnj

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebby

Radio has stopped being about music, but about profit.

Our economic system, especially the unregulated kind advocated by crony-capitalists and politicians, forces this result upon us. What's the laissez-faire capitalist justification for Clear Channel?

gon

Quote:

Originally posted by ShawnJ

Our economic system, especially the unregulated kind advocated by crony-capitalists and politicians, forces this result upon us. What's the laissez-faire capitalist justification for Clear Channel?

I think the problem in this particular case is, once again, too much regulation - in the form of the patent. There are too many silly patents handed out that should be laughed out of the patent office. In addition to the patent office people getting a grip in general, the duration of patents should be dropped to 10 years (max) from the current 20, and it should be made clear that it is not possible to patent business models and practices, but only technical inventions with no prior art.



CC also seems to engage in monopolist practices (in advertisement, etc), which is a separate issue. I don't stand for monopolist practices - but I might stand for a company's right to exist as a monopoly, if it has achieved that status fair and square.



Then there is the question of monopolies through natural laws: for instance, the limited space for radio stations in a given area. In these cases there is no easy way to allocate the resources (frequencies), and it seems like a bad idea to let them all fall into the hands of one entity, since then there cannot be a direct competitor for this entity. Fortunately I expect the situation be alleviated by Internet radio. As soon as good net connection becomes normal in cars, people can listen to Burmese national radio while driving as easily as they can listen to any of their "local" stations. Unless Internet radio is heavily regulated as well...

sdw2001

As a musician, I was not aware of this absurd patent. From my limited understanding, Clear Channel bought a patent for actual "technology" of Live to CD recording itself. Does it cover other methods of recording too? I am in disbelief.



A patent like this is ridiculous and needs to be thrown out in court. What this means is that someone like me cannot do a live recording of my own music and then sell it. This would inlcude my planned Master of Music recital next spring (my graduate degree). Am I correct here?



I'm not sure a how a patent can be granted for live recording. It;s insane.

formerlurker

When I saw the thread title, my first thought was,

"Evil - they must have patented Evil..."

playmaker

I think I'll apply for the patent on people playing instruments together to make music. Then anyone in the world who is in a band will have to pay me money **rubs hands together in an evil plotting manner** I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams Muuhahahahaha Muhahahahaha

moogs

Clear Channel must die. I think I like them even less than Microsoft, historically speaking. They are worthy of everyone's contempt AFAIC.

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by Playmaker

I think I'll apply for the patent on people playing instruments together to make music. Then anyone in the world who is in a band will have to pay me money **rubs hands together in an evil plotting manner** I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams Muuhahahahaha Muhahahahaha

I own the patent on "Muuhahahahaha Muhahahaha" and all of its alternate spellings and pronunciations in every language since from the begining of time, including Klingon. Thus, I now own your soul. I'm applying for a patent on that too.

moogs

I own the patent for patenting things. All your ideas are belong to moog!

shawnj

Quote:

Originally posted by Gon

I think the problem in this particular case is, once again, too much regulation - in the form of the patent. There are too many silly patents handed out that should be laughed out of the patent office. In addition to the patent office people getting a grip in general, the duration of patents should be dropped to 10 years (max) from the current 20, and it should be made clear that it is not possible to patent business models and practices, but only technical inventions with no prior art.

Those are good points. Now, I'm not sure whether I see the patent office as too lax in handing out patents or too stringent in regulating some basic aspects of life. I suppose both views work.

marcuk

I can't decide if this is a pisstake. Surely an artist cannot be busted if they take a computer into a live venue, records the performance and then burns them out to a CDR to sell. Is that what this article is saying?



What exactly can you patent here, the act of recording and distributing a performance in a specific timeframe?

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by MarcUK

I can't decide if this is a pisstake. Surely an artist cannot be busted if they take a computer into a live venue, records the performance and then burns them out to a CDR to sell. Is that what this article is saying?



What exactly can you patent here, the act of recording and distributing a performance in a specific timeframe?

It appears that it's the whole concept of "Live recording" for the purpose of CD sales. That's totally crazy!



US Patent Office Link



Not good. It doesn't even specify CD recording. Though, it would seem that material transported back to the studio and then released would be exempt?