Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cllass Action Suit against Clear Channel

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,
particularly since the distribution can be accomplished with off the shelf
software. And since Clear Channel hasn't had any challenges to it's patent
so far, I'd like to start proceedings against them for fraudulent use of
patent law, at the least.

I'm positive that it's possible to show that they didn't have any
developmental input towards the technology that allows them to do the job,
so it's a matter of doing a grass roots class action suit to disallow them
to ply a patent they have no right to have.

It's time to stand up. Most of you guys know me, and this is something that
I think all of us can come to a harmonic understanding on. If you record a
live performance, right now you owe Clear Channel for something they didn't
even develop.

I'm willing to take on the initial brunt of the cost to gain access to a
patent attorney, and with the backing of such a group as this, I think we
can negate Clear Channel's patent, but if not, then we can take them to
court and make the prove that they actually developed the technology to do
what any one of us have been able to do for the past 5 years.

I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
$100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with contacts
that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray? Hank?
Rick? Anyone?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's a great idea Roger, but you might want to check first to see if
anyone else is already doing this. If not, you could probably get
some organizations interested. Maybe some recording or engineering
groups, maybe even the ACLU. And I bet there are some left-leaning
lawyers that would do this pro-bono, or at least very cheaply.

Al

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:06:30 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
<rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:

>I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,
>particularly since the distribution can be accomplished with off the shelf
>software. And since Clear Channel hasn't had any challenges to it's patent
>so far, I'd like to start proceedings against them for fraudulent use of
>patent law, at the least.
>
>I'm positive that it's possible to show that they didn't have any
>developmental input towards the technology that allows them to do the job,
>so it's a matter of doing a grass roots class action suit to disallow them
>to ply a patent they have no right to have.
>
>It's time to stand up. Most of you guys know me, and this is something that
>I think all of us can come to a harmonic understanding on. If you record a
>live performance, right now you owe Clear Channel for something they didn't
>even develop.
>
>I'm willing to take on the initial brunt of the cost to gain access to a
>patent attorney, and with the backing of such a group as this, I think we
>can negate Clear Channel's patent, but if not, then we can take them to
>court and make the prove that they actually developed the technology to do
>what any one of us have been able to do for the past 5 years.
>
>I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
>probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
>$100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with contacts
>that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray? Hank?
>Rick? Anyone?
Related resources
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here's a link with some more info:

http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=clearchan...

Might be worthwhile to investigate what is already in the
works and perhaps see if throwing one's resources of
time/money/energy/expertise towards on-going efforts would
be productive.



TM



"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,

> I'm willing to take on the initial brunt of the cost to gain access to a
> patent attorney, and with the backing of such a group as this, I think we
> can negate Clear Channel's patent,
>
> I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
> probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
> $100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with contacts
> that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray?
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:42:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The folks at Disclogic also may have something to say or contribute to the
effort.
http://www.disclogic.com/


"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:qPSdnTXmEZIn0-DcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,
> particularly since the distribution can be accomplished with off the shelf
> software. And since Clear Channel hasn't had any challenges to it's
> patent
> so far, I'd like to start proceedings against them for fraudulent use of
> patent law, at the least.
>
> I'm positive that it's possible to show that they didn't have any
> developmental input towards the technology that allows them to do the job,
> so it's a matter of doing a grass roots class action suit to disallow them
> to ply a patent they have no right to have.
>
> It's time to stand up. Most of you guys know me, and this is something
> that
> I think all of us can come to a harmonic understanding on. If you record
> a
> live performance, right now you owe Clear Channel for something they
> didn't
> even develop.
>
> I'm willing to take on the initial brunt of the cost to gain access to a
> patent attorney, and with the backing of such a group as this, I think we
> can negate Clear Channel's patent, but if not, then we can take them to
> court and make the prove that they actually developed the technology to do
> what any one of us have been able to do for the past 5 years.
>
> I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
> probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
> $100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with contacts
> that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray?
> Hank?
> Rick? Anyone?
>
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
>
>
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 10:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks. Every step helps to one with atrophied legs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Chip Borton" <chip@cybarmesa.com> wrote in message
news:MfydndbZp4rT7uDcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> The folks at Disclogic also may have something to say or contribute to the
> effort.
> http://www.disclogic.com/
>
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:qPSdnTXmEZIn0-DcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> > I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,
> > particularly since the distribution can be accomplished with off the
shelf
> > software. And since Clear Channel hasn't had any challenges to it's
> > patent
> > so far, I'd like to start proceedings against them for fraudulent use of
> > patent law, at the least.
> >
> > I'm positive that it's possible to show that they didn't have any
> > developmental input towards the technology that allows them to do the
job,
> > so it's a matter of doing a grass roots class action suit to disallow
them
> > to ply a patent they have no right to have.
> >
> > It's time to stand up. Most of you guys know me, and this is something
> > that
> > I think all of us can come to a harmonic understanding on. If you
record
> > a
> > live performance, right now you owe Clear Channel for something they
> > didn't
> > even develop.
> >
> > I'm willing to take on the initial brunt of the cost to gain access to a
> > patent attorney, and with the backing of such a group as this, I think
we
> > can negate Clear Channel's patent, but if not, then we can take them to
> > court and make the prove that they actually developed the technology to
do
> > what any one of us have been able to do for the past 5 years.
> >
> > I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
> > probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
> > $100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with
contacts
> > that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray?
> > Hank?
> > Rick? Anyone?
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Roger W. Norman
> > SirMusic Studio
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 2:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" wrote ...
> But back to Clear Channel. I feel like I walked into the middle of this
> discussion. What, exactly, have they patented?

People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of live
recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent, but
if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$ and
lawyers than any opponents.

You can read patent # 6,614,729 for yourself at www.uspto.gov
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:14:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play-on" <playonATomcast.net> wrote in message
news:p qlqn0pn6iph11tis6dg56vtmqd65lttdc@4ax.com...
> It's a great idea Roger, but you might want to check first to see if
> anyone else is already doing this. If not, you could probably get
> some organizations interested. Maybe some recording or engineering
> groups, maybe even the ACLU. And I bet there are some left-leaning
> lawyers that would do this pro-bono, or at least very cheaply.

Probably not the ACLU. Their policy is almost always to limit their
attention to actions by governments (federal, state, or local) rather than
individuals or corporations, although they make occasional exceptions when
an employer, for example, violates an employee's First Amendment or privacy
rights. This is a restraint-of-trade issue, more than anything else, if I
understand what the background is, and that's not the ACLU's turf.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Has anyone actually read the patent? It is available online at...
www.uspto.gov (US Patent & Trademark Office) Look up
patent # 6,614,729

A quick glance looked like it was pretty specific to a particular
arrangement of equipment/techniques. It also looked like they
wrote the patent application themselves or if they had a patent
attorney, he wasn't very critical about how it was written. I'd
be surprised if it could withstand a genuine technical challenge.
OTOH, the courts are not noted for their technical savvy, and
CC's pockets are as deep as anyone you'd ever want to go up
against.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:31:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:20:39 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>But back to Clear Channel. I feel like I walked into the middle of this
>discussion. What, exactly, have they patented?

I dunno, but can I patent the idea of "having new ideas"? I think
it might be good for mankind. And profitable. And I want a pony.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 11:49:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:qPSdnTXmEZIn0-DcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> I'm really up in arms about Clear Channel's patent on live recordings,
> particularly since the distribution can be accomplished with off the shelf
> software. And since Clear Channel hasn't had any challenges to it's
> patent
> so far, I'd like to start proceedings against them for fraudulent use of
> patent law, at the least.
>

How in the world can they (or anyone for that matter) patent that? What did
they "invent"? What is proprietary about it?
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 11:52:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10nroahs43c66e1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Stamler" wrote ...
>> But back to Clear Channel. I feel like I walked into the middle of this
>> discussion. What, exactly, have they patented?
>
> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of live
> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent, but
> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$ and
> lawyers than any opponents.
>
> You can read patent # 6,614,729 for yourself at www.uspto.gov
>
>

Here's a quick direct link: http://tinyurl.com/3b2eb
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 5:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger,
I haven't read the patent, but I do have some experience with defending
and refuting patent claims... One of the best approaches is to produce
prior art on their claims. If there was a magazine article or any
published literature describing what their claims describe and they have
not cited it as prior art in the patent, then the claims are invalid.
There oughta be some folks around here that might have read something or
written something in a published rag that applies.

I did a search and found a clearchannel patent with the following
claims. All the claims are based on the first one so if you can beat it
the rest fall as well.. The publication has to be before Sep. 2, 2003.
Looks like any description venue recording setup would apply.. Or
a product aimed at that application. Even marketing literature works if
you can prove that it existed prior to the effective date. Publications
are handy because they are public domain and archived by any library and
need to be cited as 'art'. Previous product literature can be used to
refudiate the 'inventor' and show a previous inventor but you have to
show the the inventors in the patent had access to the information.

It's a pretty broad patent..


Snip from patent #6,614,729

We claim as follows:

1. An event recording system, comprising:
(i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform it
into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed;
(ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture
module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary
event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded
onto a recording media; and
(iii) a media recording module communicatively linked to the editing
module for receiving the one or more digital track files, the media
recording module having a plurality of media recorders for
simultaneously recording the one or more digital track files onto a
plurality of recording media.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the editing module has two or more
editing station for simultaneously editing different portions of the
primary event file in order to generate the one or more digital track
files as the event is occurring.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the event capture module includes one
or more event signal sources, a soundboard with a mixer operably
connected to the one or more event signal sources for receiving the
event signal therefrom, and a primary storage module for storing the
event signal into the primary storage file.

4. The system of claim 1, further comprising a backup module connected
to the event capture module for redundantly saving the primary event
file and making it available to the editing module in case the primary
event file(s) within the event capture module become inaccessible.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein the soundboard receives one or more
event signals from the signal source for processing and combining these
signals to generate the output event signal that is provided to the
primary storage module.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 5:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:

> How in the world can they (or anyone for that matter) patent that?

Word I get from IP attorneys I know is that the patent office is a
grossly incognizant mess.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 6:33:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
>
>
>>How in the world can they (or anyone for that matter) patent that?
>
>
> Word I get from IP attorneys I know is that the patent office is a
> grossly incognizant mess.

Their examination has always been fairly cursory and it's
hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. The cost of a
patent would be outrageous. They intend that the courts are
where patents are fully vetted and that the cost be born by
the holder and challenger.

A patent has always been just the first step in securing
protection of an invention. Corporate patents are defensive
as often as not just to protect against being blindsided by
someone else's.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 8:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:32:54 +0200, Steve Ryan wrote:

> It's a pretty broad patent..
>
> Snip from patent #6,614,729

Oeps, I've used a PC with a IDE RAID and two CD writers with a Terratec
EWS88MT and Samplitude on events. Have I infringed all of the claims of
this patent?

Oh no, I've used this setup on January 2nd 2000 and I have recorded it on
video, so it is clearly prior art as the patent was filed September 26,
2001.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 8:29:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:32:54 +0200, Steve Ryan wrote:
>
>
>>It's a pretty broad patent..
>>
>>Snip from patent #6,614,729
>
>
> Oeps, I've used a PC with a IDE RAID and two CD writers with a Terratec
> EWS88MT and Samplitude on events. Have I infringed all of the claims of
> this patent?
>
> Oh no, I've used this setup on January 2nd 2000 and I have recorded it on
> video, so it is clearly prior art as the patent was filed September 26,
> 2001.

<http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/prior.php?p=clearchann...; is waiting for your input.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 8:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks. I've got more research to do, but this one just burns my butt.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Steve Ryan" <sryan@nospamtendb.com> wrote in message
news:clljm601pbq@news2.newsguy.com...
> Roger,
> I haven't read the patent, but I do have some experience with defending
> and refuting patent claims... One of the best approaches is to produce
> prior art on their claims. If there was a magazine article or any
> published literature describing what their claims describe and they have
> not cited it as prior art in the patent, then the claims are invalid.
> There oughta be some folks around here that might have read something or
> written something in a published rag that applies.
>
> I did a search and found a clearchannel patent with the following
> claims. All the claims are based on the first one so if you can beat it
> the rest fall as well.. The publication has to be before Sep. 2, 2003.
> Looks like any description venue recording setup would apply.. Or
> a product aimed at that application. Even marketing literature works if
> you can prove that it existed prior to the effective date. Publications
> are handy because they are public domain and archived by any library and
> need to be cited as 'art'. Previous product literature can be used to
> refudiate the 'inventor' and show a previous inventor but you have to
> show the the inventors in the patent had access to the information.
>
> It's a pretty broad patent..
>
>
> Snip from patent #6,614,729
>
> We claim as follows:
>
> 1. An event recording system, comprising:
> (i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform it
> into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed;
> (ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture
> module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary
> event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded
> onto a recording media; and
> (iii) a media recording module communicatively linked to the editing
> module for receiving the one or more digital track files, the media
> recording module having a plurality of media recorders for
> simultaneously recording the one or more digital track files onto a
> plurality of recording media.
>
> 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the editing module has two or more
> editing station for simultaneously editing different portions of the
> primary event file in order to generate the one or more digital track
> files as the event is occurring.
>
> 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the event capture module includes one
> or more event signal sources, a soundboard with a mixer operably
> connected to the one or more event signal sources for receiving the
> event signal therefrom, and a primary storage module for storing the
> event signal into the primary storage file.
>
> 4. The system of claim 1, further comprising a backup module connected
> to the event capture module for redundantly saving the primary event
> file and making it available to the editing module in case the primary
> event file(s) within the event capture module become inaccessible.
>
> 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the soundboard receives one or more
> event signals from the signal source for processing and combining these
> signals to generate the output event signal that is provided to the
> primary storage module.
>
>
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 10:32:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <clljm601pbq@news2.newsguy.com> sryan@nospamtendb.com writes:

> Snip from patent #6,614,729
> We claim as follows:
>
> 1. An event recording system, comprising:
> (i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform it
> into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed;
> (ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture
> module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary
> event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded
> onto a recording media; and

This is standard fare in broadcast these days, only the "event" might
be an incoming live report. It gets recorded ("event capture") and
they start editing on it as it's coming in. Dalet is the product of
choice (pretty much by default) at most stations who use this
technique.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 4:08:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Oct 2004 18:32:51 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <clljm601pbq@news2.newsguy.com> sryan@nospamtendb.com writes:
>
>> Snip from patent #6,614,729
>> We claim as follows:
>>
>> 1. An event recording system, comprising:
>> (i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform it
>> into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being formed;
>> (ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture
>> module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary
>> event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded
>> onto a recording media; and
>
>This is standard fare in broadcast these days, only the "event" might
>be an incoming live report. It gets recorded ("event capture") and
>they start editing on it as it's coming in. Dalet is the product of
>choice (pretty much by default) at most stations who use this
>technique.


What about the system chain churches use to deliver CDs or cassettes
of the day's church service?

Dave
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 7:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:clmfrk05bs@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Their examination has always been fairly cursory and it's hard to imagine
> how it could be otherwise.

It's probably kind of like copyrights. It's really nothing more than an
official "time stamp" and only really used when in dispute.
October 27, 2004 11:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> I can imagine that it will cost me $5k to start the process, but it will
> probably cost $100k to get this into court. Can I get anyone to opt for
> $100 investment in the sanctity of their recordings? Anyone with contacts
> that would bring the weight of some of the major acts into the fray? Hank?
> Rick? Anyone?


ask Howard Stern. he might help.

Mark
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 7:38:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:08:14 -0500, David Welp
<73133.nospmm1473@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is standard fare in broadcast these days, only the "event" might
>>be an incoming live report. It gets recorded ("event capture") and
>>they start editing on it as it's coming in. Dalet is the product of
>>choice (pretty much by default) at most stations who use this
>>technique.
>
>
> What about the system chain churches use to deliver CDs or cassettes
> of the day's church service?
>

That's not usually edited very much.

When I was doing it, we just rolled tape for the sermon, then ran copies
after the service on a bulk tape duplicator.

Nowadays, you do the same thing with CD-ROM.

My guess is that ClearChannel used the specific terms "primary file" and
the means of editing the data in the primary file into separate tracks
in order specifically target their competition.

Of course, the next clever lawyer will be employed by the competition,
instructing their engineers to patent "a method using multiple files,
with no primary file . . . "
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 4:18:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <k7bun09od4555k23l8791djcf0j5m9u5it@4ax.com> 73133.nospmm1473@compuserve.com writes:

> What about the system chain churches use to deliver CDs or cassettes
> of the day's church service?

I don't know for sure what they use, but I would expect that they
don't record multitrack, mix from the recordings, edit, and "master."
Those with the most sense and no young buck with a computer telling
them how to do it will probably have a stand-alone real time CD
recorder and a stand-alone duplicator with a few copy drives.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 8:01:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 28 Oct 2004 00:18:51 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <k7bun09od4555k23l8791djcf0j5m9u5it@4ax.com> 73133.nospmm1473@compuserve.com writes:
>
>> What about the system chain churches use to deliver CDs or cassettes
>> of the day's church service?
>
>I don't know for sure what they use, but I would expect that they
>don't record multitrack, mix from the recordings, edit, and "master."
>Those with the most sense and no young buck with a computer telling
>them how to do it will probably have a stand-alone real time CD
>recorder and a stand-alone duplicator with a few copy drives.



When I attended a conference on church worship technology a few years
ago, I ran into several churches that were multiracking worship,
there are several commerical CD distributions of live worship from
this type of environment.

Generally there are two concepts for church duplication, one vendor
has dubbed one called "take along tapes" where the service is
available within a few minutes after the service. This works well
for spoken word, but if music is included the quality can be ...

The other is the multitrack or two track and then the product is taken
and edited before duplicated and made available the next week or
during the week. Some of the churches I talked to were using this
method, especially for special events.

We've considered this second approach until I ask who will be spending
the 5-10 minutes per minute of recording to edit and produce this
every week.


I agree Mike, with "those with the most sense and no young buck" as
I have yet to figure out how to migrate from cassette to CD
distribution, with the recording and editing capabilities that gives
the option to trim the start and finish, plus edit out the occasional
" oops I shouldn't have said that on tape". So far the chain is too
complex for non computer types to use. plus the risks of loosing
everything from a PC or stand alone CD recorder glitch.

The one thing I saw in the description of the Clear Channel concept
that made it unique was the real time editing of the file before the
recording process was completed. and that would take modifying the
file handlers in the recording and editing software from opeing a
standard closed file to opening a disk buffer that was first in first
out and then apply the edit list/track markers as it writes the final
file for duplication.


Dave
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <a3m2o099sdjeuqlnqpsvr7b1e7cemn0feb@4ax.com> 73133.nospmm1473@compuserve.com writes:

> Generally there are two concepts for church duplication, one vendor
> has dubbed one called "take along tapes" where the service is
> available within a few minutes after the service. This works well
> for spoken word, but if music is included the quality can be ...
>
> The other is the multitrack or two track and then the product is taken
> and edited before duplicated and made available the next week or
> during the week. Some of the churches I talked to were using this
> method, especially for special events.
>
> We've considered this second approach until I ask who will be spending
> the 5-10 minutes per minute of recording to edit and produce this
> every week.

Some churches have plenty of volunteers for this sort of work. Quality
ranges from blah to good, depending on the level of skill, the level
of interst, the amount of time available, and the time-before-burnout
of the individual. Other churches have large budgets for recording,
excellent gear and control rooms, and usually someone is paid to do
the production - maybe a church member, maybe an outsider - but it's a
job with responsibilities, qualification requirements, and I'm sure
the person doing the work is subject to replacement.

Then there are all the other churches, among which are those who get
sold a bill of goods (either from a contractor or through the good
intentions of a member who "has a band and knows all about this
stuff") and never seem to get beyond the 'take home tape' quality no
matter when the product is delivered.

> I agree Mike, with "those with the most sense and no young buck" as
> I have yet to figure out how to migrate from cassette to CD
> distribution, with the recording and editing capabilities that gives
> the option to trim the start and finish, plus edit out the occasional
> " oops I shouldn't have said that on tape". So far the chain is too
> complex for non computer types to use. plus the risks of loosing
> everything from a PC or stand alone CD recorder glitch.

You don't have those niceities with cassettes (nor track markers
either) so this sort of CD is just a different medium for sticking in
the player and listening for an hour, uninterrupted. I suspect that
there's the perception that, since it looks like a CD, it can (and
therefore will) play like a CD, those with a short attention span can
listen for a few minutes, pick it up later "from track 3" and listen
to their kid sing the solo with the choir over and over again on
"track 11." But you don't get that unless it's "mastered." And that,
as you well know, takes time and a certain level of expertise.

> The one thing I saw in the description of the Clear Channel concept
> that made it unique was the real time editing of the file before the
> recording process was completed. and that would take modifying the
> file handlers in the recording and editing software from opeing a
> standard closed file to opening a disk buffer that was first in first
> out and then apply the edit list/track markers as it writes the final
> file for duplication.

This is something that's common in the systems used for broadcast
production. Dalet is one name that comes to mind, though I 've never
worked with that system and don't know all of its capabilities.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of live
> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent, but
> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$ and
> lawyers than any opponents.

Churches have been doing this with sermons for years. I must be missing
something.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
news:10o50bk16lj4s2e@corp.supernews.com...
>> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of live
>> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
>> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent, but
>> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$ and
>> lawyers than any opponents.
>
> Churches have been doing this with sermons for years. I must be missing
> something.
>

It all seems very suspect to me. In fact even they claim the only
"proprietary" thing is you can "master a song while that song is still being
recorded" (my paraphrase, and yes I said SONG not concert - which that claim
alone of mastering a song in progress should make most here laugh).
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently being
recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D Bwgd.30912$R05.10797@attbi_s53...
> "Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
> news:10o50bk16lj4s2e@corp.supernews.com...
> >> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of live
> >> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
> >> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent, but
> >> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$ and
> >> lawyers than any opponents.
> >
> > Churches have been doing this with sermons for years. I must be missing
> > something.
> >
>
> It all seems very suspect to me. In fact even they claim the only
> "proprietary" thing is you can "master a song while that song is still
being
> recorded" (my paraphrase, and yes I said SONG not concert - which that
claim
> alone of mastering a song in progress should make most here laugh).
>
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think they are describing the ability to edit material before the file is
done being recorded. I seem to recall doing that 10 years ago on a Sonic
Solutions workstation.


"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:N9udnbgJttyFAh_cRVn-hg@rcn.net...
> Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
> Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently
being
> recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?
>
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D Bwgd.30912$R05.10797@attbi_s53...
> > "Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
> > news:10o50bk16lj4s2e@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of
live
> > >> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems like
> > >> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent,
but
> > >> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$
and
> > >> lawyers than any opponents.
> > >
> > > Churches have been doing this with sermons for years. I must be
missing
> > > something.
> > >
> >
> > It all seems very suspect to me. In fact even they claim the only
> > "proprietary" thing is you can "master a song while that song is still
> being
> > recorded" (my paraphrase, and yes I said SONG not concert - which that
> claim
> > alone of mastering a song in progress should make most here laugh).
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:14:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yeah, that's one solution and I believe you are correct. I know it can be
done without establishing a file on two machines with basic routing. In
order to see what Clear Channel is talking about it would require that Clear
Channel show the file being recorded and then being picked up by the editing
system while the original file is open, which does give rise to some level
of server system properties, somewhat akin, again, to off the shelf
versioning software. But nothing new.

My suggestion with current off the shelf software simply says that it's
inherent in some solutions to be able to do the same thing that Clear
Channel supposes is their area of expertise, thus requiring licensing fees.
I'll have to do a little more research to see if dbx or Dolby SR ended up
fighting for similar patents in terms of NR even though the usage of each
was distinguishable from the other.

I believe they purposely made their patent description so vague as to give
them a leg up when it comes to litigation. And judging by the Bush agenda
of eliminating or limiting litigation on a number of fronts, it makes sense
for Clear Channel to attempt the patent now because next year, if Bush wins,
it won't be a litigatible situation at all.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
news:10o5eeuguroks41@corp.supernews.com...
> I think they are describing the ability to edit material before the file
is
> done being recorded. I seem to recall doing that 10 years ago on a Sonic
> Solutions workstation.
>
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:N9udnbgJttyFAh_cRVn-hg@rcn.net...
> > Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
> > Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently
> being
> > recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Roger W. Norman
> > SirMusic Studio
> >
> > "Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:D Bwgd.30912$R05.10797@attbi_s53...
> > > "Romeo Rondeau" <romeo@oakwoodrecordingstudio.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10o50bk16lj4s2e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >> People are talking like they have patented the generic concept of
> live
> > > >> recording a concert and selling copies the same-day. That seems
like
> > > >> a pretty broad interperetation of the actual wording of the patent,
> but
> > > >> if that is the stance CC wishes to take, they likely have more $$$
> and
> > > >> lawyers than any opponents.
> > > >
> > > > Churches have been doing this with sermons for years. I must be
> missing
> > > > something.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It all seems very suspect to me. In fact even they claim the only
> > > "proprietary" thing is you can "master a song while that song is still
> > being
> > > recorded" (my paraphrase, and yes I said SONG not concert - which that
> > claim
> > > alone of mastering a song in progress should make most here laugh).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 11:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Welp" <73133.nospmm1473@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> The one thing I saw in the description of the Clear Channel concept
> that made it unique was the real time editing of the file before the
> recording process was completed. and that would take modifying the
> file handlers in the recording and editing software from opeing a
> standard closed file to opening a disk buffer that was first in first
> out and then apply the edit list/track markers as it writes the final
> file for duplication.



Or it could just mean starting a new file at the beginning of each song
so the editor can start working on the one that just ended...

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:52:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
> Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently being
> recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?

From the patent text I read (assuming I understand it right and assuming
that whatever was posted here is actually the right text, etc.), it seems
as if their patent applies specifically to writing it to a file in such
a way that the file can be read before the system has finished writing.
So, a lightpipe is not a file, therefore it's not prior art. Also, this
seems to mean the patent is very narrow in scope. There might be several
useful ways of editing something you haven't yet finished recording that
would not infringe on the patent. For instance, these days it's not all
that expensive to put multiple gigabytes of RAM on a computer. So, you
could have software that just records everything to RAM and never writes
it to a file, thus not infringing. Or, record everything to several
small files, each of which cannot be read until after the recording software
has finished writing it (and moved on to the next one, which just so
happens to explicitly be part of a sequence). According to my reading,
that wouldn't infringe either.

In fact, the patent seems so narrow that probably its only purpose is
to confuse people and make them think that Clear Channel has a patent
on ALL ways of mixing/mastering a performance while it's in progress,
and to discourage people from trying to do things that MIGHT infringe
out of uncertainty and a desire to cover their own ass. Coupled with
the fact that Clear Channel has apparently forbidden competing systems
to be used in venues it owns, that could be a fairly effective method
of disinformation and intimidation that may greatly reduce the number
of would-be competitors in that niche market.

As a side note, patenting a system where a file can be read while it's
still being written is pretty bogus, from a technical point of view.
It has been common practice to do that very thing in Unix (which by
default allows you to read files that are still being written, as
well as (I might add) files that have been deleted, as long as you
started reading them before they were deleted!) for decades. For
instance, log files for system events are treated this way. If in
doubt, ask any long-time Unix user if they've ever used "tail -f"
(or the "F" command in "less"). Since this idea is so bleedingly
obvious to anyone, it's bogus that it should ever be allowed in a
patent. It's like patenting a system of driving where the driver
sits at red lights with the car in first gear and his foot on the
clutch (rather than waiting for the light to turn green, then
pushing in the clutch, then putting it in gear): yes, it's *possible*
that this seems like a new idea to lots of people, but it's not a
new idea, because thousands and thousands of people have been doing
it for many decades.

- Logan
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:52:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My point was that their description didn't come up with the methodology,
therefore one is left with supposition as to how they created the file being
mastered as the file was being recorded. Just the fact that we're trying to
figure out what they are talking about means that it's not something they
are doing in fact, but something they are describing as some level of
functionality. With the Nuendo system I'm talking about, it's easy enough
to take all the inputs, route them to both tracks for recording and busses,
sub those busses to a stereo mix and have that mix going live via lightpipe
to another computer who is then running compression, limiting, and EQ as a
mastering step, which is output to a bank of CD recorders.

Functionally the same, but with more specifics due to inherent abilities of
off the shelf software.

I'll look up George Peterson's Editor notes and parse it out as I don't want
to piss George off. But I may ask him if, due to the subject matter, he
wants to participate in the conversation or whether I can quote, verbatim,
the entire column.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m4ygd.21091$EI6.15405@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
> > Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently
being
> > recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?
>
> From the patent text I read (assuming I understand it right and assuming
> that whatever was posted here is actually the right text, etc.), it seems
> as if their patent applies specifically to writing it to a file in such
> a way that the file can be read before the system has finished writing.
> So, a lightpipe is not a file, therefore it's not prior art. Also, this
> seems to mean the patent is very narrow in scope. There might be several
> useful ways of editing something you haven't yet finished recording that
> would not infringe on the patent. For instance, these days it's not all
> that expensive to put multiple gigabytes of RAM on a computer. So, you
> could have software that just records everything to RAM and never writes
> it to a file, thus not infringing. Or, record everything to several
> small files, each of which cannot be read until after the recording
software
> has finished writing it (and moved on to the next one, which just so
> happens to explicitly be part of a sequence). According to my reading,
> that wouldn't infringe either.
>
> In fact, the patent seems so narrow that probably its only purpose is
> to confuse people and make them think that Clear Channel has a patent
> on ALL ways of mixing/mastering a performance while it's in progress,
> and to discourage people from trying to do things that MIGHT infringe
> out of uncertainty and a desire to cover their own ass. Coupled with
> the fact that Clear Channel has apparently forbidden competing systems
> to be used in venues it owns, that could be a fairly effective method
> of disinformation and intimidation that may greatly reduce the number
> of would-be competitors in that niche market.
>
> As a side note, patenting a system where a file can be read while it's
> still being written is pretty bogus, from a technical point of view.
> It has been common practice to do that very thing in Unix (which by
> default allows you to read files that are still being written, as
> well as (I might add) files that have been deleted, as long as you
> started reading them before they were deleted!) for decades. For
> instance, log files for system events are treated this way. If in
> doubt, ask any long-time Unix user if they've ever used "tail -f"
> (or the "F" command in "less"). Since this idea is so bleedingly
> obvious to anyone, it's bogus that it should ever be allowed in a
> patent. It's like patenting a system of driving where the driver
> sits at red lights with the car in first gear and his foot on the
> clutch (rather than waiting for the light to turn green, then
> pushing in the clutch, then putting it in gear): yes, it's *possible*
> that this seems like a new idea to lots of people, but it's not a
> new idea, because thousands and thousands of people have been doing
> it for many decades.
>
> - Logan
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 2:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:N9udnbgJttyFAh_cRVn-hg@rcn.net...
> Master a song while it's still being recorded? Haven't you heard of the
> Nuendo ability to share, via lightpipe, a datastream that is currently
> being
> recorded by one computer and being worked on by another?

I just think mastering anything while in progress seems kind of ludicrous.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 3:01:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Or it could just mean starting a new file at the beginning of each song
>so the editor can start working on the one that just ended...

That would be easy to do.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
!