Clear Channel scoops up live CD patent

Clear Channel scoops up live CD patent

Early this month, we reported on the growing phenomenon of bands selling CDs or even uploads onto USB flash drives of concert recordings right after the concert would end. One company (DiscLive) estimated that it would gross up to US$500,000 during this Spring from selling live CDs. The fans are happy, the bands are happy, everyone is happy. Unfortunately, in a move that will put the brakes on an emerging industry, Clear Channel has purchased the patent from the inventors of the technology and is asserting that it is the only entity that can sell concert CDs right after gigs.

This really pisses me off. I now officially will jump on the Clear Channel-loathing bandwagon. This was a technology and an idea that looked promising and was a win/win situation for everyone. Now, it’s another greedy patent that makes little sense. I hate them all.


 
 
 

7 Responses to “Clear Channel scoops up live CD patent”

  1. Matthew M
    30. May 2004 at 02:56

    Like I needed another reason to hate Clear Channel? The same group that has snatched up station after station in every major market and homogenized radio beyond the point of utter blandness? The group that has turned talk radio into a paradigm of conformity and every music channel into nothing but “Greatest Hits, 24/7″?

    Thank whatever gods exist for XM radio…

  2. Jonah Weiland
    30. May 2004 at 04:35

    You do know that XM Radio is owned by Clear Channel, right?

    As for this patent, from what I understand it’s a process patent, not a patent on the technology. What Clear Channel will do is try to bully people who offer similar services into thinking they can’t offer the service. Those with lawyers will fight back and tell them they’re nuts, those without the money for lawyers will drop off quickly which is exactly what CC wants them to do. I think ultimately you’ll find numerous companies offering this service with slightly different processes so as to avoid conflicts with CC’s process patent.

    This is what happens when the patent office is over-worked and over-bribed.

  3. Matthew M
    30. May 2004 at 14:26

    Queer Channel doesn’t own XM. They’re a stockholder, and have some agreements for XM to broadcast some of their content. But they’re a strategic partner, nothing more.

    Which is fine by me, simply because I live in a market (South Florida) so absolutely devoid of quality radio and so horrifically overrun by Clear Channel’s destruction of local talent/flavor that XM is the only way I’m getting anything interesting to listen to during my daily 3 hour commute. Well, that and my Ipod. And that Brugal’s Rum billboard with the three topless chicks in thongs sitting on the beach…

  4. Jonah Weiland
    1. June 2004 at 00:18

    Maybe things have changed since their initial launch, but I had a friend who works for Clear Channel who helped coordinate the launch of XM and all the programming was coming out of Clear Channel offices. Sure, not all of their content originates with Clear Channel, there’s just too much for it to all come from the same company, but at launch they were certainly involced with the technology and programming.

  5. Augie De Blieck Jr.
    1. June 2004 at 11:18

    I had a nice conversation with a cousin of mine this weekend who is doing patent law now. He specializes mostly in European patent law, which has its own peculiarities. Still, even he admits that most of patent law is done in making a better argument, and has nothing to do with who got there first.

    It’s sad, really.

  6. Christopher J. Arndt
    2. June 2004 at 00:17

    I see no reason not to hate Clear Channel.

    CJA

  7. EzekielRawlins
    2. June 2004 at 07:27

    Clear Channel is strangling independent music. Period. They play what they want you to buy. They tell you what’s “cool.” They numb you up with this garbage so you don’t ask questions anymore. 3 words that scare me a lot; Clear Channel and Viacom. A bit too much Big Brother-esque for me.