Posts Tagged ‘music’

Is Kickstarter Infringing?

Wednesday, 05 October, 2011 22:38 Written by Danie Roy 1 Comment
Share via email

Danie Roy

A while back I wrote on using sites like Kickstarter to fund inventions. I weighed the pros and cons of depending on the kindness of strangers to fund an invention, and how such actions would affect an inventor’s ability to file for a patent. Today, I get to focus on Kickstarter once again, but with a completely different question: does Kickstarter infringe on a recently issued patent?

Brian Camelio (yes, that Brian Camelio) was recently issued U.S. Patent Number 7,885,887. As the founder of ArtistShare, a similar crowdfunding venture that began almost a decade before Kickstarter, Camelio obviously wanted his idea protected. And, as I’ve said before, it is, at its core, crowdfunding can be a very good idea (if handled properly!).

While Kickstarter doesn’t have a specific focus, ArtistShare looks to protect the rights of musicians. Unless you’ve been living under a music and news-free rock you’re aware that music piracy is a huge issue. ArtistShare looks to completely circumvent using the RIAA’s broken system by ensuring that artists get paid before the work is even produced, which allows the artist to produce even more work, resulting in a significantly healthier artist/fan relationship.

So does Kickstarter infringe? Well, as far as music ventures are concerned, yes. The patent is pretty explicit about that system, which matches Kickstarter’s pretty closely. Which is probably why Kickstarter is trying to get the patent invalidated.

Kickstarter is claiming the patent is directed to a business method. On their faces, Kickstarter and ArtistShare use the same business method, but, is the patent for a business method? Well… it really depends on how you look at it.

The first set of claims in the patent are directed to a computer program product. I could get into the controversy of the software patents, but I’d rather let the Supreme Court get to it eventually. As for the other sets, well, they’re all quite closely tied to servers and programs.

There’s really no way to predict how this will go down. There could be a court battle, there could be an “undisclosed settlement,” there could be an invalidation, maybe pigs will fly. No matter what happens, though, it will be interesting. Expect updates, because this is just too interesting to NOT cover.

Spotify Under Fire for Alleged Patent Infringement

Thursday, 25 August, 2011 18:04 Written by Scott Nyman 1 Comment
Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

Recently, my sister told me about a new music player (at least to the US), Spotify. Apparently, this social, music streaming application has gained a large following in the European countries. The feature that sets Spotify apart from other media players is the ability to stream songs from the playlists of your friends and other various internet sources at no direct cost to the user. So, with the recommendation from my sister, and the desire to use a music player that is a little lighter than 80MB of sloppy code it takes to download iTunes (I wouldn’t be shocked if iTunes 11 turns out to be a 4.5GB download), I took the plunge into Spotify.

So, how is Spotify? At first glance, the interface resembles iTunes enough to be familiar. However, the interface also differs enough that you know you’re not using Apple’s media playing application. There is one major distinction, however. Spotify has ads. These ads are displayed in the interface, interjected between any music you stream, and are annoying. To be fair to Spotify, you can eliminate these ads with a monthly payment.

The key feature of Spotify is the ability to stream and listen to music that is not in your library. This is the first piece of software that I’ve encountered that provides an easy-to-use interface to accomplish this task. However, PacketVideo, owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,636,276, titled “A DEVICE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF MUSIC INFORMATION IN DIGITAL FORM,” believes they have seen this before. PacketVideo has demonstrated this by filing a complaint, alleging patent infringement, with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The full complaint and related patent can be found here.

After a brief review of the patent (and I mean brief), the claims seem to be broad and the specification appears to be light. Of course, Spotify’s defense will allege the classics: 1) Spotify does not infringe the patent, and 2) the patent is invalid, and thus can’t be infringed. From my brief look at the patent, I believe the second argument will be the stronger argument, potentially resulting in PacketVideo losing at least some of the scope covered by their patent. However, if I were a betting man, I’d predict that this case goes away in the form of a nuisance settlement, for an undisclosed amount less than the cost to defend against this claim. This is probably wise for Spotify, since they’re going to be spending a whole lot more after Apple initiates suit against Spotify alleging infringement. (I’m calling it now!)

 

I have pasted the first, and only, independent claim for the ‘276 patent below. Take a look!

A device for the distribution of music information comprising:

a central memory device which is connected to a communications network and has a databank of digitized music information and, a terminal which is connected to the central memory device via the communications network, the central memory device being equipped with a retrieval module and the said modules having the capability to interact via the communications network in order to order and transmit selectively chosen music information, wherein the selectively chosen music information is organized with a defined format for transmission in a digital music information object, the format including a core and a number of additional layers, the core including at least one object identification code, object structure information, a consumer code and an encryption table and the one or more additional layers including the actual music information, wherein the central memory device has an encryption module for encryption of the music information object before transmission using the encryption table, and

wherein the terminal has a decryption module for decryption of the music information object before its reproduction using the encryption table, an interpretation module for interpretation and reproduction conditioning of the music information object as well as an authorization device having identification information for identification of the terminal and of the consumer which is retrievable by the interpretation module and by the decryption module for authorization checking.

 

Wacky Wednesday

Wednesday, 13 July, 2011 14:43 Written by Danie Roy 0 Comments
Share via email

Danie Roy

Assuming you didn’t live out your childhood days under a rock, you are at least marginally familiar with Dr. Seuss. His work “Wacky Wednesday” depicted a world turned upside down for a day.  Well, in keeping with that theme, a record company is going to court again for copyright infringement.  As the defendant.

Yes, you read that correctly.  Anthony Stokes filed a complaint against John Legend, Sony Music Entertainment, Columbia Records, and G.O.O.D. Music for allegedly stealing a song that he had written.

Stokes claims that he attended a Legend concert, and, afterwards, left a demo of his song “Where Are You Now” along with his contact information for Legend.  Stokes never heard back from Legend, but he did hear what he believes is his song in “Maxine’s Interlude.”

If Stokes can prove that Legend had access to the song and that the song is “substantially similar” through scientific analysis, this could be quite the problem for the record company.  Stokes already has a witness to the demo exchange, but I’m not entirely sure what “scientific analysis” entails.  I’d like to imagine that it involves a room-sized computer with a lot of flashing lights and beeping noises that spits out a report, but it’s probably only going to be a laptop and a couple of mad scientist types.

As soon as I hear anything about Stokes, Legend, or the scientific analysis, I’ll be sure to leave an update.

 

P2P Copyright Piracy Down In America

Sunday, 27 March, 2011 16:09 Written by Scott Nyman 1 Comment
Share via email

By Scott Nyman

We have all read news reports about lawsuits filed against individuals for internet piracy, the modern day term for the downloading of copyrighted materials. A few years ago, in an effort to thwart piracy, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) started massive campaigns threatening litigation against parties suspected of illegally downloading copyrighted materials via P2P pipelines. P2P is a common abbreviation for peer-to-peer networks, or networks that do not require a centralized server that could regulate and control the content being transmitted between the peers.

One of those threats actually resulted in the highly publicized trial, and two subsequent retrials, involving members of the RIAA and Jammie Thomas-Rasset over the downloading of 24 sound recordings through the Kazaa P2P software. After a damages awards of $1.5 million against the Minnesota mother of four, and staggering legal bills for both parties, the record companies came out looking somewhat like monsters.  As a result, the MPAA and RIAA appear to have backed off from their avid legal campaign against copyright infringing individuals. However, the adult entertainment industry has been taking up the slack in docketing copyright infringement cases, at times naming thousands of John Does per complaint, but that’s a different story altogether.

So, without the impinging threat of litigation (other than for adult materials), is America on track to become the next China for internet piracy? Not according to a report from the NPD group, which claims that only 9 percent of US internet users engaged in P2P downloading in 2010. This figure is down considerably from the 16 percent reported to use P2P networks in 2007. The decreased piracy may be a result of increased ease of access to content via legitimate channels.

But, what can be done to further reduce piracy? In my opinion, the business model needs to change. Instead of focusing on how to sell ownership of more content, groups like the RIAA and MPAA should instead work with distribution partners to develop a way to monetize the leasing of content. And, perhaps most essentially, they should make it so easy that consumers won’t be bothered with acquiring their content via cumbersome, illegitimate channels.

Gone are the days when the best way to get the song you desire is by purchasing an entire album. Even the model of purchasing individual tracks online, cherry picked and constructed into playlists for playback on iPods or smartphones, is a becoming a relic of the past. Always available and easy to access leased content, playable across nearly all of a consumer’s devices, will likely become the future of content delivery.

Microsoft and Netflix both have provided decent solutions using this model, but both offerings are not without limitation. Microsoft’s Zune Pass allows users to download and access an unlimited amount of music as long as they continue to pay the monthly fee, but it’s restricted to Zune branded software and hardware only. Netflix offers access to huge amounts of content, which may be streamed to my living room via a large number of devices, but restrictions on which content is available (as required by the copyright holders) often place the movie I’m craving in the “disc only” category.

What is needed is instant access a nearly complete library of content that can be accessed or played on nearly all devices, wrapped up in an easy-to-use interface. Create this complete solution, and consumers will pay monthly for the convenience alone. If the service begins selectively disabling the availability of songs or movies to make consumers run out and buy a copy, it will only devalue the service as a whole. As for the pirates, some will continue pirate because they just enjoy pirating, but I’m betting a majority of them will also have an account with this proposed wonder-service.

Subscribe

Login



WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13288 access attempts in the last 7 days.