Back in April, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, Instant Live LLC, announced a patent they had received which means they now “have exclusive rights to the recording and instantaneous distribution of media on-site at a show.” Not just Clear Channel shows, but all live shows in the United States. If you record a show and distribute on-site, you’re violating the patent unless you pay up.
It was only a matter of time before some dissent would come out from a label or media company, and that time is now. Two days ago, Santa Monica-based Kufala Recordings confirmed their dissent. Kufala’s business is the distribution - within two weeks after a show - of a live concert, directly from the masters. The press release describes it as follows in a quote from president of Kufala, Brady Lahr:
“Unlike the Clear Channel model of recording and burning CDs at the venue, we simply record the music, take it back to our studio for a proper mix and master, then ship the live show recordings out to our artist’s fans. Fans place CD orders at the venue before, during and after the show. They know they will be getting a great recording and that the artist has approved the master. They also know that the band actually owns the recording and will be paid for sure. As artists and fans begin to figure out just how evil the Clear Channel patent is, our business will open up even faster.”
So the “loophole” described here is that fans don’t get their recordings on site - but I’m sure that is built into the pricing, unfortunately. Not that Kufala is doing anything wrong in that fashion, because they are enabling the fans to acquire a recording. The item of concern I have is that, according to the press release, Clear Channel “barred Kufala from recording at one of their venues - a restrain which occurred regardless of the fact that the venue did not have recording capability, not to mention that the artist, their major label, and a non-Clear Channel affiliate radio station all requested Kufala’s services.” [ed: the “their” and “they” in the previous statement represent Clear Channel]
What do we think about this patent? While Clear Channel may have something to say about the recording on *their* site, I just don’t get how this works. They’re patenting an ability to record something with technology that Clear Channel didn’t invent or own outright, and sell it on site in a method that has existed since man first sold goods to other individuals. If I’m following this correctly, I could actually patent the ability to record a business conference and offer it to attendees for a cost - or free. I could patent the ability to record a political speech and distribute it to a television station for viewing. I don’t think I’m off base here with these ideas, do you?
[via eTeleases]
