In the past few years, fans leaving some concerts have discovered a souvenir far better than a T-shirt: a live recording of the show they just attended. Bands including the Allman Brothers, moe. and Billy Idol have sold instant concert discs, and the Pixies and the Doors plan to launch similar programs this summer. The recording-and-burning company DiscLive estimated on April 12th that it would gross $500,000 selling live discs this spring alone.

But in a move expected to severely limit the industry, Clear Channel Entertainment has bought the patent from the technology's inventors and now claims to own the exclusive right to sell concert CDs after shows. The company, which is the biggest concert promoter in the world, says the patent covers its 130 venues along with every other venue in the country.

"We want to be artist-friendly," says Steve Simon, a Clear Channel executive vice president and the director of Instant Live. "But it is a business, and it's not going to be 'we have the patent, now everybody can use it for free.'"

Artists net about ten dollars for every twenty- to twenty-five-dollar concert CD that's sold, no matter which company they use. But with Clear Channel pushing to eliminate competition, many fear there will be less money and fewer opportunities to sell live discs. "It's one more step toward massive control and consolidation of Clear Channel's corporate agenda," says String Cheese Incident manager Mike Luba, who feuded with Clear Channel last year after promoters blocked the band from using CD-burning equipment.

The Pixies, who are booking a fall reunion tour with several probable Clear Channel venues, say Clear Channel has already told them DiscLive can't burn and sell CDs on-site. "Presuming Clear Channel's service and product are of equal quality, it may be best to feed the dragon rather than draw swords," says Pixies manager Ken Goes. "Still, I'm not fond of doing business with my arm twisted behind my back."

Clear Channel doesn't plan to stop Phish, Pearl Jam, the Who or other bands that make live recordings available days after the show. It has also granted one-dollar licenses to a few up-and-coming bands to record and sell instant CDs of their own shows. But Clear Channel executives maintain that they have the right to stop anyone who tries to infringe on the patent. Many say this strategy prevents inventors from jumping into a marketplace and creating further innovation. "We'd like to see this industry opened up to everybody," says Erik Stubblebine, founder and vice president of Hyburn, a Phoenix company that has sold instant CDs for dozens of concerts in the past three years. "They're trying to squeeze us."


full article at:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=6066617&pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1&rnd=1085441305296&has-player=true&version=6.0.11.847

"We want to be artist-friendly,..."

Well, cutting down how many CDs they can sell doesn't sound "We want to be artist-friendly" to me.

One Channel to Rule Them All.

Who is the moron who sold em this technology? Someone needs to develop something faster and better and not sell out. Mind you I will bet Clear Channel said sell it to us or we won't allow it in our 130 venues.

Having a patent on technology has nothing to do with a business practice. As long as ab artist does use a machine that uses the same technology, the can't be stopped. Will anyone take them to court for this?! This is a clear violation of anit-trust laws. Someone should bet the justice department involved.

Isn't this what anti-trust laws are supposed to be written for? Microsoft was nailed for it...so should Clear Channel. It's time somebody twisted their arm a bit so they know what it feels like. Scum bag corporation.

"But it is a business, and it's not going to be 'we have the patent, now everybody can use it for free.'"

I wonder just how much the cost will raise because "it is a business"

Anti-trust Vioations:
1) Control of radio play accessibility
2) Control of radio promotion
3) Control of live concert venues
4) Control of tv and newspaper advertising and exposure in some markets
5)... Control of merchandising at live concerts.

So if Clear Channel some how bought the patents for CD technology, that would some how give them he right to force artist to manufacture CD only from them? This doesnt make sense

Does anyone know what kind of ties Clear Channel has with the RIAA? Because this is beginning to smell worse all the time.....

With the price of tickets now a days this should be free to begin with. They are just recording what your hearing and putting it onto a 5 cent piece of media.

Patents are for inventions and technologies, that for "ways things can be done". You could get a patent for buttering toast, but you could for a special machine to do it for you. You cant patent "recording and selling CDs at a concert", just like you cant patent freehand drawing on t-shirts and selling them at the mall. If another company offered equipment based on the same technology, that would be patent infringment. Clear Channel can't claim rights to ba able to control the sale of CDs at concert, regardless of how they are made. If an artist sells live CDs, no liablity. If the CDs are made with equipment unlike DiscLive's, no liablity. If the artist sells live CDs with equipment based on technology by DiscLive, artist has no liablity, but the company that made the equipment would. This is common knoledge. Why is no one questioning this?!

They co-opted the patents for burning CDs? Or does the tech involved make regular CDs on the fly?

shingod -- that's all well and good, but once the patent office became a profit center for the government, all the rules were forgotten and nearly anything can be patented. refer to amazon.com and their patent for one-click purchasing for more information.

sick, ain't it.

Patents are for inventions and technologies, that for "ways things can be done". You could get a patent for buttering toast, but you could for a special machine to do it for you. You cant patent "recording and selling CDs at a concert", just like you cant patent freehand drawing on t-shirts and selling them at the mall. If another company offered equipment based on the same technology, that would be patent infringment. Clear Channel can't claim rights to ba able to control the sale of CDs at concert, regardless of how they are made. If an artist sells live CDs, no liablity. If the CDs are made with equipment unlike DiscLive's, no liablity. If the artist sells live CDs with equipment based on technology by DiscLive, artist has no liablity, but the company that made the equipment would. This is common knoledge. Why is no one questioning this?!

Of course you can, when only someone with a few million to spare can even try to fight the patent claim.

As for whoever sold them the patent, you try saying no when CC is adding another zero to the check every few minutes.

"Clear Channel Entertainment has bought the patent from the technology's inventors and now claims to own the exclusive right to sell concert CDs after shows." based on the copyright off the the technology they bought the rights for. Solution, just don't use that technology. http://www.disclive.com/corporate/
just a bit about them

"This is a clear violation of anit-trust laws. Someone should bet the justice department involved."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I agree it is a complete and CLEAR violation of the anti-trust laws. But does anybody here really expect the Justice Department to do ANYTHING about this? The RIAA itself is a clear violation of these same laws. So is the very act of suing downloaders. Clear Channel itself shouldn't be allowed to exist in its present form. Ticketmaster is clearly a permitted monopoly. But our Justice department apparently has far more important things to do than worry about whether or not consumers are being ripped off by major corporations (unless, of course, your name is Microsoft).

The RIAA has been price fixing for years, and continues to use illegal business practices to sell their products. In doing so, they have ripped off the American pubic at least $4.5 BILLION during a four-year period. Yet all our Justice Department could get me was $12.38 or so. They only got back from the RIAA labels some $127 MILLION.

As long as the work that is causing this oversight is defense of our country, our fight against terrorism, I wouldn't be so pissed. Yet, I fail to believe this is the reason our Justice Department has been so inept.