Slashdot Mirror
Instant Live Concert Recordings
WebGangsta writes "The AP is reporting that there's a new device out that allows you to record a concert... legally. It works because it's run by the venue, direct from the mixing board. After the show, concert-goers visit an on-site kiosk and purchase a 128MB keydrive (which may or may not be proprietary to the system). Then they swipe their credit card again to download the concert they just attended to the keydrive. The MP3 can then be shared with whoever they'd like (no restrictions on copying the show to friends)." We've had some previous stories about a different system with CD-R's available after the show.
If you could go home and log onto the Maxwell's website and pay to download the concert, regardless of the length, it would be better than being half drunk trying to work some kiosk. If they only want to make the downloads available to ticketholders, they can put an unique password on each ticket that allows the purchase of only that concert.
If I went to a show and it was good, I'd definitely pay $10.00 to download a digital copy of it.
The keychain thing is an unnecessary gimmick and won't last.
There is no god
Why are concert recordings illegal? Is it like taping a movie at the theater?
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
paying for the CD and then ripping it myself. Amongst other things, I'd have the hard copy (or at least harder copy) in a theoretically uncompressed format.
If artists get a cut (more than the RIAA approved 1%) then I'm all for it.
If, on the other hand, it's artists only chance to make real money getting fucked over by yet another greedy corp (in this case Clear Channel the venue owners in a lot of places), then it's a bit much.
Beep beep.
As soon as they'll let me purchase a CD with FLAC audio instead of that MP3 crap, I'll think about it. Until then, me and my D7 have a lot of work to do.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
For bands I've seen in smaller bars and clubs, I can't tell you the number of times I bought their CD (usually self-published) on the way out if I had a good time (as well as how many drinks I knocked down =D )
It's certainly smart to present the concert goer with the ability to make an impulse buy, right after they're coming off the high of enjoying a great concert ...
Second point: I just dont see anything new about recording a bootleg off the board, and selling it. Happens every day and has for YEARS.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I was awakened recently to the posibilities of these flash drives. When they first came out, the small sizes limited their practicality. Now with the larger size devices, they are actually very useful. While not cheap, you can get them in sizes of at least 2gb.
At 2gb, it's getting close to carrying around a DVD which acts like a floppy, and is just as portable.
This concert thing is a great use of the technology. I think these are going to eventually be wildly popular for many different uses.
Soccer Goal Plans
This is an intelligent use of technology to make money. It has a clear means of income (buying the memory stick) and sells a product of superior quality (over holding up a tape recorder).
Whether it succeds or not will depend on the consumer... but I think this is a good effort.
-- source, the liner notes for 1994's B'Boom live album.
In other words, it really depends on the venue, when getting a "Front of House" (FoH) mix. The guy mixing the sound for the PA is aware that he's hearing the on-stage monitors and amplifiers as well as the PA, so guitar and bass sounds tend to be quieter, and drums can be quite hollow.
When this mix is your only source, it can be devestating to the recording when looking for something that should be more professional, like the Dixie Dregs concert on the Steve Morse DVD, where the mix cut the guitar to almost nothing because Morse keeps a rather loud on-stage amp stack.
Arena and Stadium gigs aren't as affected by this as club and theater shows would be. Then again, bands that can afford to do stadium shows can afford to have a second mixer on site producing a high-quality recording of the show independent of the FoH mix.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
As long as i remember myself liking Iron Maiden, i always loved watching them live, and if possible have a recording of the gig either mine by Minidisc recording, or other bootlegs that are essential for a Maiden fan. A while ago the boys decided that there is no reason of not recording a live performance (audio/still picture/no video)and share it wisely/widely, as long it won't be sold as "official" merchandise, so naturally lots of us fans loved this. Now i'd love to see this happening in future gigs, not only because of the sound quality superiority (the gig is recorded straight from the mixing panel and not from some ambient/un-acoustical/dead spot you happend to be while recording). Just Imagine a 666/Eddie USB keyfob loaded with the gig you just enjoyed...How cool is that....
Roses are red, violets are blue, most poems rhyme, but this one doesn't...
when i go to a show, i like to enjoy it and remember it. i dont spend money just to be at a show, i want to hear it and appreciate it.
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
It's cool that the venue is doing this, allowing for more artists to participate instead of forcing the artist to set up their own distribution network. But as several people have mentioned, Phish, Metallica, Barenaked Ladies, and several other big name bands allow anyone to download the concert from their website for paying a fee. The good thing about those is they all have loseless formats. Usually either SHN or FLAC. But why bother with the mp3 digital memory stick? I know that the Pixies are releasing all of their shows for sale (limited release numbers) immediately after the show ends. There are several companies providing the CD-R option. So why waste time releasing the mp3? Admittedly its much cheaper to set it up for a single kiosk than to buy 200 cd burners to get the shows cranked out as soon as it ends. But once it gets releases, most people in the live music scene, www.furthurnet.org, www.sharingthegroove.org, www.etree.org, www.archive.org, etc, won't touch mp3 sourced shows with a ten foot pole. So the mp3 way may be a great short term option, but in the long run, it doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone care to point out benefits I fail to see?
Does it also not cover reverse engineering on items you own, eg. examining something to see how it's made? Or how to say, play a tape you own on an operating system you own? Provided you don't make copies with that knowledge of course.
This is the same misinformation you were just sharing at the top of this discussion. Let me sum up my reply:
Performances are not copyrightable. The reason you can't record all performances is because the artists performing are free to set restrictions on what you are allowed to do in their venue. It has nothing to do with copyrights.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
The doctrine of fair use relates only to copyright infringement, in other words, to the act of copying a protected work.
Examining something to see how it's made doesn't usually entail copying anything (assuming you already have a legal copy), and so fair use simply doesn't apply here. Other legal niceties (e.g. DMCA) may well apply though.
It does not protect you... ...taping entire concerts without the permission of the artist.
Really? The supreme court said "fair use" protects me while taping live concerts on TV, along with any other TV signal. It also protects me taping anything I want off the radio, including entire live concerts.
Why on earth do you think it only protects me if I copy a portion? There are many court cases that define fair use as covering the copying of entire works if the intended purpose is "fair".
TW
well, his "unbelievable recording" would be cool as a momento, because of eddy v. speaking directly only to that recording for a moment. the "unbelievable recording" would also be incredibly lame, because it would be pretty much all vocals.
anyone who has been beyond the garage band level knows that the 'speakers at your feet' are for vocal monitors. when you have Loud Things(tm) going on around you, the ability to hear what you are singing is paramount.
as you go up the food chain in bands, you then *can* have additional monitor mixes that have instruments in them, but especially for a singer, the vocals will be the very prominent thing heard. while the idea of "a recording from the stage" sounds romantic to non-musicians, the best sound is always front of house (assuming competent soundman/PA).
Clear Channel declined to play the Dixie Chicks because of their stupid hate speech. No one with any conscience would say what they did. This leaves the remaining 92% of stations able to play the Dixie Chicks unless those stations also gain standards and refuse to play these hateful liars. The Dixie Chicks are a walking embodiment of the stereotype of country music being unintellectual.
Clear Channel should be applauded for doing what it did: exercising its First Amendment rights. Just like if you run a BLOG, you should be applauded for refusing to paste links that you don't want in it.
"conscience about the unelected administration currently in Washington"
You are lying again. The current Administration was elected the usual way. If anything is unamerican around here, it is refusing to recognize the authority of an elected President just because he does not share your ideology.
"So much for free speech, not to mention the marketplace of ideas"
This IS free speech in action. Basic freedom of the press. The New York Times excersizes its first amendment rights when it refuses to print Pat Buchanan columns. Clear Channel is doing the same thing when it refuses to air Howard Stern or the Nazi Chicks.
"ClearChannel's deathgrip over AM talk radio is so tight that they were able to get Howard Stern (who may be the most popular syndicated talk-radio host in America, and is definately one of the top 3)"
You have no idea what you are talking about. Sterm is mainly an FM guy, not an AM guy. Even before he was pulled, he was on in only a few regional markets. He is way down on the list of syndicated popular radio stars. Big on FM, but way behind the AM guys.
"ClearChannel is unAmerican, and it's owners should be severely and painfully punished, to say the least."
Thankfully, the 1st Amendment prohibits this kind of punishment. You sound more and more unamerican all the time. To demand that someone be punished for controlling their own content!
"ClearChannel is unAmerican, and it's owners should be severely and painfully punished, to say the least."
Things are way over-regulated. It is clear that you want Clear Channel to be censored for its content. Not only that, you are politically biaseD: you want them censored because you hate our current elected President. We need to get rid of ownership regulations.