Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Music Fingerprinter Gets Patent Nastygram
Nushio writes "The code wasn't even released, and yet Roy van Rijn, a Music & Free Software enthusiast received a C&D from Landmark Digital Services, owners of Shazam, a music service that allows you to find a song, by listening to a part of it. And if that wasn't enough, they want him to take down his blog post (Google Cache) explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world.'"
Update: 07/09 00:31 GMT by T :Story updated to reflect that Shazam is multiplatform, not Android-only, as implied by the original phrasing.
it was an iphone app long before it was an android app
Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore. I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
IA (definitely) NAL, but I thought the whole purpose of patents (other than protection) was to disclose the invention in full (not behind trade secrets) in exchange for knowledge of how the invention is done/made. Have the patent owners given any implementation details about their application?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Patents are open for viewing aren't they (with the exception of the NSA)? So if they have a patent for something, then how can they order someone to take down information that a supposed patent covers?
...was a call in service, long before it was an Android app - and an iPhone app before Android even existed (in the mainstream, anyway). Why is it singled out as an android app?
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
Is that a Barbra Streisand song I hear?
There is no way for a patent to be infringed in every country, unless that patent has been granted in every country. If I received something like this from a company outside of my own, especially if it said something like "may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world", I would respond with a nastygram of my own. To wit, "sue me here, and I'll see you in court, and you'll have to pay my costs, now fuck off".
To those who think that WIPO or a similar international organisation grant "international patents", well they don't. They can help you file in multiple countries, but each country has to grant the patent, and they do so independently.
Unlike copyright which is internationalised. Every country that has signed the Berne Convention will recognise copyright from the other countries.
Two: you cannot use a patent as a method to censor free speech.
Three: any US patent can be viewed internationally. A patent is by definition NOT a trade secret. Even if this guy's software DID use a patent-encumbered algorithm, his post cannot "contribute to someone infringing ... patents in any part of the world."
Four: a patent is not valid for the entire world.
His grand-grand-grand-grandson will be very rich.
Last I looked Patents do not remove the right to "free speech" in any country. Also the take down notice doesnt specifically show "what code infringes their patent" so a lawyer would then ask them to be more specific. In most countries "methods" wont stand up in court even to some certain degree in the USA Then there is the other issue were software patents mean squat in many countries outside the USA.
,,,the fundamental nature of patents. Patents are published, by the PTO. This means that anyone, "international" or otherwise, can already view them. Furthermore, it is settled law that discussion of a patented invention, including detailed explanation of how to implement it, is not infringement.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
...can't he just throw the C&D in the garbage and forget about it?
Use pHash instead, my open source perceptual hashing library that can detect similar audio, video, images and text files. It does not use Shazam's patented algorithm, which isn't all that great anyhow.
Burn him! Burn him now! Then throw him in the pond and see if he floats! Because he might be made of... wood... or be a duck...
One of his Googling failures turned me into a Newt!
I... got better...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not every reader instantly recognizes C&D as Cease and Desist. New readers constantly arrive, there are many readers whose first language is not English, and expanding the acronym will also improve how your submission is found in search engines. If you article is worth submitting and worth publishing it is worth making a little more accessible.
Ok C&D against his blog becuase it *could* be used to infringe? Shazam = Uninstalled
It only works if the music is played by the original band on good speakers with low background noise. You know the type of situation humans find it easy enough to identify music in.
Make this man an editor!
With nothing but sincerity, most qualified guy I've seen for the job in a long time. Just imagine what slashdot would be like if editors read comments and admitted to/fixed mistakes.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I mean, on the spectrum of software patent insanity, they're being relatively restrained and civil. They seem genuinely to be trying to head off competition for an invention that they are implementing and selling - which is the point of patents - rather than acting like patent trolls and trying to gouge money for something that they never implemented.
Of course, it sucks, software patents doubleplus bad, Fight The Man, counter sue them for a hundred beelyon Euros, Attica! Attica! Attica! and so on, but comparing a couple of polite "please don't make us do anything you'd regret" emails to Adobe's assraping of Dmitry Sklyarov is rather hyperbolic. And yes, I have a "Free Dmitry Sklyarov" t-shirt, thanks for asking.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is the sort of behavior which causes me to never give a single penny to a company. I am uninstalling Shazam and won't be using it again.
I think I speak for all of us when I say: Go Fuck Yourself.
The method described at the link is one of several that is intuitively obvious for this (and several other unrelated) problem domains. It's not even remotely novel.
No, for the moment just in the USA (dumb) and soon in Germany (and dumber).
Then publish it out on networks like freenet and then every pirate site you can think of. Show those bastards who runs this show.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Shazam wasn't the first to identify songs based on a hash of the audio. I worked for a start-up, eTantrum, that developed similar tech, Songprint, which it open sourced (under the moniker "Freetantrum"). I always assumed that Shazam was extended from that work.
Here's why: he's not just publishing details from the patent; he's publishing source code to a competing application that they think works too similarly to theirs. I agree that it sucks, but they have to defend their patent or risk losing it.
I RTFA, and he posts pretty much the entire source code of his implementation in the original blog post. That is what they were upset about: implementing the patent *and* distributing it. Had he merely discussed the methods Shazam used, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. However, I can go to his blog, cut-and-paste the code into a text editor, and have a working clone of Shazam. That is fairly cut-and-dry patent infringement, minus commercial gain and sidestepping the issue of software patents.
It's not like he was just talking about the process.
There are several services doing this same general thing, might as well support the ones that aren't a-holes!
In fact, the whole purpose of patents it to teach an individual of ordinary skill in the appropriate art how to produce the invention.
So:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22landmark+digital%22&OS=%22landmark+digital%22&RS=%22landmark+digital%22
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22landmark+digital%22&OS=%22landmark+digital%22&RS=%22landmark+digital%22
Go read how they made what they made.
As an aside, I wonder if an argument could be made to invalidate their patents on the grounds that their fear of useful teaching of their own invention being made public is an indication that they themselves do not believe that the patents represent sufficient information to teach one of ordinary skill in the art.
The name of this proyect that seems to be prior art is Tararira (music retrival by sung query). It's from Uruguay, and does recognition of music just humming at a microphone. Proyect was created in 2004 and have code published.
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/ingles.php3
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tarariraEN-src-0.1.tar.gz
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tarariraEN.tar.gz
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/investigacion/grupos/gmm/proyectos/tararira/descargas/tararira.pdf
Tararira is a query by singing system. The problem of music retrieval by sung query (QBH, query by humming) consist of building a machine capable of simulating the cognitive process of identifying a musical piece from a few sung notes of its melody.
A melody is described by a sequence of notes, so it is natural to compare melodies by means of the similarity of their constituent notes. For this reason, the problem can be divided in two stages: the transcription of the voice signal into a sequence of notes and the search of this pattern in a MIDI melody database.
Tararira originates in July 2004 as the graduation project of Ernesto López, Martín Rocamora and Gonzalo Sosa at the IIE of the Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de la República.
Demanding that he take down the blog post could be viewed as an unlawful attempt to extend the scope of the patent monopoly, which will make the patent unenforceable. Court say that a patentee has a definite bundle of rights, including the right to prevent others from making, using, etc. However, if the patentee attempts to monopolize more, as in this case, by also demanding no public discussion of his patented invention, he is unlawfully extending the lawful scope of his patent. There are many cases on this point. IAPL
Let Mr. Darren P. Briggs know what you think about his informal C&D: his email is dbriggs@landmarkdigital.com (confirmed). Also, if you have an Android phone, let him know what you think about Shazam by posting a comment on the Android Market about it.
Just about all computer-based signal processing related to anything at all is performed in the frequency domain so passing the raw data through an FFT (or at least an FT) first is a no-brainer.
Calculating a hash is the blindingly obvious and standard approach to getting a semi-unique signature for mostly any data.
Both the FFT and the hashing would likely be the first thought of any competent software engineer tasked with solving this, in as much as using a screwdriver to undo a screw is obvious to a mechanic.
Don't even software patents have to require at least some concept of originality and non-obviousness?
May he have balls and go to court, even if he can only afford to represent himself. May the presiding judge have a brain.
Oppression is unstoppable without martyrs.
No patent numbers? "Algorithm" in unreleased code? At least put up a token resistance and ask for details.
We need more responses like Blue Jean Cable's response to Monster when Monster Cable tried something similar.
-- Alastair
To reference the patent directly. Throwing a link to the USPTO should be ok right? Then have an explanation for beginners on the components of the tech.
1.) This is how a DFT/FFT works, here is some example code.
2.) This is how a modern hash works, link to the open SSL code for SHA or something
3.) This is how a hash keyed database is architectured with similar link.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Sounds like LDS doesn't understand the difference between a "Trade Secret" and a "Patent". Patents mean public disclosure in exchange for time-limied monopoly supported by a specific government. Typical baseless legal threats from lawyers with big pockets. Even calling it a trade secret is doubtful as this is just a simple pattern analysis/comparison technique.
Well, I can see why shazam people are pissed. The had an army of phds and architects working on it backed by millions of dollars of vc, plus fancy talk in boardroom feeling good about themselves. Now some dude with short attention span rolls it out as a weekend project. And of course last sentence from the google cache link didn't help either:
Or turn it into a huge online empire like Shazam who knows!
It's a wholly owned subsidary of BMI... As in BMI/ASCAP?
It's the record companies again.
oops...
Seems like I accidentally hit the "uninstall" button of Shazam on my iPhone, accidentally rated it 1 star, and accidentally put down "malicious: patent infringement" as the reason for uninstalling.
99% of patents infringe on prior art. This statistic was made up on the spot.
Around 2000, an open source program called "songprint" was written which does this, and then MusicBrainz Tagger was written shortly after, but not as open source. After that, Pandora.com came out which capitalized on this.
I've used a program called Tunatic and it's been around for quite some time.. Is this prior art?
Even then I've got really old programs that do the same for images, so even that should work as prior art I think?
I don't agree with software patents. I think it's a silly idea. Also, there are Shazam alternatives already available, ostensibly without infringing on the US patents now owned by Landmark LLC.
All that aside, though, this letter shouldn't come as a surprise. This guy didn't discuss alternatives, shortcomings, possibilities or even come up with something equivalent but independent. He called his post "Creating Shazam in Java", referenced someone else's detailed posting about how Shazam works, then went on to suggest sample code. Having some familiarity with the Shazam algorithm and having read the patents around it and the original white paper by Avery Wang, the linked article by Bryan Jacobs is very much a lightened up translation of the gory details of Shazam. The code is, it is stated, a rough guide for how to do that in Java (note he glosses over the FFT).
So it's not a surprise that Landmark is after him on patent grounds. The fact that such patents are allowed to exist is -- to me -- a problem. But the shock and whining about this particular case is naive. It's really, really obvious that this is something that would fall foul of that legal mechanism.
that Shazam guy has no legal leg to stand on. however, he has an obligation to shareholders to try to intimidate you. you should see it for what it is. feel free to ignore that guy. or make a financial deal with Shizam, whereby they pay you not to post it. such an arrangement would be cheaper for them than litigation. no doubt about it, you have the upper hand, and they're scared. you ought to be able to turn the situation to your advantage, since they're basically asking you for a favor. good luck.
Do you understand the basic concept of a patent? To earn the monopoly you have to publish your idea. The idea becomes part of the public domain. If someone else republishes your idea the the system works as intended. A patent is not a copyright. This sounds to me like the patent holder really doesn't want to honor the bargain he agreed to. The monopoly is on implementation. We can publish code examples to our hearts content as long as we don't run them.
Patents are public! End of story. Now if you use a patented item without a license or approval of the patent holder or worse yet you sell it, then you have a problem. Distributing a copy of the patent or how it works does NOT violate the patent.
Trade Secrets are secret only if the company keeps it a secret.
If you or any other 3rd party can figure out what the trade secret is without getting the information from the company, then it is NO LONGER A TRADE SECRET.
More at http://www.music-similarity.com/ I wonder if it uses the purported patented technology.
BTW, the assertion of a potential harm being caused by "...explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world'" is certified bullshit.
All patents are public documents -- they must be public in order to inform the world just exactly what it is that the patent owner actually owns. It's detailed in the Claims section. "If you don't claim it, you don't own it."
Furthermore, a patent must "teach the invention," meaning that anyone "familiar with the art" shall be able to implement the invention with only the descriptions provided. If there actually is a patent for this technology, the cat is out of the bag.
Patent courts in the US are very favorably disposed to inventors -- assuming the technology is actually protected. It sounds like maybe not, and so the bluster and shrill threats.
How could the blog post infringe a patent?
Aren't patents public already?
The implementation may infringe on a patent, but not simply describing the method already publicly available in the patent application.
Or do copyright laws apply to patents now?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Dear Shazam,
My algorithm is not the same as yours. Specially, it differs in this key code section:
Sincerely, Timothy
Table-ized A.I.
I'm surprised there's no mention of Midomi, which takes the soundprinting idea a bit further by allowing the user to sing or hum the tune - and while I have perfect pitch (but an awful voice), I've had my utterly tone-deaf friend try it and it still worked over half the time.
So Shazam, with their weak algorithm, is patent-trolling while Midomi seems quite confident no one can scratch their better tech. Isn't that the gist of all that's wrong with patents today ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
http://www.landmarkdigital.com/contact Leave your review here: http://maps.google.com/maps/place?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Landmark+Digital+Services&fb=1&gl=be&hq=Landmark+Digital+Services&cid=4257745332164177429&dtab=2&action=open&ei=tLU2TOu-Bo6M0gTzq4nmAw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=write-review&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQtwQwAA Send them an email how you feel about this case to info@landmarkdigital.com. Just two sentences will be fine. And do visit their website, I think it would be nice to slashdot[tm] their website (and not just redcode.nl).
Link: apple vs. microsoft @ wikipedia
While it wasn't a supreme court case, there is already judicial precedent stating that you can create your own derivative software to accomplish a similar task as someone else's patented work so long as you are creating meaningful improvements and you make your own source code.
The bottom line is that nothing is being stolen, someone is simply making a competitor product. And its Foss. Like a Boss.
Hmmm, if I remember correctly I already used that algorithm in 2005?
soundsort
(prior art ftw)
www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi
It's not distribution and implementation is fine. If you can't implement a patent why is it there? You can't learn about it. The code isn't the patent either, else you'd need the source code in the patent, which you don't get. And distribution is fine for personal use (how else do you learn from a patent or improve it to make a new patent?) and for commercial use too in places where the patent is not valid.
A gist has been created as a protest http://gist.github.com/467790, fork it!
You can disclose a patent, but you cannot distribute its derived products, without paying royalties.
What about software?
In this case by disclosing in detail how the patent works, say by publishing sample code, you are also distributing the "product".
This is why software patents should be disallowed.
On my iPhone, I've been using a similar app for ages now. It's currently called Sound Hound, was previously called Midomi, and I'm pretty sure that when I installed it it was even called something else (it seems that each time I upgrade it the app changes name). Have the owners of Shazam gone after the people that make this? As it does exactly the same thing as Shazam (and works very well)...
Re-write the description of the algorithm in psuedo code. You absolutely need to keep a record of the algorithm you described and proof of when you invented it. If they have a patent pending which covers one of your innovations then (contrary to popular belief) you will still be allowed to use that innovation, because you had developed it prior to their patent being granted. You wouldn't be able to add anything extra that was in their patent that you had missed however. But you do need to keep a record. That also gives you an excuse as to why you published the code on the web, its a cheap way to get it on record. The fact they sent you an email is actually good - it proves that you had code before they were granted an EU patent.
In this case the patent can still be attacked and put down. I've seen it done here in Europe. Granted, you need to be rich enough to perform the legal attack efficiently...
... software patents don't apply in *Europe*, and are not recognized. So I simply wouldn't care if I were the *Dutch* guy.
This is a patent involving signal processing. That is different from a pure software patent where you take an existing process and describe it done by computer.
However the takedown of the blog part is pure powerplay IMHO, The whole point of a patent is that enough information is published so anyone skilled in the art can reproduce the invention. If they did describe their invantion too fuzzy then there would not be a practical use.
Anyway, the developer lives in europe and there the patent only protects against commercial use with profit, so landmark dow not have a real case.
By the way, is landmark associated with the controversial landmark education ?
I think the real problem is that they (LDS) know perfectly well that their patent will not hold up,
because what they do is (apparently) nothing else then what has been done in speech recognition
software for ages. So they know, that if someone realizes how easy this is, and that someone has
more lawyers than they do (as for instance google does), they don't stand a chance.
This may sound strange, but if we, technophiles, start helping lawyers in identifying patent-infringements, then we might just be able to bring down the patent system, or at least give the government some motivation to re-evaluate the underpinnings of the patent-system.
So how would that work? Well, imagine us teaming up with the lawyers, and helping them identify plausible patent-cases. Then these lawyers could contact the respective companies and explain the viability of starting a law-suit, and actually bring the infringing companies to court. Now, with a hoax of patent-lawsuits, eventually people at the top of the government will start suspecting that something is severely wrong with the system and it needs some radical changes.
The only problem is that some "innocent" bystanders will get hurt... but this might happen anyhow, and radical changes sometimes may require radical actions, unfortunately.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Before you all go off and rage about patents (oops too late for that) I would just like to point out that all they did was send the guy a C&D. Anyone can send a C&D to anyone; it does not mean that it has any merit.
This comment... While it itself has "-1 Troll" moderation status, it's self-referential and, it seems, a little bit ironically prophetic. Which, IMHO, deserves a +1 Funny or Insightful, depending on which kind of pedant you are.
But the moment it earns that +1, it loses that magical quality and is once again an overrated comment which ought to get a -1 Troll. Which in turn makes it a pretty cool comment.
This... This is Epimenides' Slashdot Comment.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Creating Shazam in Java
//Fill AudioFormat with the wanted settings
// In another thread I start:
//mono
A couple of days ago I encountered this article: How Shazam Works
This got me interested in how a program like Shazam works... And more importantly, how hard is it to program something similar in Java?
About Shazam
Shazam is an application which you can use to analyse/match music. When you install it on your phone, and hold the microphone to some music for about 20 to 30 seconds, it will tell you which song it is.
When I first used it it gave me a magical feeling. "How did it do that!?". And even today, after using it a lot, it still has a bit of magical feel to it.
Wouldn't it be great if we can program something of our own that gives that same feeling? That was my goal for the past weekend.
Listen up..!
First things first, get the music sample to analyse we first need to listen to the microphone in our Java application...! This is something I hadn't done yet in Java, so I had no idea how hard this was going to be.
But it turned out it was very easy:
1 final AudioFormat format = getFormat();
2 DataLine.Info info = new DataLine.Info(TargetDataLine.class, format);
3 final TargetDataLine line = (TargetDataLine) AudioSystem.getLine(info);
4 line.open(format);
5 line.start();
Now we can read the data from the TargetDataLine just like a normal InputStream:
01
02
03 OutputStream out = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
04 running = true;
05
06 try {
07 while (running) {
08 int count = line.read(buffer, 0, buffer.length);
09 if (count > 0) {
10 out.write(buffer, 0, count);
11 }
12 }
13 out.close();
14 } catch (IOException e) {
15 System.err.println("I/O problems: " + e);
16 System.exit(-1);
17 }
Using this method it is easy to open the microphone and record all the sounds! The AudioFormat I’m currently using is:
1 private AudioFormat getFormat() {
2 float sampleRate = 44100;
3 int sampleSizeInBits = 8;
4 int channels = 1;
5 boolean signed = true;
6 boolean bigEndian = true;
7 return new AudioFormat(sampleRate, sampleSizeInBits, channels, signed, bigEndian);
8 }
So, now we have the recorded data in a ByteArrayOutputStream, great! Step 1 complete.
Microphone data
The next challenge is analyzing the data, when I outputted the data I received in my byte array I got a long list of numbers, like this:
01 0
02 0
03 1
04 2
05 4
06 7
07 6
08 3
09 -1
10 -2
11 -4
12 -2
13 -5
14 -7
15 -8
16 (etc)
Erhm… yes? This is sound?
To see if the data could be visualized I took the output and placed it in Open Office to generate a line graph:
Ah yes! This kind of looks like 'sound'. It looks like what you see when using for example Windows Sound Recorder.
This data is actually known as time domain. But these numbers are currently basically useless to us... if you read the above article on how Shazam works you’ll read that they use a spectrum analysis instead of direct time doma
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
any other means of breaking the threat to them. so long as questions of them are answered with shrug.
Why haven't the RIAA taken to killing off defendents with "swatting", or helpful hit and runs, itd be low risk and high gain.
Anyone can enforce, so long as they get away with it, and if the hit is against anyone the authorities want stomped don't expect them to lift a finger about it.
wikileaks guy gets run over, police going to care?
iow, gang warfare favors gangs.
"they want him to take down his blog post (Google Cache) explaining how he did it because it 'may be viewed internationally. As a result, [it] may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world."
Um, can't people read the patent to find out how it works? Alternatively, does that mean they didn't actually disclose how it works in the patent, in which case it should be invalid? The whole point of a patent is disclosure.
I wonder if the all the "fingerprints" of the music in the Shazam database have been licensed from the owners...?
I see a lot of complaining. I don't see a lot of legal action. They have no case whatsoever. It is their free speech to bellyache and his free speech to post the code. People such as /. know who is in the right.
It's like getting pee out of the pool once it's out there.
Sorry Shazam, this is information and we live in the new Renaissance, an age of information freedom.
Evolve or die.
My sister is an English teacher and she tells her students "commas are not like pepper you don't just sprinkle them in when you are done writing to add a little flavor to it." She was blessed with the English and grammar I got the math and science. I still can't write a decent paper if my life depended on it.
"Don't Panic!"
Shazams interface isn't all that great any way. Musicid is a better solution IMO anyway.
apple:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=320029868
blackberry,java, MS
http://mediamall.wireless.att.com/sf/storefront/endUserHTMLGetPhoneNumberAndCoupon.jsp?prodId=CF184099
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
The problem is, this sort of bullying is borderline legal for US companies (see Abuse of Process) or similar entries on vexatious litigation. It doesn't usually trigger any kind of statutory protection unless it's repeated and obvious.
Similarly to the MPAA and RIAA lawsuits for file sharing, the larger corporate entity involved is relying on the fact that legal defense against them will cost substantially more than complying with their demands, whether the target of the legal action is guilty or innocent.
It's easy to see "simple" solutions to this problem - hire smarter patent examiners, for example or outlaw software patents. These don't fix the real issue, however, which is the excessive level of influence corporations have in the US courts and legislature, and the corresponding changes they have made to the original copyright and patent systems. Originally these systems struck a balance between public interest in a new invention or work, and the right of its creator to profit from it. Nowadays, the systems have been warped into near monopolies enforced by criminal and civil law that benefit certain limited entities. Not the public, and not even the original creator of the work, receive the bulk of the benefit. It is largely the corporations, legal entities created specifically to shield individuals from accountability for their corporate actions, that win here.
Long term, fixing the root of these problems will be very hard. It can be argued that the US Government is too firmly under corporate control for the people of the US to ever take it back. If that's the case, then the US is on a long downward spiral, and someday US citizens will think of these times as a golden age of justice and fairness.
Right now, the only way to have power to affect laws and systems like these is to become a large corporation. Money talks. It's interesting that Google seems to be working toward this end.
Personally, I believe the downward spiral in the US government will end the way such things always have... when the government officials who hold power die of old age, permitting younger officials with different values to lead. There are certain aspects of the system that have become immortal, like the two party lock on government and the spoils system that will be harder to change, but a limited human lifespan is still the saving grace of the US government.
Everyone should save that blog post to their hard-drive. And then re-post it on their blog or whatever.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
I uninstalled the app immediately and left them with a one-star rating plus a link to explain the background. Also, I uninstalled them as malicious. Feel free to link http://tinyurl.com/3a93ed8 in your one-star ratings.
Get SoundHound instead. It's better anyway. Now that I have SoundHound, I am actually glad that Shazam made me look for alternatives.
Again:
http://tinyurl.com/3a93ed8
http://www.soundhound.com/
PS: It would be evil to install them just to uninstall them with one-star ratings. I could not condone that.
I want to offer this guy a job in a country without software patents. Can't find his email
1) Reassure that the code will not be `made` thus infringing the patent (legal)
2) Offer a fee for agreeing not to post to the blog (legal)
3) Allow someone else to read the patent and write the code for it. Personally I think that a patent describing how to do something and code describing how to do something is the same thing only in a different language and thus why the term software patent is an oxymoron. The fix for this is not legal, but when/if we ever get to a stage where a machine can understand what a patent says then the patent itself will be in infringement. ...continue to swim in the direction of how knowledge flows
A blog I run for the wealth
Forgot to say, I'm enjoying your music. I like the ambience!
Do you take donations?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
I bet yoda uses a lot of commas :)
Commas, misplaced, will be.
Didn't you want to write something like...
"Misplaced, Commas, will be"
;)
"Soylent Green is people." (1973)
Shazam just ported some decade-old ideas into a specific new applications.
I mean, the day I heard about Shazam, the first thing I wondered was not "How they could do it ?" but "How did they manage to assemble a huge enough library to build the database ?".
It didn't even take me time longer than the couple of seconds needed to read the info about Shazam to guess how it worked. Because it's based on decade-old idea.
Comparing peak intensity on 2D plot is the bread and butter in analysing things like 2D-electrophoresis gels in Proteomics. A little Google-fu will probably help anyone to bring out lots of literature about this subject.
Using spectrograms to characterise music is also something rather old. Analysis of spectrograms is probably as old as equipment able to plot them. Remember even old text in books about sound&music theory mentioning that instruments are easy to recognise based on their spectrograms (Shazam is probably doing the same, but on the scale of whole songs). Spectrograms have also been used to try to recognise melody and create music sheets out of sound samples (some experimental WAVE-to-MIDI converters, but rather limited due to limited processing power at the time). And everyone knows how some songs had very characteristic patterns on the band-meter of their sound systems - with a few friends we even wondered if this could be used as a song detection system (given the hash system developed by TFA's author, it could).
In short : all the technical consideration have been around for decades. The reasons that it hasn't been done before are :
- Processing power : Only recently there have been phone with enough power to process the audio signal, compute finger print and send it for analysis.
- Library availability : Shazam is the first company which managed to persuade copyright holder to lend them music copies so they can built a library of finger print. Probably managed to do so by telling that the technology could be used to make more sales and/or spot copyright infringements.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]