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.
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
Why Mr. van Rijn use their proprietary name in his blog post? (Creating Shazam In Java) Of course they are going to respond exactly as they did. And much sooner had he not used it. Seems like this is a no brainer cause for a C&D letter to help protect their investment.
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.
The code is speech, compiling and running it is the infringement. Is patent protection now more valued than free speech?
Even then, code is speech until you run it. Are we now to limit free speech by government order to protect their patents?
If the hardware store sells me a CNC mill and I make patented widgets with it will they sue the hardware store?
BoingBoing has a good write up (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/08/patent-holders-legal.html). Most interesting was the fact that Landmark Digital Services took exception to the technical details of a patent being discussed. I think most people (myself included!) believe that reading a patent should tell you precisely how to replicate something, but there's a subtext to this story implying that is not the case here. I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly ./ worthy.
He's not employed by them is he? Because if he's not, I don't think their trade secrets mean squat to him. If I mess around and discover coke's trade secret recipe, they're not going to come knocking on my door. And they wouldn't have any legal precedent to do so in the first place. If you discover someone else's trade secret, it's fair game. You can even sell a product using that trade secret as long as you didn't work for them and take it, or buy it from someone who did.
> Why Mr. van Rijn use their proprietary name in his blog post?
Because it damn well pleases him to do so, and in the USA, at least, he is free to do so with impunity as long as he does not use it in a way that might mislead the public into believing that they are getting said product when they are not. A trademark is not a copyright.
[Emphasis mine.]
Look, I'm on van Rijn's side. However, I can appreciate that a blog post entitled Creating Shazam in Java could "mislead the public" even though it might not mislead the technically savvy. If I wrote a blog post entitled Creating Microsoft Office in Java you'd better believe I'd get a message from the folks in Redmond.
IMHO, if Landmark has any beef here at all, it's that their trademark is threatened, and feebly at that.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
>>>As a non-native english writer, who has difficulties dealing with grammar nazism, I find commas useful to explain stuff.
Let me help - "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 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.'"
Fixed that for you. [] are deletions/additions. Basically I only found three errors. Grammarwise I'd recommend fewer interruptions. Simplify; simplify. As for the cease-and-desist I'd respond like so:
Dear Landmark:
Go watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit". The title of that show is what I think of your shitty letter you litigious motherfuckers. I live in ____ where you do not hold a patent, so you can go shove a dildo up you anus. My post is protected my this country's right of free speech and free press.
Respectfully,
Not Your Slave Nor Your Serf
(middle finger)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented ./ worthy.
> technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly
In a sane world making such an admission in a legal filing would be grounds for voiding the patent since patent law requires dislosure of everything a person skilled in that field would need to know to implement the patented tech. The idea of patents is to trade full disclosure for a limited monopoly on commercial exploitation of the idea. However as soon as a patent is filed others may begin using your patented tech as a base to build their own innovations on. Of course they will need to license your original tech to sell theirs and you will have to license theirs if you want to incorporate it, etc. Of this are vast portfolios built of cross licensed codependent patents.
But we live in bizarro world. Sucks don't it.
Democrat delenda est
Generally, the courts have held that source code is akin to a 'diagram', not the device itself.
It's perfectly legal to distribute diagrams of devices that implement patented methods. The patent holder can demand you make a note that it uses such a method, and is illegal to operate without a license, but can't actually stop you from distributing the diagrams.
Yes, it's weird a normal person can spend five minutes turning a diagram into a device.
OTOH, plenty of patents use already existing devices in novel ways, like 'entertain a cat with a laser pointer', which, now that I've described it, a good fraction of the people out there can implement with even less work then compiling. That's a silly, but real example, but there are real, serious patents on the use of medicines, for example, in novel ways, or adding tiny impurities to a well known process to make it better. Those are just as easy to implement.
Describing ways for people to make devices that implement patented methods, no matter how simple it is to turn it from 'diagram' to 'device', is legal. And source code has consistently been held to be 'diagram'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It's a wholly owned subsidary of BMI... As in BMI/ASCAP?
It's the record companies again.
Funny you should mention railroads...
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs