User User name Password  
   
Sunday 6.7.2008 / 10:59 PM
Search:        In English   Suomeksi   På svenska
afterdawn.com > news > warner sues seeqpod over infringement
Show topics
News
News

Warner sues SeeqPod over infringement

25 January 2008 18:13 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 7 comments

Warner sues SeeqPod over infringement Warner Music Group, one of the big four record labels, has announced that is suing the MP3 access service SeeqPod just days after signing a deal with the similar service Last.FM

For those unfamiliar, SeeqPod "maintains a public index of stored music tracks throughout the Internet". The service also offers a search tool that makes it easier for users to locate the music they are looking for. It also offers a music player to play the files.

According to Warner though, thew site links "to sites containing unauthorized and illegal copies of copyrighted music that can be played on demand or saved as playlists."

Curiously, SeeqPod has "5% of the company is owned by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory of the US Dept. of Energy, whose algorithm for recognizing music within sound files that might also contain other forms of sound, speech, or Noise, is actually being put to the test by the firm."

"This advanced search engine algorithm set and technology enabled biologists working at the Lab to discover hidden relationships in genomic data,"
SeeqPod's Web site reads, "enabling connections to be formed between human genes based on immense amounts of context and associations. It was observed that this technology could be applied to matching, searching and discovering relationships between any objects located on the Internet."

Meaning, while Google is crawling the web for news articles that it can aggregate SeeqPod is also crawling searching for music.

We will see where this suit goes and keep you updated.

Permalink to this article | Topic:

Get AfterDawn's news to your favourite feed reader! Share this story with your friends!
 

 
Related articles:

  • Last.fm starts video interview channel (9 May 2008)
  • Last.FM is boosting CD sales? (13 April 2008)
  • Warner embraces VOD in UK (4 April 2008)
  • Google and Dell teaming up on mobile phone? (30 January 2008)
  • Amazon MP3 to go international in 2008 (27 January 2008)
  • Last.fm unveils worlds largest free music service (23 January 2008)
  • Last.fm inks deal for Sony catalog (9 July 2007)
  • CBS buys Last.fm for $280 million (30 May 2007)
  • BitTorrent client Tribler combines YouTube, BitTorrent, and Last.fm (23 May 2007)
  •  

    « Previous news article
    GTA IV was delayed because of PlayStation 3
    Next news article »
    Rapidshare.com loses court battle
     Post your comment
    Discuss this article! 
    spiesfan (Member) 25 January 2008 20:40 Send private message to this user   
    more desperation
    nobrainer (Member) 25 January 2008 21:27 Send private message to this user   
    I'd never heard of this site until today but its a cool url that enables you to cue up music or videos.

    since the riaa/soundexchange hiked up internet royalty rates we are losing services fast, pandora in the uk has stopped and last fm now sucks big time since it was purchased last year by cbs and their goal now is for charging users to use the service or have adds placed into the middle of songs, online streaming is really starting to suck. do they actually realise if they remove all music except for their manufactured rubbish that they choose to promote, from the public domain ppl will actually purchase their crap?

    The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25 January 2008 21:29

    duckNrun (Member) 26 January 2008 2:29 Send private message to this user   
    Originally posted by nobrainer:
    ...do they actually realise if they remove all music except for their manufactured rubbish that they choose to promote, from the public domain ppl will actually purchase their crap?
    I think they DO realize that very thing, hence the fighting and suing of people and sites.. to try to enforce people into purchasing their music.

    Maybe you meant to use the word 'think' instead of 'realize' in your sentence?

    ;-)
    nobrainer (Member) 26 January 2008 5:33 Send private message to this user   
    Originally posted by duckNrun :
    Originally posted by nobrainer:
    ...do they actually realise if they remove all music except for their manufactured rubbish that they choose to promote, from the public domain ppl will actually purchase their crap?
    I think they DO realize that very thing, hence the fighting and suing of people and sites.. to try to enforce people into purchasing their music.

    Maybe you meant to use the word 'think' instead of 'realize' in your sentence?

    ;-)
    lol ty, i wasn't on about downloading illegal works. the record industry has held the monopoly on releasing works to the public and their time as gate keepers is coming to an end as anyone now can release works for free on the net and what the RIAA/Soundechcange/IFPI which are all the same fools btw, the same companies with the same rhetoric and lies, and what they want is total silence on all media except what they promote and if anyone wants to release works they have to go through them.

    this can been plainly seen with their recent ruling that gives them the right to collect royalties from ALL works regardless if the artist wants their interference or not.

    RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio


    Originally posted by above hyperlink:
    "With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870

    Originally posted by link:
    "The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

    "SRCOs (sound recording copyright owners) are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music...SoundExchange was established to administer the collection and distribution of royalties from such compulsory licenses taken by noninteractive streaming services that use satellite, cable or Internet methods of distribution."
    (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a4)


    This is what DRM & regional coding is about duckNrun, controlling all media so the gatekeepers get a percentage, its just like the mafia racketeering protection money scam and the companies doing this are listed below in my signature.

    The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26 January 2008 5:46

    atomicxl (Newbie) 27 January 2008 10:23 Send private message to this user   
    Everyone knocks the RIAA but this is all they ask:

    If you want a song, buy it. If you want an album, buy it. Why is that such a horrible thing? They don't stop you from making backup copies or MP3s. CDs cost like $9.99 now a days. Even if you don't want the whole album you can goto to many places and download tracks for $1. Music is more affordable than ever. All they ask is that you not steal it. How is that unfair or unreasonable?

    The only bogus thing they've ever done is this SoundExchange thing where they want to collect money for artists who aren't even RIAA members.

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27 January 2008 10:28

    snowlock (Junior Member) 27 January 2008 14:57 Send private message to this user   
    Originally posted by atomicxl:
    Everyone knocks the RIAA but this is all they ask:

    If you want a song, buy it. If you want an album, buy it. Why is that such a horrible thing? They don't stop you from making backup copies or MP3s. CDs cost like $9.99 now a days. Even if you don't want the whole album you can goto to many places and download tracks for $1. Music is more affordable than ever. All they ask is that you not steal it. How is that unfair or unreasonable?

    The only bogus thing they've ever done is this SoundExchange thing where they want to collect money for artists who aren't even RIAA members.

    that's not the only bogus thing they've ever done. the worst thing they do (and they do it both constantly and consistently) is flood the market with the music they want to sell better. they've effectively eliminated all true competition because the average consumer simply doesn't have access to music the riaa didn't deem highly profitable.

    why do you think some cd's (i've seen no major-label releases outside of top 40s) only cost $10 now, because they just like us(the consumers) that well? those sort of prices only started after they started talking about how cd sales were dropping like a rock because of rampant downloading, so you be the judge.

    their infringement lawsuits and the like are a the only recourse they have to try and hold on to this dying business strategy. as digital distribution ramps up, people will start to buy only the music they actually like rather than settling for a sometimes-unreasonable-facsimile that's actually been in the top 40.

    choice should be based on quality rather than quantity

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27 January 2008 14:58

    borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 19 February 2008 21:40 Send private message to this user   
    its the silly season again :)
     Post your comment
     

    Subscribe to our newsfeed

    Get the latest headlines delivered directly to your favourite RSS reader or content aggregation service by using the links below.

    AfterDawn.com: News - RSS feed
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Add to MyMSN

    Search for headlines

    Search through our news archive.

    Last week's most popular software downloads

    Digital video: AfterDawn.com | AfterDawn Forums | DVD X Copy Forums
    Music: MP3Lizard.com
    Gaming: Blasteroids.com | Blasteroids Forums
    Software: Software downloads
    Blogs: User profile pages
    RSS feeds: AfterDawn.com News | Software updates | AfterDawn Forums
    International: AfterDawn in Finnish | AfterDawn in Swedish | download.fi | fin.MP3Lizard.com
    Navigate: Search | Site map
    About us: About AfterDawn Ltd | Advertise on our sites | Rules, Restrictions, Legal disclaimer & Privacy policy
    Contact us: Send feedback | Contact our media sales team
     
      © 1999-2008 by AfterDawn Ltd.