Patenting the use of all episodic media on the Web might sound absurd, but the US Patent and Trademark Office has granted just such a patent, to a company called VoloMedia. It’s a significant issue, one that could threaten the freedom of all media distribution online. Wherever you are in the world, you can help.

Intellectual property law was created in order to protect genuine inventions and innovation from exploitation. But predatory patents, based on bogus claims and attempting to stake out broad rights, threaten to do just the opposite.

Here’s a new idea: fight back.

Lawyers are the heroes this time. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s patent-busting project aims to take down unfair patents that threaten common-sense uses of technology. A number of these have applied to music and audio. The EFF has already won a big victory against what had been the worst offender – media giant Clear Channel actually successfully patented recording live shows. (No, really — recording a live gig, then burning them on the spot. The EFF was able to bust that patent.) The advocacy group also scored significant victories against patents on sending and receiving online streams and encoding media. (If someone thought they could patent your ears and charge you royalties for hearing, they probably would.)

Lawyers alone haven’t won these battles. The EFF’s clever twist is to crowd-source its case, by getting people like you to help the group document “prior art” – in plain English, to prove that something existed before the patent. (Without basic chronology, I could claim to have discovered electricity.)

In short, you can help save the freedom of online content.

VoloMedia’s Bogus Patent – And Why It’s Dangerous

VoloMedia has been granted a patent for “providing episodic media.” The patent is broad enough to endanger any independent podcast or episodic media producer. Over the summer, Volomedia’s own Murgesh Navar sidestepped concerns about patent abuse to brag on the company blog about just how broad that claim was – that even non-RSS-based episodic media belong to them:

With specific reference to our newly issued 7,568,213 patent, it was filed in November 2003, almost a year before the start of podcasting.  This helps underscore the point, that for nearly six years, VoloMedia has been focused on helping publishers monetize portable media…. and has continued these efforts with the addition of a wide array of smartphone-based applications.  The patent that issued yesterday helps to tie together and reinforce the value of the various technologies and services that VoloMedia has developed to help accomplish this objective.  VoloMedia’s intent is to continue to work collaboratively with key participants in the industry, leveraging its unique range of products to further grow and accelerate the market.  Today, podcasting is 100% RSS-based.  However, the patent is not RSS-dependent.  Rather, it covers all episodic media downloads.  It just so happens that, today, the majority of episodic media downloads are RSS-based podcasts, which is why we titled our announcement the way we did.

Aside from the “before the start of podcasting” lie – and I believe “lie” is the only accurate word – it’s the implied threat that should send a chill down the spine of anyone using the Internet. Make no mistake about it: VoloMedia wants anyone doing podcasting, via any mechanism, to work with them. From that same blog entry:

The impact of a strong growing IP portfolio is such that we would expect new entrants into the podcasting arena to have a collaborative relationship with VoloMedia, just as do many of the current players.

From the patent itself, as approved, the technology VoloMedia claims to own is described as:

A method for providing episodic media, the method comprising: providing a user with access to a channel dedicated to episodic media, wherein the episodic media provided over the channel is pre-defined into one or more episodes by a remote publisher of the episodic media; receiving a subscription request to the channel dedicated to the episodic media from the user; automatically downloading updated episodic media associated with the channel dedicated to the episodic media to a computing device associated with the user in accordance with the subscription request upon availability of the updated episodic media, the automatic download occurring without further user interaction; and providing the user with: an indication of a maximum available channel depth, the channel depth indicating a size of episodic media yet to be downloaded from the channel and size of episodic media already downloaded from the channel, the channel depth being specified in playtime or storage resources, and the ability to modify the channel depth by deleting selected episodic media content, thereby overriding the previously configured channel depth.

Plain English translation: if what you’re doing with media has episodes, you owe VoloMedia.

If this patent were allowed to stand, and if VoloMedia were able to successfully enforce it, it would have a chilling effect on all Internet distribution. Regardless of the likelihood of their legal success, that underlies the fundamental problem with patent law – it has come completely unglued from reality. That alone ought to motivate people to fully document these issues and try to effect change.

Wondering why you haven’t heard of VoloMedia if they supposedly invented all episodic content online? Right now, they advertise “solutions” for advertising and analytics, an iTunes plug-in, and branded mobile apps for platforms like the iPhone. That’s it. RSS and previous formats date back to the 1990s, with the intention of covering episodic media across formats, just as the VoloMedia patent claims. These were published standards years before VoloMedia’s claim. That’s why demonstrating the details of this history become so important: they could strike down VoloMedia’s bogus patent.

Help Write Episodic Content’s History

VoloMedia’s patent twists the law, and common sense. But the same laws also provide for disproving a patent. If you can prove that an invention existed prior to the date for which a patent is claimed, you can undo the damage.

For that reason, the EFF is asking for your help. Knowing the readers of this site, I imagine there are people out there who know those details, or know people who do.

You’re all old enough to remember the Age Before Fall of 2003, right?

Here’s the call to action:

In order to bust this patent, we are looking for additional "prior art" — or evidence that the podcasting methods described in the patent were already in use before November 19, 2003. In particular, we’re looking for written descriptions of methods that allow a user to download pre-programmed episodic media like audio files or video files from a remote publisher, with the download occurring after the user subscribes to the episodes, and with the user continuing to automatically receive new episodes. You can read the entire prior art request here, and if you have something that could help, please send it to podcasting_priorart@eff.org or fill out the form on our Volomedia page.

For more information:

EFF Tackles Bogus Podcasting Patent – And We Need Your Help

Patent Busting Project: VoloMedia

Prior art serves a second purpose. Part of the reason predatory firms can abuse patent law is because technology’s history is so poorly written. I would like to see these kinds of bogus patents struck down, but I’d also like the real history behind today’s technologies to be told. So even beyond this legal battle, I hope that we begin to make the story of technologies like what is now called “podcasting” accurate, complete, and fair. Future generations of technologists will thank us.

Certainly, the VoloMedia patent, if enforced, would do tremendous harm to media today. The entire strength of the Web is that it doesn’t have to have homogenized distribution channels, that anyone can publish without centralized outlets or “collaborative relationships” with any big partner.

If you’ve never cared about intellectual property policy before, this might change your mind. No one should be allowed to un-invent the Internet.

There’s a curious distinction in hardware keyboards. You’ll find plenty of keyboards geared for performance with software at the low-end to mid-range. But if you want a keyboard with uncompromising durability and action – and you’re willing to pay more and lift more weight – those choices suddenly disappear. Suddenly, you have to buy a workstation keyboard or something with built-in sounds or even built-in speakers. What if you want a really uncompromising keyboard to use with software and nothing else?

It’s almost as though manufacturers assume “serious” musicians want to gig with built-in sounds on a standalone keyboard. That’s a pretty stunning assumption in the year 2009, given the versatility, reliability, and unmatched sound quality and diversity of software instruments. If you’re looking for a controller alone, your options are limited. M-Audio, Novation, and others have some great affordable options, but nothing really high-end. Roland, Yamaha, and Casio have some nice controllers, but the higher-end models aren’t dedicated to the task, and therefore there’s no way to dedicate all your dollars to the controller itself. (Dig deeper, and there’s still more sacrifices to make – yes, you can have x, but then we take away y…) My short list would probably be Doepfer’s lovely keyboard in a road case and Studiologic – and that’s about it.

Studiologic’s new Numa Nero, therefore, looks like the serious controller a lot of us have been waiting for. It’s a full, 88-note keyboard made for serious musicians. Yes, part of it is plastic, but plastic doesn’t necessarily mean “cheap” – good-quality plastic can be more durable than other materials. And the design itself finally focuses on getting you the best-possible keybed and action, assuming your software will take care of the sound generation.

• Graded hammer action (essential for piano players, as it makes the lower end heavier than the higher end)
• The last key mechanism design by late Fatar founder/designer Lino Ragni
• Double-dipped, “full-body” solid black keys – not hollow black keys. (The press release points out that most digital pianos have hollow keys, which is something I can verify. Unless you play in C major all the time, this is a major problem.)
• 20 dynamic curve settings which “sense” playing in real-time and respond accordingly. It sounds like the piano action equivalent of anti-lock brakes; I have to try it to understand what they mean!
• 4 zones with independent velocity curves, MIDI, program, pedal, and control settings
• Two pedal inputs, plus an illuminated side wheel controller. (The side is an unusual place for a wheel, but I could still see being able to reach it live.)

Now, what’s missing from all of this is a control surface, which bothered me initially – you don’t, for instance, get faders to use as drawbars. Upon reflection, though, I actually think having all that empty space is a huge advantage. If you’re an organ player, you can add a drawbar controller. If you’re controlling unusual instruments, you could add a touchscreen-equipped laptop. Or add a monome. You get the idea.

And the best feature of all may be this: “An aluminum back piece slides out to support another keyboard, sound module, or laptop, without the need for another stand.”

No, my only remaining gripe is that, while the keyboard supports aftertouch, it’s monophonic aftertouch, not polyphonic. Poly aftertouch seems to be a dying breed, but it would certainly have qualified this keyboard as “ultimate.” I’m nonetheless dying to play the Numa Nero. I’ve been waiting a long time for a worthy controller that doesn’t try to make sounds or arrange beats for you or do anything other than talk to your software setup, and this could be it.

US$1274, which goes to prove my point – focus entirely on the controller, and you can keep the cost low without compromise. Weight: 57.3 ponds.

There’s also a 22-pound Numa Nano coming at winter NAMM; keep your eyes out for that one – if it could be just as brilliantly-designed but more liftable, it could be the perfect companion, a nano on the road and a Nero back in the studio (or when you’ve got transport).

Numa Nero Product Page

And yes, it’s worth considering the entire Studiologic range. Ironically, the line they call “vintage” is the one with lots of added controls. They’re absurdly cheap for the quality, have action that can beat most of the pricier options out there, and immensely logical designs that pack maximum playability into the weight and form factor. The designs are, charitably, “workmanlike,” but if it’s more playable, who cares? I also understand they’re easy to service. Now, the only remaining question is why the Italian-based Studiologic seems to be so alone in getting this area right.

Takuro Maizuta Lippit, aka dj sniff, writes in thanks for the international outpouring of support for the STEIM music and art research center in Amsterdam, which faces potentially losing government funding. Some readers raised some questions about why STEIM is asking for support, and what the institution’s significance is — a reasonable question — and Taku provides some background here:

What makes STEIM an unique place is that it emphasizes on supporting independent artists with experimental and adventurous ideas in the live electronic art world. These artists tend to be young up-and-coming or outsiders to specific genres and established scenes. The projects may seem like "pet projects" to other people, but often the artists themselves believe these experiments will have significant merit to the future of artistic expression. History has showed us that often innovation comes from the outside rather than the inside.

Although the support for these artists is quite minimal (we only offer space and advise), STEIM is able to continue this because of structural funding from the government. If not, we would have to write grant proposals for larger projects that appeal to specific funders. This will change the whole character of STEIM and go against the basic philosophy of what it was founded upon.

I came to STEIM as a DJ/Turntablist who wanted to play improvised music using tools that i built with Max/MSP and physical computing. STEIM opened their doors to me and provided a safe ground where i can freely experiment and develop my methods and aesthetics. Even though there are not many DJ and turntablists that come to STEIM, I truly feel like I am part of a community of artists that believe technology and new tools, however much of a pain in the ass they maybe, do create new artistic expression.

We are very grateful to the domestic and international support that are being voiced. We are planning special events in the following weeks to show our stand and hope pull through this situation.

I have to say, I was having coffee with CDM contributor Mike Una yesterday and trying to think of other research centers for music and art around the world, and STEIM is on a very, very short list. We’ll keep in touch with them as the situation evolves. For what it’s worth, I agree that the Dutch government isn’t under any kind of obligation to support STEIM, but then, that’s not the point: it’d be a real disappointment if they didn’t continue their unique and brave support of a one-of-a-kind resource.

Previously:

Help Save STEIM, Dutch Music Research Center; Monday Deadline

Just a "niche", eh? I can’t think of a time in recent history during which creative technology research was as profoundly relevant to mainstream design as it is now. Tangible interfaces, sensor-rich environments and pervasive computing, multi-touch and gestural interfaces, rich media — virtually all of the trends now leading technology were pioneered by or deeply influenced by research by music and visual artists. So, you’d think one of the world’s leading centers for work in research and development for artists and performers, one that hosts theater, music, DJs, VJs, video artists, and the like, would be in good shape.

Instead, Amsterdam’s STEIM research center is under attack by a government board that claims it’s a niche. Fortunately, you can help.

Things are not well at STEIM. We are in the danger of losing our structural funding from the government, based on a review from the advisor board which called us ‘closed and only appealing to a niche audience’. The outlook isn’t exactly bleak, but at the moment our future is unclear.

…

What you can do is to send a letter of support, and make sure we receive it by May 26. We hope that these letters will show the variety and depth of the effect STEIM has in the real world. The contents are up to you, a few good lines will suffice. You could tell how you or someone you know benefited from their contact with STEIM: making or refining an instrument or an idea for a performance or meeting fellow artists, or what you feel would be lost if STEIM ceased to exist, or waxing aphoristic, just 12 words about STEIM.

STEIM needs your support!

Thanks to Tom and Music thing for the call to arms; Tom forwarded this to me, so please forward to people you know

STEIM’s work includes a vital series of workshops and residencies / hosted research with international reach. I expect a number of readers here have either worked their or know folks who have. In addition to writing that letter, it’d be great to hear, in one place, ways in which you’ve been connected to STEIM.

Add to comments by Monday morning the 26th, and I’ll send my own email with the CDM community’s thoughts then.