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.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 25 Jan 2008 18:13

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

7 comments

spiesfan

more desperation

25.1.2008 20:40 #1

nobrainer

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.

25.1.2008 21:27 #2

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?

;-)

26.1.2008 02:29 #3

nobrainer

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.

26.1.2008 05:33 #4

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.

27.1.2008 10:23 #5

snowlock

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

27.1.2008 14:57 #6

borhan9

its the silly season again :)

19.2.2008 21:40 #7

AfterDawn: News