Buzz Out Loud 737: Tom gets lucky with Jason

Oh, come now, we mean in a search on Goosh. What were you thinking?

Oh, come now, we mean in a search on Goosh, the command-line search interface for Google. What were you thinking? Meantime, the Internet has docked in New York and Natali Del Conte is on the show to share the details of what all those Internet sailors are doing on the streets of Manhattan. Apparently they're at the mayor's house.
Listen now: Download today's podcast


Internet Week in New York

Wikia Search launches the hackable search engine

Time Warner Cable ready to test metered Net use

Starbucks offers new flavor: Free Wi-Fi 2008-06-02-starbucks-wifi_N.htm

Intel seeks wireless unification

Apple’s iPhone loses U.S. market share in Q1

New FYE kiosks load your iPod with MP3s

Fantasy leagues win against MLB; Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal win-against-mlb-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-appeal/

Acer aspires to lead low-cost laptop race

95 percent of all returned gadgets still work; Americans don’t read manuals /2008/06/03/95-percent-of-all-returned-gadgets-still-work-americans-dont-r/

PS3 sucks down 5 times as much energy as a fridge fridge-ten-times-as-much-as-a-wii

Goosh: a retro Web app with cutting-edge interface


What’s the idea with the audio dropouts.

Idea for DVDs for Netflix

Blind people.


Radiohead and Prince

Sorry, the first one I sent upon rereading, could have been clearer.
Hence, this one might be better to use. (I haven’t had coffee yet today-that’s why.)

First-there is no problem with Prince doing a Radiohead cover, or even recording and selling his version of their song. Sorry, Tom, but Radiohead could not just say “well, don’t cover our song then!” Per the compulsory mechanical license Prince cannot not only perform this song w/out their permission, but can in fact record it and put it out for sale. The only thing Radiohead is entitled to is money for the performance/recording of the song. If the two parties don’t agree to a rate, the mechanical license built into the Copyright Law kicks in to cover the recording. The law sets the rate kind of high to encourage parties to come to agreements about this kind of thing, but it is there as a safety net.

This is a holdover from back in the day where (from what I understand) there was a worry that a performer could have a “monopoly” on a great song. The idea was that performers should be able to compete on the level playing field of using the same songs, and not have to rely on inferior songs (or some such craziness.) So that’s why you can do a cover of anything you want, even if it is slavish in its imitation of the original. You could get the best Radiohead impersonators in the world to perform the song and do the song exactly the same--can’t stop them, just make them pay.

Also, with regards to the performance at the show--ASCAP or BMI has this covered. Prince’s public performance of the song was covered by the license that the venue most certainly had. The venue pays for the performance right licenses who then turn around pay Radiohead.

Lastly, regarding Prince’s wanting to pull the video off of YouTube and Radiohead saying leave it up…I don’t know. As this EFF article lays out… The DMCA doesn’t cover performances, just recordings. So if Prince was recording his version of the song, then he might have a legit takedown claim (based on the copyright claim that would come from his making that recording)--otherwise he doesn’t have an action under the DMCA. His legal action comes under the performance right and anti-bootlegging laws-which don’t trigger the DMCA (I don’t think) and so YouTube wouldn’t have to comply until some later time when a judge actually ruled on the issue.

But they did, because as we all know, everyone is scared silly of the DMCA.

On the plus side, I totally feel comfortable posting the video I took of the Radiohead show in St. Louis…wait did I just type that?

Frank J. M. Lattuca, Esq.


Radiohead, Prince and GPL

Hello, everyone.

I think I may have solved the issue of Radiohead vs. Prince. It is surprisingly simple. Radiohead should license all their music under the GPL. With the GPL’s inclusive conditions it would force any performance to also be covered under the same terms. This would mean Prince would be forced to release his rendition of any Radiohead songs.




North Oaks

Hi, Buzzards, Elam from Minnesota Here!
Just to answer a few of your thoughts on North Oaks. I live in Arden Hills, which is just about 5 miles from North Oaks, and I have several friends and family living there. It is not technically a gated community, in that there are no gates, however for all intents and purposes, the city is completely “private” There is no public space inside the city. All homeowners own property extended half way into the road, concurrently the owner on the other side owns that half of the road. It is kind of a creepy Stepford Wife community, though, and they have awkward community projects like “Operation ClearView” the project to get everyone to trim the trees over their roads, and Operation W.A.V.E.(Walker And Vehicle Encounters) an endeavor to protect walkers from moving vehicles. They also have a section of their site devoted to coexisting with coyote in North Oaks!
There is also this strange rumor that the homeowners of North Oaks don’t actually OWN the land their house is on, but lease it from the city for a period of 99 years at a time…I should find out about it!
There are many strange things about this city, but if we are being honest, it is a really nice town! It is like a nature preserve with homes weaved in and out.
Just thought I’d give some info, I hope you were able to open all the links!
Elam Noor

PS: OMG they have a North Oaks Singles Network!!


Indiana Jones watermarking

Hey, Buzz Crew,

It’s Sperling, the product manager from DTS Digital Cinema. On episode
735 you mentioned that some of the theatres showing “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” were warning customers about sound dropouts during the film which were meant to prevent piracy. I can shed a little light on the issue, especially since DTS is one of the leading technologies enabling movie theaters to play 5.1 surround sound.

Paramount Pictures and several other studios strike their prints at a specific lab, which should probably remain nameless if I want to protect my job. This lab uses a version of “audio watermarking” that causes the dropouts as a form of identification for each print. That’s right, every single print that’s made has its own unique series of dropouts.
The idea here is that when authorities or a studio obtain a pirated copy of a film that was made at a theater with a camcorder, they can bring it back to the lab and determine the origin of the pirating. Law enforcement can then visit the theater in question and wait for the pirates to show up with their video cameras. (Somehow I doubt it’s ever that easy, though).

None of the companies that provide surround-sound technology, nor the theatres that pay for it, are big fans of this particular type of watermarking because it makes it appear as if the audio equipment is broken or the print is damaged. Filmmakers particularly despise it, since it ruins their pristine sound mix. Another well-known lab used by studios employs a form of audio watermarking which does not cause sound dropouts, but instead places identifying sounds that can supposedly only be picked up by special equipment.

You should also know this is not the only form of watermarking being placed on motion pictures today, whether projected digitally or on celluloid. Visual watermarking is also done. If you pay close attention to a film that is being projected traditionally you will spot a watermarking pattern of random red dots that appear for less than a second, usually once per reel. This pattern can be decoded on a pirated copy of the film by the lab which originally struck the print and once again, the location of the theater in which the pirating is taking place can be identified. Law enforcement officials can then race to said location and spend hours watching all the latest releases while they wait for the perpetrators to turn up again with their camcorders.
(OK, fine, I’m sure that’s not what actually happens, but even so. .

While I have yet to see any research that proves these watermarking methods deter or prevent piracy, the content owners (i.e. studios) must have some evidence that they work because despite the protests of many in the industry, they have fallen in love with them.

Insert witty line about the show being great and keeping up the good work.



Infrared copy protection idea

Hey, Buzz Crew,

Michael’s idea for flooding movie screens with infrared light in episode
736 was very interesting to me, as I’ve spent the past several weeks at my summer internship designing a research system which uses infrared light extensively. However, while I think the idea is clever and I’m in favor of anything that will stop pirates without bothering viewers, I don’t think this method would be very effective. Pirates could easily prevent their camera from detecting light outside the visible spectrum (like infrared) with a fairly inexpensive camera filter (or just use a camera that has such a filter built in). Also, it would be pretty expensive for theaters to install IR sources to cover all their screens.

As for people complaining that they can see the IR light, Tom, I don’t think that would be an issue, since it is widely accepted that people can’t physically see IR light. The typical human eye can see light in a range from 380 to 750 nanometers, and although some estimates place that number a little closer to 800 nanometers, infrared light would still be outside the human viewing boundary.

Love the show!

James from Texas (But California for the summer)