Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Audio

github.audio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: GitHub Audio

#71

Post by nerdponx »

mojuba wrote: post #24
eriknstr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the name "GitHub Audio" is confusing and probably a trademark violation. When I read "GitHub Audio", I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music.

That would be very very cool, but good luck with trying to version .logicx or .cpr I think popular software vendors should seriously reconsider their file formats in the 21st century, including graphical and audio ones.

For all of the things you can point fingers at Microsoft for doing wrong, opening up their second-generation document formats (docx, pptx, xlsx, etc) was a wonderful, positive move.

It's a shame that the music industry hasn't had a similar revelation. I'm tempted to be cynical and accuse them of fear and greed, but more likely "open data" just isn't something they think about.

Re: GitHub Audio

#72

Post by stevewilhelm »

ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

...

b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

From https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en

Re: GitHub Audio

#74

Post by seagreen »

freditup wrote: post #8

This is an interesting example where the new expanded set of TLDs can get confusing. My brain interpreted the URL as something semantically like "audio.github.com". Put another way, I thought the site was actually GitHub-made at first glance at its domain. Of course, this was possible in various ways before expanding TLDs, but I think the problem, and thus the ease of phishing, is greater now.

Even worse, this matches the actual way URLs should have gone in the first place: com.site.subdomain/folder/subfolder/subsubfolder/.

Re: GitHub Audio

#75

Post by Alupis »

eriknstr wrote: post #17
freditup wrote: post #8

This is an interesting example where the new expanded set of TLDs can get confusing. My brain interpreted the URL as something semantically like "audio.github.com". Put another way, I thought the site was actually GitHub-made at first glance at its domain. Of course, this was possible in various ways before expanding TLDs, but I think the problem, and thus the ease of phishing, is greater now.

I think the name "GitHub Audio" is confusing and probably a trademark violation. When I read "GitHub Audio", I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music.

> I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music

This is why I feel the new TLD's are entirely a racket.

ICANN builds a system which is favorable to squatters - and when all the "good" domains are taken for com/net, they start to release new TLD's (instead of clawing back unused squatted domains) which corporations and celebrities must rush out to purchase or risk someone else using their brand name.

There's the infamous story of Taylor Swift having to purchase her name on the .xxx, .adult, and .porn TLDs[1]

And now presumably GitHub will feel compelled to purchase GitHub.academy, GitHub.technology, GitHub.build, GitHub.buzz, GitHub.careers, GitHub.codes, and many many more!

So now ICANN can kick back and enjoy all those extra fees, and Registrars can kick back and enjoy all their new registrations... meanwhile squatters buy up a bunch of new domain names on the new TLDs, putting everyone right back where we were before the new TLDs were released.

[1] http://fortune.com/2015/03/23/taylor-swift-adult-domains/

Re: GitHub Audio

#76

Post by lgas »

dennisnedry wrote: post #55
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it be possible to version control in the same way we version control other random files? Just treat it as a stream of arbitrary data.

It would be possible if there was a change log constantly updated that was meta data to the stream. In other words, each time something is done on the audio/visual file, log what it was, and version control that.

ES/CQRS for audio editing.

Re: GitHub Audio

#77

Post by thedaniel »

mojuba wrote: post #24
eriknstr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the name "GitHub Audio" is confusing and probably a trademark violation. When I read "GitHub Audio", I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music.

That would be very very cool, but good luck with trying to version .logicx or .cpr I think popular software vendors should seriously reconsider their file formats in the 21st century, including graphical and audio ones.

Splice.com is this, and it's great, I use it with Ableton all the time. Versioning is easy, merging is impossible. But it's better than what I did before.

Re: GitHub Audio

#78

Post by dacort »

Reminds me of the (sadly) now defunct choir.io. Intro post > https://corte.si/posts/choir/intro/choir.html

They had a demo of Github realtime activity and I hooked it into a bunch of different events around the org - Salesforce/Yammer/Github/JIRA - was neat to have a "pulse" of daily activity in the background.

Re: GitHub Audio

#79

Post by andrewvijay »

Unplugged the head phone in the office today. A colleague asked "what kind of dumbass music is that?" "Sound of creation" I replied. He was intrigued and was blown away by the concept.

Re: GitHub Audio

#80

Post by sbuttgereit »

gkya wrote: post #62
eriknstr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the name "GitHub Audio" is confusing and probably a trademark violation. When I read "GitHub Audio", I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music.

Would a non-profit thing like this violate the trademark? This is just like publishing an interactive graph on Github usage.

Possibly. I found this doing a quick search. I don't know how credible a source it is, but it sounds reasonable. (Better, more reliable sources would be interesting to see).

"Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark."[1]

There may well be an argument that the confusion about who's behind this and that it actually deals with the company holding the trademark, I would think GitHub has a case. I'm not sure it would be worth pursuing, unless not doing so threatens the enforce-ability of trademark.

[1]http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/

Post reply on HN