Sounds like it was inspired by Listen to Wikipedia.
GitHub Audio
81–90 of 133 posts
Re: GitHub Audio
#82Re: GitHub Audio
#83Earlier 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.
Why would it matter if they were non-profit? Any brand confusion has the potential to harm the original brand.
Re: GitHub Audio
#84This 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'm not sure about GitHub but Google insist you use naming like "X for Google Chrome" where the Google product name is in smaller letters when it's part of a logo to avoid brand confusion.
Re: GitHub Audio
#85This 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.
My thoughts too. A collaborative SoundCloud? A Git repo for music sheets?
Re: GitHub Audio
#86Earlier 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.
> I think popular software vendors should seriously reconsider their file formats in the 21st century, including graphical and audio ones.
Very true, but it's not just about vendors and formats. Making semantic changes a first-class, user-facing construct has profound implications for how you think about what you're modeling and what kinds of interactions (not to mention collaborations) are possible. Even Git is not "21st century" in that respect: textual diffs are not semantic.
Re: GitHub Audio
#87This 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.
Agreed. I think the title of this post could have been: "Generating audio from Github events". The title is somewhat click-bait.
Re: GitHub Audio
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a non-profit thing like this violate the trademark? This is just like publishing an interactive graph on Github usage.
Why would it matter if they were non-profit? Any brand confusion has the potential to harm the original brand.
You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark.
Re: GitHub Audio
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it matter if they were non-profit? Any brand confusion has the potential to harm the original brand.
You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark.
> You generally have to be involved in trade to be in violation of a trademark.
What's the rational behind that though? If you had a charity, a free web game, a free book etc. concerning something people find offensive with the name "Super Mario" in it, many people would be legitimately confused if Nintendo was behind it which could cause harm.
Re: GitHub Audio
#90Earlier 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.
> When I read "GitHub Audio", I figured it was a new service by GitHub for musicians to version control their music. Same here, I was ready to let my mind explode with the implementation details.
And just how it would change everything! Maybe it's because I'm really new to production and don't have a workflow down, but I find that music creation would be significantly more productive with version control.