3 ms·

Wow, this is a really informed comment. To add to this, as a software engineer, while thinking through Smule's AutoRap app and the Shred Video app, I couldn't

Wow, this is a really informed comment. To add to this, as a software engineer, while thinking through Smule's AutoRap app and the Shred Video app, I couldn't help but think that they could both probably benefit from a similar method for detecting (or synching with) beats, chorus, etc. Even though this sort of audio posterization (I'm not sure what it's really called) is not entirely novel, it's probably a reasonably tough problem to solve. If I had to guess, I'd guess that this aspect is what Smule's case is based on. FTR: I hope Shred Video wins, because, based on the Business Insider article linked herein, Smith seems to be, IMHO, a huge bully.

mikeshreds 11y ago
Don't you think this will be absolved with a review of Shred Video's code/methods vs Smule's code/methods? And isn't it telling that Shred Video is more than willing to submit to such a review, but Smule has not yet acquiesced?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lacker 11y ago
  That doesn't seem telling to me, because Smule is probably just listening to their lawyers. And their lawyers are probably advising them to just wait for court. That seems like the right strategy for Smule regardless of the facts of the case.
  - mikeshreds 11y ago
    What do you mean by "right strategy" in this sense? Doing a 3rd party review of Shred vs Smule code/methods will give them a trove of relevant information if they intend to win on the merits. In my understanding, refusing it is only the "right strategy" if your intent is to not have the case go to trial.
    - lacker 11y ago
      Exactly. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, if their goal is just to win this case, it doesn't seem like it's in their best interests to have the case go to trial, if they think they'll win before a trial.
    - anseljh 11y ago
      Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's not crazy to want to avoid duplicating that cost. Also, they can challenge Shred's expert in court if they don't like who you pick. And...I saw the court filings...you have a lawyer...stop talking to randos on HN for advice. :)

mikeshreds 11y ago

Don't you think this will be absolved with a review of Shred Video's code/methods vs Smule's code/methods? And isn't it telling that Shred Video is more than willing to submit to such a review, but Smule has not yet acquiesced?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lacker 11y ago
That doesn't seem telling to me, because Smule is probably just listening to their lawyers. And their lawyers are probably advising them to just wait for court. That seems like the right strategy for Smule regardless of the facts of the case.
- mikeshreds 11y ago
  What do you mean by "right strategy" in this sense? Doing a 3rd party review of Shred vs Smule code/methods will give them a trove of relevant information if they intend to win on the merits. In my understanding, refusing it is only the "right strategy" if your intent is to not have the case go to trial.
  - lacker 11y ago
    Exactly. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, if their goal is just to win this case, it doesn't seem like it's in their best interests to have the case go to trial, if they think they'll win before a trial.
  - anseljh 11y ago
    Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's not crazy to want to avoid duplicating that cost. Also, they can challenge Shred's expert in court if they don't like who you pick. And...I saw the court filings...you have a lawyer...stop talking to randos on HN for advice. :)