Slashdot Mirror

I'd love to be able to search IMDB of Gracenote from google toolbar

So what rights do I have with this data? I was kinda burned when FireFly sold all my record reviews (along with those by hundreds of other users). CDDB being sold to (and locked up by) Escient is a better example of this phenomenon. (For those who arrived late, freedb is an open source fork of CDDB, which is now called GraceNote).

No more submissions from me until someone tells me what happens to my work. I don't mind someone like Jon Katz quoting my /. posts, but I'm not willing to have my work turned into proprietary data.

Good project tho; I'm surprised it took this long to happen.

You have to enter a lot of the song information by hand...

That's funny, most of the stuff I download, doesn't have *any* ID3 info.

Most rippers connect with CDDB or FreeDB anyway, so at least you can get the titles and album info automagically.

I know that OpenOffice has had problems running with glibc 2.3.1 (see this bug) so I find it interesting that it will be included. I haven't been able to get it to work, but RedHat must have worked around it somehow.

Check out Musicbrainz for an official description, but it's basically a music metadatabase like freedb or cddb.

large archive, and if there's something i want and they don't have, they try to get it

i get to choose the quality: 64kpbs mono for a quick preview to cd-quality, with some bitrates in between

nice and/or usable (+quick) interface with working search function (ever tried searching for A on cddb or freedb?)

since they'll generate a user profile based on my downloads anyway, they could suggest other artists (like amazon)

pricing could (loosely) depend on traffic, so previews would be cheap or free and high-quality would still cost less than the cd

lyrics, links, booklets, etc.

i'm sure you can think of more...

In the sense of Gracenote/CDDB...

From "Why freedb?": "One programmer told me, that his cd-player will be banned if he is refusing to display the CDDB-logo. His software is a console-based program [...] for blind people..."

Unless you've been living in a cave for the past two years you'd know that CDDB has been hijacked by Gracenote who've turned what was a nice, cooperative development, steadily built up by thousands of unpaid users into a private, commercial venture.

Nowadays, if you're developing commercial software that accesses the CDDB database you have to pony up licensing fees or look elsewhere.

That elsewhere is freedb. Check it out and use it instead of using CDDB.

Or have some kind of click through--

"This unique list of files is copywritten by its owner and may only be used for the purpose of selecting files for download."

I mean, if Gracenote (formerly the CDDB) can copyright their database of CD tracks and extra information, why can't you copyright yours?

The RIAA would have to claim "fair use" to excerpt from it ;)

Or have some kind of click through--

"This unique list of files is copywritten by its owner and may only be used for the purpose of selecting files for download."

I mean, if Gracenote (formerly the CDDB) can copyright their database of CD tracks and extra information, why can't you copyright yours?

The RIAA would have to claim "fair use" to excerpt from it ;)

...their 1998 album "Follow The Leader" featured 12 tracks of silence before the music began.

Observe.

Obviously this is going to be thrown right out. Interesting though is the "composer" of this particular "silence" credited Cage's 4'33" (see this post). Coudl that alone do it? IANAL...

One might want to consider that CRC is not the only ethically questionable player in all this. To me it rings slightly hollow to read text like

The parent company of CRC, Information Holdings Inc., appears unashamed to treat information as a commodity to be exploited for short-term, bottom-line cash with no concern for long-term, strategic planning.

without recalling that the maintainer of the website intended to make money from generous input of so many visitors to his website. I'm reminded of the schism that created FreeDB from CDDB (now Gracenote) because Gracenote did something similar with CD index contributions.

Perhaps people should consider not contributing anything without getting something out of it that would be as valuable to you as moneydownloading content in bulk, perhaps? I don't know what that would be for everybody. Please spare me the mediocre wiseacre response of "You obviously didn't consider that before you contributed.".

OST 1 has the full-length theme song along with some of the more upbeat jazzier tracks and notable background music from the series. I'd buy this first for the variety within. If you are more into electronica, then I'd suggest getting Music for Freelance. It has remixes by DJ Vadim, Luke Vibert (aka Wagon Christ), Mr. Scruff, and Fila Brazilia. The other CD I have is Blue. Buy it for the beautiful ending song and to round out the rest of the music from the series. I have not heard No Disc, so I can't say what's on there, but it appears there are quite a few tracks to listen to.

Cowboy Bebop has some awesome music. Even if I wasn't a huge fan of the series, I'd still buy the CDs.

Paul Simon is correct. See here.

As for the term's genericity: I'm not sure. I think Adobe's case is good, merely that the legal action taken was too extreme for the situation. I don't think the Linux market is the actual target market; rather I would think of the target market as being microcomputer drawing programs.

I agree about the lameness of the lawyers though. :)

Their concern is probably based on Section 6 of their license, which reads (in part):

6.Negative Covenants and Restrictions ... d.Your Licensed Application shall not have or enable a function that permits transmission of TOC or the combination of TOC together with Data to anyone other than Gracenote.

which seems to tie closely to Section 3.b

b.You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet.

Section 11.d says,

"Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days notice for any reason."

But this is where it gets interesting. They have Section 13, which reads in whole

"13.Survival of Provisions. These sections shall survive termination of this Agreement: 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and Schedule A."

So, once you cancel this contract you're still bound by it? I can understand their restricting exclusive use to their server of their approved apps, but I don't understand how any of these provisions apply to someone who terminated their license.

John
IANALBIPOOSD (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Slash Dot)

Their concern is probably based on Section 6 of their license, which reads (in part):

6.Negative Covenants and Restrictions ... d.Your Licensed Application shall not have or enable a function that permits transmission of TOC or the combination of TOC together with Data to anyone other than Gracenote.

which seems to tie closely to Section 3.b

b.You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet.

Section 11.d says,

"Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days notice for any reason."

But this is where it gets interesting. They have Section 13, which reads in whole

"13.Survival of Provisions. These sections shall survive termination of this Agreement: 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and Schedule A."

So, once you cancel this contract you're still bound by it? I can understand their restricting exclusive use to their server of their approved apps, but I don't understand how any of these provisions apply to someone who terminated their license.

John
IANALBIPOOSD (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Slash Dot)

Their concern is probably based on Section 6 of their license, which reads (in part):

6.Negative Covenants and Restrictions ... d.Your Licensed Application shall not have or enable a function that permits transmission of TOC or the combination of TOC together with Data to anyone other than Gracenote.

which seems to tie closely to Section 3.b

b.You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet.

Section 11.d says,

"Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days notice for any reason."

But this is where it gets interesting. They have Section 13, which reads in whole

"13.Survival of Provisions. These sections shall survive termination of this Agreement: 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and Schedule A."

So, once you cancel this contract you're still bound by it? I can understand their restricting exclusive use to their server of their approved apps, but I don't understand how any of these provisions apply to someone who terminated their license.

John
IANALBIPOOSD (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Slash Dot)

Their concern is probably based on Section 6 of their license, which reads (in part):

6.Negative Covenants and Restrictions ... d.Your Licensed Application shall not have or enable a function that permits transmission of TOC or the combination of TOC together with Data to anyone other than Gracenote.

which seems to tie closely to Section 3.b

b.You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet.

Section 11.d says,

"Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days notice for any reason."

But this is where it gets interesting. They have Section 13, which reads in whole

"13.Survival of Provisions. These sections shall survive termination of this Agreement: 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and Schedule A."

So, once you cancel this contract you're still bound by it? I can understand their restricting exclusive use to their server of their approved apps, but I don't understand how any of these provisions apply to someone who terminated their license.

John
IANALBIPOOSD (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Slash Dot)

As of yesterday, Gracenote has posted a *free* (FREE, NO COST) license to freeware developers.

There's a difference between freeware and free software. The terms of the non-commercial license conflict with those of a certain popular free software license.

Check this out:

The Licensed Application will only be distributed for non-commercial use on General Purpose Personal Computers. "General Purpose Personal Computers" or "PCs" are general purpose personal computers consisting of a desktop or laptop model, a display monitor, keyboard and mouse. PCs do not include any attachments or peripherals except an external CD drive, DVD drive, hard drive, printer, scanner and/or analog Audio Equipment such as speakers. An external device that reads TOC and also displays text or graphics is NOT a PC.

The real GPL compatibility killer: "You agree not to modify or disable any Gracenote CDDB Client functions or to otherwise interfere with the operation of the Gracenote CDDB Client." Also, "The Client ID must be embedded in binary form in your Licensed Application, and must not be easily extractable by End-Users or other developers."

Or this:

You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet. ... Your Licensed Application shall not have or enable a function that permits transmission of TOC or the combination of TOC together with Data to anyone other than Gracenote.

Of course, there are a couple patents on using a TOC hash as a database key that keep you from just using FreeDB instead.

According to http://www.cddb.com/dev/lic/sched_c.html, hashing a CD's TOC is patented, which means that Gracenote can send lawyers to take down FreeDB at any time. Go to delphion.com and look up U.S. Patents 5987525, 6061680, and 6154773.

Considering Grip uses FreeDB by default

FreeDB infringes U.S. Patents #5,987,525; #6,061,680; #6,154,773, and other patents issued or pending, and foreign counterparts. See also non-commercial license terms schedule C.

tut tut tut, if only it were true. From this link.

Revenue includes such income as sales, licensing, or shareware fees; upgrade or support fees; or revenue from advertising, links, or e-commerce on a web page or site that provides a link from which the application can be downloaded.

So since you download greip from a site with a banner ad that presumeably they recieve revenue from Grip would be considered a commercial user based on CDDB's definition.

Ah well, there's FreeDB. :-)

I'd like to make a few points here. According to the CDDB lic Grip should have free access to the DB with out cost to anyone.

This is the Non-Commercial License and Database Access Agreement. Please read this Agreement carefully. It permits non-commercial use of the Gracenote CDDB® SDK with certain types of computer software applications listed on Schedule B, referred to as a Licensed Application.

Now if you are a commerical user CDDB will charge you if you make money off your app basiclly CDDB wants a cut. Honestly I cant blame them I run some servers myself and I imagine keeping a large datbase running with all those users AIN'T cheap.

Now about CDDB2. The orignal database was the one that the users created. CDDB2 being the new version is supposed to have added support for not just song names and artists but lyrics and a bunch of extras that are explained here.

As for whats happening to GRIP its a bum deal. Being an open source project the creator is obvisouly making no money off his project. Which in reality may mean that CDDB broke thier contract and that they may be open to a court case (IANAL).

From the looks of it Grip was probaly removed becasue of the type of software it is however last time I checked it is still not wrong to rip a CD and make MP3s but who knows what tommorw will bring.

For a detialed version of the FREE agreement click here.

Don't kill me for spelling im lazy!

Now there are royalties paid to songwriters (ala BMI) for radio play that Napster users don't pay, but it's easy to see how Napster increases physical CD sales, along the same lines as radio play. If a good portion of Napster users starting sharing entire albums (as was common using ftp and usenet), it might actually cut into CD sales.

If the Napster client had a feature to insert your CD and press "share whole cd", and it'd rip the entire disc (w/out skips), use CDDB to names the files and include ID3 tags, and encode with good settings using LAME.... well, it'd make for a very different network than the current Napster. Maybe when/if gnutella or some other truely p2p network takes off, this'd be a cool weekend hack on a free/open source client program.

Are there any places out there that let you search for CDs via the bar-code number the same way that Amazon lets you use the ISBN?

I'd like to see someone take that hack that directs CueCat scans to an Amazon page another step further...

I'd like to be able to scan the bar-code on the back of a CD and have a CDDB (or MusicBrainz, etc.) record be returned.

Obviously, you first would have to find a place to search the bar-code against and then filter those results and plug them into a CDDB query...

Well, I can dream anyway...


"Do no unnatural thing today." - Captain Flak

Unless Media Jukebox is CDDB2-enabled, it would be a simple matter to fool the server -- just substitute a different user-agent. No problem. The only way CDDB can know that the client is lying is to 1) reverse engineer (ie. use an http spy) the software in question, or 2) force everyone to use CDDB2. Eventually, the original CDDB is supposed to be turned off in favor of CDDB2.

My ripper (win32 only...), can be configured to use any CDDB out there, but I'm hesitant to disable the "official" *.cddb.com servers, since it should be the user's decision what to use.

---

Although I did check out their faq that they claim that they recieve about 200 new entries / corrections to their database from "dedicated users". Since so much of their IP is from 3rd parties, maybe a class action lawsuit should occure from the unpayed workers asking for a piece of the pie...

They did? Do you know what album it was on?

They did a great cover of I Can't Forget on I'm Your Fan (tribute album).

Also, Don Henley did a pretty decent cover of Everybody Knows on Tower of Song (another tribute album).

Still, my favourite is Tori Amos covering Famous Blue Raincoat.

Anyway, do you know where I might find that Pixies cover of EK?

--

They did? Do you know what album it was on?

They did a great cover of I Can't Forget on I'm Your Fan (tribute album).

Also, Don Henley did a pretty decent cover of Everybody Knows on Tower of Song (another tribute album).

Still, my favourite is Tori Amos covering Famous Blue Raincoat.

Anyway, do you know where I might find that Pixies cover of EK?

--

No linux software that supports it yet though, and to get the Developers Kit or use the database you have to sign a nauseatingly restrictive 16-page PDF agreement and fax it back to them, and even then you can only let a maximum of 100 people use the application until the CDDB people has tested your application and found it worthy.

FreeDB^2, anyone?
--

Here it is... there's a nice little search box on the site's main page.

Surprising the RIAA hasn't gone after the CD Database yet. I mean, my god; all those albums and songs and artists in one giant list, cut & paste-able without any restrictions or "click here to accept the license agreement" messages?? It's anarchy! Must be costing the recording industry many negative billions of dollars a year...

From the Ask Slashdot:
I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?

Your post:
Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.

Okay, I don't want to sound like an asshole but "What does your post have to do with the question?". The original poster is worried about how possible it would be for AOL, which has a liberal open content license with respect to dmoz currently, to decide to start exerting ownership rights and using proprietary practices with the dmoz project?

This is a very valid question and here's my answer. It is very possible for AOL to change the licensing agreements and become a ball buster with the dmoz project. Look no further than CDDB which changed it's license after being bought out by corporate interests and becoming a big enough entity. Of course, the solution to this is for there to be several such open services so that even if 1 of them becomes corrupted by greed the others will flourish and take it's place (like CD Index or FreeCDDB are replacements for CDDB).

The original poster also asks about Open Content Licenses and since I just read 30 posts and none of them mentioned this I'll also try to answer this question.

As to whether Open Content Licenses are practical, I say Yes, after all the dmoz project's license has proved this.

Then there's Cheeba Cheeba by Tone Loc. While searching for a URL for that, I found the home page of the Cheeba Brigade -- kind of like a cross between the McKenzie brothers and Cheech and Chong...

And I don't see any privacy policy. How do you know they're not tracking the IP addresses of every query, building up a tasty wee database of their own?

Real's mistake was to include the GUID with every CD request. And the patch removes this. But their main task of building up a database of who's listening to what can carry on unabated.

rOD.
--

CDDB has been doing this quite openly - their web page has top ten list (top 100 also) based on what people are playing and accessing CDDB's servers for.

I don't see the harm in this type of "aggregated" information. Where it does become intrusive is where individuals/organizations are identified, such as in amazon.com's short lived "aggregated" data that identified corporate book sales.

http://www.cddb.com/ftp/cddb-docs/ cddb_howto.txt

How many CDDB users know that their e-mail addresses are sent to Escient whenever they look up CDs? It's in the protocol specs. Knowing what CDs you listen to is something that marketers would pay good money for. Now that CDDB has gone commercial, will the temptation to sell your e-mail address be too much to overcome?