Slashdot Mirror

OK, not the "central authority can veto apps" part.

But the "app package declares what system calls it needs to access; package manager reports it; sandbox enforces it" part.

You can achieve it in a limited way with things like chroot, but having it conveniently bundled is nice.

# apt-get install gnuTunes
INFO: gnuTunes requires:
  - read/write access to ~/.gnuTunes/ for the user
  - access to audio output
  - read access to the optical drive
  - read/write access to ~/Music/ for the user
  - read access to /usr/share/Music/
  - make HTTP requests to http://gracenote.com/ ... and so on.

The problem with crowdsourcing is that the crowd might not trust you, especially after being burned. Consider the "CDDB" database, which allows computers to identify the music CD that's currently sitting in the drive by building a hash of its contents and searching for that in an online database on the Internet. If it wasn't there, you could enter the data yourself, and then the next person to put the same disc in their computer would enjoy a track list that you composed. It was great, it worked, and it was a great example of crowdsourcing ... but why are there others now, such as FreeDB? Because the folks holding the database just up and decided one day to make it proprietary. They renamed it to GraceNote and declared that anyone who wants to make use of the CDDB now has to pay for a license.

Naturally, the free world moved on and started FreeDB in its place, but the message here is: if you're going to crowdsource, don't stab your crowd in the back after you get what you want from them.

"98+% accuracy and virtually no false positive identifications"

That sounds like a mixed up quote of statistics from an inept marketing guru. Does that mean they call 2% "virtually no false positives" or does the program return an answer "I don't know what that is" for 2% of the time, and the false-positive data has been conveniently omitted? I'm going to err towards a worst-case scenario for the sake of argument.

Gracenote contains 69,462,367 songs in their database, and from those songs alone we could expect to see up to 1,389,247 songs incorrectly labelled. Multiply that by the number of distributed copies worldwide...

Scherf nor his company did not "release" the database, it was already in the public domain because of Ti Kan

Again, what would you have them do? If it was already released to the public, should they just release it again for fun and larfs? In any case, why does it matter WHO released it, if it has been released?

It was not until Musicmatch defeated the Gracenote patent infringement lawsuit in August 2004

Hmm, that's funny. I just read the court documents at the Gracenote legal page, and they indicate (1) that Gracenote won the trial where Musicmatch was suing them (and that was the only trial there ever was), and (2) that the court's earlier pretrial rulings against Gracenote were overturned by the very judge that issued them in the first place. OVERTURNED. So can you please point to the document that shows where musicmatch defeated gracenote?

let them know how you feel by contacting them directly

Gracenote filed for patents on techniques that had already been published as open source

The patents were developed by a different company, before CDDB published them as open source. That company was also acquired by CDDB's parent before the patents issued. If they hadn't acquired the company that filed the patents, even CDDB would have been in violation. See one of the patents in question here. Note the filing date of 1997. Considering that the CDDB developers said they didn't have any money and patents require lots of that, and considering that it takes time to develop an idea before patenting it, it's a safe bet that CDDB had no hand in filing the patent and it predates anything that came out of CDDB when they were on their own. Also note the third author of the patent; his name appears in other patents owned by "CDDB Inc.", all filed around the same 1997 time frame. Now read this BIO - see, he's from different company that developed music technology from 1993 onward, way before CDDB.

There's your answer. You don't think the USPTO would issue a patent that had obvious prior art? They take joy in denying such. Any patent examiner who allowed a patent to issue when there was known prior art would be incompetent. The USPTO has its (major) faults, but errors so fundamental are rare indeed. Practically all patent examiners do is look for prior art so they can smack down patent applications. That is their purpose in life.

MacWorld reports that MySpace is going to start implementing audio fingerprinting to prevent copyrighted material from appearing on their site.

http://www.gracenote.com/music/corporate/press/art icle.html/date=2006103000

The 'article' is woefully low on information, apart from a mention of Gracenote MusicID being used. From Gracenote's own page (Its on mobile music recognition, but I assume the principle is the same):
How it Works
1. When music fans hear a song they want to identify, they tap a command on the phone keypad to start the audio recognition process, and then hold the phone up to the music source.
2. The phone captures a few seconds of the audio and extracts a waveform fingerprint of the snippet. The snippet can be from any section of the song, even the last few seconds.
3. The fingerprint is sent to the Mobile MusicID recognition service from the service provider that may be located anywhere in the world.
4. The Mobile MusicID recognition server compares the fingerprint to its database of reference fingerprints and responds with the exact match.
5. The artist, song title and related information, as well as content like album art and download links are relayed to the fan.

Jesus Just Left Chicago...

http://gracenote.com/music/search-adv.html?q=&qart ist=&qdisc=&qtrack=Jesus+Just+Left+Chicago&n=10&x= 0&y=0
http://www.freedb.org/freedb_search.php?words=Jesu s+Just+Left+Chicago&allfields=NO&fields=track&allc ats=YES&grouping=none

OK,

I've got two albums both called Back to Mine, one's by Nick Warren and the other Groove Armada

Nick Warren:
http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/progresshouse/2059 5f9a37a6e5766ed4b2f49375f62e.html

Groove Armada:
http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/genhouse/beff778ef 423118b92c304ae4ae5a352.html

As they're both mix albums and iTunes/iPod uses Track Artist as the artist field, under albums on my iPod I've got one Back To Mine listed with the tracks from both albums!!!

If it used Album Artist the two CD's could be seperated correctly (I know I can rename the albums in iTunes to sort this out but that's only a work around to Apple's error)

I'm also not the only person with this issue: http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@142.liLH alHZUO1.1@.68b1168f

The iPod's a great product bit it's got some really sucky issues!

Andy

OK,

I've got two albums both called Back to Mine, one's by Nick Warren and the other Groove Armada

Nick Warren:
http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/progresshouse/2059 5f9a37a6e5766ed4b2f49375f62e.html

Groove Armada:
http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/genhouse/beff778ef 423118b92c304ae4ae5a352.html

As they're both mix albums and iTunes/iPod uses Track Artist as the artist field, under albums on my iPod I've got one Back To Mine listed with the tracks from both albums!!!

If it used Album Artist the two CD's could be seperated correctly (I know I can rename the albums in iTunes to sort this out but that's only a work around to Apple's error)

I'm also not the only person with this issue: http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?50@142.liLH alHZUO1.1@.68b1168f

The iPod's a great product bit it's got some really sucky issues!

Andy

yes, it's automated. there are a couple of companies that develop fingerprinting algorithms for audio:

http://www.gracenote.com/gn_products/mobileMusic.h tml
http://www.shazamentertainment.com/technology.shtm l

So they could 'sting' you with a 'sting' wma or wmv like "sting Russians" and then you could be doing hard time in a federal prison that makes sibera look inviting?
Note: the song 'russians' is imbedded within the 'official sting.com flash page (macromedia flash player required)

Have you heard of the CDDB, a database of most of the music on the planet? You don't sound like you have.

Putting your tracks on an iPod (for example, most others are the same I think) via iTunes is pretty painless, when you insert the CD you can ask it to import it automatically (in MP3, AAC whatever). It'll connect to the internet (the Gracenote CDDB) and pull all the track names and many other tags down for you. Then next time you plug your iPod in you find the CD on there.

Do this for 2 months at a couple of CDs a day, and you'll have all your albums on there in no time. Once you've ripped them once this way (and store the properly tagged MP3 files) you won't have to do it ever again. It can't get much easier than that!

http://www.gracenote.com/xm/pcd/progressmetal/4cd6 3db9d31ab2a8dc7a562a92fdc186.html

And you know you've provoked a bit of attention as a president when even a weird progressive metal band writes a song about Bush's stance on stem-cell research:

Gracenote link - it's track 4

I'd say. They actually let you bring your penis mightier to work?

They won't let me do that here. Thankfully, it's detachable

No, it didn't. There are "hashing techniques" specially made for audio - "audio fingerprinting" so to speak, like Relatable's TRM and Gracenote's MusicID which do a great job of it. They identify the file correctly no matter what the source is - lossless audio CD, or even 128kbps MP3, you get the same fingerprint.

I've tried TRM personally through MusicBrainz, and ran it on around 1000 of my MP3s, some of them really horrible quality, and it managed to identify 99% of them (TRM fingerprint correlated with actual metadata is stored at MusicBrainz). I was surprised, but yes, it did work. And this technology is rather old too, I'm surprised not too many people know about this.

And the article specifically mentions this fact: ...The experts' claims center on technology for detecting copyrighted works through "fingerprinting" (sometimes also called "hashing") technology that identifies songs by analyzing the content itself. Such technology, which is provided by several firms including Audible Magic, GraceNote, and MediaGuide...

No, it didn't. There are "hashing techniques" specially made for audio - "audio fingerprinting" so to speak, like Relatable's TRM and Gracenote's MusicID which do a great job of it. They identify the file correctly no matter what the source is - lossless audio CD, or even 128kbps MP3, you get the same fingerprint.

I've tried TRM personally through MusicBrainz, and ran it on around 1000 of my MP3s, some of them really horrible quality, and it managed to identify 99% of them (TRM fingerprint correlated with actual metadata is stored at MusicBrainz). I was surprised, but yes, it did work. And this technology is rather old too, I'm surprised not too many people know about this.

And the article specifically mentions this fact: ...The experts' claims center on technology for detecting copyrighted works through "fingerprinting" (sometimes also called "hashing") technology that identifies songs by analyzing the content itself. Such technology, which is provided by several firms including Audible Magic, GraceNote, and MediaGuide...

A previous article about how maptech obtains their map data prompted a reader to propose an opensource type map data clearing house with the data being submitted by volunteers. I am working on trying to create just such a thing and I am looking for some kind of protection for the data to keep what happened to CDDB by Gracenote from happening to it.

Now it sounds like if something is a fact, such as the location of something by lat/long, the titles of tracks on an album by some artist, or the square root of 144, it is in the public domain by default, assuming this bill doesn't go through. Am I interpretting this correctly?

The Monks said it all (about Notes): Nice Legs, Shame About Her Face.

...or even the Manic Street Preachers: If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next.

The Monks said it all (about Notes): Nice Legs, Shame About Her Face.

...or even the Manic Street Preachers: If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next.

I'm glad Microsoft took the initiative to actually listen to some of the ideas that are being thrown around. But I still can't understand why there's not going to be CDDB/Gracenote ability via XBox Live.

They offer you the ability to rip tracks for use in some games, but refuse to create a keyboard for the system. Wouldn't the next logical thing to do is use their Live service to pull down CD info from the internet? Maybe they're just trying to get another 40 bucks out of my pocket.

Mike

Before you start pretending that you're so fucking clever, let me ask you: Did you ever contribute an entry to Gracenote (ne CDDB)?

• 
  
• This Agreement grants developers a royalty-free license to allow a maximum of 250,000 End-Users to register with Gracenote and thereby "turn-on" the Gracenote features of their Gracenote-Enabled copies.
  
• If you want to license more than 250,000 Gracenote-Enabled copies of your Licensed Applications, or if your Licensed Applications are commercial in any way (see below) you must enter into a Commercial Application License with Gracenote, and you should contact licensing@gracenote.com.
  

Gracenote now has a freeware MP3 encoding license with SDK containing the encoder software for people developing rippers. See here. If your app is freeware, you don't pay for it, and you don't incur the possible legal liabilities of using an unlicensed MP3 encoder.

They already have songs for the deaf, and it's apparently a big seller .....

Yahoo! is reporting that Gracenote (previously CDDB, an open source project) is planning to sell aggregate usage data to advertisers and such like. Makes me glad I use a freedb-based CD player (CD Max, for the curious).

Data Aggregation. Gracenote CDDB collects aggregate statistics on which music and artists are most commonly identified by users with the Gracenote CDDB Service. ("Aggregate statistics" means "group statistics" such as the Gracenote Digital Top Ten, not individual statistics about your personal use of the service.) Besides posting these statistics for you and other fans to enjoy, Gracenote CDDB may publish or share this aggregate information with other companies. This aggregate data, by its nature, will not reveal the identity of our users. We also use aggregate data to help us improve our servers and other components of the Gracenote CDDB Service.

How long before someone writes a hack to fool roxio's software into using the free alternative.

Gracenote is phasing out the CDDB1 protocol in favor of CDDB2. Part of the agreement may be that future versions of Roxio software not connect to CDDB1 servers.

The only problem with this statement (can't patent prior art) as it applies here is that Steve Scherf is an author of the original CDDB software and a founder of Gracenote. So I don't think it's really "prior art" in the sense that it's work that someone else did, but it's *his* prior art, so it should be OK for his company to consider it "their" IP. Although there were *two* original authors, according to Gracenote...

Original Gracenote open letter link (not a mirror)

So maybe it shouldn't be OK? Roxio claims that Gracenote's patents are invalid (probably not), that their trademark and copyright attempts are bogus (probably yes) and that they are antitrusting public information (iffy). But what's really interesting is that xmcd, the original app to implement this stuff (as far as I can find), is GPL'ed. Now GPL'ed software should be patentable (bizarrely enough) as much as any other software, but can Gracenote hold a patent to the technology, given the status of xmcd (*not* a Gracenote app!)?

• Although the raw data is user submitted, the storage, retrieval, categorization, and organization of the database, the access interface, and the matching and filtering methods are absolutely proprietary, and we will do what is necessary to defend this intellectual property.

I don't think the lawsuit is about the CONCEPT of storing a large CD-info database, rather about the technology used to access that info and/or the algorithm for identifying CDs.
Gracenote's press release lists the following objections:
1) Patent infringement "by illegally inducing the use of Gracenote's industry acclaimed patented music recognition inventions"
2) "violations of Federal law", that is, "violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by offering products that circumvent Gracenote's technological measures to obtain access to an unauthorized derivative of the CDDB copyrighted database."

They also list, but don't expand on:
3) "breach of contract"
4) "trademark infringement"

So while your point is certainly an interesting one, it doesn't seem analogous to Gracenote's claim. Gracenote is apparently trying to indirectly target freedb by attacking defectors.

Each point has a fault or two that comes to mind, but of course "I'm an engineer, not a.." lawyer. From what I gathered from freedb.org they use the same protocol. I guess Gracenote believes that is their technology alone. If this is true, it seems they should target freedb, not Roxio. "Breach of contract" seems moot, since their contract had expired; however reading one of the comments above it sounds like they probably own your for life once you sign. (not allowed to switch to a competitor's service? ouch.. would be interesing to read that license agreement).

anyway...

And, yes, Gracenote does not have a chance to win this lawsuit. What they are hoping for is that the people at Roxio will back down instead of taking this to court.

- Sam

Ok, let me just get this straight. In the version of its software released since the licensing agreement expired [April 22], Roxio directs users to an alternative music recognition database operated by an open-source group called Freedb.org, which Gracenote says illegally uses its database technology. So ... Gracenote is sueing Roxio for changing THEIR software, that THEY wrote, to use a different service provider, on the grounds that it was based on their 'Technology' (ie. Spec) which is openly available to anyone that wants it. Well we really shouldn't be supprised should we? Only thing i'm really scared about is that if this actually works, we might all end up using MSN because our nice windows o/s was written by microsoft and it would be illegal to use THEIR technology to use a ISP that they don't endorse. Ok so where do we go bitch? hm ... no forum on CDDB, how odd! Oh here we are, a nice little email address One last thought ... don't the music labels technically own the copyright to the song titles as well as the songs themselves? So should the RIAA be sueing Gracenote for maintaining and dissiminating a collection of copyrighted information to a user base? nuff said

Gracenote contacts.

But do it nicely. Try not to sound like a raving lunatic.

Talking points:

Much of the data, and the interface, were at one point publicly available, so they can claim no proprietary rights.

You would be willing to support them if they offered better service than competitors, but these attacks on competitors make you have serious doubts about continuing to use their services.

Etc...

"Ive submitted info to CDDB before, so they can make money off of my time now? I say no."

"As did I. I must have submitted information for close to 100 CD. I did not get paid. I thought I was donating my time to a free effort."

You gotta read the fucking licenses. The license is everything, that's how you know what you're donating your effort to. You think just because they give you shit without paying for it it's a "free effort"? I think you know that's not what "free" is all about...

Go read at http://www.gracenote.com/terms.html:

"Proprietary Rights Information

"The contents of this Site are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and around the world, including international treaties. No use of the CDDB Content, database or other content on this Site is allowed except as expressly stated herein. All rights not expressly granted are reserved. Copyright © 1996-1999 CDDB Inc"

That's not exactly the goddamn GPL.

I'm looking around for a place on their site where they tell me what rights I have to the information that I donated to them. I don't find anything. I find obscure licensing terms which they force their applications to adhere to, like (just one example):

"End users must register with CDDB2 the first time they access the service with your application."

Here's a rule of thumb: if something is free like in speech, you will learn this within 60 seconds of visiting their website for the first time. Free projects are proud of being free. If you find yourself clicking around page after page, hoping to find some magic words about distribution rights and can't find any, that's how you know it's proprietary.

Jamie McCarthy

Since the CDDB database is searchable via their webpage why doesn't everybody just copy 'n' paste as many entries possible and submit them to FreeDB. Since all the entries were user-submitted is copyright an issue here?

There are thousands (millions?) of people reading this article and comment, think how many submissions could be added to FreeDB tonight alone.


"I am a man, and men are
animals who tell stories."

It's possible for the developer of a free client to get a license to use the commercial server. You just have to agree to this itty bitty license. All 14 paragraphs and four schedules of it. If anybody can figure out how to write a Linux client that adheres to this monster of a license is truely a master of both code and law.

Use this to find Unix/Linux apps that ARE okay with CDDB

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!

http://www.gracenote.com/players.html/OS=oth/type= plcd/player=Jukebox

They call it Unix/Linux, but really it's just 'other'

Claim your namespace.

Thanks to the (CDDB is now) Gracenote FAQ for this info.
--
Long time reader, fourth time poster.

They've changed their name to Gracenote. This is mainly just a way to relaunch their brand since they now work on more than CD's - hence the old name is too restrictive...