Slashdot Mirror
CDDB Shutting Down Media Jukebox
shaun writes: "According to this thread on the Media Jukebox Talkback site, CDDB is refusing connections from Media Jukebox until the Media Jukebox guys sign an "exclusive agreement" to use CDDB's database.
Taking a shared public resource private has destroyed their karma, but what can be done?" Are grip and xmcd next? How do you enforce exclusivity for an open source program? Everyone should use FreeDB instead anyway: It's everything that was once good about cddb, including that little free part that made cddb itself the defacto standard before it got too big for its britches.
What we need is a local proxy for CD requests that users can install (and use with all the same software the cddb does). This proxy could then randomise the agent string (if required) and firstly search FreeDB and then CDDB if FreeDB aint got it.
In the instance that FreeDB doesn't have the album in question then the proxy will automatically fill it in using the cddb info. Nothing wrong with that since they cant copyright the data - only protect the service.
Also... Microsoft's ows CDPLAYER.EXE uses the same algorithm to store CD/Track info in CDPLAYER.INI. CDDB (Escient) didn't invent that algorithm.
---
I suspect you got a nice "gift" of junk mail...
-----
Well, it's not quite that simple. They (Escient, Inc.) didn't start it. It was started by a couple of guys working indpendently. Along came Escient, from the highly elite and well capitalized enclave of Carmel, Indiana, and bought these guys out. To quote Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes fame, "I don't know which is worse: that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low. "
When the data was added by the users, it was added under the guise that the service was and would remain free (of cost, of encumbrances like ads in one's CD software).
I say let the market decide. The market is what will favor free software in the end anyway. I use FreeDB. Why shouldn't we all? It provides the exact same service and has fewer costs. I don't end up having to pay in one way or another for Escient's giant multi-story office complex that I pass on highway 65 now and then. Now, if they want to give me a little office in the corner somewhere with a fat pipe, a reasonable salary and I can read Slashdot all day, the market may sway me somewhat differently...
Hi, please, don't use the web-based search. It's a "proof of concept". Nothing more.
I think the element of this that really sticks in people's craw is the fact a good portion of the labor that went into cddb was volunteer with the idea that contributing that labor guaranteed free access to all the information. The correct way for cddb to handle this would have been to have clearly stated their business model, giving those who contributed the option to contribute knowing that they would eventually be paying for their own labor or to contribute to a different project.
I also believe there are other ways for cddb to make money off of that information (which I don't mind them doing, I just mind them earning money off of the free labor from the very people who performed that labor).
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Thanks for the plug, chow!
We have been trying to enter a contract with CDDB for quite some time now, but disagree with some of the language in the contract. A deadline came and went Friday and, unfortunately, our CEO and the folks from Gracenote were unable to reach each other to discuss a continuance and the service was shutdown. We hope to have the issue resolved soon.
Rick Fritz
Software Developer
J River, Inc.
All annoyanced with CDDB aside, I question the ethics of taking information submitted by people around the globe and making it closed/proprietary.
Did Network Solutions buy them when I wasn't looking? This sounds like something they would do...
I disagree. This kind of service CAN be sustained without any kind of commercial venture. After all, providing CD and track titles is a lot less bandwidth intensive than providing the whole music track, but Napster and Gnutella manage to do that pretty well.
In fact, a distributed database / index should be built into Freenet, Gnutella, Napster, and other similar services. It's an obvious thing, so I think eventually it will be.
That way, you don't put the whole load on one person's home DSL, you spread it out over thousands of people with DSL.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
is that the source code and the database contents are available for FTP. This means I can setup a server on my local net to avoid slow disc IDs at work (due to overloaded links) and to avoid having to go online at home. (of course i guess this is only a problem for us poor schmucks who still only have dialup access ... :)
dv
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
I like CDDB as much as the next geek, but I think it's a little too limited, for example when it comes to samplers. Are there any other, free alternatives to CDDB that offer more flexibility, like a different artist for each track ? Maybe even something using XML, so it's buzzword-compliant *g*
I now have something to respond with whenever someone says "People are starving in Africa, and you're worried about software?" or something of the sort.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
I guess anytime anyone does anything that could involve IP in any way whatsoever, Slashdot readers have been conditioned to start crying, shouting "this is evil!" and threaten to start 5 sourceforge projects copying whatever product they are currently angry at, so don't feel bad, it's not your fault for getting this wrong.
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
Just to clarify, CDDB doesn't claim to own the song titles (the record companies do?), they claim to own the encoding that turns the length of all the tracks on a disc (the "uniqueness") into a code number to be looked up in the database. You are free to take the song titles from their database. What they'll try to stop is any use of that algorithm.
I just thought I'd clarify because it makes a difference to how to circumvent their theft of everyone's hard work. The distributed.net idea would not suffer from this problem, BTW, not to mention it would be fun. SETI@CDDB! :) I'm sure d.net would never go for it, though, they'd rather bore us all to tears with a yet longer attempt to crack some obscure n-bit variant of a public key system. (d.net: we know that things can be cracked by brute [yawn] force. do something more interesting!]
An "open source" (for want of a better word) replacement would need to have a verification step. Any data submitted, before being added, should be checked by someone. Maybe have a crew of volunteers (hell, I'd volunteer) who spend a few minutes a day verifiying entries. Maybe have the volunteers list their musical preferences so they would get music they know. With enough volunteers there would be a good chance that 95% of CD's would be already known. Failing that, a simple verification system to check spelling before admission would be good. (Okay, so some songs are spelt wrong deliberately...)
I hope someone with the resources decides to run with this "open source" idea.
It's too bad that a boycott wouldn't do anything. The only people with a clue as to what these corporate types are doing make up a real small percentage of the user base. *sigh*
Mark my words. Google will be next.
---
From the FreeDB site: Looks safe to me.
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.
---
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
How to setup Winamp to use FreeDB instead of CDDB:
.ini file.
(I did this on Windows NT)
1. Browse to your Winamp directory
2. Open winamp.ini with your favorite editor
3. Go down to the section that says [CDDA/Line Input Driver]
Change the following values to this:
rt=888
use_cddb=1
rver=freedb.freedb.org
Unfortunately, these values will get overwritten anytime you use Winamp to change the CDDB server. In this case, just go back and edit the
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
So you'd see it as okay if someone borrows you lawnmower and starts renting it out to people
1. I paid for the lawnmower. It's mine. You did not pay for the listing of CD track names. It is not yours.
2. You lend your lawnmower to someone with the specific intention that you will get it back. Please look up the word "borrow" in your dictionary if this point confuses you. CDDB never said to you, "please let us BORROW your list of track names."
GNU take software you've contributed to thinking it was Free, and start selling it
If I contribute software to GNU, it would be distributed under the GNU license. They are, as allowed by the license, permitted to charge for software that includes my code, as specified by the GPL (as long as source is provided).
Your analogies are very poor.
Without the users CDDB would be nothing
EXACTLY! Without other users, you would not be able to pop in most any CD and instantly get all track names on your PC. And how is this made possible? By the hardware, network, and programming services of the people at CDDB. Work done by them that you apparantly feel is worthless.
and by attacking open-source development, CDDB are attacking their users.
Uhhh... again, flawed thinking. First of all, they aren't attacking open source development. Their stipulation is that you use only CDDB in your software, or not at all. Likewise, you display a small CDDB logo while downloading the information for the user. Both of these can be performed in open-source software.
That is payment for services rendered, as far as I am concerned.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
They could just shut off their servers and go home.
Bandwidth costs money. The number of applications which support the CDDB concept has increased tremendously since it's initiation. Consider for instance Microsoft's media player which ships with Win98/Win2000 now includes CDDB access.
We're talking millions of users out there. Do you seriously think someone's home DSL can handle this?
There is no way that the service could ever be sustained without some sort of commercial venture.
Although it's certainly a service which the RIAA could take up as a free value-add to the music community. Not sure why they don't do it on their own since they already have access to this information without having to deal with people hand entering it and getting it wrong.
Is anyone working to get :CueCat coding cross-referencing with FreeDB? I want a MyCDCollection.com account so that I can scan in my UPCs and get the song listings and other info that's currently in CDDB/FreeDB (savable and searchable).
(Slashdot story combining...Off-topic or insightful?)
-----
Perhaps the CDIndex (soon to be musicbrainz.org) people can answer this: would it be possible to merge the efforts of FreeDB and Musicbrainz? It seems very wasteful to duplicate the effort for a free CDDB replacement, not just for the project developers but for the end users typing in track info for both. I'm specifically wondering whether
The second question strikes me as particularly important - CDIndex is moving to a completely track-based design that should be media independent and make up for the limitations of the CDDB formula. The problem with this is that temporary backward compatibility with the CDDB would be a real asset in allowing people to use CDDB-enabled clients of various kinds and simply point them at a different server. It also better allows for the quiet updating people have been doing with clients like grip, where the CDDB info is re-uploaded from the client machine to FreeDB, slowly mirroring the database. To my knowledge, CDIndex has never been compatible with the CDDB format (even before switching to the track-based musicbrainz format).
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Too bad that violates the CDDB license agreement, which says that if your program accesses CDDB then it cannot access any other databases.
I have come to the conclusion, that the worst thing that can happen to CDDB is that the database is littered with erroneous entries.
If we all decided to fill in data that wasn't correct, the base would render to be totally useless.
Just an idea.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
I don't recall agreeing to or signing any license agreement when I installed Linux, fired up the KDE CD player, and added freedb.org to the setup info. I don't see how a license which the user never sees can be enforced; if CDDB doesn't want to send me CD track info, they have the power to have their server bounce me. As long as they make the info available publicly, the public will make use of it, license be damned.
This copying from CDDB to FreeDB sounds cool - I would do that but apparently all of my CD's are already in FreeDB. I haven't had a failed lookup in months.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Secondly, you're right, they took over cddb after a useful amount of seed work had been done for free. Quite ingenious, and quite evil of them. And like most evil things, it's been quite profitable for them too.
The reason for the exclusvity clause in their contract is so it's hard to compete. I think the open source community should take the time to use freedb, or help on cdindex, so escient doesn't end up being the only purveyor of this information in the world, in which case I think we can all be sure that it won't be free anymore.
----------------------------
On the FreeDB site they say that the CDDB server was GPL'ed originally. Is this the case? Is that source code still available or have they attempted to change the license?
Other than that, it is my firm belief that a company will reap what it sows and once enough people get sick of them then things like FreeDB will take off.
Too bad that violates the CDDB license agreement, which says that if your program accesses CDDB then it cannot access any other databases.
Unless CDDB becomes owned by a big organisation there is little they can do about it.
And second of all, even if they did actually say this, they *HAVE NOT* charged any users for CDDB access. It is still free to use.
Free speach rather than free beer. The problem is that the people involved have not obtained explicit permission from the contributers that they be able to apply these specific distribution restrictions.
Don't bet on it. I seem to remember a ruling a while ago where a database can be copyrighted even if the information it contains is in the public domain.
The gist of the ruling was that the creation of the database in and of itself resulta in a copyrightable work, thus making it a breach of copyright to copy the database without the owner's permission.
its what I've been doing for yrs now.
I point, primarily, at freedb. if that doesn't resolve, I point at cddb. if there's a match there a dialog pops up and says "should I submit entry to freedb?". I always say 'yes' unless the data is so wrong its just not worth it.
the neat part of opensource is that I can change the 'id string' to say whatever I want. there is NO way to block my queries.
they collect the work of The People yet try to band some for ridiculous reasons. I don't agree with this logic so I ignore their 'rules'. and I suggest others do too.
(if I was going to write or publish my cddb lookup app, I would never hardcode in the db servernames. I'd hint/suggest to the user that they can set whatever env vars they want and that will be the search order. the app, then, would not be making policy and can't be sued or harassed; only the end user could. that would be my solution to this whole madness)
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
---
--
CDDB is a perfect example of the disingenuous (but all too common) practice of taking work done (typing in track names) by many in a cooperative effort
You act as if CDDB ripped you off. Look at the flipside -- did you ever offer to pay CDDB for the service they provided? Why not? It's useful isn't it? It costs them money to run that service. Why should you get it for free?
the work was given with the understanding that it would continue to be available free without condition
Work? Well, I suppose typing in 10-15 track names by way less than 1% of the people that use CDDB constitutes work. Anyway, why did the people doing this "work" think CDDB would continue to be free without condition? Was there a clause that I am not aware of that said it would be so?
Again, why should it be? They provide a useful service.
BTW, where's the RIAA? Surprised their panties aren't in a knot about lists of album names, titles, and track times being available for download. Or has Gracenote paid them off?
Another stupid comment. Ever heard of "fair use." A list of track names is not a copyright infringement if the work being sold is the MUSIC described by the track names, and not the track names themselves.
Why am I not surprised by the attitude on slashdot? The linux-mentality is that any service should be free, just because there are some people in the world that COULD or WOULD set it up for free.
Try arguing on the merits here and face facts. You want CDDB to continue to provide and pay for an absolutely free service for you and your friends.
Why should they?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
The example you used isn't the greatest... If you submit a patch to the FSF, it's going to be open and available to the general public. If someone offers a patch to the FSF and asks that it remain closed, the FSF will reject it.
If a service is up front about how it will handle information, people who have information to submit will be able to make a solid judgement on where they would like to direct their info. If someone does not want a patch to GCC to be open to the public, they will know not to submit it to the FSF. Likewise, if I had known that my contributions to CDDB were going to be locked down at a later date, I would have directed the data to a service that would not put restrictions on it.
Here's the deal... CDDB has solicited data from users for quite some time w/o telling them (in my observation) that what they're giving to CDDB is going to be sold back to them at a later date. This, my friend, is questionable.
To me, it's not questionable. You submit data for your one or two CD's that aren't in there. In return, you get the CDDB service for the rest of your CD's which are... seems INCREDIBLY FAIR to me. By the way, since when are they "selling" the data back to us? They are simply setting rules for programmers that use the CDDB with their programs. That is how they will advertise and make money.
I have no qualms with people making money for providing a service. Be up front about it, though.
How aren't they being up front about it? What if they had no idea how popular and expensive it would be to run CDDB back when they started it? Maybe they planned to make money off of advertising on their site, and it hasn't worked out. Are companies not allowed to change their minds?
I put my information in CDDB so I would not have to store it in some other way.
So you're trying to say that you find the CDDB service worthless, and that you only submitted your info to share it with others that also find it equally worthless?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
Why not just start a mass backup of the CDDB into FreeDB and pick up where it left us off ? Just query every single possible disc-id and keep it somewhere warm. IANAL, but since this is information that was publicly submitted in the first place, I don't think they can sue anybody for copying what they copied in the first place. Although not every judge has a functional logic module in his/her brain.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
You submitted that data in exchange for the service that CDDB provides. It's that simple.
Except that CDDB changed the service they provided without the permission of their contributers.
I'm sorry. I'm practical :
...
17: Element / Red Meat & Beauty Queens E.P.
Just went to FreeDB and entered 'Queen' as request. Here's what I got
1: Deacon Blue / Queen of The New Year (Single)
2: Queensrÿche / Greatest Hits
3: Queens of the Stone Age / Rated R
4: Queens of the Stone Age / Rated R
5: Queensryche / Rage For Order
23: Freddie Mercury / Queen
25: The Royal Philarmonic Orchestra / Queen's Rhapsody
This means that they have bad db format. Or wrong query format. Why didn't they just copy CDDB's format ?
This seems to be the way internet companies do business. First offer the product free until you have a large enough customer base, and then start charging them, and lose your whole customer base.
The theory is that people won't change. However computer systems are less likely to be come "addicted" to specific services than are humans to specific drugs.
I use grip with freedb as primary. If freedb doesn't have it and cddb.com does, grip will prompt to update your primary server with the data off the secondary. That way freedb will become as good a hit rate as the proprietry one. Scrag.
Computers are like air conditioners; they stop working if you open windows
CDDB is a perfect example of the disingenuous (but all too common) practice of taking work done (typing in track names) by many in a cooperative effort without permission (the work was given with the understanding that it would continue to be available free without condition), then closing it off for commercial gain. See also Deja (Usenet posts--older archive removed).
:>)
Are there safeguards to prevent FreeDB from doing the same thing some day? Had CDDB been required to pay authors some sum ($1?) for each CD cataloged, they likely would never have dared to choke this stuff off.
(As an aside, if I had written MediaJukebox, I'd randomize the client identifier or masquerade various "authorized" clients (just like changing the user agent field to avoid sites that discriminate based on browser (or block wget)) Then if cddb (now <puke>Gracenote</puke>) blocked MediaJukebox they'd have the people who paid (or tagreed to conditions or kowtowed in some way) them upset. Then they could sue, causing more publicity for FreeDB
BTW, where's the RIAA? Surprised their panties aren't in a knot about lists of album names, titles, and track times being available for download. Or has Gracenote paid them off?
they referenced the cddb logo and said something like 'use our software to label your discs'.
so if cddb has got kenwood's attention, you know it went mainstream.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The CDDB guys hate blind people? There's a headline for you...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I agree with others who have said that all this whining about CDDB is pointless, since FreeDB exists, and has a huge amount of data in it already.
However, FreeDB very much needs help. There are a number of bugs and horrible misfeatures in it, and the main developer seems to have close to zero time to work on it. Pretty much any time I've found a problem, his response has been, ``yeah, too bad I don't have any time.''
Not that there's anything wrong with that: he's doing a big service to all of us by keeping it running at all. But, if any of you do have the time and ability, it seems to me that FreeDB desperately needs a co-developer.
i entered in over two dozen of my cd's into cddb back in it's early days. i did it with the intention of sharing that info with everyone. i'm not sure that there was a notice at the time saying that the data could be taken into a closed form, but maybe there was.
it certainly solidifies my resolve to publish my code under the gpl and not any other license. this kind of crap pisses me off and the leeches out there don't even get the moral equivilant of heartburn when they close off access to the very people that built their system. yet another reason to hate suits.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
In the same way, cddb is full of information which is not only public domain but which was largely submitted by users of the system anyway! I know I've submitted CD track information to cddb before.
How have lobbyists been /so/ successful in convincing lawmakers that everything needs to be protected by copyright?
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
From: Freecddb's Why page
"(Funny sidenote: 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 (it does not produce any graphical output) for blind people...)."