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.
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...
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 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.
---
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.
An Open Database Contract would clearly what uses are allowed to the company or individual that maintains it, and protect the rights of those who contribute to it.
We should perhaps get an FSF lawyer or somebody to help us draft such a document, and then refuse to contribute our efforts to anybody who does not use it (or something very much like it).
If we don't come up with something like this, future publicly-contributed content will suffer, because nobody will be able to be sure that the product of their labor will not suddenly become unavailable to them.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
--
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
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?
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.
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...)."