Slashdot Mirror
Gracenote Sues Roxio Over Switch to Free Song Database
macsforever2001 writes: "Those l00z3rs at Gracenote are suing Roxio because they switched to freedb from CDDB. I think I will buy Toast 5 just to support them." Gracenote's press release is informative. Apparently their claims include one that switching to freedb 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."
Now that they have closed access to the database, can I request that all the submissions from XfreeCD be removed from the database? I'd certainly like to do so. My program is under GPL, and so is any data that it generates (if that's possible -- Hell, I wrote it, so I say so) must be accessable to anyone who wants it.
Brian Lane
Homepage
PS. XfreeCD hasn't been updated recently, and probbly doesn't work with newer kernels or GTK+ versions. I'll fix this when I have the time.
The most telling part of that press release was a comment from Dave Marglin, General Counsel for Gracenote: "We spent a great deal of time, energy and money developing the CDDB Music Recognition Service."
I'm sure everyone who ever contributed info to the CDDB prior to the Gracenote buyout will be happy to join with me in offering a hearty "FUCK YOU !! " to Marglin, and everyone else at Gracenote.
Hollywood of monkeysvsrobots.com
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
This could set a rather disturbing prescedent...
If I go to a CD store (Let's say Borders, for sake of argument) with a pad and a pen (or a palm), and physically write down the album title, artist, track titles, copyright date, publisher, etc... what I've done is perfectly legal (although I might get some weird looks while I'm doing it) because this information is publically available.
Is my list on my pad considered a database? It could be. (a very crude, rudimentary one, but a database nonetheless) If I'd done it on a palm, I'd certainly consider it a database.
Now, I take this database of publically available information, and type it into/upload it to my computer, and import it into a MySQL database.
I've still done nothing wrong. I've gone and gathered publically available information, and I'm storing it in an easily searchable format.
Now, I make a web interface to search it. I can now go to this webpage and search for any artist, album title, publisher, track title, etc... and get any matches that might be in my database.
Still nothing wrong - all I've done is add an access method.
Well, I decide that as complete as my listing of CDs is, it doesn't include every CD out there (Borders could have been out of a certain album, or might not carry foreign CDs). So, I make a web interface to allow other people to add the information from the CDs in their collection (or that they've gained in a similar method, going to their local CD shop, and gathering information). I publicize my database on a few mailing lists, my website, Slashdot, etc... and people come to my site, and add their collections.
Pretty soon, the DB is rather large, and a lot of people are using it.
Now, Gracenote would like to say that what I've done is wrong. That people can come to my site and get CD info for free, whereas people would have to pay to get it from Gracenote.
I made mine using publically accessible information, and grew it with information from the public. Nothing in my database couldn't be obtained for free by visiting the appropriate cd store, or contacting the appropriate CD publisher.
Gracenote acquired a similar, open project, and closed it up. Does that somehow give them a monopoly on publically available information? I don't think it does.
I'd say this wouldn't hold up in court, and could EASILY be thrown out. I'd agree that it's main purpose was to damage Roxio's reputation, and possibly deplete their resources to the point that they could not stay in business. I'd even go so far as to say that Gracenote KNOWS they have no chance of winning in court - this is a rather ludicrous lawsuit.
Otherwise, disseminating publically available information for free becomes a crime.
Conceivably, it could be considered illegal for me to tell my friend the title of track 1 on a given CD - as Gracenote sells that information, and me giving it for free would be "wrong".
Complete bull.
It's our valuable intellectual property that's underlying all this."
valuable intellectual property largely built for free, by volounteers donating their time to enter track listings. Don't you get a warm fuzzy feeling adding to the CDDB?
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
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...
While this was happening, Escient (later called Gracenote), became more and more predatory. They require programs to not allow use of FreeDB and they've teamed with Napster to identify copyrighted tracks.
Gracenote isn't simply trying to protect their software, they trying to take back what the original CDDB developers gave. And they're trying to make money off of us poor fools who helped them populate the CDDB database.
So, I say support FreeDB and anyone who fights Gracenote.
...
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
So let me get this straight: You seized control of a user-generated database, locked the users out of it, forced them to create their own truly free database, and are now suing any company smart enough to realize that supporting the free alternative is a better long-term solution than being dependent on your lame system? The mind boggles.
And how exactly is freedb a derivative of CDDB? As far as I know everything's been re-entered from scratch into it; there's never been a public copy of CDDB available to have been somehow copied by the freedb folks. I'm not even touching the issue of how CDDB's collection of user-provided track info (contributed under the reasonable assumption that CDDB wouldn't do anything this asinine (Heck, a few years back I couldn't even imagine anything this asinine)) could possibly give them status to sue over the CDDB -- that way lies much teeth grinding and throwing stuff at my coworkers.
On the bright side, I've got an idea who Microsoft can acquire the next time they need to get more arrogance in-house :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Actually you're allowed to copy the phonebook in its entirety. In fact most phonebooks are just a complete rip off of the regular phonebooks. (If you don't believe me check for errors, they'll be similar. And check when you get the alternative phone books, it's always 2 or 3 months after the regular one.)
You cannot collect names otherwise. Think about it, where is a complete, public-domain copy of the list of number available? No where and the SBC's, QWests, and Verizons of the world have no interest in publishing such a thing. Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Company gave Feist permission and legal protection to COPY the other's phonebook, regardless of the others objections. There was simply nothing they could do. Since a phonebook cannot be copyrighted, there is nothing to prevent the direct copy, (minus the intro and conclusion material, which is copyrighted.) Read this to get more information.
But either way this is not an issue in this case, because both databases were generated independantly and not a copied, since CDDB did everything to prevent a copy of their free and open database from the start.
> This is a brilliant (dumbshit) move on Gracenote's part. Why, with all the attention
> they've paid to fairness and equitable behavior in the past (screwing CDDB users), you
> can be sure that this is a case of Gracenote spending time trying to uphold a piece of
> legislation that is necessary and supports freedom, equality, and ethical behavior (for
> Nazis).
I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
---
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
That's the same argument my former ISP used to justify discontinuing my service when they got a letter from the MPAA and "discovered" that I was running my own webserver.
They said I was violating their terms of service, but see if you can find anything prohibiting or even mentioning servers for DSL users. The owner called me up at home and insinuated I was trying to "get away with something" by running my own server instead of paying them for hosting. So, with that twisted logic, they decided to bill me for 18 months of web hosting I didn't ask for or recieve. I called a lawyer.
Here's my documentation on the issue, and, needless to say, if you're in MN, avoid this place.
The moral of the story is because this is a capitalist country, it is a crime to avail yourself of a free service if someone is willing to charge you for it.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
No, Intel suing Compaq for selling CPUs with AMD in them.
> Microsoft sues Linus T. for circumventing their licensing agreements designed to protect their OS sales...
No, MSFT suing Slackware for giving Linux away.
> Marvel sues Penny Arcade for providing free comics that take away from their sales...
No, Marvel suing you for reading Penny Arcade.
> Ford sues feet for providing free transportation...
No, Ford suing your local shoe store for selling Nike.
> Phillips sues the sun for providing free light and disrupting their lightbulb sales...
No, Phillips suing you for installing a sunroof.
> Et cetera Etc...
Bottom line: If Gracenote asserts ownership of the database, they should be suing freedb, not Roxio.
But they can't, of course, because they don't own freedb database. They only own the Graceless database.
Unless Roxio had a contract with Graceless to use their DB, suing Roxio for switching to a competitor doesn't make sense. (And even if they did, the suit would be for breach of contract, not a DMCA charge.)
DMCA doesn't enter into it. This is a business decision, made by one company, to stop using a for-pay product, and to start using a not-for-pay product.
Technological countermeasures? What the ring-tailed-rambling fuck is Graceless smoking, and can I have some?
Prediction: Roxio asks the judge to throw it out as a frivolous lawsuit, and he does...
Fervent hope: ...but not before bitch-slapping Graceless into the next millennium with punitive damages. This suit isn't merely frivolous, it's malicious. Were I the judge, I'd do as much research as possible to see if I could also add words like "barratry", "malicious", and "RICO" into said millennial bitchslap, and I'd tell Graceless to get the fuck out of my courtroom and never come back until they'd acquired some clue, to say nothing of some manners.
In late breaking news today Sesame Street's Count ha filed a class action patent lawsuit against the world claiming that people from all walks of life are infringing on his works.
"While counting to one two, I teach kids how to learn to make it in life, yet these kids turned around and made programs which have made more money than I have. What happened to due process?" stated the Count.
So what's at stake here? Its simple numbers via ways of 0's and 1's combined constructed together form marvelous works earning companies millions. The Count is claiming patents on the numbers one and zero, which would give him sole ownership of the internet as we know it.
Employees of IBM, Sun, Microsoft, and other heavy hitters have released brief statements claiming to have never watched Sesame Street.
Stay Tuned
Want Root?
No, he's right... Sort of.
What they really mean is "Roxio is trying to get for free what other companies are paying *us* for (and we got for free in the first place)."
--
Too stupid to live.
Too stupid to live.
Too stubborn to die.
Roxio has posted a (very brief) response to the lawsuit.
M
my plan
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
If they win, I bet M$ tries to use this argument against linux..
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
That said, it seems to me that this case hinges on CDDB proving that freedb have simply copied their database.
The CDDB database was originally released under the GNU General Public License. The FreeDB people originally seeded FreeDB with a snapshot of CDDB from back when it was under the GPL. Because there is no language in the GPL allowing an author to revoke it unilaterally, FreeDB is in the clear copyright-wise.
Of course, nothing you see on Slashdot is legal advice.Will I retire or break 10K?
The lawsuit claims that Roxio is infringing on Gracenote's patents
Any conforming implementation of the CDDB protocol will infringe Gracenote's patent on hashing a CD's table of contents. Look at U.S. Patent 6,061,680 and foreign counterparts. (N.B.: Legalese 'record' != vinyl. 'Record' is short for 'phonorecord,' a copy of a sound recording.) This patent is on shaky ground, as it was filed in July 16, 1999, when a working CDDB system (i.e. prior art) was presumably already in wide public use.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I was wanting to write a Java client to their CDDB. Well, they made this impossible in MULTIPLE ways. First, in order to get a look at their API (just the documentation, not even the libraries!) I needed to sign a *16-page* document that enjoined me to do all sorts of ridiculous things like never switch to a competitor's product.
Now, their original interface, CDDB-1, was a simple and reasonable socket interface. Even though all the clients I'd seen were using their CDDB-1 API, they would not allow documentation for this out under any circumstances, instead forcing new users to use CDDB-2, a DCOM(!) interface.
When I asked them how I was supposed to use this DCOM interface from Java and my Linux Cobalt server, they said I should be using a professional server (which I took to mean Windows) to do my work. When I indicated that I wasn't going to migrate to a Windows server, could I please see the CDDB-1 documentation, they ceased to reply to me.
I was completely disgusted with them and can't imagine ever doing business with such people.
So the idea in business is now that a company cannot find a better way to do business because you might put someone out of work? That's crazy. Following that logic, if someone had been paying for telephone directories, they would not be allowed to use a free yellow pages CD.
Sorry, Gracenote, but everyone was using CDDB for free for the longest time and now that people want to streamline their business by not having to deal with your payments, you get upset? I really cannot find a shred of pity for Gracenote. I hope they evaporate like so many other Internet service companies that wanted to be paid for not really providing a service.
This whole invocation of the DMCA is garbage! If you look at anything in the world, one thing is a circumvention of another. Is the horse and buggy industry supposed to receive compensation from car manufacturers or taxi drivers because they have circumvented their technology to find a better way of doing things? Is Bantam books going to sue the Gutenburg Project because their free database of books impacts sales of their classics even in the tiniest of ways?
Do they not realise that the free flow of information is what made the Internet the awesome tool that it is and that by trying to take that away they are negatively impacting themselves in the long run?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
According to Gracenote, "It's our valuable intellectual property that's underlying all this." I beg to differ.
It is my (and your) intellectual property that underlies their database. I have inputted a couple of discs into CDDB over the years.
I propose a class action lawsuit to reclaim our IP. I reccomend we sue for five dollars per entry and whatevers left after the sharks get their cut we donate to charity. What do you think.
If we win the database, we could give it to Freedb.org , free and clear.
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
i swear, if one more company promises to enhance my: 1. musical experience 2. shopping experience 3. dining experience I am gonna get me a gun and enhance their salvation experience.
The article, and supporting material, implies that gracenote are simply sueing because Roxio are using a free competitor. Thats not entirely the case. Freedb have in effect written their own version of cddb with the same interfaces, and Roxio are using their existing technology to access freedb. As Roxio presumably developed the interface to cddb with the of Gracenote and then switched, Gracenote's effort has not been rewarded.
(This is as I understand it. I might be wrong.)
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Same theory here: Gracenote is selling a *Service* - you pay them and they manage a list of publicly available information for you. If you'd prefer, you can spend your own time and money putting together your own version of CDDB and no one can stop you. Gracenote does not actually own the Album and track titles that it dishes out. It only owns the service that it provides to companies who pay for it.
In this particular case, someone else has entered the market and has decided to do the work of gathering the same info that Gracenote gathers. Much in the same way that (here in NYC) Yellowbook gathers telephone info to publish their own phonebook, even though Verizon publishes one that looks very, very similar. Much in the way Oxford gathers their information to publish a dictionary that looks very similar to Webster's.
Sorry Gracenote. You're just bitter.
Millions of people go to public libraries and borrow books - in fact sometimes people who work for corporations go to public libraries and use their information resources to make profit generating business decisions. But you don't see publishers suing them (well not yet) for not having bought our books and having used free alternatives.
CDDB was created out of the labour of a lot of contributors doing "data entry" of almost all the information. Gracenote seems to contend that the collection of song titles and release titles (not the actual songs and albums themselves) are some kind of "intellectual property".
Are we to the point where there are lawyers and business people who believe that even the information about the **existence** of a product is part of the product?? Perhaps Gracenote needs to rethink it's idiotic licensing scheme instead of suing companies for using alternative sources of **information**.
What about our own names? Are they "intellectual property"? If so then do I get to decide who gets to call me by my name and who has to refer to me using a number or symbol? I'd be sure to pick something unpronounceable like the artist formerly know as Prince once did and reserve it for use of silly greedy corporations.
They can't claim that the database freedb uses is theirs, it was GPLed, and freedb's database is built only with GPLed entries.
They're damn right about their patents, though. I think freedb should offer a client query method that isn't patented, in addition to the patented method. Therefore, those client authors who don't want Gracenote on their backs can be relieved. Eventually, I'd like to see freedb drop all patented-cddb-request support from their server. We don't actually need it, and it only serves to give gracenote a stick to beat us with.
Does my bum look big in this?
That said, it seems to me that this case hinges on CDDB proving that freedb have simply copied their database. This would only be possible if it is demonstrated that a substantial number of errors have been duplicated (ie. spelling errors). If they cannot prove this, how can they substantiate the claim that freedb is an unauthoized derivative?
Furthermore, I wonder what grounds they have for making this a copyright case, since their entire business centres around redistributing the titles of the copyrighted work of other artists, making their entire database a derivative of other people's work. Does anybody know if they have deals with record companies that enable them to operate this service? The article makes no mention of this.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy