I say this with an open mind. I convinced my roommate to buy a 500Mhz G3 iMac instead of a gateway or other "newbie" PC.
What a mistake!
The design is awesome. The Pro mouse and keyboard look awesome (yes, the 'no-button' tech is easy to get used to). But jeezus-h-christ does MacOS suck! I felt like I was using a 200Mhz processor. My 450Mhz overclocked celeron running win2k feels about twice as fast as that iMac.
Subsequently, we grudgingly boxed the thing up after it froze THREE TIMES on the first day of use. Sad thing is, Apple has a no-refund policy*, so we're selling it on eBay.
Now I know why Apple didn't want to release the G3/G4 specs to Be -- they're stalling until MacOS X comes out. Sure as shit, PPC people would be switching from MacOS 9 to BeOS 5 in droves for performance reasons.
-thomas
* Yes, that is right -- absolutely NO REFUNDS. Apparantly Apple has no confidence in their products.:-(
PayPal is not meant to be a trusted source. If you want to make sure you don't get screwed paying an untrusted 3rd party, you don't use PayPal. Use something like i-escrow instead!
And they couldn't have done this while not gouging us on the price of the operating system? I think not. If anything, they would have brought PC's *MORE* into the mainstream by lowering the price of the OS.
They have had a monopoly. They have abused it. They should pay.
There are also
no critically important resources in software
markets-- unlike, say, the diamond market--
that could be cornered and denied to rivals.
Yeah right. What about OEM computers as a critically important resource?
Before this anti-trust trial, it was IMPOSSIBLE for an alternative intel-based OS to get any real distribution to most people, because Microsoft had exclusive agreements with OEM's that prevented them from selling machines with alternative operating systems present (aside from hidden on the drive, out of view).
Thanks in large part to Jean-Louis Gassee for making a big deal out of this, and the anti-trust trial, more and more OEM's are not as afraid to bundle alternatives like Linux and BeOS with their computers.
I doubt this would have come about without the trial. So as far as I'm concerned, it's already done some good.
I mean, first he says, "If they don't use human beings these movies are in danger of looking like Disney cartoons... "
Then he follows that up with, "The progress in digital and computer technology has been frightening. It was light years on from when I was in the first Star Wars movie."
I think these conflicting statements can easily be summed up in a few words...
Why should I accept that a company who offered a service in exchange for my labor is now changing the terms of that service after they have acquired my contribution?
First of all, their "terms of service" were never explicitly granted to you.
Second of all, the "terms of service" that you thought were IMPLIED are STILL in effect. In exchange for some work (which you may or may not have ever done -- most CD's are already in the database, after all)... in exchange for this work, you get access to the information on other CD's for free.
How has this changed for you? Are you no longer able to access CDDB? No. Has a program you previously used been denied access? Possibly. But that is a separate matter. The person writing the program is adding VALUE to their application by including CDDB. Nowhere did CDDB guarantee developers free access to CDDB for their programs, for all times.
All you "Napter is theft" assholes have no leg to stand on here when you say that cddb is doing anything worse.
Hmmm, Napster is not theft. Napster simply allows theft to occur. I don't really see how this applies to CDDB. Nor do I see how it applies to our debate.
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.
Let me clarify my point: The users are important, but are meaningless if there is not someone there to provide the infrastructure, backbone, programming, and network resources required to maintain a database like this.
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.
I have no problem at all with CDDB charging for their service, just as soon as they obtain all that track information using their own resources
They *DID*. Don't you see? Their resource is YOU. Your payment from CDDB is free access to the entire database of CD's, most of which YOU did not contribute in the first place. They are an information exchange.
What they've done is no different (in principle--obviously, cataloging CD's is trivial in comparison) than an organization like the American Red Cross one day becoming a for-profit corporation and providing services for a fee, but keeping all the donated money and resources.
That is probably the worst analogy I've ever heard.
BTW, the argument that people with the "linux-mentality" won't pay for anything is lame and tired. You can do better.
No, it fits perfectly. The people doing the complaining are mostly linux users. How do I know? Because the programs they are complaining about are primary used on Linux. Linux is free. Much of what surrounds linux in the way of services is free. Therefore, it makes sense that the people least willing to pay for "information services" are Linux "information-wants-to-be-free" and open source zealots.
-thomas
P.S. If you can do better to explain this "why should I pay for a useful service that used to be free" mentality, please do.
I'm sick of the internet gimme, gimme, gimme attitude. It's frustrating for me personally, because I know people that have to battle this attitude in order to make a well-earned living.
cddb took our data and told us if would be free for other people to use.
Uhhh, first of all, where did they say this? 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.
Why should developers, who add CDDB access as a value-added service, get to do so with no stipulations? It costs money to run CDDB, you know?
Then they switched it on us and forced these rules on its users.
Uhhh, no, they did nothing to the users. They added stipulations for DEVELOPERS adding CDDB to their programs.
Thats fraud in my book.
Then your book is not very well written. Consult a lawyer.
You and your comments amount to nothing more than a sorry sack of crap.
Once they nailed you to CDDB as the only provider (That's one of the requirements to get the license!), they'll start charging the user. Just give it time.
How much time do you think it will take, exactly? Since this requirement has been around for well over a year now. (I know this because I was working on a piece of software that used CDDB at one point.)
First law of the open market - if you CAN charge for something, you WILL
Exactly. But do you honestly think CDDB could charge the users directly for the service? Hell no. If anything, it will be an indirect fee -- they charge the developers that write programs using CDDB (which is, after all, a value added incentive in their program). In return, they might choose to raise the price of the software to cover it.
Regardless, I think it is a service well-worth paying for. If someone can maintain it for free, that's fine, too. But I don't try to pretend that everything should be free.
It is funny that this is what will be the final death blow for BeOS.
That's like saying BeIA will be the final death blow for QNX in embedded devices.
As many of you know, BeOS is no longer a desktop operating system.
Don't confuse BeOS with BeIA -- one is for the desktop, and one is for internet appliances. Both of which exist.
The BeOS developers no longer develop for the desktop, but have switched the focus of the company to embedded systems.
No, you're confused. The *developers* of BeOS are still developing BeOS. That is why releases of an entirely new networking environment (close to Linux network performance levels) will be released shortly. That is why hardware opengl support that beats Windows and blows away Linux will be released shortly. (Both comments made on the basis of information garnered from the same source that did the fairly unbiased review of QNX: BeNews.)
So, you see, it's the COMPANY that has focused on BeIA, not the developers. The developers will work on what the company wants them to work on. There are BeIA developers, and BeOS developers. Just as usual.
The foolish move by BeOS left the door open for an agressive competitor--QNX
Yeah, it sure was foolish. Let's consider their options.
1. Continue to fight on the desktop market, where little money can be made while Microsoft and Apple dominate.
OR
2. Focus on the IA market, where they've already made a bunch of killer deals, and where no behemoth like Microsoft rules the market. A market that most analysts and industry pundits believe will be bigger than the PC (i.e. DESKTOP!) market in about 5 years or less.
Hmm... you're right, you capitalist genious! They should have chosen option number one! That way, they'd go out of business, and neither BeOS or BeIA could exist...
Now with QNX poised to take over the BeOS desktop market, BeOS will no longer be a viable OS for desktop users. Adios BeOS; Hello QNX!
Shit... why didn't you say this up-front. That way I'd have known you were a troll before I started putting some deep thought into my response!
Because we'll make them. Information will be free.
The information *IS* free. Why should their *service* be free as well?
As to why they should provide it for free - they got users to enter information under the false pretense that the service would be free.
It was the users themselves that formed this false pretense. How is that the fault of CDDB?
Exactly. As long as somebody WOULD set it up for free, let him set it up for free.
True enough.
If he relies on user input to make it into a valuable service, he's morally bound to keep it free.
Why? That is absurd. You are providing input to CDDB. In return, you get to use CDDB for free. If a programmer wants to use CDDB's service to enhance their program, why shouldn't they have to adhere to CDDB's rules?
And we're supposed to believe that you are a stock guru?
Did I say I was a stock guru? No. Please re-read my post.
My point is, if you sell your Microsoft stock now, you're a moron, because there is basically NO WAY you can lose money on it. If they win, you win. If they lose, you win.
My stock purchase was a long-term decision. The fact that the stock is $4 less than when I bought it means nothing. It was also $4-5 more than when I bought it a few months ago, but I held for the long term play.
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?
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
And you have, thanks to CDDB.
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.
Ummm... you submitted track names to a company, whose sole service is to respond to search requests and send your info to those people. You don't even own the right to those track names. If anyone, the artist does.
You submitted that data in exchange for the service that CDDB provides. It's that simple.
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.
All annoyanced with CDDB aside, I question the ethics of taking information submitted by people around the globe and making it closed/proprietary.
I question the ethics of relying on CDDB to put up the resources to house the entire known database of CD's and to allow anyone to search this database of knowledge FOR FREE.
In exchange, I estimate less than one percent (probably WAY LESS than one percent) of the people that use this resource have actually contributed to it by submitting the tracks on their current CD. Why is this number so low? Because the number of CD's is far outweighed by the number of people using CDDB's service.
So, what exactly is the problem with CDDB trying to make money off of this venture? Just because you may have submitted the track list of one or two CD's -- not an original work by you, I might add -- you expect to get this service at no cost.
Well that's fine -- but someone must pay for it. If it's not going to be you, it's going to be the maker of your music software. And last I heard, the only "payment" CDDB required was that you use them exclusively in your software, and you show the CDDB logo for a few seconds while the information is downloaded.
Slashdot Mirror
I say this with an open mind. I convinced my roommate to buy a 500Mhz G3 iMac instead of a gateway or other "newbie" PC.
:-(
What a mistake!
The design is awesome. The Pro mouse and keyboard look awesome (yes, the 'no-button' tech is easy to get used to). But jeezus-h-christ does MacOS suck! I felt like I was using a 200Mhz processor. My 450Mhz overclocked celeron running win2k feels about twice as fast as that iMac.
Subsequently, we grudgingly boxed the thing up after it froze THREE TIMES on the first day of use. Sad thing is, Apple has a no-refund policy*, so we're selling it on eBay.
Now I know why Apple didn't want to release the G3/G4 specs to Be -- they're stalling until MacOS X comes out. Sure as shit, PPC people would be switching from MacOS 9 to BeOS 5 in droves for performance reasons.
-thomas
* Yes, that is right -- absolutely NO REFUNDS. Apparantly Apple has no confidence in their products.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
PayPal is not meant to be a trusted source. If you want to make sure you don't get screwed paying an untrusted 3rd party, you don't use PayPal. Use something like i-escrow instead!
Duh!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I hate to break it to you, but "mutually exclusive" statements are also known as ... wait for it ... conflicting statements.
And whoever modded me down as 'flamebait' on the original post... WTF???
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream.
And they couldn't have done this while not gouging us on the price of the operating system? I think not. If anything, they would have brought PC's *MORE* into the mainstream by lowering the price of the OS.
They have had a monopoly. They have abused it. They should pay.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yeah right. What about OEM computers as a critically important resource?
Before this anti-trust trial, it was IMPOSSIBLE for an alternative intel-based OS to get any real distribution to most people, because Microsoft had exclusive agreements with OEM's that prevented them from selling machines with alternative operating systems present (aside from hidden on the drive, out of view).
Thanks in large part to Jean-Louis Gassee for making a big deal out of this, and the anti-trust trial, more and more OEM's are not as afraid to bundle alternatives like Linux and BeOS with their computers.
I doubt this would have come about without the trial. So as far as I'm concerned, it's already done some good.
Mackenzie and Cato can shove it.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So the only reason you liked R2D2 is because you thought of him as a person instead of a robot?
Yet you are going to hate the prequels, because he is replacing people acting like robots, with computer generated robots.
I'd say Kenny didn't do a very good job acting like a robot, then, eh?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I mean, first he says, "If they don't use human beings these movies are in danger of looking like Disney cartoons... "
Then he follows that up with, "The progress in digital and computer technology has been frightening. It was light years on from when I was in the first Star Wars movie."
I think these conflicting statements can easily be summed up in a few words...
Beeeeeeeep BEeeeeeeep Beeeeeep!!! EEEEooooo EEEEoooo EEEEooooo!!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I know exactly what the problem is...
People are selfish.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Why should I accept that a company who offered a service in exchange for my labor is now changing the terms of that service after they have acquired my contribution?
First of all, their "terms of service" were never explicitly granted to you.
Second of all, the "terms of service" that you thought were IMPLIED are STILL in effect. In exchange for some work (which you may or may not have ever done -- most CD's are already in the database, after all)... in exchange for this work, you get access to the information on other CD's for free.
How has this changed for you? Are you no longer able to access CDDB? No. Has a program you previously used been denied access? Possibly. But that is a separate matter. The person writing the program is adding VALUE to their application by including CDDB. Nowhere did CDDB guarantee developers free access to CDDB for their programs, for all times.
All you "Napter is theft" assholes have no leg to stand on here when you say that cddb is doing anything worse.
Hmmm, Napster is not theft. Napster simply allows theft to occur. I don't really see how this applies to CDDB. Nor do I see how it applies to our debate.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
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.
Let me clarify my point: The users are important, but are meaningless if there is not someone there to provide the infrastructure, backbone, programming, and network resources required to maintain a database like this.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
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."
I have no problem at all with CDDB charging for their service, just as soon as they obtain all that track information using their own resources
They *DID*. Don't you see? Their resource is YOU. Your payment from CDDB is free access to the entire database of CD's, most of which YOU did not contribute in the first place. They are an information exchange.
What they've done is no different (in principle--obviously, cataloging CD's is trivial in comparison) than an organization like the American Red Cross one day becoming a for-profit corporation and providing services for a fee, but keeping all the donated money and resources.
That is probably the worst analogy I've ever heard.
BTW, the argument that people with the "linux-mentality" won't pay for anything is lame and tired. You can do better.
No, it fits perfectly. The people doing the complaining are mostly linux users. How do I know? Because the programs they are complaining about are primary used on Linux. Linux is free. Much of what surrounds linux in the way of services is free. Therefore, it makes sense that the people least willing to pay for "information services" are Linux "information-wants-to-be-free" and open source zealots.
-thomas
P.S. If you can do better to explain this "why should I pay for a useful service that used to be free" mentality, please do.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I'm sick of the internet gimme, gimme, gimme attitude. It's frustrating for me personally, because I know people that have to battle this attitude in order to make a well-earned living.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
cddb took our data and told us if would be free for other people to use.
Uhhh, first of all, where did they say this? 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.
Why should developers, who add CDDB access as a value-added service, get to do so with no stipulations? It costs money to run CDDB, you know?
Then they switched it on us and forced these rules on its users.
Uhhh, no, they did nothing to the users. They added stipulations for DEVELOPERS adding CDDB to their programs.
Thats fraud in my book.
Then your book is not very well written. Consult a lawyer.
You and your comments amount to nothing more than a sorry sack of crap.
The truth hurts, don't it?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Once they nailed you to CDDB as the only provider (That's one of the requirements to get the license!), they'll start charging the user. Just give it time.
How much time do you think it will take, exactly? Since this requirement has been around for well over a year now. (I know this because I was working on a piece of software that used CDDB at one point.)
First law of the open market - if you CAN charge for something, you WILL
Exactly. But do you honestly think CDDB could charge the users directly for the service? Hell no. If anything, it will be an indirect fee -- they charge the developers that write programs using CDDB (which is, after all, a value added incentive in their program). In return, they might choose to raise the price of the software to cover it.
Regardless, I think it is a service well-worth paying for. If someone can maintain it for free, that's fine, too. But I don't try to pretend that everything should be free.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It is funny that this is what will be the final death blow for BeOS.
That's like saying BeIA will be the final death blow for QNX in embedded devices.
As many of you know, BeOS is no longer a desktop operating system.
Don't confuse BeOS with BeIA -- one is for the desktop, and one is for internet appliances. Both of which exist.
The BeOS developers no longer develop for the desktop, but have switched the focus of the company to embedded systems.
No, you're confused. The *developers* of BeOS are still developing BeOS. That is why releases of an entirely new networking environment (close to Linux network performance levels) will be released shortly. That is why hardware opengl support that beats Windows and blows away Linux will be released shortly. (Both comments made on the basis of information garnered from the same source that did the fairly unbiased review of QNX: BeNews.)
So, you see, it's the COMPANY that has focused on BeIA, not the developers. The developers will work on what the company wants them to work on. There are BeIA developers, and BeOS developers. Just as usual.
The foolish move by BeOS left the door open for an agressive competitor--QNX
Yeah, it sure was foolish. Let's consider their options.
1. Continue to fight on the desktop market, where little money can be made while Microsoft and Apple dominate.
OR
2. Focus on the IA market, where they've already made a bunch of killer deals, and where no behemoth like Microsoft rules the market. A market that most analysts and industry pundits believe will be bigger than the PC (i.e. DESKTOP!) market in about 5 years or less.
Hmm... you're right, you capitalist genious! They should have chosen option number one! That way, they'd go out of business, and neither BeOS or BeIA could exist...
Now with QNX poised to take over the BeOS desktop market, BeOS will no longer be a viable OS for desktop users. Adios BeOS; Hello QNX!
Shit... why didn't you say this up-front. That way I'd have known you were a troll before I started putting some deep thought into my response!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Because we'll make them. Information will be free.
The information *IS* free. Why should their *service* be free as well?
As to why they should provide it for free - they got users to enter information under the false pretense that the service would be free.
It was the users themselves that formed this false pretense. How is that the fault of CDDB?
Exactly. As long as somebody WOULD set it up for free, let him set it up for free.
True enough.
If he relies on user input to make it into a valuable service, he's morally bound to keep it free.
Why? That is absurd. You are providing input to CDDB. In return, you get to use CDDB for free. If a programmer wants to use CDDB's service to enhance their program, why shouldn't they have to adhere to CDDB's rules?
And since when has CDDB cost you a fucking dime?
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Not to mention, I believe, the largest percentage of websites is in English-speaking countries.
;-)
Anyone have a stat to back this up for me.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
And we're supposed to believe that you are a stock guru?
Did I say I was a stock guru? No. Please re-read my post.
My point is, if you sell your Microsoft stock now, you're a moron, because there is basically NO WAY you can lose money on it. If they win, you win. If they lose, you win.
My stock purchase was a long-term decision. The fact that the stock is $4 less than when I bought it means nothing. It was also $4-5 more than when I bought it a few months ago, but I held for the long term play.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
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."
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
And you have, thanks to CDDB.
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.
Ummm... you submitted track names to a company, whose sole service is to respond to search requests and send your info to those people. You don't even own the right to those track names. If anyone, the artist does.
You submitted that data in exchange for the service that CDDB provides. It's that simple.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
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."
All annoyanced with CDDB aside, I question the ethics of taking information submitted by people around the globe and making it closed/proprietary.
I question the ethics of relying on CDDB to put up the resources to house the entire known database of CD's and to allow anyone to search this database of knowledge FOR FREE.
In exchange, I estimate less than one percent (probably WAY LESS than one percent) of the people that use this resource have actually contributed to it by submitting the tracks on their current CD. Why is this number so low? Because the number of CD's is far outweighed by the number of people using CDDB's service.
So, what exactly is the problem with CDDB trying to make money off of this venture? Just because you may have submitted the track list of one or two CD's -- not an original work by you, I might add -- you expect to get this service at no cost.
Well that's fine -- but someone must pay for it. If it's not going to be you, it's going to be the maker of your music software. And last I heard, the only "payment" CDDB required was that you use them exclusively in your software, and you show the CDDB logo for a few seconds while the information is downloaded.
Stop being so selfish.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I still think they are in trouble. If I had any of their stock, I'd be selling it...
Gee, I wouldn't. I bought 100 shares for my mom at $74. Let's see... there are two possible outcomes...
1. Microsoft wins the appeal, stock returns to normal $100+ area and beyond.
2. Microsoft loses appeal at Supreme Court, they split the company up, and we get shares in each of the remaining Baby Bills.
I really feel my mom's chances of making out on this investment are pretty damn good.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Uhh....I must not be a genius then.
True enough.
Last I remembered, Apple has a 80% market share on PCs about 15 years ago
They did?
they died 10 years ago
They did?
Hmmm... amazing what gets modded up these days.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."