Gracenote Reponds Regarding Roxio Lawsuit 176
jark writes: "Gracenote has responded to the community with an 'open letter' regarding their lawsuit against Roxio and their switch to FreeDB. Seems that they wanted to completely dodge all the bullets that were shot their way rather than address the real issues at hand (such as why they think they can claim OUR inputs are THEIR intellectual propery, among others)."
"It's not just data, it's a service" (Score:1)
Re:My Business Model is Broken, and it Can't Get U (Score:1)
www.factforge.net (Score:1)
It seems that facts are the pieces of information that really deserve to be free.
The answer is a proxy! (Score:2)
THEY the same people write another component (also free) that interfaces with the "freesoftware" (with the free license from gracenote) that is serverside and serves to anyone who doesn't want to pay gracenote.
Could this work ?
CBoy (who can't remember his password to post from work)
Some info which may be relevant. (Score:2)
- Do you really think Gracenote would sue Roxio without the solid belief that they could win? Do you really think their suit has no basis in law? Think again. You may not agree with the law as it stands, but it probably does favor them in at least one of their claims. That's all it takes to win *something*.
- There is little doubt that there is stuff in the contract between the two companies that is not being made public. For all we know there could be something that bars them from switching services, or a million other possibilities. WHO KNOWS? Unless you KNOW, it's a waste of time to argue that the suit is baseless.
- You don't see them suing companies using other similar services, so I'm guessing their objection is to Roxio using one that's based on IP they fancy to be theirs. Comments about them suing because Roxio won't use *their* service are probably naive. Those would be totally baseless grounds to sue on, and it's a safe bet that they're not using Luigi's cousin's brother-in-law lawyer as their counsel.
- That press release was probably not intended for the general public. The level of corpspeek makes it look like it's for the press.
Just some stuff to think about. Continue.
Huh? (Score:4)
*thwack* *thwack*. (Score:1)
That's the sound of Gracenote kicking itself for not using a different license for their software back in 1995.
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Re:Its Rambus All over again (Score:1)
Actually, they already did. And got the patent too, if I'm not mistaken. Apparently the USPTO wouldn't know prior art if it came up and farted right in their collective face.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Missing the point? (Score:4)
Honestly, I think gracenote doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in this case. The real people they need to sue are the freedb.org folks and not Roxio... and honestly I don't think suing the freedb.org folks would do much good either.
I think the community at large would do better without these bozos peddling their wares.
These guys are slimy (Score:3)
--
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
So, nice thought, but not possible in practice unless you can hack into Gracenote somehow and copy their whole DB.
Disclaimer: I've never looked at how CDDB works, I'm just making logical guesses, but I think I'm right, and that's all that matters for slashdot.
Scary, but I think I see their point (Score:1)
So, roxio got what they wanted, and left. They get to keep the code/etc but don't have to pay anymore. It really is about the code, and not about the choice of databases, or the content of those databases. (Not that I don't think what Gracenote did was bad, but that is not what this is about.)
This, I think, is the beef Gracenote has. But, imo, that's what you get for going with a stupid licensing model. They should suck it up and deal with it.
Re:Their intellectual property? (Score:3)
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
Current cddb licensees turning to freedb is the most immediate threat to their revenue, so first thing to do is scare their customers. Depending on any patents they have they might then force the freedb to develop a different protocol to do the same thing or even try to get exclusive rights to the concepts of matching CD signatures with an online database. We don't want to go there. Community driven alternatives must prevail.
I'm confused (Score:2)
But what exactly is Gracenote complaining about?
As long as freedb.org wrote their own software, and started a database from scratch from user submissions... they could not possibly be accused of "stealing" from gracenote.
Gracenote doesn't own the contents of the CDs, that and the identifiers put on the discs are the property of the record labels.
On the other hand, I have no sympathy for roxio. Their software is pretty low quality and high priced. Given what they charge, I think giving 6 cents per user to those maintaining the cddb database seems fair.
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:1)
Copyright infringment is not an "IMHO" issue. Especially when applied to titles. It's pretty clearcut.
Band names can't be copyrighted either, and as a result are frequently trademarked.
LetterJ
Head Geek
Re:Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:2)
The USPTO suffers because their database is badly organized and complex to search... The European Patent Office (EPO) have access, internally, to no only their own patent database, but also pretty well every major scientific publication on record and other data.
When a patent application is presented, a search is undertaken, looking at everything, not just previous patent data to see if there is any prior art whatsoever. I' not sure about the States, but I would hope it would be the same. If not, it would explain why the USPTO keep awarding crap patents.
Troc
PS I'm not a patent examiner, but I might be in a month or two. The EPO, where I'd be working actively searches and expects their examiners to submit more data to theie databases on a regular basis to aviod the problems we seem to be seeing in the US these days.
Re:Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:3)
The fact that the PTO only searches its own database was confirmed by the PTO's chief.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
What is your point ? (Score:1)
Re:I could be wrong (Score:2)
And aren't those song titles and album titles rightfully the IP of the bands/record labels that came up with them in the first place?
Umm no. You can't trademark a song name or album titles. There are zero IP issues when it comes to this part of the issue.
Re:Some info which may be relevant. (Score:2)
Yes, I do. Particularly since Roxio just started trading publicly on May 14. A lawsuit, even if totally baseless, can damage a company new to the market and lacking any sort of track record, simply by scaring away potential investors. Viewed this way, it becomes nothing more than a legalized form of extortion. "Pay us, or we'll make your options worthless."
There is little doubt that there is stuff in the contract between the two companies that is not being made public. For all we know there could be something that bars them from switching services, or a million other possibilities.
Come on. Considering the PR disaster this has been for Gracenote, don't you think if that were ACTUALLY the case, they'd be shouting "breach of contract" from the rooftops?
You don't see them suing companies using other similar services, so I'm guessing their objection is to Roxio using one that's based on IP they fancy to be theirs.
See, when you want to set a favorable precedent for yourself, you always pick out the weakest possible opponent. They may not care if they can win. All they have to do is convince Roxio that it's in their best interests to roll over. THEN they start picking off others, once they have a precedent in their pockets. Others see that all those confronted before by the mighty Gracenote have surrendered, and it affects their judgement as well. Look at the playbook Rambus has been using, for example.
Comments about them suing because Roxio won't use *their* service are probably naive. Those would be totally baseless grounds to sue on...
They may very well be hoping that this never actually sees the inside of a courtroom. As long as the threat is credible to outsiders, they have accomplished at least one thing - damaging Roxio in the eyes of the public and investors. Why fight in court if you can convince your opponent to surrender first?
Must be missing it... (Score:3)
As far as I see it, Adaptec is merely using a common business practice. Intel does it, Microsoft does it, Apple does it. It's called capitalism. If there's a cheaper alternative, or in this case a cheaper provider, USE THE CHEAPER ONE.
This letter gives me no answers to my questions. If they explained that Adaptec is required by law to use Gracenote, then I'd understand. They made no mention of it, however, and so I still remain here, confused. If anyone knows if such a contract or deal was made that prohibits Adaptec from using freedb, then please enlighten me.
Oh, and one other thing. They say, "Gracenote only charges licensing fees to developers of commercial applications, NOT end-users." But who do the developers pass these fees to? End users. They're presenting a logical falsely.
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:3)
Gracenote does claim to allow non-commercial access to it's DB's for personal use...
Re:doesn't stand up in court - can't copyright lis (Score:2)
Re:Modify your Winamp settings (Score:2)
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
Lawsuit is bogus, but are they completely wrong? (Score:1)
Second, after reading their letter, I don't totally disagree with their reasoning for charging developers to use their service. Let me explain.
It's not just data, it's a service
This I agree with completely. They have pay for a very expensive network, databases, servers, and the like. They may have collected the data with our help, but I know they munge the hell out of that data to make it usable.
Example: I used to work for a now-failing dot-com that, as part of our core business, had a very large database of (pretty much) all the lawfirms in the US. Our users (mostly law students) and their law schools did most of the data entry for that data. But let me tell you -- that data is generally USELESS until you do a lot of work to clean it up. And the more people who submit data, the harder it is to get it cleaned up. I spent an enormous amount of time writing complex pattern-matching and search & replace functions to clean up that vast amount of data. It's a lot of work, and maintaining that list and keeping it accurate required staff, money, and time.
So sure, Gracenote needs to keep the litigation in their freakin' pants, but I agree with them that the raw data they collect(ed), by whatever means, isn't what this is about. They need to be allowed to make money too, and if a developer or and end-user doesn't like those terms, they can always go to someone else. It's a free world!
-jason
Gracenote on suck.com today (Score:1)
Suck me [suck.com]
pretty funny stuff, Maynard.
Re:Some speedy damage control here (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:A diffirent take... (Score:2)
That's not the point.
I think they may have a right to charge you the 6 cents if you use their service. Yes, they may have obtained the data from us and under false pretenses too, but they are now charging for the service or at least so they claim.
If Google suddenly started charging one cent per search, it would be a charge for the search service, not for the billion web-pages which aren't really Google's property!
The thing is, how can CDDB expect money from someone who ISN'T using their service? It would be like the aforementioned Google suing because you decided not to pay the cent and switch to (say) AltaVista.
It's a darned interesting business-plan. To simply sue everyone who decided they didn't want to be your customer, and chose a competing product!
What about IMDB? (Score:2)
I see the point that they too put a lot of work into the database, but I think it's abhorent (if not actually illegal) to neither warn the users who submit the data (impossible in these cases) nor make the raw data available for a fee no greater than their actual costs and subject to no license.
But I don't know what anyone can do about it, except refuse to submit data to sites that don't make their intentions clear and legally binding up-front.
The data is irrelevant. This is a monopoly threat. (Score:2)
It does not matter where the data comes from. The situation would be the same as long as they have a legal right to a copy of the data (they probably do). Gracenote is arguing that they are providing a service of having collected the data together in one place, cleaned it up, organized and indexed it, and provide a service mechanism to deliver it. That's all fine and good. And it might even be a good thing that they are doing, since they do need to pay for the computer and the connectivity.
The problem is in their expectation of having monopoly rights over the whole concept enough to sue someone who chooses to go to the competition. Unless they can show that the competition specifically is violating some intellectual property belonging to Gracenote. The question now is, does FreeDB do that? I don't know because I have not looked. Is Roxio using Gracenote's code to access FreeDB? I don't know because I have not looked. But Gracenote did not come out and clearly assert these things were the case, so therefore I will assume that neither is true.
That only leaves me to believe that Gracenote is upset because probably their business plan depends on the notion that they will have a monopoly on this market. I suggest a call for a Justice Department investigation into such a monopoly. If Gracenote thinks they have a legal right to be a monopoly (e.g. through specific intellectual property), then they should say so and say what that is.
FYI IANAL BIPOO/.
Suing someone for *not* using your service? (Score:1)
I am officially starting a network consulting company. Anyone here who has a network, and does not pay my company to help you maintain it will be hearing from my lawyers next week.
Lunacy...
-Wintermute
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:1)
My understanding is that GRIP gets blocked anymore.
Is this the case?
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
MMDC.NET [mmdc.net]
That would be stealing, but... (Score:2)
But then again, how about a program that will read the *file system* of your computer and re-construct the CDDB entry for submission to FreeCDDB?
Let me explain:
You use a CDDB-approved CD ripper to generate a dir full of MP3s. You close that program.
You run a script to compare the files in YOUR filesystem to the CD still in the tray. You generate a FreeCDDB submission. You hit SEND and the FreeCDDB gets updated...
You haven't used the CDDB database in an un-authorized way, you've read the attributes of YOUR files that YOU created, that reside on YOUR harddrive.
The pity is that all of this trouble is to make up for the unfortunate fact that Gracenote abused our trust. Maybe they have the right to do it, but nobody who sat dutifully typing in their CD titles knew that it would be one day restrictively controlled like this.
Maybe Gracenote will realize that they could do better by just opening things up again, not challenging the community to make them redundant.
Anyone else notice that the open letter never said exactly WHY they were suing?
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
MMDC.NET [mmdc.net]
Re:Try Again (Score:1)
.... 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
Essentially they are trying to say that they own:
1) the raw data that is submitted (the name of the song in the database etc.)
2) the interface, this could mean the protocol,
the interface to the database (i.e. rom the server application to the database. E.g jdbc)
3) the algorythm to issue the select statement via the protocol
4) they take the above 3 and combine them into how they define "IP"
Simply put it is very suspect, and most likely illegal to begin with ala the DMCA - as all this information is keyed off of a digital signature that is tied to the CD (tracks, time, etc.) - that information is owned by the record company. Not gracenote.
Re:Still doesn't stand up in court (Score:4)
Gracenote:
Believes that they "own" the content of the database, they call this "IP" (per the buzzword that everyone is using these days). However they allow the end user to use the database limitlessly as long as the client has been "approved" by Gracenote. (if free or not free etc.)
FreeDB:
Knows damn well that it doesn't own the content of the data. FreeDB believes that the data in the database is a community resource - getting to it may be slightly different as they own the equipment that the data runs on. This is entirely dependant upon the community at large.
The reason why Gracenote is probably screwing up is simple. 1) The record company, 2) artist, or 3) individual owns the IP. Not Gracenote. If 1) the record company has trademarks regarding the name of the song - they own that for a number of years. Sorry. If there is no record company, and the artist is independant then 2) the Artist owns it. Depending on both 1 and 2 it comes back to 3) the individual consumer. Simply put unless the consumer is given a liscense to sell or give away the intellectual properity they have no right to give it away to Gracenote for sale. If they DO then Gracenote *MUST* notify the consumer that this is their intent - and as such the consumer has the option not to allow this.
None of this happens with Gracenote, simply put they take and sell. This is a sad thing indeed because Gracenote doesn't have any idea of how these companies look at the IP that THEY protect. Gracenote should take precautions as not to be sued themselves.
At any rate, thought this was interesting
Still doesn't stand up in court (Score:5)
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
Re:What about IMDB? (Score:2)
I just checked out the IMDB web page. They do have fairly strict limits on what you can do with it, but you can download the entire database in ASCII text from http://us.imdb.com/interfaces [imdb.com]. They also provide link to many clients for various systems.
Compare that to CDDB where they only want you to access their database through 'approved' clients and don't want you to keep a local copy of the data.
CDDB was released as GPL (Score:3)
I haven't really understood what Gracenote has sued Roxio for, and this letter did not make it any clearer.
CDDB (Score:3)
UG!
God damn (Score:1)
Oh no please no!! (Score:2)
I still have like 600 points left on this account before I even come close to the 'cap' of 50....
Re:Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:1)
They hire from the FBI, where they built up all their experience at thorough investigation and truth-seeking
Re:Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:2)
-jhp
Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:5)
They're absolutely right. It's not about data, it's about intellectual property. IANAL, but at least I can spot a red herring when I see one.
-jhp
Re:Stay in school (Score:1)
That means you('re) free to go after 4th grade.
looks like they let you out early
Re:*thwack* *thwack*. (Score:1)
how good would the database been, then??
it's unknown cause that didn't happen!
speakin of 1995: *i* remember back in '95 when win95 came out and it had a built in cd player and you could enter all that same kinda data into the cd player and it saved it into a text file in the windows directory. that was cool. not as cool as CDDB was at the time though. too bad MS didn't think of a central network database of CD titles available over the internet... i mean, they knew the internet was going to be a big thing, right?
Re:Some info which may be relevant. (Score:1)
anyway:
Some facts for you all, so you can actually talk about things without pulling stuff out the air:
- Do you really think Gracenote would sue Roxio without the solid belief that they could win? Do you really think their suit has no basis in law? Think again. You may not agree with the law as it stands, but it probably does favor them in at least one of their claims. That's all it takes to win *something*.
so where's the facts you were just talking about? this little diatribe is full of a lot of questions and "probably"'s for facts. but the thing that could have saved this paragraph is maybe some kind of reasoned thought or something on *why* you think they could win a lawsuit. but you didn't.
- There is little doubt that there is stuff in the contract between the two companies that is not being made public. For all we know there could be something that bars them from switching services, or a million other possibilities. WHO KNOWS? Unless you KNOW, it's a waste of time to argue that the suit is baseless.
again there is a remarkable lack of fact in this paragraph. it takes you to the last sentence to answer your own damn questions. everything that's being discussed here is based on everything that's been publicly released... understand? what are you saying, no one can comment until the trial is over and done with and everything is for public review? that makes sense.
- You don't see them suing companies using other similar services, so I'm guessing their objection is to Roxio using one that's based on IP they fancy to be theirs. Comments about them suing because Roxio won't use *their* service are probably naive. Those would be totally baseless grounds to sue on, and it's a safe bet that they're not using Luigi's cousin's brother-in-law lawyer as their counsel.
the problem is roxio is not using their IP!!! they have switched to a competitor that arguably offers a similar service. that's it. end of story. if anything, they should be suing freedb, but there's no money there, is there (as opposed to adaptec/roxio, who have deep pockets i'm sure). everyone seems to be missing this point.
unfortunately, you have offered no facts, just opinions. you offered no "info which may be relevant". you haven't even given any well reasoned *opinions*.
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:1)
When I enter us.cddb.com and ~cddb/cddb.cgi, the query always fails (am I doing something wrong?).
Some speedy damage control here (Score:5)
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.
Including suing someone who want to switch to a free alternative? Not mentioned.
Most of our developer partners understand our need to defray our costs, and don't demand that we provide our service for free. They also know that even if they had free access at one point in time it doesn't mean that they are guaranteed free access in perpetuity, at our expense.
But of course, if they want access to a free service without paying our expenses, then hell, we'd better get after them.
See how it works kids? Your average suit who needs to worry about business and that kind of stuff will read this excellent piece of spin-doctoring and wonder what all the hullabaloo is about. I reckon this letter cost them a fortune to draw up.
Re:I'm confused (Score:1)
On the other hand, I have no sympathy for roxio. Their software is pretty low quality and high priced.
You obviously have not used Toast, their premier product. Oh, wait, you must be using a PC... it's no wonder you don't like it.
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:1)
Re:The answer is a proxy! (Score:1)
Interesting idea though...
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
Gracenotes protecting user rights? Spyware inside! (Score:5)
I grabbed this from xmcd 2.6pl0
hello=oolon+sunset.ankh.org+xmcd+v2.6PL0
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 (compatible; xmcd 2.6PL0)
Accept: text/plain
Having found this in xmcd I thought I would check another client, and this is what grip sent before they banned it.
GET
HTTP/1.1
Host: freedb.freedb.org
User-Agent: Grip/2.95
Accept: text/plain
I guess gracenotes didn't like an email address of private+free.the.cddb and of course there is grip's submission system which was how do i say
Modify your Winamp settings (Score:5)
Here's how:
Open the Winamp Preferences window and look under input plug-ins for "Nullsoft CD/LineIn plug-in." Select that item and click Configure. A window will pop up entitled "CD playback settings." Change the value in the CDDB server field to read as follows:
freedb.freedb.org:8880
And of course make sure the "Use CDDB" option is checkmarked.
I encourage all Winamp users who support freedb to do this.
Sounds like a content-free non-answer... (Score:5)
Consider this hypothetical situation. You go to one of the numerous [bestbuy.com] electronics [circuitcity.com] or [officemax.com] computer [compusa.com] retailers [officedepot.com] across the fruited plain and you buy a computer off the shelf. (Please...you can stop laughing now at the absurdity of this possibility.) The thing's preloaded with the latest bluescreen inducer [microsoft.com]. (We're also assuming that, for whatever reason, thinking different [apple.com] isn't an option.) You'd rather replace the preloaded software with something that's a [linux.org] little more reliable [freebsd.org]. You borrow a copy of $LINUX_DISTRO|$FREEBSD_DISTRO from a friend and blow away Win$YEAR when Billy sends some attack lawyers down from Redmond and slaps you with a lawsuit for depriving him of any future revenue when Win`expr $YEAR + 1` comes along.
How is the above hypothetical any different than what Gracenote is trying to pull off here? They seem to be under the impression that once you use their service in your software, you're stuck with them forever.
(Does anybody have a tool and/or a project (probably of a distributed nature) going to brute-force CDDB for all possible data and pass the info along to one of the free (as in speech) alternatives?)
Re:A diffirent take... (Score:2)
--
Re:Geeze, doesn't anybody here read? (Score:2)
BUT, you can't 'pout' (read 'sue') because someone chose your competitor.
The ONLY TWO POSSIBLE grounds for lawsuit would be if they truely have a patent on the protocols themselves. Specifically, the retrieval and access interface.
If that's the case, They they will also need to sue FreeDB to shut down their service because the violation is also there. (of course, most likely a new protocol would be developed and FreeDB would be back again.)
Oh, and you don't only have to READ the article. You need to try to UNDERSTAND IT as well.
Re:Their intellectual property? (Score:2)
Not that i agree with them.. but thats what they are sayin towards the bottom of the "open letter"
~~No i can't spell, thanks for askin thoe~~
Re:Their intellectual property? (Score:2)
From what I understand in reading about the case, they (Gracenote) are claiming that Roxio/Adaptec developed the conectivity to Gracenote's service, and that they are now using the same code (i think this is the argument?) to connect to freedb. To paraphrase: they're still using the same protocol.
I'm not sure (though doubt) that Gracenote had anything to do with writing th actuall code (I don't think that they would own any copyright in the programs at least, but whatever). I still don't see where Gracenote hopes to go with this... time and again, the law has shown that protocols aren't protected to the degree that companies sometimes want them to be. . .
--
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
'Course, if I ever DO find something missing, it'll be FreeDB that'll get the tracks.
That was the whole Digital:Convergence plan too (Score:2)
That'd be a good thing actually (Score:2)
like you'rs better (Score:2)
I imagine it must be simply on the bases of "breach of contract". a contract that must say "you may not use our competeters". however, what i bet it says is "you may not use our SDK with competitors" perhapes thats what the problem is.
Even thought the protocol [freedb.org] for freedb [freedb.com] is simple, i can see Roxio not using the free implementation [freedb.org] due to the restricitve GPL license. and opted to just keeping using CDDB's SDK.
If so this is a true irony for the open source/ information wants to be free croud.
-Jon
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
I propose that people learn the lesson here and just forget restitution. See revenge instead by supporting better protocols and better databases!
Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:5)
Re:Remove my data and start again! (Score:2)
True, true (Score:2)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Microsoft Windows Media Player (Score:3)
Guess they figure that Microsoft has too much money to invest in lawyers, as compared to Roxio, and therefore they would probably risk too much in litigating against the big boys in Redmond.
Its Rambus All over again (Score:2)
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.
This is just silly. I guess they are claming to own cddbp and I assume next they will file a patent on sql. Next they will be fileing a patent on hashing based on track information. This is completely silly and I hope Roxio fights them, it will turn out like the rambus suite, they will loose, waste a lot of money, hopefully pissing of the judge enough to allow the other side to counter sue, and for all of this to go away. My question is why are they suing roxio (a user) and not suing the competing service freedb? If they run a service so better then freedb, why dont they just compete, exactly like rambus. If they really were better they wouldnt need the courts they would win in the market. Its more and more obvoius that the courts are a second chance after loosing in the market place.
Oh, nice... thanks, Scherf! (Score:3)
So let me get this straight: it wasn't a nameless "them" that turned CDDB into the cash-greedy proprietary corporation it has now become, but rather it was one of the two co-founders of CDDB?!
Thanks, Steve. (I wonder what Mr. Kan has to say about this whole brouhaha?)
--
Not really the users' property, either. (Score:2)
The CDDB server just passes along info entered by users. But the users are just passing the same info along from their album covers. If this CD data belongs to anybody, it's the copyright holders of the track listings.
(Personally, I think all the track listings are really public domain, or should be. The database is a different story. Suing a company for using a competing product (if that's what's going on) is a completely separate issue, of course.)
-Erf C.
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
Re:Modify your Winamp settings (Score:2)
The case is not about the code or the data. (Score:2)
Their concern is probably based on Section 6 [cddb.com] of their license, which reads (in part):
6.Negative Covenants and Restrictions ...
d.Your Licensed Application shall not have or
enable a function that permits transmission
of TOC or the combination of TOC together with
Data to anyone other than Gracenote.
which seems to tie closely to Section 3.b [cddb.com]
b.You will use the Gracenote CDDB Client and the Gracenote CDDB Database as the exclusive source for CD identification and Data when your Licensed Application accesses such information by reading a CD's TOC or disc identification number and retrieves Data or related data via the Internet.
Section 11.d [cddb.com] says,
"Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days notice for any reason."
But this is where it gets interesting. They have Section 13 [cddb.com], which reads in whole
"13.Survival of Provisions. These sections shall survive termination of this Agreement: 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and Schedule A."
So, once you cancel this contract you're still bound by it? I can understand their restricting exclusive use to their server of their approved apps, but I don't understand how any of these provisions apply to someone who terminated their license.
John
IANALBIPOOSD (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Play One On Slash Dot)
Remove my data and start again! (Score:2)
It is not fair, they build their bussiness based on free submissions from users because we thought that the database could be accessed for free, everyone is fooled, now the database is big and they go and charge for its access. They argue that the value is in the software that manages the interface: wrong!
That same database interface beeing empty is worth nothing.
What is not fair is to change the conditions, I will ask them something, create a new company, call it Gracenote2 with this very nice interface to a new empty database and start over again, I am sure that you will have as much submissions as before this time that users will know the new conditions and soon you will have the same data than before, with a slight difference, now your bussiness will be completly legitimate in my point of view.
Re:Remove my data and start again! (Score:2)
Will "Golden Burger" take me to court if I change to "Burger Free"?
Well, Timothy (Score:4)
There is a worldwide trend of granting intellectual property protections to databases and compilations of information. This is especially prevelant in European nations, given the EU Database Directive.
For instance, check out the Terms of Use adhesion contract used by the Irish affiliate [monster.ie]of Monster.com.
" The contents of the TMP Sites, such as text, graphics, images, logos, button icons, software and other material (collectively, "Material"), are protected under European Union, Irish and international copyright, database right, sui generis right, trademark and other intellectual property laws. Except as provided in the Agreement, all Material is the property of TMP or its content suppliers or clients. The compilation (meaning the collection, arrangement and assembly) of all content on each TMP Site (other than on Private Label pages of Monster.ie) is the exclusive property of TMP, subject to any and all intellectual property rights that Customer may have in the materials prepared and posted by Customer on a TMP Site and all other prior intellectual property rights that Customer may have, and may be protected by European Union, Irish and international copyright laws. "
Why would this be of signifcance to residents outside the EU? Well, consider the Hague Convention [slashdot.org] on Jurisdiction. The purpose of the Convention is to make foreign civil and commercial judgements recognizable and enforceable in other nations. One of the most controversial aspects of the Convention regards Intellectual Property, as different nations have different IP regimes -- like Database Protections and Sui Generis rights.
Now, if you're an American, you shouldn't have to be worried about European style Database Protections, other than considering them faraway, European oddities. Under the Hague Convention, a judgement regarding Database Protections against you held in an European court under European law can be enforced against you in America.
Hope that sheds a little light on your question.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Re:Ignore them, they've no leg to stand on (Score:2)
How could '3 years of CDDB's existance' have been overlooked in the prior art submitted by Scherf and/or Kan? I understood that people filing patent apps had to do a 'reasonable' attempt at providing PA.
How could even the most incompetent of searches on the part of the patent clerk not provide evidence of prior art?
Are the patent clerks simply fucking clueless about technology? Have they changed the policy - openly or not - at the Patent Office to STOP holding a patent application to the prior art -or- 'reasonably created by someone competent in the art'?
What is going on with the USPTO? Can someone phone the USPTO and just ask 'How the fcuk did you give this a patent? They published this as GPL 3 years prior!'
I am amazed at the USPTO - and terrified that this 'ip' land grab is increasing speed.
I could be wrong (Score:2)
I keep hearing from the slashdot crowd about how Gracenote is trying to take over the data as their own property when it rightfully belongs to those who submitted it. While excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the CDDB just a listing of song titles and album names? (I know there are some additional things now, but that's not the primary purpose here) And aren't those song titles and album titles rightfully the IP of the bands/record labels that came up with them in the first place? All you users which entered data into CDDB. Didn't you just crab your CD covers and input exactly what was written? So how does this give rights to the one who submitted the entry?
I would agree that Gracenote has no right to call the content their own. But I don't think the submitters have any more rights to it. I do, however, agree that Gracenote has rights to defend their service. They pay for the servers, bandwidth, development/enhancement of infrastructure, etc. They have a right to charge for that stuff.
What I find confusing about this open letter is that they don't mention FreeDB at all. They only mention Roxio trying to use their service without paying. I'm thinking we don't have the full story yet. It just doesn't make sense that they'd go after Roxio for using FreeDB. There's more to this than meets the eye.
Re:An Open Letter to David Hyman (Score:3)
Dear Mr. Hyman,
I just finished reading your open letter to the community regarding your lawsuit against Roxio/Adaptec (http://www.gracenote.com/open_letter.html).
What your letter fails to mention, and what I - along with numerous others - still don't understand, is why you're suing Roxio/Adaptec in the first place. From what I gather, Roxio/Adaptec has chosen not to use your CDDB service, instead opting to use a free competitor. In capitalist societies, the right to choose from whom you receive a particular product or service is a given, and in many cases, the lowest bidder gets the job.
Nowhere in your letter do you say that Roxio/Adaptec has any contract with Gracenote mandating that they use your database and your database only. Is there such a contract? If so, then Roxio/Adaptec is clearly in breach, and you've got every right to exercise your legal options. But if you don't have a prior arrangement, why exactly are you suing?
I look at your lawsuit, and I see McDonald's suing me because I decided to eat at Burger King today. That's how I'll continue to see it until Gracenote explains why the lawsuit was filed to begin with.
Regards,
Shaun
Right, what do they really add? (Score:2)
The next value-added feature will be strong encryption and User ID verification for end users to ensure their ehm . . . safety. Implementing this feature could cost zillions in consulting fees.
Luckily, these guys are pros and they're gonna save us by making all the good choices. That's why they deserve the money!
Re:Their intellectual property? (Score:5)
IN all seriousness, perhaps a developer who has licensed the CDDB data can explain this to me. DO they provide as part of the license, some proprietary client or indexing algorythem to be used and embedded into the media application? If this is the case, did Roxio remove such a client, libraries, algorythem or whatever from their application when they switched vendors? Is this what they're sueing for?
Then why didn't they say that in the letter?
--CTH
--
Re:A diffirent take... (Score:2)
Yep, interesting. And STUPID. Just look at hwo far that got RAMBUS... RAMBUS (that fradulent IP Lawfirm) has made enemies of the whole RAM industry, which means their company long term life expectancy wasn't good even IF they'd clubbed Infineon.
Gracenote is doing the same thing. By swinging a club at Roxio they are alienating ANY AND ALL of their paying customers. Gracenote should instead be making their service SUPERIOR to FreeDB (faster servers, more accurate data, etc) which might induce tbe larger companies like Adaptec derived Roxio to choose them.
But this is 2001, improving your product so it suceeds on MERIT is NOT AN OPTION, suing is...
Go figure.
Re:A diffirent take... (Score:2)
Exactly, and as the operator of several websites, Google charging for services (in effect making money off my strictly non-commercial, paid for out of my own pocket sites), I'd refuse to let them list my site.
But then, as the author of my websites, I clearly own the original content contained there. Fuck, under the DMCA, if I were to remove the meta tags (used by search engines) and put in a DMCA copyright notice granting NO ONE the right to list my site in a search engine, I could probably sue Google for "circvumventing" my "protection scheme" (weak as it would be) under the DMCA, if they by-passed it by manually listing it, describing the site, etc, instead of using the (not there) meta tags.
Whether users punching in CD tracklists/titles "owned" that information is debatable. However, what is NOT debatable is that they owned the LABOR they gave to type it all in. IMO, IANAL for Gracenote to make "ownership" even of their database stick, they'd have to dump the user entered one and re-create it on their dime...
But, as I said on another thread, Gracenote's suit against Roxio is groundless, UNTIL they sue FreeDB and establish that FreeDB is an illegal service. Roxio is in effect, a user of a service that is legal.
Why do they not do this? Mostly because they know they'd lose to FreeDB, as the have no grounds to sue them either. Even though they later patented their interface, the interface that FreeDB uses was GPL'ed. Once GPL'ed it can't be taken back...
The court should not only dismiss Gracenote's suit, they should do so "with prejustice" which means that it cannot be re filed in it's current form. This suit is nothing more than using the courts as a form of extortion. In effect, "putting out a hit" on a business that is simply going for the best deal.
Re:A diffirent take... (Score:2)
Not necessarily, if any ridimentary "copy protection" was attempted, because of the DMCA...
I agree with you, such a suit would be STUPID, and should be laughed out of court. And it's something I'd never do. However, the fact that the DMCA, as passed, as argued and ruled on by "judge" Kaplan in the 2600 case (particularly his no-link to DeCSS extension) would seem to make such a suit possible. I only provided this example to once again show why the DMCA is bad law.
Maybe a court would laugh me away if I sued a pay-per-search Google for "circumventing" my no-list, no link copyright notice (by circumventing my not having descriptive meta tags). But do you think that these courts would laugh away such a suit being brought against Google by Time Warner (who for sake of argument, started their own pay-per-search engine and wants all their content ONLY listed on it)? I don't think so...
Re:The case is not about the code or the data. (Score:2)
I don't see how an expired contract could have validity past it's expiration point.
The only thing I could see legitimately surviving the termination of a contract is some sort of "non disclosure"(ie: you received some inside info that could damage the party you were in contract with).
I dont' see how a court could uphold a contract like the one Gracenote thinks they have, which both "expires" yet prevents the other party from EVER using a competing product.
The implications and potential for abuse of that method of contract is scary to say the least.
Remember what time we live in... 2001 America, where the courts function only for the corporations and the wealthy. Fortunately, Roxio has more money than Gracenote, and will likely win.
But what happens when the truly mammoth megacorps "Microsoft (cough)" start employing Gracenote and RAMBUST's strategy?
Microsoft could conceivably dump this clause into their 3-year limited enterprise "EULA":
"You may not use any competing product ever after accepting this license"
Trust me, MS is thinking of doing this...
Re:Still doesn't stand up in court (Score:4)
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
No, they don't agree to that at all. They've reprocessed and refined the data, and since the data wasn't supplied under GPL-like terms, I'm sure the data on their servers can legally be called "theirs" in the same way that Webster's Dictionary doesn't belong to the people that "invented" all those words.
As to their lawsuit, the only possibility for them that I can see is that if Roxio is using Gracenote's (client) code in their product under a license that prohibits that. Simple solution, write your own code, the protocol isn't that tough.
For the record, I think that what Gracenote has done (locked away data we entered) and is doing (suing someone for using a competitor) is shameless, but they might have a narrow legal point.
Re:Please answer this, Gracenote. (Score:2)
The most glaring example is having the Artist and Title in the same field and relying on everyone to use the same nomenclature for what the seperator is.
IMO, freedb should do Gracenote one better and make a move to a more robust format with more information and phase out this ad hoc way of doing things.
Geeze, doesn't anybody here read? (Score:3)
Uh, actually it's the other way around. Rather than address why they think Roxio has violated their intellectual property by using a Gracenote competitor, they address why they think "our" contributions to CDDB somehow became "their" I.P.:
Next time, please read the damn article before posting. Oh, this is /. Nevermind!
They didn't address the biggest question... (Score:3)
FreeDB is not copying Gracenote's current code. They are not stealing Gracenote's current data. They are not using Gracenote's network infrastructure. Therefore, they are doing nothing wrong...and thus, Roxio cannot be guilty of any sort of "contributory infringement" because there is no infringement occuring in the first place.
The only possible legal basis I can see for this lawsuit would be some sort of clause in Roxio's contract that forbids them from going to a compteting system. If that is the case, however, it's really their own fault for not reading the contract thoroughly before signing it. Yeah, it's a sleazy clause, but Roxio's legal team should have been more on the ball...
DennyK
Re:Their intellectual property? (Score:5)
-----------------
Re:Microsoft Windows Media Player (Score:2)
The patent is on how the hash is created from the cd. hases are made by using the number of tracks, track length and other available information, as audio cd's do not have a natural identifier like a UPC # that is computer readable.
Basically this is a weak patent and is unlikely to be enforceable. Folks like mp3.com and microsoft that use similar processes, but not the _exact_ same hash, are left alone. A user of the free service must provide the same has code as was originally generated by the cddb software, or there is no other (automated) way to do a match. So really the issue is that they use the same hases, as i understand it.
This may be incorrect in some way, as i wasn't goin to post as i'm not an expert, but it seems like there is a good deal of confusion over what the issue is. This is how i understand it.
A diffirent take... (Score:3)
That said, I think the lawsuit is totally ludicrious, unless there WAS a clause in the contract, in which case, Roxio is obviously screwed...
Gracenote is arguing Roxio's case for them (Score:5)
Gracenote provides fast, accurate and secure data delivery to end-users that is available around the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to more than 25 million unique users a month. We operate redundant systems in multiple locations to provide what we feel is the best-possible user experience, and that takes bandwidth, servers, database licenses, terabytes of storage, and an expert staff to keep it all running. Additionally, we provide multiple levels of support to our developers to help them offer the best possible applications. Thousands of developers understand and appreciate the value and quality of our service, and are willing to pay our modest licensing fees to support it."
How is Roxio causing a problem here? They aren't hijacking Gracenote's servers, they are just using data from elsewhere -- and, as Gracenote says it's not about the data. And all they are saying after that is that they give great service for their licensing fees. So? Just because they do a great job, everyone should be forced to use their service?
-----------------------
An Open Letter to David Hyman (Score:5)
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 7:37 PM
Subject: About Suing Roxio
Dear Mr. Hyman -
I read your open letter regarding the lawsuit against Roxio, and I would like you to know that I am sad to see how you are digging in your heels over this.
The fact is, regardless of however much code Gracenote has developed, that the data was provided to CDDB by end-users who, for the most part, were contributing to other end-users. If CDDB had said, "help us build our database so we can get big enough to stop anyone else from doing it," you would have never ended up where you are now.
I do not dispute that you have every right to ask that developers who build connectivity to your servers be asked to pay a fee. What I do dispute is your right to try to force, by abuse of the law, anyone who would dare choose to not use your service to have no choice. And you may not realize this, but in the end, your war is against the users, those whom you are trying to deprive any choice in cd-databases.
Your behavior on this matter is wrong. Why is it that you do not respect the right of others to compete with you? Just because they are offering a free service does not mean that they have done something wrong. In your letter, you state that you provide quality service. I do not doubt that. If you are that much better than freedb, then you have nothing to fear.
I will switch my CD-ripping software to connect to freedb, and encourage everyone I know to do the same. Please discontinue this lawsuit. Give users a choice.
Thank you
-----------------------
more gracenote (Score:3)