Roxio Countersues Gracenote 97
Silverhammer writes "Roxio has countersued Gracenote over fair use of the CDDB. Check out the press release. Basically, the suit includes all the gripes voiced here on Slashdot: you can't patent free data (album titles and track listings), you can't patent against prior art, you can't patent data submitted in good faith by users, yadda, yadda, yadda..."
Re:I'm not impressed by these arguments (Score:1)
Re:Opinions & Beliefs vs. Facts (Score:1)
The majority of people in the world don't agree with you and their laws reflect that. What you hold is a belief not a fact. You're welcome to continue presenting it as a fact (free country and all that), but it's not accurate. It would be rather more accurate to propose indisputable facts that support your belief.
Once again: an inch-long fetus isn't a baby, it's a fetus. At what point in the pregnancy it becomes unconscionable to abort the pregnancy (hence the term abortion, there's that annoying little fact concept again) is certainly up for debate.
For me personally, if it were up to me, any woman I got pregnant would carry the child to term and during that time we would decide if we would keep it or give it up for adoption. Unlike you, however, I don't consider myself to hold ulitimate righteous wisdom about such things and therefore I don't wish to make this very difficult decision in blanket fashion for everyone else in the world.
Oh, and name-calling is quite unnecessary, but help yourself if it makes you feel better.
Re:Opinions & Beliefs vs. Facts (Score:1)
Oh, and name-calling is quite unnecessary, but help yourself if it makes you feel better.
Weren't you the one who said
Like it or not, my little dittohead
In this same thread?
Re:I'm not impressed by these arguments (Score:1)
If it is a parasite, then it is definitely a seperate living thing. That is what parasites are.
Re:But what about the charging? (Score:1)
Well, before the CDDB people sold out, they allowed us, the community, to host mirrors of the database, which meant that their own servers didn't take that much of the strain. In fact, the UK mirror was hosted on an academic server in Sheffield. Of course, once CDDB went commercial, it denied access to the database, and closed down the mirrors. So the company that's now known as Gracenote is simply guilty of shitting in its own nest.
Re:Constructive suggestion to reclaim cddb (Score:1)
According to some other posts here this is already being done by some cd players.
Re:Why sue Roxio? (Score:1)
Re:Opinions & Beliefs vs. Facts (Score:1)
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:3)
Fine; but what you think and what is actually true are two different things. The poster you responded to is correct. Titles, like instructions and recipes, cannot themselves be copyrighted.
Next time, please at least bother to look it up [loc.gov] before you post erroneous information.
--
You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:5)
By far the most often-used argument against GraceNote is "we entered all of that data ourself! We wrote it up and submitted it!" Of course, what never gets pointed out is that the CD title and the track names are themselves copyrighted material, owned by the copyright holder (in this case the record company.) In point of fact, the legality of entering this information and uploading it anonymously is quite shaky (IMHO.)
In point of fact, you're wrong. Titles of copyrighted works are not themselves copyrighted, but may be trademarked if they are sufficiently Unique. I could go out today and write a book (or produce a movie, or paint a picture) called _Gone With the Wind_ and Margaret Mitchell's estate has no control over it.
Now, if I were to rip off large sections of Mitchell's GWtW I would be liable for copyright infringement. But I can put track listings and song listings all over the Internet if I want and no one has any right to say "boo".
Re:countersue? (Score:1)
Not to support Gracenote but if it was just an issue of them assuming public domain code then WE would have NO recourse as that is perfectly legal, if highly unethical. That's why the GPL, LGPL, BSD and other licenses were created, to afford SOME measure of protection to software authors.
Re:slashdotted allready... (Score:1)
No Delorian??? (Score:3)
To think how far we have come. In '85 we needed a Delorian and a velocity >= 88 mph... Oh, and some plutonium (or anything to get 1.21 GW).
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:2)
What? (Score:5)
How on earth can you presume to be able to prevent me from saying "boo"? If you think that your posting of a couple of track listings can infringe on my founding-father, constitutional convention-given first-amendment rights, WELL, YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING, BUCKO.
Why, I have half a mind to say "boo" right now...
--
Re:Why sue Roxio? (Score:1)
Basically, since Roxio read Gracenote's specifications, any capability to connect to a CDDB database other than Gracenote would violate the current license.
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:1)
You might be surprised to read about a book called "The Wind Done Gone". For a while, a judge issued an injunction against the publisher preventing the distribution of the book to stores. It was filed by the Mitchell Estate.
Re:Constructive suggestion to reclaim cddb (Score:1)
Too bad Gracenote already thought of this, and one of the conditions of their EULA is that you will not connect to a competing database service (aka FreeDB)
Force.
Sweet Justice (Score:1)
Re:copyright! (Score:2)
--
Happens all the time.. (Score:1)
You contribute "free data" that other people sell all the time. Your email address is sold along with thousands of other people to targeted marketing firms. Every time you go shopping and pay with a savings card or credit card, your purchases are tied to the zipcode you live in, and that data is also sold. Why should CDDB be any different?
Thats not to say I support these numbskulls. I've actually contributed to CDDB like so many others, and I find it laughable that someone feels they have the right to own it and sell it. It should remain free, like it was back when I contributed. However, you really shouldn't be surprised that this sort of crap is happening. Happens all the time.
Cheers,
Re:support free DB (Score:1)
Admittedly I do not know much about the way Akamai does things so I don't know if it's possible, but this would remove much of the burden from a single group, and spread costs around.
Any ideas?
I doubt that applies (Score:1)
i.e., Interscope could hypothetically sue Gracenote if they came out with an audio cd named Pretty Hate Machine, but I don't see how they could sue for printing (or even selling) a list of the tracks on the cd.
Re:support free DB (Score:1)
Thought for the Day (Score:2)
Sad, really.
Twoflower
--
Graceland Has Precedent (Score:1)
Data dump. (Score:5)
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but is there anything stopping us from attempting a distributed data dump of the CDDB listings into one of the open alternatives? For example, I'll take Country/Western (>
I mean, it was us that put the information in there in the first place, we should be able to get it back out right?
Exactly like the Unisys GIF fiasco (Score:2)
Roxio = Compuserve
CDDB = GIF
Freedb = PNG
Nuff said.
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:2)
I dunno about that.. in the movie, they say you need 1.21 Jigga-Watts, not 1.21 Gigawatts.
Although why they needed lightning to do that is beyond me.. when I want 1.21 Jigga-Watts, I just head down to the local Hooters
Re:no Liscense? (Score:2)
If they presented the information, whiout a liscence, they have the rights given to them by basic copyright law (In brief, you can use it for personal use only)
A liscence allows the copyright holder to modify those rights.
The GPL does _not_ protect anything - it gives the liscencee _more_ rights.
And, further, if I recall correctly, he original data _was_ GPL'd.
--
Re:I believe your rant is incorrect in its basis.. (Score:1)
Re:Protecting the Evil (Score:1)
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:1)
Re:Constructive suggestion to reclaim cddb (Score:1)
Of course what will happen is that the Gracenote folks will disallow access on any level to non-licensed clients. Not that this is bad---would just force everyone to use FreeDB.
----
Re:I'd be a little more impressed ... (Score:1)
Re:Data dump. (Score:4)
- 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.
Meaning... as long as we don't copy their code (and maybe look&feel or business process) used for storing, retrieving, categorizing, etc... we should be fine?--
Re:countersue? (Score:1)
Eben Moglen (from another forum) on CDDB (Score:4)
Note that this means a CDDB database couldn't be GPL'ed, under the law, either. You're just not allowed to tell other people what to do with facts.
Eben Moglen commented on this in another email forum on May 24; here's an excerpt of his analysis:
> The copyright claim has been particularly discussed here: the
> assertion is that Gracenote can copyright the CDDB database and somehow
> act to prevent infringement. Much attention is being paid to the fact
> that this database was assembled by mass contribution through the net.
> That fact is conceptually interesting: it's an example of the
> beginnings of the "free data" economy I have written about elsewere.
> But it has no effect on the legal situation. The short obvious
> answer, which should result in the dismissal of Gracenote's copyright
> claim, is that Gracenote has no copyrightable interest in the
> database. That's the holding of the US Supreme Court in Feist
> Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 US 340 (1991). Feist
> concerned the assertion of copyright in the content of telephone white
> pages. The Court held that there is insufficient originality in the
> directory associating names, addresses and telephone numbers to put
> the directory within the scope of copyright.
>
> Hence my comment to the press about a phone directory built by asking
> customers to call in. The point is precisely that it *doesn't matter*
> how you come by the information: a directory like the telephone white
> pages or the CDDB database is not copyrightable whether it was
> assembled by going out and finding the information using your own shoe
> leather, or by getting free contributions from others. In any event,
> because what results is facts, not expressions, it's not subject to
> copyright.
--
too slow on the draw (Score:5)
Well, at least somebody got it submitted. I was hoping slashdot would run this; it's nice to have a patent story that doesn't make you want to pull out your hair. If Roxio wins, it will be good news for everybody who ever typed in a CD name. However, just by bringing the suit, they're throwing some much-needed exposure on a subject that hasn't seen much discussion outside of sites like this one: how far can you take the concept of intellectual property ownership with regard to collections of information?
Interesting to see how this turns out. There's some potential precedent-setting case law to be decided here.
--
Re:You missed the point entirely (Score:3)
Mark Duell
Re:Thought for the Day (Score:1)
In it, there is a cow, with the plaintif pulling on the head, the defendant pulling on the tail, and a lawyer seated appropriately milking it.
'nuff said.
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:1)
To bring this back on-topic, it is doubtful that anyone could claim trademark status on every track title they put out on a CD, and in any case, Gracenote is not in a position to defend third party trademarks (which given that legal theory they would be infringing in any case).
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:1)
I kind of doubt that they could do anything about it (except threaten you with frivolous lawsuits, of course). What is a sufficiently 'unique' that it can be copyrighted? "Wind"? "The Winds"? "I'm Gone"? "Gone with the Wind"? Titles are too damn short to copyright. I'm not sure but IIRC you need more than one sentence to claim copyright infrigement (otherwise I would copyright "It was a dark and stormy night"). Most titles are a lot shorter than that.
Trademarks are another story, of course.
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:1)
Protecting the Evil (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Slashdot - a resource for lawyers? (Score:1)
You think these lawyers must have research thru slashdot's posts for their cases?
Is it why it takes them so long to countersue? (-:
Has Saleable Value != Copyrightable (Score:1)
Copyright and ownership are two very related yet distinct concepts. CDDB is not copyrightable, just like that spam list is not copyrightable, even though both have value.
---
Re:Slight irony (Score:1)
Toast isn't very generic when applied to the domain, software -- and software completely unrelated to a preparation technique for bread. Look at Java. It is a strong trademark as well. However "CDDB", aka "Compac Disk Data Base" is rather generic and isn't a very strong trademark.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5)
All works (literature, art, software, etc.) created in the US are automatically copyrighted. Done deal. You don't have to do anything else. Now, for greater security, you can *register* your copyright by officially filing it, and this gives you a far stronger claim on it when you find yourself in court, but legally there's no difference (it's just a lot easier to defend a registered copyright).
"Fair use" is part of copyright law, which grants certain rights to those other than the holder of the copyright. You can specifically do things like quote short passages from books and the like, make backup copies, and so forth.
I'd be a little more impressed ... (Score:1)
That being said, this is overall a good thing, and may help stem the tide of IP grabs if the suit is susccessful.
Re:I'd be a little more impressed ... (Score:1)
support free DB (Score:5)
check out freedb.org [freedb.org]- submit your entries there, and point your CDDB inquiries to freedb.freedb.org
if you buy a CD or more a week, like i do, and immediately rip them, like i do, make a submission of the information - you'll go a long way to helping the CDDB idea.
zero
Track names copyrightable? (Score:1)
Slight irony (Score:4)
And in their IP notice at the bottom: "...and Toast are trademarks of Roxio, Inc...." (emphasis mine)
I think they're two different situations (the generic term CDDB does apply to what Gracenote is trying to trademark it for, whereas Roxio's Toast is something different), but it's still funny. :)
-Erf C.
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:1)
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:2)
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor /dg042501.htm [siliconvalley.com] g wtw.05.04/ [cnn.com]
and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/columns/fl.hilden.
The upshot of all this is that Margaret Mitchell's estate has successfully managed to have the book pulled from bookstores.
Anyway, slightly offtopic, and maybe you were aware of this (could be how you got your example), but I thought it might be an item of interest.
peace...
or MusicBrainz (Score:4)
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:1)
What I realise is that the 'giga' prefix is of Greek derivation, from the word for Giant, and that the classical Greek alphabet (the one with alpha and beta at the start) didn't have a 'J'. That's why, for example, the New Testament is full of references to a chap called Iesus who lived in the province of Iudea.
OTOH, if I choose to pronounce 'giga' so it sounds like 'cheese', then it's fair to say that gigawatt is pronounced 'cheesewatt'. It's just not terribly useful as a means of communication. And in any case, that would presumably make it 'jijawatt'.
Oh, the perils of having a classics prof for a dad. sigh...
TomV
Re:copyright! (Score:3)
Re:I'm not impressed by these arguments (Score:2)
I just have to put this line in the same category as Schopenhauer's Fallacy and "They laughed at Einstein..." Really, sir, do you wish to be looked at as a crackpot? You definitely sound like one.
/Brian
Re:No Delorian??? (Score:1)
Re:copyright! (Score:1)
---
DOOR!!
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:3)
However, there is a fair use right to create lists and databases of those titles, though not one to USE that title for another song, etc.
Then why in my CD collection can I find three different songs by three different groups (Collective Soul, Moist, Prodigy) called Breathe? (All feature singles from the respective albums, no less.) Why hasn't there been a court battle between The Offspring and U2 over Staring At The Sun?
Constructive suggestion to reclaim cddb (Score:4)
copyright! (Score:4)
But you can copyright collections (Score:1)
The question here is whether the record company or artist, who does not own copyright on the titles of either the recording or the individual songs, might own an enforceable copyright on the collection - so that publishing the album title followed by the songs in order, and just those songs on that album, might be in violation. I kind of doubt any court has seen this particular permutation, but there could be an argument for copyright covering it.
NOT AT ALL like the Unisys GIF fiasco (Score:3)
There is something in common -- both Disgracenote and Urinesys commited despicable acts. Just that, though.
Re:countersue? (Score:5)
this is why you may be uninformed.
To recap for you:
1)Grace took a public database that was contributed to freely by thousands of people as a public cetral resource, and decided that this was theirs alone, and no one else could used it.
2)Roxio decided to use someone else's database
3)Grace sued Roxio , saying that they couldn't use someone else's database, because they had the copyright on all of the data, and to do so was to break copyright law because veryone else database had to be breaking the copyright law on this. Even if independantly compiled.
4)Roxio is now counter suing, asaying that Grace is trying to copyright public domain data.
I think I have it mostly right, but I am sure someone will correct me on the details.
it is sort of like suing someone for using a different dictionary or telephone book or whatever because you got a copyright on it.
Now Grace has got a problem, because I think Roxio was their biggest user, and Grace tried to muscle in with big ticket license fees. to which Roxio said "sphhhxxxt!"
I swear, when I set up my slash site, I'm am going to have a moderation item labeled "clueless"
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
yes they can (Score:1)
made it legal to patent collections of data, since
some collections will take time and money to put
together. I see gracenote using these laws,
to hammer people out of business if they don't pay
up. For cripes sake we used their network
resoures, that someone had to pay for. They are
looking for return on investment, however small
that was.
And there no single defined opposing party anyway,
just public, from all over the world. Good for the
player maker to stand on public's side, cuz no
one else will. Free advertisement skeptics will
say. Ay, hell ya.
Why sue Roxio? (Score:1)
I believe your rant is incorrect in its basis... (Score:1)
My understanding is that you cannot copyright a title of a work. Titles of songs may be registered with some sort of ASCAP organization, which may prevent competing songs/albums from carrying identical titles, but it's not the same as copyright, which implies ownership. The recording artist/publisher has no more claim to royalties from a CDDB database than I would as someone entering the data, in my view.
Re:countersue? (Score:1)
Gracenote has done nothing wrong, they took information that was put in the public domain, included some value-added features and sold is as a product.
You miss the critical point - as well as selling the CD data as a product, they removed it from the public domain. This is something they had no right to do, since the data was contributed by the community, on the understanding that it would remain in the public domain.
The first amendment gives every one in the US (including corporations) the right to freedom of business!
Uh... What?
All these people that are complaining about having their hard work "stolen" are probably the same people that contribute to open-source software -- they will not get any compensation or recognition for that either, and they don't complain, so what is the problem?
You don't understand Open-Source very well, do you. Even if you did, your analogy is flawed. There are many reasons for developing Open Source software. One of them is to fix or improve something that needs fixing, and make the benefits that your code brings available to everyone, for the good of the community. My Open Source software is freely available for everyone to use/enjoy, and that's the way I want it. What Gracenote did was to take my (and others) work, and remove that free availability! Again - something they had no right to do.
Strags
Re:countersue? (Score:1)
The point is that the data that we spent thousands of collective hours entering is not publically available elsewhere!
Strags
Re:I'm not impressed by YOUR arguments (Score:1)
But what about the charging? (Score:2)
One thing that people seem to be unhappy about is the fact that Gracenote charge for the information. Now I can understand from the perspective of the people that entered the data that this sucks. But looking at it from Gracenotes point of view (and *ignoring the making money angle* for the moment) why shouldn't they charge to keep the service running?
I'm not trolling (honest guv) but trying to understand one thing. That is that hosting a huge database that millions (or a hell of a lot, I don't have the stats) costs.
When I mean costs I mean:
- Costs of all hardware and software upgrades (a new HD isn't cheap)
- Bandwidth costs (all those people requesting uses it)
- Server maintenance costs (someone has to look after the thing)
and so on.I know that we (as the the community) provided the data for free but as much as we'd like it still costs to host something and whilst it would be nice for Gracenote to do it for free, they themselves will incurr costs that will have to be paid for by someone.
What are peoples opinions on this?
As a subnote - if Gracenote are charging any more than the costs for the above (ie. making a profit) then shoot them all. That just plain sucks.
--
Re:Eben Moglen (from another forum) on CDDB (Score:1)
You're just not allowed to tell other people what to do with facts.
So what's all the fuss about DMCA? Isn't there a lot of movement on the corporate front to prevent the free exchange of facts?
Re:countersue? (Score:1)
Choose your enemies, don't create them (Score:1)
I'm not impressed by YOUR arguments (Score:2)
Now there's a very American-centric point of view if I've ever heard one. The USA is the ONLY ( I repeat ONLY ) first world nation that does not have medical care supplied for its citizens by the government. I don't really care whether or not you want to quibble over whether this is a God given right or not, but I think that any country which has the money to afford such a program, it is the citizen's right to demand it of the government. After all the government's money is by definition the citizens' money. Only in the somewhat odd-ball ( if you'll excuse the phrase ) American way of thought does being a wealthy powerful first world nation go hand in hand with denying such basic services to its citizens.
Yes, but there is a distinct difference ( which exists in the copyright laws themselves ) between infringement of a copyright by illegal copying and reference to a work. Referencing works is a protected right of the public, and must be. Think how absurd it would be if someone needed permission of corporate lawyers to publish an analysis of popular music, or any work which requires making reference to other works - this would bring academia to a grinding halt. Likewise a database of CD titles and track names is a reference work. It makes reference to existing works, it does not copy them. Therefore it makes no infringement upons the "copy rights" of those people who created / own the works.
Only in a country where infanticide is condoned in the interest of "women's choice" would we be having an argument like this.
Now there's some serious trolling if I ever heard it. How 'bout I counter with a little trolling of my own. Only in a country of @$$ backwards religious fanatics and pinheaded rednecks would you ever hear arguments like this which put the rights of a handful of people to make a few bucks above the general rights of hundreds of millions of people to general knowledge.
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:1)
Re:I'm not impressed by these arguments (Score:1)
Perhaps the reason it never gets pointed out is that it is not true. See for example, item number 5 on Brad Templeton's Myths about copyright [templetons.com] page. Sheesh.
Re:Thought for the Day (Score:1)
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:2)
However, there is a fair use right to create lists and databases of those titles, though not one to USE that title for another song, etc.
The major point is this: Yes, titles can and ARE owned and copyrighted, but the copyright holder is not and CANNOT be Gracenote! Which makes their lawsuit moot as hell and suggests a serious ass-whipping is in order for the idiot judge who even accepted it.
Re:You CANNOT copyright titles (Score:2)
Sooner or later, there is going to HAVE to be punishment for lawyers and judges who allow our legal system to be plagued with frivilous lawsuits.
Re:Eben Moglen (from another forum) on CDDB (Score:1)
IANAL, but CDDB is not just facts/data it is a compilation and representation of this data and as such might be copyrightable.
Analogus to a previus story about a database of GPS postitions, you cant copyright the fact that A is in posistion (X,Y) but you can coyright a list of sucht positions, meaning others cant copy your list, but has to go out and make their own measurements.
You missed the point entirely (Score:4)
no Liscense? (Score:2)
Re:Why sue Roxio? (Score:3)
That's the funny part. Roxio was a Gracenote customer. Then Roxio announced they were dropping Gracenote and using freedb. Gracenote lost a large customer, so they had to sue somebody, right? (can't let your stockholders know you lost a customer because your product is overpriced).
Suing freedb wasn't going to get them any $$$, so they sued Roxio for not buying their product anymore. This is like Ford suing Avis because they switched to Chevys. You think Avis wouldn't counter-sue? What were Gracenote thinking?
I hope Roxio win so big that Gracenote folds and Napster has to contract with freedb for the data they need to comply with the court order. Then I hope freedb says "no" to Napster. Never happen. I can wish, but it'll never happen.
Re:Protecting the Evil (Score:2)
I have to agree. To add to your comment, they're the ones buying up or destroying all the competition. For example, they bought Toast and Cequadrat, two major competitors. They sued Prassi, a smaller competitor, for using their intellectual property (i.e. patents), and extracted $2 million dollars from them, as well as the source code to their products that use "Roxio technology". And on top of it all, they make low-quality software which has the tendency to toast computers it's installed on (pun intended).
In short, Roxio is everything slashdotters hate. Why all the love then?
Terrible example (Score:2)
--
Excellent... *slowly taps finger tips togeather* (Score:1)
yeah, i'm a n00b... (Score:1)
2001-06-21 15:24:43 Whatever Article Blah Blah (articles,patents) (rejected)
Re:Shouldn't that be JW? (Score:2)
"can't patent prior art" (Score:1)
The only problem with this statement (can't patent prior art) as it applies here is that Steve Scherf is an author of the original CDDB software and a founder of Gracenote. So I don't think it's really "prior art" in the sense that it's work that someone else did, but it's *his* prior art, so it should be OK for his company to consider it "their" IP. Although there were *two* original authors, according to Gracenote...
Original Gracenote open letter link (not a mirror) [gracenote.com]
So maybe it shouldn't be OK? Roxio claims that Gracenote's patents are invalid (probably not), that their trademark and copyright attempts are bogus (probably yes) and that they are antitrusting public information (iffy). But what's really interesting is that xmcd, the original app to implement this stuff (as far as I can find), is GPL'ed. Now GPL'ed software should be patentable (bizarrely enough) as much as any other software, but can Gracenote hold a patent to the technology, given the status of xmcd (*not* a Gracenote app!)?
Re:I'd be a little more impressed ... (Score:1)