Talk:Gracenote/wordinglegalcopyrightproblems

Mr. Becker's CV, Court Documents, Other Legal Issues[edit]

Here's more text that needs attention:

The service quickly outgrew Scherf's ability to host and a larger server, hosting facilities...

This is wrong. The service was always hosted out of a large number of sites external to us, see the wayback machine archive and click on the "server sites" link. You will see lots of servers outside of the one we had feeding them. I fed them through a phone line, then simple ISDN, with no trouble. There was no need for "larger server, hosting facilities" etc. What Graham Toal offered was a home for the website. Steve Scherf 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement:

In 1998, the service was purchased by Escient, a high-tech venture firm

is incorrect. Escient was not a venture firm. They were a high end consumer electronics manufacturer. See Escient if you question that. Steve Scherf 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement:

At some point the code for xmcd was modified to append copyright notices to all submissions. How visible or open this was to contributors remains a matter of debate.

is incorrect. See the database archive link I provided above. It proves that copyrights were being inserted from the beginning (1993) if you believe the header information. If you do not, then the 1994 timestamp on the archive itself still predates the CDDB service by a longshot. The simple fact is that XMCD did this from the practical beginning, and most definitely before the CDDB service ever existed. If you still don't believe me, then download the xmcd player source code from the ftp.x.org page that also has the database, and look at the file ac_dbprog.c on line 679, and you will see this:

       /* File header */
       fprintf(fp, "# xmcd %s CD database file\n", VERSION);
       fprintf(fp, "# Copyright (C) 1994 Ti Kan\n");

This is proof that xmcd inserted the copyright from at least version 1.1, released in 1994, way before the CDDB service existed. I'm almost certain it was in 1.0 as well, but the question seems moot. I think you can now erase the "matter of debate" from the Gracenote article. Steve Scherf 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the other concerns you have and edited them appropriately, if you have still concerns on those or others have concerns (please prove WP:V when replying). The musicmatch case I will have to take some more time to read before I'm able to side with anyone. --Simonkoldyk 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more:

This statement:

The xmcd player was developed by Ti Kan, and had the ability to store and recognize CDs from a database included with the application.

Is not true. The database never shipped with xmcd. It was always a separate package. This is shown by the links to ftp.x.org above. The xmcd-1.1 package is at this link, while the database package is at this different link. That's because they are separate packages. It doesn't make sense to bundle something big like the database with the smaller xmcd package, and they are released on very different schedules and with different licenses. This became especially true as the database grew in size. So it is not true to say that the database was included with the application. Steve Scherf 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have also included this statement in the preceding comment:

The database within the xmcd application is the original CDDB.

This also isn't true, if it means to say that the database came with the xmcd application. In any case, I do not understand the point this sentence is trying to make. Should probably be removed or corrected/clarified. Steve Scherf 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence:

In 1998, the service was purchased by Escient, a consumer electronics manufactorer...

manufacturer is spelled incorrectly.

This statement:

CDDB was then spun out of Escient in July of 2000 and renamed Gracenote...

is incorrect. CDDB was spun out of Escient well before it was renamed. Note that the press release says nothing about CDDB being spun out at that time, so this statement is unsupported.

This:

The maneuver was and remains controversial, because the CDDB database was and is...

is very awkward language - was and is, was and remains.

But the larger sentence:

The maneuver was and remains controversial, because the CDDB database was and is built on the voluntary submission of CD track data by thousands of individual users, who received no compensation for their work.

First of all, there is no justification provided for this opinion. I see no source. Second, users do receive compensation. CDDB is and has always been essentially quid pro quo. Users all benefit because they can look up thousands of albums, yet never have to submit anything. But even those that do submit data still receive compensation for what they've done in the form of 1000:1 (or usually even more for the average user) lookups against CDDB versus how many submissions they submit to the database. This is little different from sites like myspace that thrive off pages built by users.

This statement:

The xmcd program itself was an open-source

is redundant. It is already stated plainly in the previous section. Also, the past tense here makes it sound like xmcd is no longer open source, which is not the case. See the xmcd home page.

This statement that was adjusted earlier today:

and many listing contributors assumed that the database was free as well due to the GPL notice on the cddb.com website's download page and support page. The website was modified in 1998 immediately before the sale to Escient to state that the database is the "property" of CDDB.

has several issues. First, the website was not modified immediately before the sale. It was modified months in advance. The wayback machine has no samples between Feb 15, 1998 and May 06, 1998, so you cannot tell exactly when it was updated from just this. My recollection was late Feb, but I'm not sure it matters. It was somewhere between Feb and early May, according to the wayback machine, but the sale happened over three months later in August, 1998. So the statement that the website was modified imediately prior to the sale is incorrect, and further, seems to imply some sort of sneakiness that was obviously not there if it happened three to seven months before. So this statement should be removed. More importantly, saying that "contributors assumed the database was free due to the GPL notice on the website" may be the case, but there are also implications here which I believe to be unfair, in light of a three to seven month window between the correction and the sale. Finally, if you read the answer to the last question in the unabridged Wired interview, you will see that the database was actually physically removed in February, so the unavailability of the database for download should have been very plain to anyone who actually tried to download it. What time window is enough so that people's assumptions aren't worthy of listing here, I must ask? Also note in the same interview that all of the data ever submitted up to and even well beyond that point is still available for download (it can be found in a variety of places, including [1]). However, above all, the data is still free. No user has ever paid Gracenote a dime to access the database. Ever. Nor will they. Just download iTunes for the price of zero dollars and cents, stick in a CD, and watch it hit Gracenote without taking any money from you. So the statement about contributors assuming the database was free, but implying it's not, needs removal or clear qualification. The database up to that point is downloadable and access to the database is still free. No "listing contributor" has ever been charged or denied access to the database. Steve Scherf 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonkoldyk, I apologize for the length here. I am going through line by line addressing the most straightforward errors and POV issues, so I have a way to go. Expect more in the near future. I will then follow with more overarching concerns on each section, if any. Steve Scherf 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just try and make appropriate sections for different topics so that it is easier to read. --Simonkoldyk 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems this part of the discussion has ended up in the musicmatch section anyway. The musicmatch discussion really is too closely tied to this discussion to easily separate them. Steve Scherf 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]