Talk:Gracenote

message: I have removed the part about losing Microsoft as a customer as I could not find anything in Google searches or Google news.  Please do not place it back until you have a verifiable source.  While I do not know exactly why their is an edit war going on, I'm going to step in and try and help clean things up.  I'm here at the request of nobody and do not favor any side.  Although, adding information without sources or proof will not help you. --Simonkoldyk 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I have removed external links to any competitor, they are fine for talking about them in the article; but, it should be kept to a minimum.  See Coca-Cola and Pepsi for an example both talk about each other in article which is fine; but, no mention in external links. --Simonkoldyk 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: See discussion
:I see this issue as now resolved. --Simonkoldyk 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL 

message: See discussion
:I have addressed everything in your post, if you have problems with how I addressed it start another little thing and refer to this subpage as needed. --Simonkoldyk 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Becker's CV, Court Documents, Other Legal Issues

message: As this page is getting very long and very complicated I have started to move each topic that gets long to its own subpage so that parties interested in certain things can deal with those without having to go through the entire page, also for me to follow everything.  Also I archived some past posts as you can see in the archive at the top. --Simonkoldyk 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Discussions 

message: So I read the latest version of the article and found it rather anti-Gracenote in places, and the older version cited by Steve Scherf to be overly promotional.  Both versions have some facts not mentioned in the other.  I have just finished creating a hybrid version, removing POV statements but adding facts from both sides.  I checked the supplied references and corrected some inaccuracies in the claims made. There remain some unreferenced claims, which I have marked as "citation(s) needed".  I would invite interested parties to either find references to support these claims, or to move them to this talk page for further analysis.  In particular, if no reference can be found that says that Gracenote claims to have "almost 4 million CDs" or some similarly allegedly inflated number, then the entire "Database size controversy" section should be removed, because a one-sided controversy...isn't. -- Beland 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beland, while I agree with you, I think we can go even further.  The question is not whether Gracenote made such claims in the past or not (they clearly did, per the cites given below), but whether or not there is an actualy "controversy" surrounding this.  I think it is fairly clear that due to a variety of factors, the number of unique CDs in terms of "the music contained" and the number of unique CDs in terms of "the measurements used to identify CDs in this system" will be very different, perhaps due to different pressings, different masters, borderline cases (fuzzy data), etc.  I fail so see why this would be controversial, but really whether or not I or anyone else here finds it controversial is very different from whether there is any source in any reliable publication which has ever found it controversial.--Jimbo Wales 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope it's not too late to point out the fallacy in the reasoning above: the number of CDs and the number of albums bear little relation to each other except that each album corresponds to at least one CD. The number of CDs would include double- and triple-albums (not to mention the odd compilation with four or more), singles and others. In particular many audio-books released on CD cover many CDs: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone—the first (and shortest) book—covers seven CDs and the subsequent (rather longer) books even more. The reference being touted above as definitive fails to mention any of these other sources of CD; it refers to "album titles", gliding over the fact that sometimes several versions of an album are released. The reasoning is therefore fundamentally flawed: I can see no reason why the number of CDs should be unrealistic. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference and POV check 

message: We have letters to the Foundation going back months from these guys, they have tried to fix the problems they perceive with the article (OTRS ticket is 2006102310010844 and others exist I believe, and have been reverted or rebuffed at every turn.  They have been really, really patient, and we have completely failed to show them proper respect.  By that I don' mean we should remove everything they don't like, or let them write the article, but if they express reservations with the content, especially the interpretation of lawsuits, controversies and the like, and they do so in a calm, patient, reasonable and non-confrontational manner, which they have, then we should at least do them the courtesy of listening to them.
Please, we can do better than this.  Obviously sources are going to tend to be online, sometimes ephemeral, sometimes grinding an axe.  We can, I think, do a much better job of accurately recording Gracenote, and not erring too far on the side of criticism.  After all, to be fair, the Gracenote / CDDB system works well for a lot of people; most users, where they are conscious of the system at all, seem to like it.
So: let's discuss here and work back in that which is unassailably neutral and robustly attributed to the very best sources.  Please.  Guy (Help!) 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough 

message: As is noted by JzG/Guy... a lot of the negative/opinionated content has been removed from the article with the goal to "work back in that which is unassailably neutral and robustly attributed to the very best sources."  That seems like an excellent goal to me.  I am pasting in (below) the sections which have been removed from the article.  I think there is a lot of good content below and that we should restore it in a way which is fair, balanced, acurate, not hostile, etc...--Clay1039 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a more balanced article 

message: Could

be replaced with

Thanks! GracenotesT § 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace disambiguation notice 

message: Gracenote kindly requests the following edits to Wikipedia's Gracenote page.
1) Please remove the following paragraph: 
  
"Yahoo's Musicmatch Jukebox no longer uses the Gracenote database and has started its own music identification service called CDi. Microsoft also used the Gracenote database at one point for its Deluxe CD Player product via one of Gracenote's licensees, Tunes.com.[1][2] Microsoft subsequently built its own media recognition and metadata service. Both Microsoft and Musicmatch built their services using databases and services from All Media Guide."
Gracenote requests the removal of the above paragraph for a number of reasons.  First, Yahoo has ceased distribution of Musicmatch (see http://www.musicmatch.com/YMJ/welcome.htm).  Furthermore, the paragraph unfairly gives the impression that Yahoo Music no longer uses Gracenote's services.  However, Yahoo Music is one of Gracenote’s best customers and uses Gracenote’s services in the Yahoo! Music Jukebox.  
In addition, there should be no reference to All Media Guide on Gracenote's page.  Gracenote understands that a simple mentioning of competitors is common practice (Coca-Cola/Pepsi pages); however, there is no mentioning of Gracenote on All Media Guide's page.  In the interest of fairness, a reference to All Media Guide, especially one inaccurately portraying that it stole a couple of Gracenote’s customers, should be removed from Gracenote’s page.  
Ultimately, the paragraph incorrectly indicates that Microsoft and Musicmatch dropped Gracenote in exchange for All Media Guide, and whether Microsoft and Musicmatch use All Media Guide is irrelevant to a description of Gracenote.   
2)  The page currently gives the impression that Gracenote has only one customer (iTunes), when in fact, Gracenote has many.  A recent press release discloses the following, " Gracenote powers leading services including Apple iTunes, Yahoo! Music Jukebox, AOL Winamp; home and automotive products from Alpine, Panasonic, Phillips and Sony; and mobile music applications from Samsung, Sony Ericsson, KDDI (Japan), KTF (Korea), Musicwave (Europe), and others."  See for example: http://www.gracenote.com/music/corporate/press/article.html/date=2007040.  
3)  Also, Gracenote recently launched the first legal lyrics offering in the U.S. This resulted in huge media attention.  See, for example, the attached press release from BBC news: http://www.gracenote.com/music/corporate/press/20070424BBC.html.  The Gracenote page should refer to this new service.
4)  The Microsoft link under "References" should be removed (^ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1998/jun98/tunejtpr.mspx).  It is irrelevant to a description of Gracenote.
5)  Please remove "for-profit" when describing Gracenote in the first sentence.  The description has loaded meaning. Most entries for companies are descriptive of what the company does like "is a technology firm based out of ..." or the like. Perhaps this plays into the current edit lock, but I think the current statement violates NPOV.
Thank you for your assistance. 209.10.41.94 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced the protection on the page to allow anyone to edit it. However you should beware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy; you're in no way violating it by just editing this article, but please make sure all edits keep in-line with the neutrality policy and that any addition of information is verifiable. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable Edits 

message: Looked elsewhere for this information (obviously not well enough), so figured I'd ask the venerable Wikipedia community.
Why is the (full) track information not just embedded in CD's? If the answer is: "It is", then why do we need this Gracenote website? I've heard of innacuracies, but that's not my beef. 
It's this: I went up to the country over the Christmas period, and figured I'd use some of the time to import some CD's into my Mac Powerbook. The farmhouse I was staying in (which was in the middle of nowhere) had no internet connection - no houses even remotely nearby with open wireless connections to hitch a ride on.
So I began importing the first CD. Because my computer was not online, the CD imported itself into itunes as "Track 01, Track 02" etc.. Now of course this is really annoying: having songs on one's computer called "Track 01", etc. is almost useless. My computer needed to be online in order to access the Gracenote database that itunes uses as a default. However, again it seems to me that surely the CD manufacturers / producers could just embed this information into the CD, without the need for an outside web source for verification.
If this is covered elsewhere, I apologise. But surely I have a point?
86.158.239.72 (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we need Gracenote? 

message: The new "fair and balanced" article has no mention whatsoever of gracenote stealing cddb from the public. Are we really sure wikipedia isn't for sale?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.204.149 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grargh 

message: I was looking up Gracenote hoping to find out more about (1)a list of competitors and (2)its various controversies, which was big news a few years ago (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/02/1955245) but the article is shockingly bare and almost feels like an advertisement for Gracenote.  Something as simple as a link to a page describing the controversy (or its sordid legal history) would be quite helpful.
If anyone came here for the same information I did, I found a revision with some useful info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gracenote&oldid=91698238
-- 69.242.39.232 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *The verifiably notable lawsuits are definitely conspicuously absent and as a 1996-1998 era contributor I'd rather like to see this covered as it was previously -- samj inout 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems to this humble editor the article is heavily biased. It even fails to reflect the whole freedb afair. I think the editing of the article by User:Gracenotes is akin to writing autobiographies. The article itself show the heavy bias that this has created. Can someone please include not controversial, but factual statements? That is, value their inclusion because of their veracity, or rather, verifiability, rather than their allude. Check WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:AB. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of controversy frustrating 

message: I just wanted to add my voice to the others that this article seems to be missing very important facts. While it may be inconvenient for Gracenote to include some information, I regret to say this is an encyclopedia and not an advertising outlet. Although I do appreciate the notice at the top at least explaining the article is being edited by someone "close to" the company.
There's a difference between stating the facts from a neutral point of view, and not saying anything because it puts the company in a bad light. In my view the information should be out there so at the very least someone can edit them so they are as neutral as possible. Understandably because of Gracenote's actions in the past people are quick to put them in as bad a light as possible; so could we not reach a consensus on how the information should be put?
My view is the fact the topic is so hotly debated shows it should be mentioned to some capacity. Gwatts88 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The users 209.10.41.94 and Thenin (possibly the same person) have repeatedly removed the section on controversy and put advertising material pointing exclusively to Gracenote's product web sites into the article. I'm reverting this once more now. Arndbergmann (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: In view of the company's past actions, it is not possible to put CDDB/Gracenote in a "good light" without being biased.  Anyone familiar with the situation even before this Wikipedia article was started knows the general facts in the case.  Gracenote reneged on a promise, then had its attorneys lie about it in court.  Trying to sugar-coat the story to put Gracenote in a "good light" would be non-NPOV and would be in violation of Wikipedia policies.  The only way to avoid "problems" would be to remove all articles pertaining to Gracenote and CDDB from Wikipedia, but I doubt anyone would suggest doing that.  Just present the documented facts and let readers form their own opinions. — QuicksilverT @ 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely biased article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gracenote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100604174219/http://www.gracenote.com:80/company_info/press/042208/ to http://www.gracenote.com/company_info/press/042208/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100516050155/http://www.gracenote.com:80/company_info/press/060208/ to http://www.gracenote.com/company_info/press/060208/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gracenote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100604174219/http://www.gracenote.com:80/company_info/press/042208/ to http://www.gracenote.com/company_info/press/042208/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gracenote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124145437/http://www.gracenote.com/sec062706/SonySecurityNotification.html to http://www.gracenote.com/sec062706/SonySecurityNotification.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The logo currently displayed is old (the red version). The latest Gracenote logo is blue, as seen on www.gracenote.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CA Road Rider (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - AquilaFasciata (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  update the gracenote logo