4 Comments

  1. Dennis Moser
    December 2, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Fascinating news, coming when it does at a time when I am personally considering my own approaches to my own independently-produced music.

    It will be interesting to see how this is embraced by other independent producers who face all of the very same issues but utilize Creative Commons licensing for their outputs.

  2. Theodora Michaels
    December 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    The CCD EULA says “The software and documentation accompanying this License are licensed, not given, to you. You acknowledge that you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the CCD Collection Tool software or any part thereof nor may you rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the CCD Collection Tool software.”

    If the Library of Congress is involved, I think it’s a shame that this project isn’t freely modifiable by anyone. But as usual, the labels are trying to maintain a tight control over everything they do. This will be their downfall.

  3. John Spencer
    December 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    The EULA wording for the proof-of-concept CCD Collection Tool now available is intended to create some degree of “lock-down” while we continue to get beta feedback. This language will not apply to the as yet unreleased CCD schema, which is the primary thrust of the LOC work.

    In order to provide maximum functionality and ease of use in the Collection Tool, a proprietary application (Adobe Air) was used in its development. Internally, the Collection Tool uses its own field names and structures that are then mapped to the schema. The internal data structure of this particular Collection Tool is not directly relevant to any future interoperability. Ultimately, anyone will be able to build whatever type of collection application best suits their needs, using the published CCD Schema.

    We have not published the CCD Schema under any license at this point – but when we do, our desire will be to make it as open and freely useable as possible while staying in sync with DDEX, undoubtedly the group most able to align CCD participant metadata with the rest of the food chain. DDEX uses an “implementation license”, freely available to anyone, but still allowing them to continue development without “forking” the standards process. This way, anyone can implement DDEX XML messaging suites without cost, but DDEX is still able to keep the development path on the straight and narrow. We believe this is the best approach.

    It is our goal to have the CCD work incorporated into the DDEX implementation process, because with no on-going oversight, we will potentially see versions that won’t communicate with a number of other global standards, such as ISNI and GRid (both ISO specifications), that are essential to identify and “connect” performers and their work.

    Contrary to any perceived intent to limit use of the CCD Schema to major record labels, quite the opposite is true. The scope of DDEX members (and potential CCD users) is extremely broad – they include the “majors”, but also PROs, Harry Fox, Apple, aggregators, publishers, content resellers, independent labels, and many others. A complete list of DDEX members can be found here (http://www.ddex.net/members_list.htm).

    Uniformity and compatibility are our goals – to provide a platform that serves major labels, indie labels and artists, DIY artists and anyone creating music. Because the amount of money for a single stream or download is so small, the payment processes have to be automated – and available to all parties.
    We want to see global compatibility in as many areas as possible, and quite simply, some parts are not yet ready. I hope this helps in how you view the project.

  4. Rob Bird
    October 19, 2012 at 3:25 am

    Hello John Spencer. As it turns out I actually run a digital distribution company for music and I am very interested in a software that can compile metadata of tracks and generate a DDEX compliant XMl file thereof. I’d be interested in testing the BETA or having some type of access to the software.

    I have ran into several bumps in the road when dealing with new retailers such as Google Play and am finding it hard to find any type of documentation, help, or any type of software that can make this transistion easier. My e-mail is [email protected] Is there a way I can reach you?

Add a Comment

This blog is governed by the general rules of respectful civil discourse. You are fully responsible for everything that you post. The content of all comments is released into the public domain unless clearly stated otherwise. The Library of Congress does not control the content posted. Nevertheless, the Library of Congress may monitor any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove content for any reason whatever, without consent. Gratuitous links to sites are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on the Library site. Read our Comment and Posting Policy.

Required fields are indicated with an * asterisk.