Apple Smacks Down iCommune

flipsidejones writes "Looks like Apple has killed iCommune. iCommune, as mentioned previously, allows users to share music libraries across a network from within iTunes. It seems the license for the iTunes plugin API does not allow for software-based plugins (only hardware: MP3 players, etc). Apple issued a 'Notice of Breach and Termination of License' to iCommune, who have since pulled the download. Something tells me that they won't be putting it back up anytime soon. Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me." Well, in fairness, this could happen even if Mac OS X itself weren't proprietary, as iTunes still could be. For that matter, iCommune still is, too. Hm, none of that makes me feel any better ...

Comments

Wow

[The Bungi]

Well, in fairness, this could happen even if [...]

I'd like to see this type of editorial byline in the next Borg article, please.

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

Re:Wow

[Cruciform]

It's because they're the underdog. If there were suddenly a huge shift in power putting Apple on top of the heap, they would be the next "Evil Empire" that the Slashdot masses would want to overthrow.

Re:Wow

[Bonker]

Really. The next time you go bitching about how wonderful Apple is compared to Microsft, remember that they're guilty of *exactly* the same kind of

- vendor intimidation
- semi-legal, prohibitive licensing practices
- price gouging
- market control
- FUD
- product tying
- hiding software features
and
- employee abuse

that our friends in Redmond are famous for. The only difference is that Apple tried to cater to a niche market while Microsoft decided to go for the lowest common denominator and won. The only reason Apple is seen as good is because they are not Microsoft.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

You are *so* right! I mean, all companies sell something, so they're all the same. Microsoft gets the Borg icon, but AMD and Apple don't. What's the sense in that? I mean, it's not like Microsoft has done anything to differentiate themselves from every other company in the computer market. It's not like they're an aknowledged monopoly that is constantly being sued for anti-competitive practices. Nah, they're just like everyone else

And Apple. Those fuckers have never given anything back to the *NIX community (oops, just ignore their contributions to KHTML, and that Darwin business...).

Re:Wow

[k_187]

So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff? Or they're evil because they're enforcing a licence that the developers agreed to go by? Would Linus be evil if someone was violating the GPL using linux and he sued?

Re:Wow

[pudge]

Yeah, how evil of me to correct an incorrect implication in the submitter's post, that this has anything to do with the license of Mac OS X. For shame. Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.

If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.

Re:Wow

[pi radians]

Hey, you may be right but the big difference between the two is that Apple hasn't broken the law.

Sure they are a corporation and they have the same intentions of profit like every other corporation, but their path to it, while not always favorable, has always been legal. They follow the same rules everyone else does. Thats why I think people will still try to defend Apple.

Re:Wow

[alakazam]

> because they're the underdog

When I first read that, I agreed, but when I actually tried the thought on for size I found it didn't fit.

If Microsoft was the "wanna-be" there's no way I'd be championing them. Most people who "prefer Microsoft" seem to do so for reasons other than "quality of product" or "innovation" or "great cool factor."

If Microsoft was the underdog I don't think there would be all that many people rooting for them.

Re:Wow

[IRNI]

Or it may be that they make an OS that works and every product they make is pleasing to the eye as well as fun to use. Couldn't be that could it though? So they don't want their product to be turned into a new kazaa via a plugin to their product. It is their right.

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

I'm not saying Apple is better than Microsoft, or more or less evil than Microsoft. That's not my point.

My point is, every time Apple does something corporation-ish that is Evil and Stupid (as we understand that sort of thing) everyone just sorta ignores it. It's like "yeah, they're starting to be like [insert corporation name here] BUT hey, they have Darwin and iPod rocks, yipeee!".

I think OS X is incredible although I haven't used it that much - but it's still a closed OS running most closed software produced by a company that is in the business of competing and being profitable.

Re:Wow

[lysurgon]

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

Well, in comparison to M$, they've remained relatively benign and tend to produce products of a higher quality. Microsoft has a long history of using underhanded business tactics (e.g. punative lawsuits, abuse of monopoly power) to pursue their ends, while Apple has maintained its edge primarily through innovation.

In reality, this is a move made by Apple to protect itself from exposure to legal liability. It has more to do with the litigious nature of the US business environment than any desire by Apple to "smack down" anything.

Re:Wow

[Twirlip of the Mists]

They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

Oh, a little bit yes and a little bit no.

Apple is a company, yes. They sell stuff and make money, yes. Just like any other? Not exactly.

Microsoft's products are, at best, just good enough. Though they try, Microsoft doesn't really innovate very much. Microsoft isn't concerned with making the user experience pleasant.

Apple is just the opposite. Most people (given a few notable exceptions) respect that, and appreciate it.

Look at it this way. Macs are slower (yeah, they really are, dollar for dollar) and more expensive than PC's... and yet millions of people use 'em anyway. Doesn't that tell you something?

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.

All things being equal, I'd rather you guys just post the darn submission *as is* and refrain from commenting on it from the privileged position of the editorial soapbox (on the front page for absolutely everyone to read) and instead just post in the story like all of us poor sods. Especially since there's no way to moderate frontpage articles. But that horse has been beaten enough times already.

If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.

It wasn't a comment on you specifically (and I apologize if I came across that way) but on the practice itself. FWIW, I think Michael and Hemos are far worse at that sort of thing than you or Taco. Again, FWIW.

Re:Wow

[pudge]

If you don't want editorial comment, go to CNN.com. ;-)

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

C'mon Twirlip. What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it may be that they make an OS that works and every product they make is pleasing to the eye as well as fun to use.

You're talking about Windows XP, right? Because that is my experience with it.

Re:Wow

[MrResistor]

Or it may be that they make an OS that works and every product they make is pleasing to the eye as well as fun to use. Couldn't be that could it though?

Be careful about stating your opinions as fact. I personally think Macs fill the broad aesthetic range between Silly and Irritating, and I have generally found MacOS frustrating to use when it works, which is not nearly as often as the Mac-heads would have you believe, and nearly impossible when it doesn't.

So they don't want their product to be turned into a new kazaa via a plugin to their product. It is their right.

You are correct, but it's still stupid. But then, Apple has always been about limiting what the user can do. That's what they really mean by "user friendly", isn't it?

Re:Wow

[The Phantom Buffalo]

Look at it this way. Macs are slower (yeah, they really are, dollar for dollar) and more expensive than PC's... and yet millions of people use 'em anyway. Doesn't that tell you something?

It tells me that P.T. Barnum was right.

Re:Wow

[Twirlip of the Mists]

What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?

What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.

There are lots of benevolent monopolies. Adobe has a virtual monopoly on photo retouching software. Avid has a virtual monopoly on video editing systems. MultiGen has a virtual monopoly on real-time image generators. Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.

Re:Wow

[elphkotm]

Yes.

Re:Wow

[zjbs14]

Well, in comparison to M$, they've remained relatively benign and tend to produce products of a higher quality. Microsoft has a long history of using underhanded business tactics (e.g. punative lawsuits, abuse of monopoly power) to pursue their ends, while Apple has maintained its edge primarily through innovation.

Well, maybe they are now, but a few years ago they tried suing anybody with a "point and click" interface (one they didn't innovate themselves). Anyone rembeber the PC version of GEM? Sued into non-functionality by Apple. Which, some say, opened the PC market fow Windows.

Re:Wow

[GigsVT]

Would Linus be evil if someone was violating the GPL using linux and he sued?

The GPL is not an EULA and does not place any restrictions on the use of the software. You do not need to agree to the GPL to use GPL software.

The GPL only covers redistribution of the software.

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

I did, but they discontinued the Turd report *grin*

Re:Wow

[IamTheRealMike]

They follow the same rules everyone else does. Thats why I think people will still try to defend Apple.

Yeah, that's true, but I remain to be convinced that if it were Apple with 95% market share they'd be any less evil than Microsoft is. If anything, they'd probably be more evil - MS pulls more than its fair share of dirty tricks but they rarely resort to using the law as their weapon as Apple do all too frequently.

At the end of the day, Apple have the same business models and methods that Microsoft do. Look at MacOS and Windows and tell me what's really different underneath. I'm not talking about technical details or "experience", I'm talking about business models. They both charge money for the OS and give away some free stuff with it. They both use it to try and reinforce their other products.

So sure, in the real world it wasn't Apple, but it could have been if Jobs had actually followed the advice Gates gave him when he asked for it and licensed clones. Whether Apple would have tried to destroy Netscape is debatable, but they seem happy to clamp down on people when they make competing products to themselves, or even products that alter their own in some trivial way. It's a moot point, but interesting speculation.

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.

Even if they used their position as a monopoly to crush competition?

There are lots of benevolent monopolies. [...]Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.

There are no "good" monopolies =)

And besides, I could make that same argument over Windows 2000 and Visual Studio and Office 11 and a few other Microsoft products, while I really couldn't make it over Media Player or Front Page and a few other Microsoft products.

It's not in the eye of the beholder, it's in the antitrust laws. If Adobe has not been taken to court by the DOJ over their purchase of Aldus (and all those other companies) it's because didn't register with the industry as a monopolistic move in the desktop publishing/imaging market, although IMO it was precisely that.

Re:Wow

[The Phantom Buffalo]

What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.

If Microsoft made the best software in the world and sold excellent hardware, and still used unfair business practices to build thier monopoly, and after achieving that monopoly, abused that monopoly position to maintain the monopoly, they would still be evil. (How's that for a run-on sentence.)

Re:Wow

[the_2nd_coming]

I remain to be convinced that if you were a psycopath you would not kill me.

speculation about alternate reality does not defend MS, does not defend a psycopath, does not indite Apple and does not Indite you.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

All licenses are not the same. If one licenses says "do whatever you want" and the other one says "you can only use this product on tuesdays and if you pay a $3 'usage fee' and if you don't use it listen to rap music which really sucks" .. I wouldn't say it is hypocritical to support the first one, and not the second one.

Re:Wow

[m0rph3us0]

The only difference between MS and apple practices is the size of the company, if Apple was the size of MS and doing the things it does now it would still be against the law.

Re:Wow

[adjusting]

Right, and this story is not about an EULA either. It's about the iTunes plugin API license which you do not need to agree to in order to use iTunes.

Re:Wow

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Even if they used their position as a monopoly to crush competition?

Depends. If competitors failed because they couldn't compete, then yeah, that's fine. Paint Shop Pro isn't exactly taking off next to Photoshop. But if the monopoly company break the law, then they should be sanctioned.

There are no "good" monopolies

Please read more closely. I said that those companies that dominate their markets because their products are so good are benevolent monopolies. And there are tons of those.

It sounds like you're missing a fundamental point here. Monopolies are not illegal. They are not inherently evil. There are some activities that are illegal for a monopoly to carry out, and those activities are described in the antitrust laws. But simply gaining, or even maintaining, a monopoly is neither illegal nor wrong.

Re:Wow

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, if Microsoft were the underdog, they might make better products. The reason I stick with Apple, for all its sins, is because it makes great products -- and the reason it does so, I'm convinced, is because it's the underdog. If the relative market shares were reversed, MacOS would probably be stuck in the System 7 days, only more bloated, and Windows might very well be fast and stable (and quite possibly Unix-based.)

Actually, I don't even think their market positions would have to be reversed for this to happen, just closer to parity (and preferably with other competitors, e.g. Linux, at about the same level.) An example of this is IBM. Big Blue actually makes some pretty good products these days -- once they lost their absolute market dominance, they figured out how to do actual engineering again.

If Windows were head and shoulders above the competition the way, say, Photoshop is, no one would hate Microsoft that much. It's the combination of power and crappy products that makes them uniquely hated, especially when there are better products with much lower market share (OS X, Linux, et bloody cetera.)

Re:Wow

[Oculus Habent]

What I have a problem with is the assumption that the companies are "evil". Who decided this, and when did it become accepted? A company making a product isn't evil, clearly. A company trying to make a profit (whether succeeding or not) isn't evil. A company producing bad products? A company breaking the law? Then was Enron evil? A monopoly?

I don't care for Microsoft or Bill Gates' managerial style (let others come up with something and scream at them for getting details wrong) but I don't see them in dark robes sacrificing young employees to the God of Pain.

Re:Wow

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If Microsoft made the best software in the world and sold excellent hardware, they wouldn't need to use unfair business practices* to build their monopoly. It would happen the way Adobe's has, or the way Avid's has, or the way MultiGen's has. Naturally.

* As if business practices are ever "fair." Playing fair isn't a business plan; it's a going-out-of-business plan.

Re:Wow

[dbrutus]

Actually, if you knew what you were doing, (and yes, most mac users didn't) you could always peel back the eye candy of Mac OS (even prior to X) and make it do neat and wonderful stuff. Apple just made the childproofing slightly harder to undo than other OS offerings like, say, DOS/Windows 3.1.

For most people, that *is* user friendly because getting past the wrapping for a lot of people is usually something done by accident and a scary experience akin to falling through lake ice.

Today, of course, Mac OS X makes it very easy to get at a lot more of the internals and Interface Builder/Project Builder shipping on all macs means that hacking extra commands into virtually any application is very, very easy to do (a fact that most OS X users have yet to awake to but they will). But Apple doesn't *force* you to put in the dev tools and they don't *force* you in most circumstances to fire up Terminal.app. Childproofing is not a bad thing because when it comes to computers, an astonishingly large percentage of users are functionally children.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing could be said about Windows. The reason Windows 2000 is the #1 server os is that it simply works (unlike Linux and Mac OS X), and hey with Windows XP now its pleasing to the eye and fun to use too! That of course means anything and everything Microsoft(Apple) does is legitimate because they sell so much product!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are no "good" monopolies =)"

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong and Wrong.

As soon as a new product comes out, it IS a monopoly by definition. And being a monopoly is NOT against the law (nor should it be). In a capitalistic system, with an informed consumer, and without the feds fingers in every aspect of it, the best products at the best prices will win in the end ( though it often won't come down to 1 product only, usually down to just a handful ).

What is against the law is using your position to stifle competition , also known as creating barriers to entry.

Re:Wow

[Umrick]

Yep, and in the spirit of complete disclosure, the Linux gurus are JUST as guilty. Read the article about features missing in 2.6 and how the kernel writers are unabashedly telling any kernel module maker that isn't GPL'd to go take a flying leap.

-- Vendor intimidation (yep, forcing vendors selling products for Linux that use kernel modules to be gpl or not be able to tie into the kernel)
-- semi-legal, prohibitive licensing practices (see GPL and arguments about it's viral nature)
-- market control (not allowing vendors to substitute kernel symbols unless module is GPL)
-- FUD (see any ./ comments)
-- product tying (best performance on Linux uses real time signals X15 server, which is not portable across multiple Unix flavors)
-- hiding software features (ok, not guilty)
-- employee abuse (tongue in cheek, but have you ever read some of the flamage on Linux Kernel? =) )

A corporation does not evil make. Apple has been one of the banner bearers for opensource, something I really expected IBM to have a bigger profile in. They do choose their battles, and while there is some fallout, most things make some modicum of sense. Apple doesn't do DRM beyond a sticker that says don't steal, if they allowed this plugin to florish, RIAA would be on them in a heartbeat due to copyright violation.

I would not be suprised to eventually see an iTunes that allows you to view and stream others playlists via Rendevous, but it will most definately not allow sharing if they can help it.

Some people shout the virtues too much, other scream about evils. Guess what, it's shades of grey. Apple's just a bit lighter than MS.

Re:Wow

[mbbac]

- semi-legal, prohibitive licensing practices

How exactly are they semi-legal? Prohibitive?

- price gouging

You're going to have to explain yourself here. They charge much less for most all of their products than their competitors. Their desktops are cheaper than those from Sun and SGI. The iBooks and PowerBooks compete very, very well with clone laptops. Final Cut Pro is far cheaper than AVID. The iApps are all free except for iMovie which is a steal at $49. AppleWorks has a reasonable price and is included with all iMacs and iBooks. Keynote is priced reasonably at $99. PowerPoint is expensive.

- market control

Explain. The only control I've seen them wield is as a pioneer of new technologies.

- FUD

Links?

- product tying

Such as?

- hiding software features

Examples?

- employee abuse

Links? Dave Hyatt doesn't seem to complain.

Re:Wow

[mbbac]

I'd rather a company use law as a weapon, than to ignore the law.

Re:Wow

[Napalm Boy]

If anything, they'd probably be more evil - MS pulls more than its fair share of dirty tricks but they rarely resort to using the law as their weapon as Apple do all too frequently.

I think that Microsoft doesn't have to resort to the law; the company is big enough that they don't need the law to fight somebody pissing them off. All they need to do is threaten to drop support for a product, a feature, threaten a license audit...etc.

So which method is more "underhanded?" The one with lawyers, or the one with (psychological) thugs?

Re:Wow

[Slime-dogg]

Yeah, the reason people give for staying with Microsoft is training. "I don't want to learn another way of doing this, if I already know this way of doing it."

You can clone the interface, but if you make one thing different, the person is going to throw a shit-fit... "It doesn't work the way MS works, I want MS back!"

We had that problem when we migrated everything to StarOffice. It was taken care of by the IT department doing two things:

1. Showing the dollar figures. $30,000 vs. $600,000 for a stupid office suite is... well convincing.
2. Told them to shut up. (In a polite way). There was no way that we were going to move back to MS Office as a platform, so the people who complained could either A)Shut up or B) find a new job.

Re:Wow

[Ponty]

Actually, people here are often rooting for the underdog. If you read a lot of the posts, you'll see people sticking up for Windows in the face of strong Linux bias. It's the same as people all of a sudden hating RedHat because they're big and fairly successful. There's an awful lot of both sentiments, and as someone who's been here since '98, it's really amusing to watch.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my product, I fucking paid for it and I'll add whatever god damm plug in I want.

Fuck Apple, I'm so pissed I bought this over price pile of shit I could scream.

Re:Wow

[Ponty]

So was Gottlieb Daimler.

Re:Wow

[Forgotten]

Oh, you can pretty easily argue that it's evil for a company to profit. Think of where profit actually comes from:

(a) by underpaying your employees
(b) by overcharging your customers

There really isn't any alternative - for a company (or individual capitalist) to profit isn't the same sort of "wealth creation" as individual human labour and ingenuity provides. We could have an economy of zero-sum employment collectives; we just happen not to. Complicating matters with notions like "public" ownership of companies doesn't change the basic equation from the simplest case. Profit is necessarily skimmed off the top. We accept this because of the belief that the skimmed funds (aka human effort) will be wisely reused - when the capitalist entity is an individual, this is called philanthropy. The problem is that you're at that individual's whims - if Andrew Carnegie happens to like libraries at the moment, that's what yer gonna get. Most of the laws governing public companies are in fact an attempt to limit that sort of power.

Re:Wow

[drsmithy]

You can clone the interface, but if you make one thing different, the person is going to throw a shit-fit... "It doesn't work the way MS works, I want MS back!"

This is hardly something unique to users of "MS". Consider the whinging one hears of "Windows doesn't work like Unix, so it sucks" (or similar with MacOS instead of Unix).

Heck, it's even common in different industries - recall the complaints when BMW brought in the iDrive (or whatever it was called) system.

[...] find a new job

I hope the IT department was responsible enough to include the values for employee retraining, rehiring (if required) and lost productivity during these events in their $30,000 vs $600,000 figure. I doubt it, though.

Re:Wow

[drsmithy]

Hey, you may be right but the big difference between the two is that Apple hasn't broken the law.

Of course, the big problem with the law in this regard is that there's no way to tell you're breaking it until you are charged and found guilty.

One wonders how anyone could believe that if Apple were charged in the same fashion Microsoft was how they could *not* have the same verdict issued.

Re:Wow

[EelBait]

I think the reason Apple is where they are and MSFT is where they are is the kinds of people attracted to work at Apple and Microsoft. People don't go to work for Apple in order to make zillions of dollars while striving to conquer the world, those people are already working at Microsoft. Similarly, no one who goes to work at Microsoft who wants to make cool products for people stays there very long. They are destroyed and driven out by the culture at Microsoft. In both cases, it's the people who make each company what it is.

Re:Wow

[geekee]

MS hasn't broken any laws either, unless you consider them a monopoly. The 1.1 billion dollar settlement is somewhat unfair, if you consider the fact that the govt. didn't bother to declare MS a monopoly 1st, and then make them act under new news. They simply said, you should have known we'd cosider you a monopoly, so now you must give back all this money you earned. Somewhat unfair, if you ask me, given there is no strict definition about how much market share you need before you are considered a monopoly.

Re:Wow

[The Phantom Buffalo]

There will always be a small market for people who need their status symbols.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know all this stuff? Or are you just making it up?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

are you fucking kidding me? The start menu *shudder*.

It really shows someones ignorance when they praise xp's ease of use.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious if you have visited both companies as a potential employee. I'm seriously starting to question if *anyone* on slashdot is really over 16...

Re:Wow

[MoneyT]

The point he was makign was that the licence to use the SDKs that Apple provides state what you can and can not do with the APIs. In order to use Apple's APIs you mst abide by that.

Likewise, the GPL states what I can and can not do with GPL software. For example, I can not take GPL code, incorporate it into my software modify it and release my software as entirely closed source and not acknowledge the use of GPL software. How would the FSF or Torvalds or RMS comming after me for doing that be any different thatn what Apple is doing now.

Re:Wow

[MoneyT]

You missed the point. YOU as a user, can do whatever the fuck you want to your system, Apple doesn't give a shit. It's when you start using their API's to distribute software of questionable legal status that they begin to care. Therefore, if you wanted to propagate the iCommune, it would merely be a matter of stripping the Apple APIs and providing instructions for building the plugin yourself.

Of course, if iCommune became a huge hit, don't be suprised if Apple suddenly had to kill off the plugin APIs because the RIAA came after them for aiding and providing a means of illegaly sharing music.

Re:Wow

[Alan Partridge]

if Apple had 95% of the desktop market, they'd be the biggest company in the world. I believe that Apple have behaved more reasonably than MS in the past and do so to this day, but absolute power corrupts absolutely...

Re:Wow

[Alan Partridge]

That's REALLY not fair to Apple - throughout the late 80's and early to mid 90's Apple did an extraordinary amount of great work on human interface. It was Apple's hard work on the MacOS interface that turned Xerox PARC's ideas about human computer interaction into usable fact. I remember when I first started using Macs (coming from Win 3.1 and Workbench 3) I was amzed at the amount of interface crap I had to UNlearn - after about a week I was sold on the MacOS. Imagine a file system so inherently organised that you actually KNOW where everything is and don't have to worry about creating shortcuts and playing with filename extensions etc etc etc.

Re:Wow

[Alan Partridge]

"Limiting what the user can do? Try booting your OS in single user mode without losing your dual monitor setup. Try making a direct copy of your OS onto CD, so you can use a FULL, UNHINDERED system image to do work on if your internal hard drive is having problems."

Amen - the only shame is that OSX can't be pushed onto a RAM disk a la OS9 for HD diagnose and repair procedures.

Re:Wow

[Alan Partridge]

"Fuck Apple, I'm so pissed I bought this over price pile of shit I could scream."

Sell it then, retard. One thing Apple's have going for them is that they retain their value MUCH better than PCs do. If you bought a copmputer that you hate, guess who's fault it is?

Re:Wow

[Ponty]

You mean the "works well, and is satisfying to use and brings me pleasure every time I sit down in front of it" market? (And I'm not talking about your sister.)

Re:Wow

[The Phantom Buffalo]

No, I meant the group of people that need their status symbols.

And I know you didn't mean my sister. You wouldn't want your mom to get mad at you for cheating on her.

Re:Wow

[Ponty]

If my mac was in a beige box that had "the person holding this beige box is a loser" written all over it, but still worked exactly the way it works now, I'd use it over Windows installed on my PowerBook G4.

Re:Wow

[The Phantom Buffalo]

Of course you would, and your beige box would be correct.

Re:Wow

[The Bungi]

Depends. If competitors failed because they couldn't compete, then yeah, that's fine. Paint Shop Pro isn't exactly taking off next to Photoshop. But if the monopoly company break the law, then they should be sanctioned

Well, a fine point perhaps but couldn't we make this same argument WRT IE4 vs. NS? I mean, all things being equal, NSx was a piece of flaming crap compared to IE4 and subsequent versions. Now whether or not Microsoft went on to (stupidly) break the law by bundling and so on, that's another story. It always seemed to me that it wasn't necessary given the quality of their product. Then again, Mozilla could be giving them a run for their money right now, though they're a few years late.

It sounds like you're missing a fundamental point here. Monopolies are not illegal. They are not inherently evil. There are some activities that are illegal for a monopoly to carry out, and those activities are described in the antitrust laws. But simply gaining, or even maintaining, a monopoly is neither illegal nor wrong.

True. I had to read up a bit on antitrust law, but you're right.

Re:Wow

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Well, a fine point perhaps but couldn't we make this same argument WRT IE4 vs. NS?

I'm not quite sure I see your point here. I think that Netscape failed because they never released a 5.0 browser. (Well, they did, but they called it Mozilla, it was four years late, and it sucked.) I don't think, realistically, Microsoft killed Netscape through abuse of their monopoly. But I think if Netscape had had a strong product, it might have been a different story.

What Microsoft did when they bundled IE 5 was basically shooting a corpse. If Netscape hadn't already been dead, Microsoft would have killed it, but as it is... whether the bundling was illegal or not is a very tough question to answer.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not possible. Microsoft is above the law, while every one is below it. This alternate reality is impossible.

Re:Wow

[cioxx]

Karma Whore Spotted!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Sob, sniffle - I'm so old I remember when Microsoft was an underdog.

Re:Wow

[Nordique]

I think Microsoft is as MS does. They may have to make a better product, in order to stay alive, if they were in a minority position, I will grant that. They would do as they have always done, go and purchase some body's work, or just take advantage of them(like Stac). However, if one looks at the history of Apple, their engineers have always been innovative. It is with their executive management that they have had difficulty. They needed management, as with the engineers not managing themselves, such as on the QuickDraw GX project ( which had a fine technology that really could have competed with PostScript), there came to be all kind of engineers from all different parts of the company working on it. The executive leadership was not greatly respected by the engineering community(Sculley did not come from engineering background). But then the engineers went in different directions, they did not have cohesive direction. So really Apple needed leadership, which they did not have enough of under John Sculley. The same was so under the Diesel, and then Gill Amelio tried to get them going in a good business direction, leading to the acquisition of Next. Anyway, Jobs has given them strong direction, and thankfully he and his company have thrown in, at least to a certain degree, with the open source community. One may disagree in many ways with things they have done, but I surely am glad Apple Computer is around. I don't see Microsoft as being the same in character. They have not been as innovative as Apple at all, including when Apple was more on top of things than MS(so far as the OS goes). They are more for taking what other folks do, and taking advantage of them. I will grant that the business software has been useful to many folks, thinking of Excel, and I know folks who really like PowerPoint. Perhaps market position would make a difference, as far as Apple goes. Apple does things that are irritating. They have been responsive to their customers. They should be more responsive to their software partners, including their smaller 'vendors'. I just think the character of the two is quite different, and that different market postion would lead to considerably different denouements.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They're evil because we perceive them as such. Evil as in "not good". We don't like them. And that's our prerogative, no matter how much /. can, as per usual, get off-topic already in the first comment.

Re:Wow

[-Harlequin-]

Hey, you may be right but the big difference between the two is that Apple hasn't broken the law.

I completely disagree. The difference is that Apple hasn't been proclaimed guilty by a court of law. Well, not often, anyway.

People also said (until they were blue in the face) that Microsoft had broken no law. Microsoft didn't suddenly become criminal because the court confirmed it had been criminal - it had always been criminal because it had committed crimes. And the same is true of Apple. A crime is a crime regardless of whether you get called on it or not.

quit bitching

[NerdSlayer]

"Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me."

I took a nice new car that I saw at the dealership down the block, and the bastards called the police on me.

Everytime I forget that certain goods and services cost money, Lexus does something to remind me. Isn't this America? Can't I have everything for free?! The terrorists have already won.

Re:quit bitching

[glwtta]

Can't I have everything for free?!

To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.

Re:quit bitching

[NerdSlayer]

To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.

You're correct, and my position was a little overstated. I guess I'm venting my frustration about the "Slashdot Attitude" against sucessful companies/non-GPL software that's constantly shown. I think the story was worth posting, but the smug attitude at the end was annoying.

Let's see... what would make everyone on slashdot love apple:

1. Setup RMS as the CEO/President/Company Savior
2. Release all software completely open source
3. Port OSX to the PC
4. Become a huge, massive corporation that uses it's installed base of now open source software in some sort of monopolistic shutout of Microsoft, putting M$ as we like to call it, out of business
5. Put all movies and music online to download for free
6. Send in Steve Jobs with a machete to hack all RIAA/MPAA/Record Co Execs to pieces.
7. Immediately go out business, since we hate big companies.

Would that fix everything? I hope so. If it doesn't work, we can have Apple shoot some sort of Natalie Portman porn and see how that works out.

Re:quit bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a nice new car at the dealership down the block. Decided I didn't like the wheels, and bought some new ones. Someone from the dealership saw my new wheels, and called the police...

no, wait.

You aren't really so stupid as to believe the comment was about paying money are you? Just trolling, right?

Re:quit bitching

[telstar]

"If it doesn't work, we can have Apple shoot some sort of Natalie Portman porn and see how that works out."

• Why do you think they developed iMovie?

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.

Not your product, dude. Apple didn't create iTunes so people could illegally (right or wrong, it is definitely still illegal) exchange music files. And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it. If you don't like it-- and obviously some people don't-- then you should write your own MP3 library manager.

It bothers me that people-- not you, but others-- actually use the word "free" in this context. Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I bought a nice new car at the dealership down the block. Decided I wanted more firepower, so I outfitted it with a .50 caliber machine gun. Someone from the dealership saw my machine gun, and called the police.

You're free to make whatever plugins for iTunes you like... so long as you don't break the rules. Trading music this way is, right or wrong, still illegal, so this plug-in was very much against the rules. This is spelled out in the iTunes SDK documentation. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Re:quit bitching

[sweetooth]

Ok, but why exactly is software licensed? Why is it that we pay our hard earned money to software developers for product and then don't own it?

I have a real problem with license agreements that come with software. Once I have paid you my money I should have full control over whatever it is I purchased. If this means I want to extend it in some way you don't like that's too bad. As long as I'm not redistributing your product I don't see the problem.

The same goes for hardware. If you buy a new TiVo the agreement says you can't modify it. I can see that you can't use thier services if you modify it, but other than that they have no say in the matter. Why is software any differant? Why do we allow software manufacturers to have a say in how we use thier product once it is in our posession on our computers. Agreements that prevent you from reselling or redistributing thier software make sense. Anything above and beyond that is intrusive.

I suppose I should point out that I make my living creating software, I do work for hire and my customers can do whatever they want with the software once it's finished. I no have no say in the matter once my contract is finished. I like it that way.

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I have a real problem with license agreements that come with software.

Then don't use software that comes with license agreements. Seems like a simple solution to me.

The same goes for hardware.

Then, once again, don't use hardware that comes with license agreements.

Of course, if you want to get your hands on good software, or good hardware, then I suppose you're going to have to accept the terms under which the vendors want to sell it. They created it, after all, so they get to decide how, or even if, they want to distribute it.

Re:quit bitching

[aengblom]

Wrong Analogy:

Lexus just called to complain because the AfterMarketCar2BoatConverter(TM) offers a feature Lexus didn't plan on offering. They're forcing AMCH to shut down. It's my car I should be able to do whatever I want with it--EVEN IF I BREAK THE LAW.

And if I do, I should hear from Mr. Policeman, not Lexus. All they get to say is... well if it sinks--We'd be happy to help you try again. That will be $50,000.

Re:quit bitching

[Darren Winsper]

"Trading music this way is, right or wrong, still illegal"

For a subset of all music. For some music, it's perfectly legal.

Re:quit bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

It bothers me that people-- not you, but others-- actually use the word "free" in this context. Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.

Well, "free" means you're free to do something. No need to load it with politics. And since he didn't use that word, then, well, why did you bring it up? Got a little agenda there?

And you *know* it's not the end of the discussion. You read slashdot enough to know that this whole "licensing" thing is turning our system of property and ownership upside down.

You buy a computer and it comes with some software. It's "your" computer, but the software "belongs" to someone else. You can do a lot of stuff with this computer, but an unsigned, arbitrary contact says you can't tell anyone else how to do this stuff. It's hard to swallow the idea that most of your computer actually is still "other people's stuff".

I know, folks like you will repeat stuff like "it's wrong", "it's the law", "they wrote it", but that still doesn't solve the problem. The reason we have private property in this country is because people like it better than communism or something else. People don't like the idea that someone else controls their stuff. They never will. Trying to hammer "intellectual property" into our private property system worked for a while.. but it's going to fail one of these days.

Re:quit bitching

[MrResistor]

A more appropriate analogy would be:

I bought a nice new car that I saw at the dealership down the block, and when I tried to install a better stereo in it the bastards called the police on me.

The comment had nothing to getting stuff for free, but rather with the right to use something which you have legitimately obtained in a manner of your own choosing.

Re:quit bitching

[sweetooth]

While I agree with you fully, and don't use hardware/software that I don't like the agreement for (have you ever tried to get a refund on software after disagreeing with the license, it's a ROYAL pain). I use whatever is needed to get the job done in my work regardless of license as that is the customers choice not mine.

I also fully understand that hardware/software vendors can sell thier products under whatever terms they want. What I don't understand is why this has changed from years past. Why is most software licensed? Why are some hardware manufacturers moving to similar terms? What happened to the concept of consumer ownership of a product. When I buy a car I can tinker with it, change out parts, add new parts. As long as it works and doesn't break any laws the car manufacturers don't really care. At most you are voiding the warranty and any problems that may arise are yours and not thiers. This makes sense to me.

I have yet to hear a good explanation why software is treated differantly. Why 3rd party addons are not ok. Why tinkering with the programs violates the license. What makes software so special that the vendor feels they need to lock it up and throw away the key.

Re:quit bitching

[wchin]

No...

It would be like going to Lexus and licensing the interface to the engine management computer for creating diagnostic tools for mechanics. The license prohibits creating performance modification add-ons. You agree to the license, take the information, and make available a performance modification add-on. Lexus sues you to prevent you from distributing your modification since you breached the license - no matter what Lexus feels about your modification or the benefits or problems stemming from your modification.

Re:quit bitching

[MrResistor]

Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.

I'm free to do whatever I want with my stuff, which I have legally obtained.

And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it.

So because O'Reilly published "Unix in a Nutshell" they have a right to prevent me from writing in the margins of the copy I bought?

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I'm free to do whatever I want with my stuff, which I have legally obtained.

If you had legally obtained the right to build a file-trading plug-in for iTunes, then you could have built one. Since these guys legally obtained the right to build a device plug-in for iTunes, then building a file-trading plug-in is against the rules.

The important point, of course, is that something that you merely have limitied rights to use does not qualify as "my stuff."

So because O'Reilly published "Unix in a Nutshell" they have a right to prevent me from writing in the margins of the copy I bought?

If that was part of the deal, then yes. A vendor has the right to ask for any terms they want, as long as they ask for them up-front. If you agree to the terms, then you're obligated to abide by them. If you don't abide by them, then you are in the wrong. Whining that it was unfair for the vendor to ask them of you in the first place won't get you anywhere with anybody.

Re:quit bitching

[klez23]

I took a nice new car that I saw at the dealership down the block, and the bastards called the police on me.

It's more like, "I bought a Lexus at full price & added a cell phone antenna & new fuel injectors to it, & the bastards called the police on me. iCommune didn't steal anything; they developed software which went against Apple's plan for iTunes. & broke a contract in doing so.

Re:quit bitching

[bnenning]

And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it.

I disagree. Until the DMCA and other unbalanced legislation, copyright has never dictated how you can *use* a product that you have legally acquired, and I fail to see any reason why it should.

Re:quit bitching

[jdavidb]

Every time I try to customize the seats in my new Lexus, the intellectual property police show up and tell me I have no right to do that. After all, it cost a lot of money to make that Lexus, so they have the right to dictate how I use it after I pay for it. Without the rights to control other people who do business with them, all production in this country might come to a complete stop!

And don't even get me started on airbags.

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Until the DMCA and other unbalanced legislation, copyright has never dictated how you can *use* a product that you have legally acquired, and I fail to see any reason why it should.

You're confused. This has nothing to do with copyright, except to the extent that the creator of a work has the exclusive right to distribute that work. In this case, Apple is exercising their exclusive right to distribute the iTunes device plug-in SDK by doing so only under terms. If you agree to the terms, Apple will give you (at no charge, even!) a copy of the SDK. However, you have to agree in advance that you will only do certain things with it. If you don't agree, then you can't have the SDK. And those terms constitute a contract; if you later decide not to abide by the terms (like these guys did), then you are in material breach of contract.

The copyright aspect of this situation begins and ends with Apple's exclusive right to distribute the SDK. What's really relevant here is the contract between the guy who created iCommune and Apple, and the extent to which the guy is in breach of it.

The lesson, of course, is that you shouldn't enter into a contract unless you're both willing and able to abide by its terms completely.

Re:quit bitching

[dbrutus]

Actually, you have the ability to extend the functionality of the product. You just can't use Apple's SDK to do it outside the terms of the SDK license. If you would write a program that would make a non-local computer look like it was on the local network so Rendezvous would pick it up, you would have created the ability to share across the Internet (using the demo'd Apple software under development) without the need to use the SDK.

Re:quit bitching

[Allegro]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how creating an object gives you a natural right to dictate what can be done with said object. The idea that creating something gives you a right to dictate what can be done with it seems beyond fascism to me. If I have an object (be it code, or a physical entity), I damn-well have the right to do whatever I want with the aforementioned object. Of course, this is not what capitalist America wants you to believe. I must be communist, right? Phsaw!

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how creating an object gives you a natural right to dictate what can be done with said object.

Blah blah, philosophy, blah blah. It's really very simple, dude. If you say to me, "I want a copy of your whozit," and I say to you, "Okay, but I'll only give you one if you pay me ten shekels and promise never, ever to use it on a Tuesday," and then you say "Okay" and you give me the ten shekels and make the promise, you're obligated. You've entered into a contract. And if you then decide to be a jerk and break the terms of the contract-- using the whozit on a Tuesday, like I asked you not to-- then I have every right to do whatever stuff we agreed I could do when we made the original contract. Including, but not limited to, retracting your permission to use the whozit.

This is true because you agreed to it. It's not necessary to fall back on talk of "natural rights" and "fascism." It's a simple deal, no more complex than the deals that people have been making between each other since the dawn of civilization.

What I want to know is this: what makes you think you have the right to bust a deal?

Re:quit bitching

[doce]

I have yet to hear a good explanation why software is treated differantly.

Simple.

You have purchased the car. It is YOURS.

The software, you have only paid for the privilege of using (possibly with restrictions) in perpetuity (in most cases).

For instance, my mom lives on a ranch in east Texas with natural gas reserves. She has sold the mineral rights to the natural gas to a local-ish oil company. In essence, she has licensed the use of the land to them for the limited purpose of removing said natural gas.

They don't get to say, "We paid you money for this land, so move over so we can take the wood, too." All they bought was access to the natural gas.

The commercial software you have licensed is not yours, as much as it would be nice if it were, to do with however you please. You have licensed it and, in some cases, the license restricts how you may use it.

Re:quit bitching

[muleboy]

In the case of downloaded ("click-wrap") software, I agree with you. I have to make an affirmative action that shows I agree with their contract. That is why I use nothing but Free software (as defined by the Debian Free Software Guidelines). In the case of a sealed box with software in it that you buy at the store, my friends with law degrees think these contracts are unenforcable, because the contract is not agreed to at the time of sale. UCITA type laws will change that, which is why we should oppose them. Should it be legal to have Quicken pop up a screen after using it for a year that says "by continuing to use this software, you agree to pay Quicken an additional $100"? How is this different than saying: "now that you have purchased this software and taken it home, you can only use it if you agree to these conditions"?

Re:quit bitching

[sweetooth]

No kidding? I understand how a license works. I asked WHY do people agree to license software!?!? Why is it that software is licensed? What is the benefit to consumers? Why as consumers do we agree to these licenses?

I personally see absolutly no benefit to software licenses on the consumer level. For the corporation selling software they make perfect sense. They limit how the software can be used, who it can be used by, how long it's good for etc. I've watched customers purchase NAMED licenses where the software license is purchased for the employee that is using it. The company doesn't own it, if the employee leaves the company is stuck shelling out for another license. How is this cost effective? Why would anyone agree to such nonsense? Noone has been able to give me a good answer to any of those questions.

At one point I worked for a company that paid 5 developers to build an ERP system for internal use. It had all of the features they wanted plus a few extra because it was designed that way. They spent probably $250-300k doing this. About the time the software was finished a certain portion of the managment decided that they needed to purchase a "professional" solution to make themselves look better if the company went public. They ended up spending three times as much on the new software, hardware to run it, and consultants to make some off the shelf garbage have the features they wanted. They paid thousands upon thousands of dollars on per seat licensing fees. For no reason. Of course, they laid off all the technical folk and then shortly went out of business shortly there after, but that's beside the point. There are plenty of companies that do the same thing. Pay tons of money for software that has horrible licensing requirments. For no apparently good reason IMO.

So, I'll ask again. Why do we as consumers agree to license software instead of agreeing to purchase it outright with some restrictions (no resale, whole or modified, no copying, etc). This makes no sense to me.

I don't want to hear about lack of choices, there is always a choice, and if enough people yelled about it loud enough software publishers would change thier EULAs and licensing policies.

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Should it be legal to have Quicken pop up a screen after using it for a year that says "by continuing to use this software, you agree to pay Quicken an additional $100"? How is this different than saying: "now that you have purchased this software and taken it home, you can only use it if you agree to these conditions"?

Easy. If the contract says up front that you can use the software without specifying a time limit, then it's not okay for Intuit to ask you for another $100 after the first year. But if the contract says up front that you're buying the right to use the program for a year, then it's perfectly okay for them to ask for more money.

The moral of the story, as always: when you buy software, like many other things, you're entering into a contract. Read the contract before entering into it. If you don't like it, the correct course of action is not to participate. The correct course of action is not to participate for a while and then break the contract when you get the urge.

Re:quit bitching

[muleboy]

I'm curious what your definition of "up front" is. Let's get specific. Say I buy a copy of Quicken at Office Max tomorrow. The software is in a box wrapped with plastic that is sealed. There is no contract visible on this box, and I sign no contract when I pay for the software. Neither do I verbally agree to any contract when I buy the software. Yet you seem to be saying that I have entered into a contract. I have discussed this in depth with several people with law degrees, and they are very skeptical that any judge would agree with you.

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yet you seem to be saying that I have entered into a contract.

You have not yet entered into the contract. You have not yet used the software. The software will be enclosed in an envelope, or sealed in some way, with a big sticker on it that says, "Before you use this software, make sure you read the license agreement!" The license agreement, of course, being enclosed in the box with the sealed software.

It seems to be the norm in the case of Windows software to display a software license as part of the installation process as well. (Since Mac software doesn't have installers for the most part, this doesn't apply as much in Mac land.)

Even if you fail to read either or both of these documents, then you're still going to be held responsible for your end of the deal. The software licenses I'm familiar with all include some kind of out clause; namely that if you don't want to uphold your end of the deal you're free to return the software to the retailer for a refund, or something like that. So nobody's tricking you into anything, here. The terms are presented to you, and it's your responsibility to read them.

Re:quit bitching

[muleboy]

The software licenses I'm familiar with all include some kind of out clause; namely that if you don't want to uphold your end of the deal you're free to return the software to the retailer for a refund, or something like that.

What deal? When I pay money at a store for a software package, the deal is I give them money and they give me a software package. No other conditions were attached.

In other words, you are admitting there are hidden conditions that are not exposed at the time of sale. According to the lawyers I have discussed this issue with, this is what will cause these "contracts" to be unenforceable. You accuse people of ignoring the license when they don't like it, which is another way of saying they are changing the terms of the deal after the fact. Isn't that exactly what these software licenses do? Legally speaking, the changing hands of money is the "deal": I now own the software I just gave $100 dollars for, and there were no conditions attached at the time of sale. I am still restricted by copyright law, the DMCA, and other laws, but there is no contract in place.

Also, I wonder how many stores will really honor this "contract" option to return the software? I know most retailers have a no-return policy on opened software and music. So what do I do when Best Buy won't let me return the Microsoft Windows XP I just bought because I don't agree to the "contract" terms?

Regardless of the enforcability of these bogus contracts, I don't have to worry about it other than to warn other people, because I won't use such software. I can do everything I want to do with a computer without agreeing to any conditions at all. Why should I?

Re:quit bitching

[Twirlip of the Mists]

When I pay money at a store for a software package, the deal is I give them money and they give me a software package.

Right. That's the deal between Muleboy and Best Buy. The deal between Microsoft is different; it's defined by the license agreement inside the box, but outside of the media itself. That's why those out clauses exist; to give you the option of simply returning the software before you've broken the seal on the media.

In other words, you are admitting there are hidden conditions that are not exposed at the time of sale.

"Hidden conditions?" No. As I said, the software license agreement is packaged with the media, but separately from it. You are strongly encouraged by the big "READ THIS FIRST" label to read the agreement before opening the media. The agreement is not hidden in any way.

Isn't that exactly what these software licenses do?

Of course not. The piece of paper spells it all out in black-and-white, right there in front of you. That paper is enclosed in the box, and you should read it before opening the media package. Nobody's trying to trap you, here. Don't be paranoid.

Legally speaking, the changing hands of money is the "deal": I now own the software I just gave $100 dollars for, and there were no conditions attached at the time of sale.

That's not true at all. What you bought was the box, the documentation if any, and the media. The vendor has not yet given you the right to use the software. That right is not intrinsic or automatic, no matter how much you might wish it were; it is conditional, dependent on your acceptance of the SLA. If you don't accept the SLA, you don't get the right to use the software.

If it makes you feel better, think of it in terms of the GPL. If you don't accept the GPL, then you don't get the right to distribute copies of any software licensed under it. Same thing exactly.

Also, I wonder how many stores will really honor this "contract" option to return the software?

Every store will; they're required to by their reseller contracts. Just as the master distributor (Ingram Micro or whomever) is required by their contracts with the vendor to accept returns of software that is still sealed in its media envelope or shrinkwrapped jewel case or whatever. All you have to do is explain that the box has been opened but that the software media itself has not.

I can do everything I want to do with a computer without agreeing to any conditions at all.

Except use things like the iTunes device plug-in SDK. Or iTunes itself, for that matter. Or any such software.

You stick to whatever principles float your boat, friend. The rest of us will go on about our business, if that's all right with you.

Re:quit bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hidden conditions?" No. As I said, the software license agreement is packaged with the media, but separately from it. You are strongly encouraged by the big "READ THIS FIRST" label to read the agreement before opening the media. The agreement is not hidden in any way.

By "hidden", I mean these are conditions that cannot be known at the time of the sale. Do you deny this?

That's not true at all. What you bought was the box, the documentation if any, and the media. The vendor has not yet given you the right to use the software. That right is not intrinsic or automatic, no matter how much you might wish it were; it is conditional, dependent on your acceptance of the SLA. If you don't accept the SLA, you don't get the right to use the software.

Kind of like how when I buy a book, I actually just bought the paper, but don't have the right to read it until I have agreed to the conditions on the envelope the book came in?

If the software packaging says on the outside that you can't use it without agreeing to a contract that will be shown to you after the sale, then I give you the point. Maybe they do this now, I haven't looked at commercial software in quite some time. It seems to me that when I have seen commercial software, the package tells you what you can do with the software inside. It has a price sticker on that same package. It only makes sense that what you are paying for is the things described on the package, not a useless box and CD.

Out of curiousity, what would you think if the sealed envelope inside the box said: "if you do not agree to the following conditions, you may not open this envelope", but didn't allow you to return the box and envelope for a refund? If you think this would be wrong, why?

If it makes you feel better, think of it in terms of the GPL. If you don't accept the GPL, then you don't get the right to distribute copies of any software licensed under it. Same thing exactly.

Not sure I follow. The GPL covers distribution, while we're talking about use. They are two completely different things. That's why copyright law doesn't have anything to say about use, only about distribution. You don't have to accept or abide by the GPL to use GPL software. You don't even have to accept the GPL to distribute GPL software, you just have to follow copyright law if you don't want to accept the GPL.

Except use things like the iTunes device plug-in SDK. Or iTunes itself, for that matter. Or any such software.

I don't have any problem listening to music on my computer, even though I don't have iTunes.

You stick to whatever principles float your boat, friend. The rest of us will go on about our business, if that's all right with you.

If you want to do business with companies that treat you with as little respect as most commercial software houses do these days, then that is your perogative.

Re:quit bitching

[muleboy]

Oops, that last reply should not have been AC.

Bummer.

[mcgroarty]

Wonder if this means they're recalling the Flower Power iMacs.

Get it posted on KaZaA

[icrooks]

So we can spread it around, like DeCSS.

Re:Get it posted on KaZaA

[Johnny Mnemonic]

That would be nicer if you get actually get to Kazaa networks with a Mac. **grumble** At least give us the code, so we can make it ourselves. The Neo app works, but it's only one way + requires basically wardailing for hosts. I mean, I get that maybe FastTrack doesn't want to put the resources into supporting the Mac, but at least give us the opportunity to do it ourselves by opening the code. Kindof ironic, really--you would think that a someone in the biz of "free sharing" would make their code as open as possible.

Re:Get it posted on KaZaA

[Salamanders]

Freenet.
http://www.geocities.com/elifarley/macfr eenet/

Re:Get it posted on KaZaA

[The Phantom Buffalo]

That would be nicer if you get actually get to use OSX with a PC. **grumble** At least give us the code, so we can make it ourselves. Windows works, but it's only one way + requires basically dealing with all the windows crap. I mean, I get that maybe Apple doesn't want to put the resources into supporting the PC, but at least give us the opportunity to do it ourselves by opening the code. Kindof ironic, really--you would think that a someone that has embraced "open source" would make their code as open as possible.
Just changed a few words to see how it would look.

Re:Get it posted on KaZaA

[MoneyT]

Difference is, if fast-track gets more people copying and distributing software, they don't go out of business. Apple on the otherhand may be a different story.

Future Apple product?

[EricWright]

Sounds like they're putting the kibosh on this project because they plan to do something like this in the near future. They may even have plans to make this a paid upgrade to the free iTunes download. Who knows?

I actually thought they'd go after iCommune for trademark dilution...

Re:Future Apple product?

[tstoneman]

Trademark dilution?

You mean the "i" in front of the word?!?! I highly doubt that that is considered to be trademark dilution.

Think about e-mail, e-business, e-whatever. It's the same thing.

Considering there are other things such as iplanet that currently exist, I don't think you can consider the use of i-whatever trademark dilution.

Re:Future Apple product?

[EricWright]

iMac is trademarked. After reading Apple's trademark page, I presume they're more worried about the Mac part than the i- prefix. Pay no attention to me... :)

Re:Future Apple product?

[jakobk]

Here in Germany, the color magenta is a registered trademark of this company

Re:Future Apple product?

[lazylion]

Actually, I think it is much more likely that they are trying to keep the filthy stinking RIAA off their backs.

Re:Future Apple product?

[EricWright]

Could be... I like to consider everyone innocent until proven guilty (you were all using iCommune for fair use purposes, right?). I'm not so used to thinking the other way around (you mean there's people out there that illegally share copyrighted material???).

The reason I wondered about it is that I've been seeing rumors of a Rendezvous-enabled iTunes for some time now... who knows... maybe that's on hold due to the RIAAs jack-booted thuggery too!

Re:Future Apple product?

[DigitalVolume]

actually Steve Jobs has noted this feature to be added to iTunes since MacWorld NewYork last July. This is a feature that MANY Mac users, including myself, have been waiting patiently for.

I'm not sure what the hold up is, but it's an important feature that Apple knows it's users with take advantage of, I'm sure they want to get it right. And I'm sure that some 3rd party plugin isn't the right way, when Apple has control over it's apps.

The plugins that Apple allows to be developed are additional Visualizers, and hardware plugins for new MP3 products, CD burners, and other items.

Re:Future Apple product?

[mbbac]

Apple mentioned at the Macworld before last that they would have Rendezvous support in iTunes in a future release.

Re:Future Apple product?

[ealar dlanvuli]

I didn't snab iCommune, if anyone wants to place it on Ealar's .mac public folder I would be much obliged.

With that said, it is my understand iCommune can work over public IP's while the rendezvous version will only work on the "rendezvous internal ip's" (a subset of ip's assigned to the interface so rendezvous can talk with zero configuration even from a dhcp server).

Re:The Problems of the Apple License

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely irrelevant - this is to do with the terms the iCommute guys agreed to when they used the iTunes SDK.

You may not like the APSL for political reasons, but it's got nothing to do with this.

iCommune as a possible competitor?

[markv242]

Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4? They don't want to be beaten to the punch, and a third party offering "Rendezvous-like" functionality goes against Apple's plan.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[jaysones]

That's right, mod parent up. Apple is coming out with a Rendezvous-capable version of iTunes that will let you stream your playlists to available computers on your network. Steve demonstrated it during the keynote at MWNY 2002 in July.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ULA wording certainly sounds like it's trying to prevent competition and circumvention of Apple's control over the product....though the fact that they're giving it away for free (and probably will for quite some time, now) makes this kinda moot.

Actually, I think the main reason they did this was to prop up their "Don't steal music" line. I'm not totally familiar with iCommune, but it sounds like a great lead-in for a Napster wanna-be. If Apple didn't act, they'd wreck any hope of having a relationship with the music and movie industries (the former hurting already due to accusations), and they may need this if their current hardware/software efforts tank. All IMHO of course.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[mjpaci]

The Apple sharing functionality won't let you copy the songs down from the host -- just stream them. iCommune let users copy the songs as well as stream them. Remember, according to Jobs, Music Piracy is a Social Problem. I'm sure the contract violation had something to do with the copying of music. Apple doesn't want the RIAA attacking them for the transgressions of their licensed devlopers. Therefore, Apple has language in its license that somehow prohibits what iCommune was doing.

--Mike

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[bsharitt]

Didn't they do something like that before. They forced someone to stop a modification of one of their programs, and then they released a similar modification in the next version of the program. What was it? Was it even Apple? Okay, I might be confused.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4?

Rendezvous-savvy iTunes and iCommune won't do the same things. iCommune works over the Internet and lets you download songs from arbitrary hosts identified by URL. Rendezvous-savvy iTunes will merely let you play songs stored on another computer over the local network segment; it won't work over the Internet, and it won't let you download song files.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[JHromadka]

Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4? They don't want to be beaten to the punch, and a third party offering "Rendezvous-like" functionality goes against Apple's plan.

I think it had more to do with the terms of the iTunes SDK agreement. There is an Apache module that enables website sharing over Rendezvous, but Apple has left that alone, and I'm sure that functionality will be in OS X eventually.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. And if anyone doesn't want to be accused of not "thinking different"ly, it's Apple.

Re:iCommunista

[Anonymous Coward]

The only think worse than the 'i' naming convention, is the 'i' joke.

Please, everyone, move on already.

I may be missing the point but...

[Funksaw]

I may be missing the point, but what is it about iCommune that was so different from sharing the files over a network via network protocols, anyway?

Since iTunes is a proprietary work, I'm not too upset by this - luckily, all iCommune needs to do to counter this is to produce an MP3 player better than iTunes, open source it, and they can very well do what they please. Just because iTunes is a proprietary MP3 player doesn't mean that it's the only possible one that'll work on the MacOSX platform.

This is more molehill than mountain.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[MattHaffner]

Exactly. Especially with OS X and the ease of Rendezvous and AppleShare/IP, what did this really do but put an interface within iTunes? All you have to do is make a user for them and set aside a folder for them to mount. I guess it might be harder with dynamic IP's and hostnames, but did iCommune get around that? I mount the music volume of my desktop machine (in the basement) on my laptop all the time and play through iTunes. Cake!

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[thefinite]

iCommune is different in that you are not actually getting copies of songs, but playing the songs from the other computer. This means you are not distributing illegal copies, because the single copy of the song remains on the machine hosting the playlist. IANAL, but this might make a difference for copyright laws. As far as making a better MP3 player goes, I see other players on VersionTracker every day. Do I ever download them? Not once. It is much easier to get your software out when it is hooked to a player as popular as iTunes. But in the end you are right, more molehill than mountain.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[JudgeFurious]

I think it's possible (not certain mind you, just possible) that you may have made mention of the point and then missed it again.

As you say (correctly I might add) "what is it about iCommune that was so different from sharing files over a network vie network protocols anyway?"

So we're talking about something that lets you share your stolen downloads with all of your friends and lets you copy as many of their stolen downloads as you like right? I mean, aren't all mp3 files in the universe stolen?

Now what happens to companies (Napster) and programs that steal music? They get jumped on by the big bad labels and sued into the stone age.

Any chance Apple doesn't want to see iTunes become synonymous with LimeWire, Kazaa, and Morpheus in the minds of the public? Maybe they just want to avoid straining already edgy relations with content producers? I think they would simply like to be the company that has the final say over any kind of participation by their software in file sharing if for no other reason than to be able to incorporate whatever necessary digital rights warts into it that are needed.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[Scrameustache]

luckily, all iCommune needs to do to counter this is to produce an MP3 player better than iTunes

BwahahahaHAHAHAhahahaAHAHAHAHAHahaha!

That's a good one : )

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[IamTheRealMike]

Just because iTunes is a proprietary MP3 player doesn't mean that it's the only possible one that'll work on the MacOSX platform.

No, but it comes bundled for 'free' with every Mac. I think most of us would agree that Mozilla is a better browser than IE, it has tabs, popup blocking, it's more secure, it's more standards compliant, it can look boring if you want but it can also look cool and so on. The latest builds are even comparable to IE6 in speed. Internet Explorer itself has hardly moved on in the last few years, Gates has his eye on other balls.

Nonetheless, it's practically impossible to convince a lot of people to use it. Mozillas market share remains at rock bottom. I've tried to convince friends to try it and they point blank refuse, "IE is fine for me, why would I need Mozilla?".

And you know what? I think they might be onto something. Trying to convince somebody to change their web browser, or media player, or zip extractor is like trying to convince people to buy a different brand of oil for their car.

I mean, to most people, things like that are part of the furniture, it works, they don't think about it. The effort required to try something else, when what you have works, is simply too great. We can't be discerning buyers in everything we do (part of the reason classical economics fails) and so the idea that somehow a company could displace iTunes by making a better media player is probably wrong.

The only way that'd be possible is if it was SO much better than iTunes, and iTunes was SO bad that people were willing to find out about the competition and download them and try them out etc, ie not going to happen anytime soon.

So really this company is sort of screwed. I don't agree with the "well it was in the plugin license agreement so they are the criminals here" line either - arbitrary restrictions on plugin APIs that serve seemingly no purpose just reeks of control freakery and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was a planned feature for iTunes.

Using license agreements to arbitrarily restrict competition like this is a classic Microsoft tactic, it's sad to see Apple do the same, but not entirely surprising.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[Anonymous Coward]

all iCommune needs to do to counter this is to produce an MP3 player better than iTunes, open source it, and they can very well do what they please.

Good one.
That isn't going to happen.

There will be 17,995.27 skinnable MP3 players that suck on linux before there is even ONE that is as decent and easy to use as iTunes.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[diamondc]

Although iTunes is a great mp3 player, nobody's going to stop making easier to use/better/ mp3 players, so who knows, maybe they will write a better mp3 player than iTunes

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[mbbac]

Mozilla is too complex for most users. Phoenix is the only hope for unseating Internet Explorer on Windows.

I hope the Phoenix team creates a Mail and Address Book client to go along with it. Mozilla Calendar is already very nice. It looks like it is based off of iCal.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[jmu1]

You've got the right idea, but you're going in the wrong direction.

Apple didn't want to get hit with a Napster-Kazaa-like lawsuit. It's all a game of CYA when it comes to this sort of thing. Take a look at what RedHat did with the mp3 libs. That doesn't make the situation suck any less, but that is why they bother to make the license like the do and why they bothered to smack iCommune.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[soulsteal]

Gates has his eye on other balls.

I keep telling him to quit looking at mine but he never listens.

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? They're not on to something. They have the popular opinion. Granted, they shouldn't be faulted for it, per se, because they probably haven't really thought about it and they're not aware of alternatives.

However, that's where you come in. When they ask "I have IE, why would I need Mozilla?", that's your opportunity to mention the virtues and importance of Free Software.

You should indicate the benefits of Free Software, using analogy they can understand.

Explain that their personal Freedom is at stake (because they probably don't understand that it is).

Point out practical benefits. In this case, Mozilla is a browser that is more accurately standards compliant. Don't forget to explain that complying with standards insures the web is exactly what we expect it to be -- a place for all people to exchange thoughts and information. Their choice of web browser shouldn't be a part of that, but thanks to poorly implemented or "extended" standards, it is. (Yes, I know column attribute rendering is still broken in Mozilla, but it's still better than IE.)

If you don't want to do all the research yourself, buy RMS' book to fund the FSF, and read it. (If you don't want to buy it, read the essays online. He obviously knows the message is more important than the money.)

The worst thing you could do is roll over. Now, one more person is walking around uninformed about the serious threats opposing personal Freedom in the computing world (which, you should point out, is increasingly becoming the "real" world). Morever, they think they do understand it, given that their computer buddy (who is in the know, right?) agreed.

I've had this conversation many times, with many people. They don't always agree, but at least they've heard a portion of the argument and they'll have it to think about in the future. In fact, I've had a number of people switch to Mozilla as a direct result of the type of discussion you've described; but only because I took the time to explain it to them.

Once again, but not for the last time, the point is the Freedom, not the software. The more of us that teach this, the better of we'll all be.

Can someone tell me why the comment input textarea is only 10x50? It's insanely annoying. and completely off-putting to all but the most determined! (I bet most people write their comments in another window and then cut and paste!)

Re:I may be missing the point but...

[Maserati]

Can someone tell me why the comment input textarea is only 10x50? It's insanely annoying. and completely off-putting to all but the most determined! (I bet most people write their comments in another window and then cut and paste!)

Congratulations ! You've missed one of the new (presumably) slashcode preferences. Go check your user page, the text area size can be changed ! It's down towards the bottom of the page.

There was a reason they did that...

[japhar81]

The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).

As much as I hate to see projects killed, in this case, its not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). In windows-land, I've got a plethora of networks to hound for one file, depending on who has it. With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.

Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[DAldredge]

That single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network of yours is also a single target for the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[japhar81]

Yeah, youre right. Heaven forbid they take away our right to do something illegal.

What if this network has DRM? Or forces you to prove you own the CD? Or reads your mind to see if you own it? Or whatever the hell else Apple comes up with?

And what if it is a target for RIAA? Once the software its out, its out. Corporations know this as well as we do. They'll ship it, go to bat with RIAA (Lose), but the p2p plugin will already be out and floating on every newsgroup across the globe. So great, Apple stops shipping it (and presumably keeps competition down like it did here), the plugin is still out, and its still that single, united network, the one that would be so nice.

I'm sure redhat desktops are important to you, but get your head out of your ass, stop being a typical troll, and think a few steps ahead.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[Bisifiniti]

While it's not Microsoft, Apple is a big company with it's own interests. If they want to develop a p2p network of their own, then they have the capacity to fight the RIAA/MPAA. They have money. They have good lawyers.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[stratjakt]

Would you be as elated if the single, united, supported P2P network was a MicroSoft product?

Naw.. Of course you wouldnt. It's cute when Apple preemptively crushes OSS competition, because they're run by care bears.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[sbeitzel]

Maybe so. But think about these points:

• iCommune shares the files via Apache (OS X comes with Apache installed). So one could, in theory, share these with anyone, not just with people in Rendezvous range.
• iTunes doesn't share at all right now. iCommune lets it do so. How about if I tell the taco vendor at the corner to shut down now because I'm building a taqueria on that corner three months from now? You want a taco now? Too bad...

As others are saying, this is a license issue, and I haven't yet seen anyone posting details as to what part of the license was violated. Do remember, though, that Apple is even more anticompetitive than Microsoft. It's just that Apple's products tend to work fairly well, and they have a miniscule market share, so nobody notices much.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[gorilla]

I've got a plethora of networks to hound for one file, depending on who has it. With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.

I'd still call that a bad thing. I like diversity. It allows a much better match between my desires and what's provided.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[DAldredge]

The number 1,2 and 3 reasons people use p2p networks are illegal mp3, videos, and software. You many not like it, but that is the sad truth.

Also, it doesn't matter if you have the cd. The copyright owner never gave the person sharing their music the right to distribute it.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[japhar81]

I dont think they really care... And I don't think the RIAA will really try hard to challenge them. Why?

We all know this RIAA shit wont hold up in any court where any technical knowledge at all is available. We also know that only the likes of Apple and M$ have the cash and resources to provide a true legal test to MPAA/RIAA.

So, while I'm personally against piracy, even if I wasnt a single p2p network is still a good thing. I'd love to have some popcorn and watch an Apple/RIAA match. They'd cease to be an issue.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[DAldredge]

Maybe they have good lawyers. But the RIAA/MPAA has better politicians.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[PsychoSpunk]

The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).

Wrong. It will have library sharing capabilities that allow users in the same subnet to access music for listening.

With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.

Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.

Wrong. See previous point, and the article writeup. Rendezvous sharing does no good if you do not have a Rendezvous network, so unless the file is local already (or a friend stops by for an extended stay), you will not be able to listen to that file. You won't be able to copy it via iTunes regardless. iCommune was not an OSS project. iTunes Rendezvous sharing will not be a "single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network". It is, as described above, and in the actual specifications for Rendezvous, a LAN level alternative to configuration (think AppleTalk over IP).

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[IamTheRealMike]

As much as I hate to see projects killed, in this case, its not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). In windows-land, I've got a plethora of networks to hound for one file, depending on who has it. With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.

By that logic we should kill off Mozilla and hell, why not, the Mac as a platform anyway. They're both inconvenient to quite a few people, I mean some software companies have these Mac ports that are horribly expensive to keep around, and of course Mozilla is kind of a thorn in the side of Internet Explorer, if it weren't for them and their damn standards we could have all kinds of cool technology on the web by now.

Sure. It'd be a one product web, but hey. Maybe it's worth it, convenience and all.

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Apple is fighting the RIAA/MPAA, only it is not dirtying itself with P2P, copyright violations, and legal mud wrestling.

Apple is fighting the RIAA/MPAA by democratizing the tools of music and movie production. This makes music and movie production outside the RIAA/MPAA possible for small indies, individual musicians, and small business studios.

The big five labels especially form a sort of cartel that has been ripping off artists and customers alike, and fixing prices. By giving that cartel competition from many small sources, Apple is weakening that cartel, draining its power. Given enough time, the cartel will collapse, and a new, better, music industry will rise in its place, with an abundance of good music, good prices, and rights for the artists.

P2P will never defeat the media sharks by itself, though it will provide promotion to indie artists. Apple is taking the high road, and solving the real problem: the RIAA/MPAA and the monopoly power their members hold over their industries.

"Mothra Leo, the fluttering of your wings is life!
Between the sky and the water,
You wake up.
A flock of moths turns him to stone.
Sleep defeats him."
Japanese language "Mothra Leo", "Rebirth of Mothra"

Re:There was a reason they did that...

[linux11]

Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.

Yes! Yes! Apple iTool Licenses will become "Information Purification Directives." There will be an ideology that is "secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts." After all, "we are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause."

But if this is what Apple ultimate goal then why did their advertizement feature an Apple women throwing a hammer at the person giving their "Unification of Thoughts" speech? I mean, why build a machine so that '1984 won't be like 1984' just to make 2003 like 1984?

It's the license

[Mononoke]

Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me.

This has nothing to do with OSX being proprietary, and everything to do with violating the license for the Device Plug-in API. Sorry, but the rules were there in writing before iCommune ever started.

Re:It's the license

[Anonymous Coward]

proprietary:
1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; specifically : PROPRIETOR 1

Apple and make any Device Plug-in they want. I can't. That's the definition of proprietary. The word isn't limited to technical limitations. It includes legal ones.

Re:It's the license

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Device Plug-in API is an excuse. I'm sure if someone invented a plugin for iTunes that was really cool, useful, functional, and didn't get thim in trouble with RIAA, and wasn't a planned future feature, they wouldn't pull this. Well, maybe they would if they didn't want developers cluttering up their device sdk with a lot of add on hacks they never intended...

Of course, the device plugin API is made for DEVICES. There is probably little in it that would be extremely useful except in accessing devices, drives, and other computers.

I doubt this would stand up legaly.

[autopr0n]

RIAA, on the other hand, might have a case against 'em.

I'm not really familiar with the Apple license agreement for the iTune's API, is it something you need to download separately and sign a contract for? Or is it just something that's 'there' and you just need the right header files (or whatever) like the Windows Media API?

Lots of software companies seem to love proclaiming legal rights they don't have and sending out C&D's based on them, but that doesn't mean they actually have a case.

If it's true that the guy had an actual contract with apple, then they might have a case, but there's no legal way to stop someone from reverse engineering so way of interoperating with iTunes and creating a sharing system.

Re:I doubt this would stand up legaly.

[pi radians]

Yes, when you download the iTunes SDK as an Apple developer, you have to agree to a license that states what you can and cannot do with the SDK given to you.

One thing Apple has learnt is how to legally cover their butts and use the law to their advantage. They were burnt once too often in the past.

Re:I doubt this would stand up legaly.

[PierceLabs]

Sure it would stand up legally, its called breach of contract. Pretty fundamental aspect of the legal system. When you agree to not do something in order to get your hands on something else, you cannot later decide you're going to do it anyway.

So long as the contract is legal, which this one clearly is, its enforcable.

Re:I doubt this would stand up legaly.

[MrResistor]

It's only breech of contract if there is an actual contract the developer agreed to before using the API. If you read the parent again, you'll see that is the central question.

If the developer didn't have to agree specifically to a contract before using the SDK, there is no contract.

If the developer didn't use the SDK, but rather reverse-engineered the API using his own tools, there is no contract.

Without a contract, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:I doubt this would stand up legaly.

[MoneyT]

You agree to a universal agreement regarding SDKs and such when you sign up to be a developer. Then you have to agree to the specific licence pertaining to that SDK before it will even install. So yes, there is a contract, the developer was aware of it and if he wasn't it's because of his own stupididty.

File still availible via other channels...

[guido1]

So, future development is likely killed, unless he somehow "sort things out with Apple."

However, the old download is availible elsewhere, including:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/10486
http ://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macos/1 7772

Re:File still availible via other channels...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, good job checking both those links as they redirect to the icommune site. Neither of them work because icommune has removed their download.

I guess we'll just have to look other places for it.

BEN

Re:File still availible via other channels...

[Anonymous Coward]

MIT loves you:

http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Arc hi ve/gst/snd/icommune-10b1.hqx

Also:

freenet:CHK@FJ5tFcLpVyVVJH6494g17ITH0S4RAwI,pHZO 9Z rZciZJNsxNA05-vw

Re:File still availible via other channels...

[Anonymous Coward]

This works:
ftp://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/pub/info-ma c/gst/sn d/icommune-10b1.hqx

Re:File still availible via other channels...

[kalos]

Both links are now dead unfortunately. Anyone else have mirrors?

Next iTunes Version

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that according to last July's MWNY keynote, the next version of iTunes will be coming soon with this exact same feature, I'm surprised Apple didn't just wait until they ship iTunes 4 or whatever and just kill off iCommune the same way they killed WindowShade (incorporated into System 7), Watson (incorporated into OS X 10.2), etc.

Unless there's some reason they think we would prefer iCommune to their Rendezvous iTunes...?

Re:Next iTunes Version

[Anonymous Coward]

Watson is a very different product from the new version of Sherlock in MacOS X. THere's similarities, but the functionality and serivces are very different.

Re:Next iTunes Version

[Beowulfto]

Watson wasn't killed off. It is still out there and being updated on a regular basis. I much prefer it to Sherlock. Watson has more features and launches faster in my experience. It would have been great if they incorporated it into 10.2 but they didn't. For once, Apple was following the lead of shareware developers, just not doing it as well.

Re:Next iTunes Version

[wirelessbuzzers]

...the next version of iTunes will be coming soon with this exact same feature...

No. The next version of iTunes will let you stream music over Rendezvous. not pirate music over Rendezvous. There's a difference.

Re:Next iTunes Version

[bnenning]

Right, to pirate music over Rendezvous you'll have to use one of the other dozen ways of transferring files under OS X. I really don't understand Apple's motivation here. The only thing that makes any sense is that they're trying to not get sued by the RIAA (who already hates them because of the iPod).

Re:Next iTunes Version

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still piracy. You have to pay BMI/ASCAP/SESAC a 'performance' royalty for this which is variable depending on the use. Also, the published per-performance and fraction-of-revenues rates that all these orgs have agreed on are specifically excluded from applying to any music-broadcast device that is capable of interactive or per-user operation in the DMCA. Why this doesn't make radio stations that take requests illegal is beyond me.

It's possible that this might come under the AHRA and thusly be protected, but given the opinions in RIAA vs. Napster, I doubt it.

covering their backs

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest I bet they are just wanting to cover their backs with regard to RIAA and MPA/MPAA. This technically makes iTunes into a file sharing program (albeit on a local network) and they could get hammered for it.

Re:iCommunista

[MouseR]

I Agree.

Litigation protection?

[buzzsport]

In this day of suprious litigation by the record companies, etc. doesn't it make sense for Apple to cover their ass and make sure they don't become part of a lawsuit by enforcing their license? It's just one hassle they don't need to deal with right now IMO.

Re:Litigation protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now now, don't start thinking that way! The next thing you know, you'll be talking about Apple as if they're a company that has to make money somehow...

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Geekenstein]

Ok, a company with a proprietary product creates a license agreement that governs its interfaces with other products. Some guy comes along and uses that interface in a way that violates what he agreed upon, and said company says to take his toys and go home. Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Thank you, drive through.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along.

[Geekenstein]

Not that I like talking to myself, but another thought occured. This doesn't end up being just a simple violation of Apple's license agreement, but a potential liability for them. Allowing someone to share music over a network (sound familiar?) with their blessing - i.e. NOT revoking the person's rights - could land them in trouble with a certain influential and evil organization who shall remain na(RIAA)meless, and leave them wide open to be sued.

Double Plus Ungood.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along.

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Geekenstein wrote:

> Ok, a company with a proprietary product creates a
> license agreement that governs its interfaces with other
> products. Some guy comes along and uses that interface
> in a way that violates what he agreed upon, and said
> company says to take his toys and go home. Yep, sounds
> perfectly reasonable to me.

There is a few lessons we can all learn here. Read the license agreements (proprietary or otherwise) when using APIs and other people's programs. Follow them.

Also, do not copy features in your add on program that were announced to be coming in the main program over six months ago! You have to be innovative and stay ahead of the main program to remain useful at all. That includes rewriting and repositioning your add-on everytime the original program expands. If you don't like having to do this, you don't belong in the add-on business.

Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
"Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000

Apple has a legal right to do this

[Sanity]

Apple has every legal right to do this, as it is a provision of the license which iCommune signed when they clicked through the iTunes license agreement, and really it is for our own benefit - since Apple (unlike, say, Microsoft) has its users best interests at heart - you can tell by the warm fuzzy widgets on the OSX user interface.

Now if Microsoft had done this, with their cold unfriendly pointy user interfaces, that would be a sin worthy of no less than torture and death for Gates and all his ilk.

Those who complain that the Slashdot editors and much of the readership have a double standard where Apple and Microsoft are concerned are clearly missing one extremely important fact:

Apple: Warm and fuzzy
Microsoft: Cold and pointy

Need I say more?

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[stratjakt]

I can't wait to read all the praise lauded on the inevitable iDRM technology that should creep into iTunes and iMovie over the next few years.

And it will happen, Apple just needs time to catch up. When there's no content on the 'net in QuickTime, they'll get to work on it.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[frunch]

...the inevitable iDRM technology that should creep into iTunes and iMovie over the next few years.

And it will happen, Apple just needs time to catch up. When there's no content on the 'net in QuickTime, they'll get to work on it.


Really?? I fail to see how that's being built into their current strategy. Let's see... they created iTunes, which allows anyone to rip music to the widely-shared MP3 format, and store it in easily share-able directories. Oh, and then there's the one-click-my-computer-is-now-an-mp3-sharing-FTP-se rver button. Really, when Apple's entire DRM strategy is writing "Do not steal music" in the iTunes license, it's hard to argue that they're on the sides of the RIAA and MPAA, and not consumers.

Apple doesn't want to be forced to make iTunes use something other than the MP3 standard. But if lawyers see that iTunes' use of MP3, along with iCommune, is allowing users to quickly and easily illegally distribute copyrighted works, then iTunes is going to come under attack, and THEN they'll be forced to include some sort of DRM. Really, in the long term, I think Apple's attack on iCommune will be good for the average consumer in the long run, as they'll still have non-DRM iTunes.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[be-fan]

No double standard here. Apple and Microsoft both suck. In fact, I hate Apple just a touch more because it doesn't just plain lies, while Microsoft at least tries to be "creative" about it.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[stratjakt]

Sure..

And Rendezvous will succeed where Napster failed. They'll be immune from lawsuits when they launch their own commercial take on P2P. Because Mac users are above the law.

The only way Rendezvous will work will be via DRM technology. And Apple will make sure it's the only game in town, as they do with most everything else about their platform.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[frunch]

Are you smoking crack?

Streaming audio to other users via rendezvous sharing music in a P2P network. There's a difference between streaming audio and file sharing.

Apple is not trying to do anything Napster did (distribute copyrighted works to an unlimited number of recipients), they're trying to create a way for people who live in the same house to listen to eachother's music collection.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[frunch]

I'm a silly bastard. that should read "Streaming audio to other users via rendezvous <> sharing music in a P2P network.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Read my lips, dude: Rendezvous only works over the local link. It does not, cannot, work across routers.

Can you imagine an Internet in which every application sent out a network-wide multicast packet every time it wanted to poll for available services? Fire and brimstone! Mass hysteria!

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[stratjakt]

It could easily be tunnelled over TCP/IP.

But it's irrelevant, you don't have permission to rebroadcast copyrighted music no matter the scope of the delivery mechanism. Is your rendezvous network just a machine in the bedroom and one in the den? Or is it in an office with a hundred or so workstations? Or are you setting up a mini pirate radio station via 802.11 for your neighbourhood?

Comparing it to net radio is a more valid than comparing it to napster.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought apple said they weren't going to play the drm game...

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It could easily be tunnelled over TCP/IP.

No. Rendezvous works at a lower layer, so you couldn't tunnel it at the TCP layer. You'd have to find a way to tunnel it at the MAC layer, using L2TP or some such.

Rendezvous works by sending UDP packets to 224.0.0.251 with a TTL of 255. No router ever made, configured for tunnelling or otherwise, will pass those packets, and even it did through misconfiguration or some such the TTL would be decremented, so the clients on the destination segment would simply ignore them.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[dr00g911]

Not entirely true.

An example:

I have a machine at my office with cups printing and some creative routing and net config file hacks to act as a bridge with my machine at home via "allowed hosts" over a pair of DSL connections from different providers.

I managed upon this "magic" combination purely by accident -- trying to get a non-supported Postscript color copier to work via cups from home. I got a lot more out of my day's tinkering than I bargained for.

Now all printers show up in print center (even ones not CUPS enabled or shared). Neat bit of trivia: remote printers at the office show up in red at home in the print center list when activated this way.

I basically set my office up as a neighborhood on my WAN, and all office servers show up in the server dialog now "automagically"

mod_rendezvous also shows up under safari from both locations with .local links working properly manually typed anywhere.

Play with the config files for cups, your network config, and your built-in router and firewall a bit and you may be pleasantly surprised what you find.

If enough people are interested in how I accomplished this, I'll dig through my config files and document the accident.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[dr00g911]

One clarification:

YES... there's a lot of cross-pinging traffic going on between my 'nets, and pretty constant.

Not enough to notice a performance hit when it's enabled (I enable everything via SSH, a script that swaps config files, and a remote reboot when needed), but enough traffic that I'm concerned about sticking out like a sore thumb to one of my ISPs, and I'd prefer to be a decent web citizen the majority of the time anyhow.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[glesga_kiss]

iCommune signed when they clicked through the iTunes license agreement

He he. In the UK, a contract is invalid if one of the signees is intoxicated. I keep a nice supply of beer and pot handy for whenever I need to install software.

Problem solved...

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If what you say is true, then you may have a badly misconfigured router.

Rendezvous does two things. First, it sends UDP packets to a multicast address (if I recall, it's 224.0.0.251). No router should pass those packets. Second, it sets the TTL of the packets to 255. Any not-fundamenally-broken router that does happen to pass the multicast packets via misconfiguration should decrement the TTL. Because Rendezvous clients ignore any packet with a TTL other than 255, "leaked" packets should be ignored.

So it's possible that your setup is badly broken in a way that just happens to let Rendezvous packets through with their TTL's intact.

On the other hand, you said you've set up a machine "to act as a bridge." If that's literally true-- if your machine is bridging, not routing-- then Rendezvous should work. A bridge just connects two networks at the MAC layer, so broadcast and multicast traffic is forwarded transparently.

So either your router(s) is(are) really fucked up, or you don't have any routers at all. Either way, Rendezvous doesn't work across (non-fucked-up) routers.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[dr00g911]

I set the routers (a $70 siemens DSL router on one side, netgear higher-end DSLmodem/router combo on the other) to purposefully forward the rendezvous packets (which I got by sniffing and some guessing) between the two networks. In my mind, it's sorta a bridge and sorta port redirecting and sorta a tunnel (blocks of static IPs on each end, a hard router handling the basic net traffic, ipfw and services config running on Macs at different locations set to explicitly receive packets on those ports from each other and rebroadcast).

After installing 10.2.3 and the cups security patches, it broke my old configurations, I'll set it back up this evening (hopefully!) and document every little tweak I did to the cupsd, hostconfig, /etc/services, ipfw, a few other config files and the routers themselves.

The basic cups layer works by connecting two hosts via cupsd client and server config file hacks (over TCP), and that provides the "red" names in the Print Center list when you're remote. That's got nothing directly to do with rendezvous per se...

The printers show up a second time in black, via rendezvous broadcast of shared printers via the tunnel/bridge/travesty.

I know it's sketchy to do this stuff. That's why it's not on all the time. But it's not just theoretically possible. With a moderate pain in the ass, too much time on your hands, reckless abandon with config files you probably shouldn't even be touching (racoon comes to mind) and a disregard for using ports and forwarding/actions properly, you can get it working too.

Not saying you should, mind you. As a matter of fact, you probably shouldn't, because it's not at all polite to your neighbors if you get it working, and just about every softwareupdate of note will break it, and you've got more than a small chance of hosing your machine and/or feeling the wrath of your ISP.

But it is possible.

Imagine down the road if you could have a "bridge networks" checkbok in your sharing panel. Peer-to-peer between two hosts who then rebroadcast rendezvous info to their local segments.

I think that'd be damned cool, personally, and if done properly it wouldn't cause an inordinate amount of traffic, either. Definitely less than my almost-always-on stream of KEXP :-)

Remember the old Apple remote access?

Machine on LAN "A" dials into machine on LAN "B" -- suddenly everyone's machine, and all Appletalk printers show up in the chooser if sharing and Appletalk were on, and you could get DHCP info and utilize that machine's net connection. Over a simple ARA/PPP link between the networks.

Same principle. Apple is building Rendezvous to be a sort of Appletalk easy-config broadcast for TCP. A little bit of ingenuity and some super cool stuff will result.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[nosferatu-man]

Please stop using "Rendezvous" in this context. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The name "Rendezvous" is just Apple's Nifty New Name for ZeroConf, an IETF blessed slicker-than-shit-through-a-goose service discovery protocol. It's not a p2p network, or a commercial product, or a plugin for iTunes.

'jfb

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[JMZorko]

Yes, this is all funny and stuff, but there is some truth to it. Apple seems to have the vision that computers are far too important, powerful (as in empowering the individual) and effective (as in being able to effect a positive change in people's lives, by virtue of empowerment) to be difficult to use. In other words, computers can be personal, and they _need_ to be more personal if they are to realize some of their potential to really help people. They should be more transparent, and as easy to use as they are now, they need to be made even easier (this also means more approachable).

I remember way back when I was an 1802 machine language programmer. I thought this little RCA VIP single-board thing was the coolest; I could play games (as long as I wrote them), sample music (as long as I wrote the sampler), study electronics, etc. It was a lot of fun, it impacted my life in a big way. Apple seems to understand that modern pooters can impact people in a big way as well, and you shouldn't have to be a brainiac or a programmer to use them. MS I think also has people who think along these lines, but Apple seems to be far more effective at it i.e. they seem to take it to heart a lot more. I think this is a laudable goal.

Regards,

John

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Need I say more?"

Please don't.

Problems with APSL don't apply

[cjhuitt]

So far as I can tell, the APSL doesn't even apply here. The violation they are talking about has to do with the license that people agree to when they use the SDK (Software Development Kit) that Apple provides for making iTunes plugins. I haven't determined exactly what was violated in that agreement, but it wasn't the APSL, so far as I can tell.

hmm

[ShooterNeo]

Just to take the opposing view for the sake of argument, lets assume apple ISN'T in bed with Big Media. Maybe, just maybe, they simply don't want to get sued for blatantly supporting what appears to be and usually is piracy (a p2p app). C'mon, its not like you can't just use any mac p2p app like you're doing already, they just don't want you writing a program using their API for the explicit purpose of piracy. Why? Because they are a monster big corporation in an oligopoly with the RIAA? Or maybe they just don't want to be named in the lawsuit. I know what most slashdotters think, but I don't think its the truth.

Can you blame them?

[elbowdonkey]

Seems to me that the RIAA is starting to sue the hell out of anyone doing anything special with music or media in general.

It's good business sense for Apple to cover their asses by squashing something they fear might get the RIAA crawling up their innards.

And with earnings in the red, Apple is sure to be sensitive to the desires of shareholders, who might not be savvy enough to understand that a 3rd party tool should really not be of Apple's concern.

What?

[sql*kitten]

Well, in fairness, this could happen even if Mac OS X itself weren't proprietary, as iTunes still could be. For that matter, iCommune still is, too. Hm, none of that makes me feel any better ...

So we have a proprietary product on a proprietary OS using a proprietary service.

Why exactly did you post this article? What's it got to do with anything?

Re:What?

[pudge]

Yeah, Apple killing a new product a lot of people were interested in isn't news. What was I thinking?

Re:What?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Oh, it's news all right. It's just that the way the submission was worded basically amounts to flamebait. Behold the flame war-- well, flame skirmish, anyway-- that has sprung up because of it?

Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby

[kahei]

So, Apple decided not to take on the considerable risk of being seen to sponsor music piracy.

Sounds reasonable.

Now, this is a more interesting question: why do some people believe that Apple had a responsibility to risk it's neck so you can download tunez more easily? Why do some people believe that just because Apple sold a certain product, they must have a responsibility to provide other things, such as use of their software for music distribution, too?

I'm not sure about the answer... I expect it's something depressing.

Re:Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby

[GigsVT]

It's precisely because Apple retains this control over the use of the software that puts them in a position to make ethical judgements about the way people are using their software.

If I release software that is extendable, with no restrictions on how you use the software, how would it be my fault if you used the software to control a bomb or something?

If, however, I put a list of forbidden actions in an "EULA" such as "Do not use this software for copyright violations", then it becomes easy to say "Well, why didn't you also forbid using the software for bomb control systems! You are liable!"

It closely parallels the situations with ISP and liability for content. Once you start making judgements about the use of your product, you have opened pandora's box.

The only real solution is to not place restrictions on the way your users use your software, only on how they may copy and redistribute it. This is the way it always was until about 2 years ago, when software companies started to go EULA crazy and think they could dictate the way their software was used with no repercussions.

Re:Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby

[IamTheRealMike]

So, Apple decided not to take on the considerable risk of being seen to sponsor music piracy.

Providing a plugin API to extend a product shouldn't be seen by any sane court of law to be "sponsoring" it in any way, shape or form.

If that were the case, Microsoft could be sued by the RIAA for providing "plugin interfaces" to Windows that let it install and use the user/commctrl DLLs to provide its user interface. An API is an API, things build upon it.

Considering that pretty much any media player could be added to in this way, if that's Apples attitude they are on pretty shaky ground, as they've basically told people what they can and cannot build upon their platforms. As there's no reason to restrict such things legally, I can't see them doing such a thing.

For the record, I dislike piracy intensely. The system is broken, but that's not an excuse to exploit it, you've got to reward artists for their work and until a more efficient system comes in that strips the middleman and makes use of these wonderful technologies, we should live with the current system. Sure, we can bitch all we like but if anybody should be sued for this, it's the people who made iCommune, it's just another P2P network like any other.

But that also doesn't excuse Apple this time - they are using get-out clauses in their license agreements to quash a product, and so far the only reasonable explanation I've seen is that it's because they have a similar product coming up.

Re:Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

"Providing a plugin API to extend a product shouldn't be seen by any sane court of law to be "sponsoring" it in any way, shape or form."

Excuse me, but when George W. Bush sits in the white house because he was installed by the supreme court, how can you rationally proceed from the assumption that any court in the country is 'sane?'

Re:Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you grasp the original situation -- Apple would not be any more legally liable because of a potentially illegal plugin to their software than Microsoft was because Napster ran on top of Windows! The whole premise of your post is BASELESS.

The point here is that, NO, Apple is NOT responsible for protecting your hobby, but that doesn't mean they are not COMPLETE FUCKING ASSHOLES for what they did here, because it is almost definitely to clear the way for some product they are planning to SELL all those poor unsuspecting Mac users who want so desperately to have only one choice for all their computer hardware and software needs.

Yes, if that sounded sarcastic and bitter, it was, because I'm an ex-long-time-Mac user.

Sorry, I had to post this anonymously so Apple wouldn't mail ME a frickin' cease-and-desist order...

Taking it one step too far

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I can't complain about this. Apple's not trying to fight DRM, at least not for the idealistic reasons.

This is a plug-in that is, unfortunately, a serious enabler for snagging music. There's so much of an attitude of not paying for music (because you feel it's overpriced, or low-quality, or whatever) is it any wonder that the various concerned organizations are lashing out?

Let's look at things honestly. The RIAA and most record labels deserve to go downhill a bit. They've pretty much lost sight of the goal of making money by promoting artists, so they're near worthless. The process of correctingt his seems to be happening... Artists are forming labels seperate from the mainstream publishers, and standing up for their rights to make buckets of cash.

So don't try to hide bootleg copies behind a sham of making a moral stand, but actually adopt a policy of supporting those companies that have earned it, and telling the rest to stuff it.
made it so easy,

Where's the iTunes SDK license?

[rjung2k]

What a lot of folks are overlooking is the fact that Apple smacked iCommune not because it was allowing P2P sharing, but because (supposedly) the development of iCommune violated the license agreement for the iTunes SDK -- which, apparently, has some sort of "you cannot use this SDK to develop apps" clause.

Seems to me the easy solution would be to check the terms of the agreement. If there is such a clause that the iCommune folks broke, then there's nothing to see here. If, however, Apple doesn't have such a clause in the agreement, then we can bring out the packs of rabid Mac-bashers.

Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license?

[BlackHat]

Only public SDK is the visual-plugin. The device plug SDK is by request. So only those who have it can answer that question.

The solution of course is to rewrite it using visual API and leaching the audio. As the Visual SDK has no restrictions mentioned about hardware.

Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license?

[nickovs]

The License agreement concerned, the "iTunes SDK Agreement" is available upon request from Apple. I got a copy last year when I was thinking about writing a plug-in to drive the Rio Car mpeg player. It runs to eight pages and for the most part seems to be concerned with protecting the iTunes brand by ensuring that all plug-ins comply style, internationalisation and branding requirements.

I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to post the license itself (from a copyright standpoint) and anyway it's a PDF, but looking through the terms it seems to me that iCommune is in breach in a number of fairly minor ways. There's no end user license "that is at least as protective of Apple's rights as [the iTunes SDK Agreement] is". The iCommune web site does not show "Mac OS compatible" logos or iTunes logos, as it is required to do. The iCommune code does not appear to display the required iTunes compatibility blurb. On top of this, I do not know if the original application for the SDK stated that it was to be used for a network based plug-in but the license requires you to specify the "device" for which you are writing a driver.

All in all the current iCommune site is in clear breach of the agreement and Apple have every right to ask for the software to be taken down at least until the breaches are rectified.

Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license?

[MrResistor]

I see it a little differently:

If there isn't such a clause Apple is wrong.

If there is such a clause Apple is stupid[1].

Either way Apple-bashing is appropriate.

[1] "Here's a nifty Software Developement Kit, but you can't use it to develope software!"

Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license?

[MoneyT]

Then try this on for size:

"Here's a nifty Software Development Kit, but you can't use it to develop software of questionable legality which could open us up to litigation and lawsuits."

Restricting uses

[WPIDalamar]

It's a shame apple is actually restricting uses of their software like this. Isn't one of the best signs of good-designed software when people do things with it that you never imagined?

Re:Restricting uses

[Melantha_Bacchae]

WPIDalamar wrote:

> Isn't one of the best signs of good-designed software
> when people do things with it that you never imagined?

So what is people doing things with your software that you announced and demoed over six months ago a sign of?

Sorry, but I had not even heard of iCommune before today, and I have no desire to use it. I will continue to wait for Apple's original, and far more elegant, implementation that will let me share music without breaking the law.

Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
"Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000

Re:Restricting uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheep! Sheep! How does Steve's ass taste today?

This is not allowed

[oliverthered]

Well in the UK if not Europe, interoperability is protected.
So I can reverse engineer ITunes (protocol or whatever) so that I can put a hook into a function to operate with ITunes.

Though I'm not sure why anyone would bother with ITunes given Apples record of friendliness.

Re:This is not allowed

[Knobby]

The guys shipping iCommune signed and agreement to get the iTunes Plugin SDK from Apple. They violated that agreement, so Apple cancelled their liscense. How does this make Apple a bad guy? or unfriendly?

iTunes

[effer]

Wow! iTunes is proprietory! Apple reserves rights regarding it? So th efrick what!! Grow up and enjoy it. Free has several meaniungs. Get used to it (pissed off mode gone).

If you want something, make it, dobn't steal it. Share it if you wish. Heck, even place restrictions on the sharing part. It's your right.

I don't suppose it is as simple as...

[Excarnate]

...adding a hardware component to the plug-in? "iCommune, a plug-in to make the CapsLock key on your keyboard flash in time to the music"?

Or am I being evil but naive again? :-)

So What

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel bad for the guy, but am otherwise unconcerned.

For Apple, this is a token action, meant to appease the music industry, etc. Basically, it keeps them safe.

For the mac-using consumer, there are much better alternatives for music trading/sharing, in terms of volume of shared files available.

For the author of iCommune, it kind of sucks. But, if he did violate the agreement, then really I can't see it eliciting more than an "oops, guess I got busted" response on his part.

A neat idea that got killed. Nothing to sweat about or lose sleep over.

Re:The Problems of the Apple License: Try Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it's the apple iTunes API license, not the apple public source license. Let's see, agree to one license to start developing a plugin for a proprietary App. Then, violate that license. Get caught... Oh yeah, don't forget to complain about an entirely different license just because it furthers your own philosophy... Complete disregard for facts...

Alternate software

[Anonymous Coward]

You can serve up your iTunes database with apache and mod_mp3 or with ampache which has a spiffy web interface.

I guess that's not the point though...Apple->bad. Why they would care about a plug-in for a free player is beyond me.

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Apple said they couldn't make P2P, even a plug-in to an mp3 player (there is more than one :P), just that they couldn't do it with the iTunes SDK. It does sound more to me like Apple doesn't want the guy coming out with this before they release iTunes 4. Which is still annoying, but on the flip side maybe they'll hire him. :P

Shame on Apple!

[privacyt]

Make no mistake, the only difference between Apple and Microsoft is size. If Apple had the wealth and power of Gates's empire, it would be just as ruthless.

Re:Shame on Apple!

[bmetzler]

If Apple had the wealth and power of Gates's empire, it would be just as ruthless.

I don't think that choosing specific licensing terms violates anti-trust laws.

-Brent

Re:Shame on Apple!

[MachineShedFred]

News flash!!! Corporate entities are ruthless!!! Stop the presses! Come on now, is this amateur hour here or something? EVERY corporation is out there to get your dollar, and everything they do is engineered to effect their bottom line. Charity? Tax credits. Free software? Building market presence. Lawsuits over licensing? Legal CYA maneuver.

There is no free lunch in the corporate world, only vendors trying to influence you into buying their widget to incorporate in your larger widget.

Besides, doesn't anyone remember that iTunes used to be SoundJam anyway? I'm sure that Cassidy & Greene (original developer) would have done the same had someone used the SoundJam SDK to produce a plugin of the same nature. Besides, how are any of you damaged by this? You can't download the FREE plugin from the developer anymore, but instead have to go somewhere else to get your FREE software from the guy that wasn't making any money on it anyway? Yeah, it's open source, the bastards are wearin you down, etc. etc. screw the man.

shut up.

Re:Shame on Apple!

[drsmithy]

Make no mistake, the only difference between Apple and Microsoft is size. If Apple had the wealth and power of Gates's empire, it would be just as ruthless.

They do and they are - just to a smaller chunk of the population (Mac users instead of Windows users).

The Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

From: "James G. Speth"

Well, for what it's worth, here's the letter that Apple sent me:

---
Subject: Notice of Breach and Termination of License

Dear Mr. Speth,

It has come to our attention that you are distributing a software program
called iCommune that violates the terms of the Apple Computer, Inc. iTunes
Device Plug-In SDK Agreement you executed. The iTunes SDK materials are
licensed only for the purpose of enabling the Licensee's hardware device
identified in the agreement to interoperate with iTunes. The iTunes SDK is
not licensed for use in a software program for sharing of music over a
network. Your distribution of this program is a violation of the license
agreement and of Apple's intellectual property rights.

Due to your breach of the agreement, Apple hereby gives notice of
termination of your license agreement pursuant to Section 7.2 of the
agreement and demands that you cease distribution of the iCommune program
immediately and return the iTunes SDK materials to Apple.

Please contact me as soon as you receive this notice to confirm that you are
taking immediate action to cease violating the agreement, and in particular,
to cease distributing your iCommune software.

Sincerely,

[deleted]
Sr. Director, Products Law
Apple Computer, Inc.

---

and here's some pertinent info from the agreement we entered:

1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):

component system mp3 player console

---

Now, my description of the device might be a little vague, but it does describe an application for which I use iCommune. I have a Mac G4 Cube set up as the media center of my living room. It's hooked into my stereo and television. I use iTunes and iCommune on the Cube to turn it into the mp3 player console I was envisioning when I started work on it. I use iCommune on my laptop to control that system. Unlike your typical device which is directly connected to the computer running iTunes, these systems talk over the network to each other.

I think I'm in compliance with the agreement, but they don't. Hopefully we'll be able to work something out. Otherwise, I'm thinking of ways to do this without the Device Plug-in API, so the project might survive.

Jim

Re:The Letter

[nickovs]

As I mentioned in my earlier reply I think that you might be in breach in other ways to do with the product branding, although of course these are easier for you to fix.

Re:The Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

The iTunes SDK materials are licensed only for the purpose of enabling the Licensee's hardware device identified in the agreement to interoperate with iTunes. The iTunes SDK is not licensed for use in a software program for sharing of music over a network.

Since when is a network interface not a hardware device?

Re:The Letter

[Ducon Lajoie]

Well, I'm buying the "Apple does not want the RIAA on their back" argument.

Yet, if you have some testosterone to spare and are totally insolvent, you could try to argue that you are either

a) trying to interface with a hardware system that happens to talk the same language as iTunes and design/describe a software package for that purpose or

b) create an API to interface with a HW device with the SDK, and then write another program that ties into that program and provides the missing iCommune functions.

If everything fails, you could argue that you're interfacing with an ethernet card. But that's really a desperate argument, since it's not "your" device.

Not legal advice, not even reasonable advice, blah blah.

I would have been curious to see what would have happened if you had used the QTSS to make the sharing streaming-only. Maybe something working with all those Net-tune compatible devices?

Now you could announce you're done with iCommune and work on a movie sharing Commune working with iMovie. Sit and wait for the MPAA freakout.

Re:The Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Jim, thanks for the note. If you are ever in the mood to create some other helpful free software, please feel free to do so for the Linux/FreeBSD/GNOME/KDE platform. We won't sue you, sick the legal dogs on you, or anything. Promise.

Re:The Letter

[mbbac]

We also won't have any cool programs for you to create mods for. :p

PS - Don't fsck with the Gnu Public License the same way you broke the iTunes SDK License or we'll DoS you.

Re:The Letter

[RevGregory]

I think the issue is that iCommune extends control of iTunes created databases BEYOND the licensee's hardware. They can effectively argue that the terms of the SDK are violated by allowing the data to be accessed from hardware which is not controlled by the immediate licensee. In that case, it doesn't even matter if both peers involved are licensees of the SDK because individual licensees are not licensed to allow OTHERS access to the materials in question.

Too bad...

[2nd Post!]

iCommune wasn't open source
Too bad I can't find out more about the iTunes API; all I can find is the iTunes Visual Plugins sdk
Too bad this wasn't implemented as a Quicktime/Broadcaster kind of thing
Too bad Apple didn't like this; For legal reasons? I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.

Remember their eMacs+SuperDrive upgrade fiasco? They squashed someone else who had done that because just a month later they released a similar product. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes 3.1 was released with iLife that had Renedevous enabled broadcasting!

Re:Too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.

Wow, I guess there can be only one, huh? ISVs, suck deez n-u-t's! Network effect, what's that?

If your app is the One True App of its kind, why bother having more than one? It's because all your apps are HALF ASS, isn't it Wintel wienies?

Maybe Quark has heard rumors Apple is developing iDTP for the next MacWorld. That would sure drive me away.

Re:Too bad...

[2nd Post!]

I dunno if I would paint it quite so simplistically as you have, my anonymous friend.

After all, there are a plethora of web browsers, audio players, IM programs, and text editing programs that Apple doesn't care a whit about squashing. Apple is very selective about it's targets, in regards to political maneuvering, so I suppose you too should be careful and selective about your arguments?

Re:Too bad...

[M'Barr]

As for the iTunes 3.1 bit- They already demo'd a version of iTunes that will do this. It was in July '02, at the keynote. I'm just suprised that it's not out yet.

http://icommune.150m.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

http://icommune.150m.com/

POSTED BY
_|:] maik [:|_

Re:Fine Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind that Apple ripped off the "i" moniker from about a dozen different .com days companies...

before we all go overboard with ...

[feldsteins]

...ranting about how evil Apple is because they make proprietary software and how this is inherently casts them as The Man who is trying to crush our every freedom...consider that back in October they were herealded as pretty much the only company standing up for our rights. (I can't seem to raise the page but here is the Google cache.)

It occurs to me that Apple may have less-than-evil reasons for terminating the contract, not the least of which is to retain their credibility by not becoming associated with some half-assed Napster clone.

Or, they could just be evil. I guess.

Re:before we all go overboard with ...

[steveha]

Okay, Apple didn't join the push to put DRM into hardware everywhere. This doesn't make them saints. It also doesn't make them evil.

Some of the people at Apple probably hate DRM as much as you do. Others probably felt it makes business sense, for Apple, to not put DRM junk into their hardware. The company as a whole stood opposed to built-in DRM hardware, but I doubt there was enough consensus to really say why.

Maybe a year from now Apple will change its mind and jump aboard the DRM bandwagon. Or maybe not. How can we really know what Apple will do? It may depend on stupid corporate power struggles we cannot know about. It may even depend on who annoyed Steve Jobs this week.

steveha

Re:before we all go overboard with ...

[alannon]

I'm about as pro-Apple as one can get, being a long-time Mac owner (this is my 6th Apple I'm typing this on), and a professional Mac programmer, but I would have to venture that Apple 'standing up for our rights' in this matter is simply a matter of doing what's best for the company. Almost no person WANTS digital rights management on their computers (unless you work for a media company) but most people don't care enough to move off of a platform that enforces it, so Intel/Microsoft can get away with this. If Apple provides an alternative, they will get the majority of those that decide to leave the Wintel platform. It's good business sense for Apple. Apple still exists because they (for the most part) make their customers happy.

Stop making excuses for foolish behavior!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Shit! Do articles like this bring out the apologists or what?

My favorite was the attempt to analogize apple's enforcement of its click-thru license to a dealership protecting its cars from theft. Hmm, bucko, might need to rethink that one -- a better analogy would be a dealership suing you because you repainted your car -- see, right there on the back of your purchase order, it says "purchaser will not repaint car". Probably also prohibits sheepskin seatcovers, too :)

And for those of you who are a little slow in the morning, not enforcing a draconian click-through license against icommune does not equate to encouraging piracy.

Re:Stop making excuses for foolish behavior!

[MoneyT]

Except when you sign up as an Apple developer (which you must do to obtain the SDKs) you need to agree to the general terms of use regarding the pruducts you will recieve including agreeing to the licences that come with that software (which you recieve free by the way).

Developers and end users are two different animals. While enforcing an EULA on software which the user has already paid for may be wrong, enforcing a contract regarding the use of internal development tools which are provided free of charge is not wrong. If you can't abide by the terms of use fo rthe development tools, get different ones or write your own.

Re:iCommunista

[Pxtl]

iCarramba!

Hum ...

[Kourino]

Anyone else think that an SDK API that only provides for hardware plugins is a bit silly? I can understand it, I guess just wouldn't do it to my software.

See? This is why people need to read liscenses for software or libraries they use. From the webpage, it looks like he had no clue there was anything like that in the liscense ... sigh

ABOVE LINKS INVALID. SEE OTHER A/C IN THIS THREAD

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Just what I don't need

[hackwrench]

Someone else deciding for me what's good for me.

Re:Just what I don't need

[Anonymous Coward]

What, like "It would be good for you to get a sense of humor"?

Stupid Computers.

[CleverNickName]

I gotta agree with Cory Doctorow, who said "Thanks, Apple, for making my computer less functional."

Re:Stupid Computers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutup Wesley!

Re:Stupid Computers.

[Wesley Willis]

Hey! I didn't say anything!

(BTW, I whupped Batman's ass!)

Re:Stupid Computers.

[Winterblink]

Well technically Apple's supposed to be releasing this feature for their software anyway. So, while they may be cutting your legs off now, they'll probably sell you a new pair down the road. :)

Re:Stupid Computers.

[CleverNickName]

This is off the main page, and it's unlikely anyone will read this, but . . .

It's really been bothering me that this was modded as flamebait. That wasn't my intention, at all. I have an iBook, and I'm an Apple fan. I wasn't trying to troll, or cause any flamewars.

It just bugs me when I'm misunderstood, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Re:Stupid Computers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool your jets bud; death, taxes and questionable moderation can always be relied upon. Anyone that bothers to follow your link and see the full context can see you're not torching up.

I suppose it's a pain in the arse, trying to fully participate but knowing how a well intentioned but poorly phrased comment could explode.

BTW, I happened to watch Stand by Me again a few days ago. Great movie that has aged really well, good job.

Re:Stupid Computers.

[cpfeifer]

It's really been bothering me that this was modded as flamebait

Have you MetaModerated lately? (hint) (hint). That's what it's all about.

Re:Stupid Computers.

[Uart]

Don't let the Hataz get you down homie...

Bad apples..

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple thinks iCommune is a bunch of bad apples? Hah!

Re:The Problems of the Apple License

[Nevermore-Spoon]

not really irrevelvant considering the original poster is the one who brought apple licensing into the story in the first place....

Who's Evil

[asscroft]

In this case Apple is evil because they are stifling innovation. Someone took the itunes software, wrote a plug in that a) worked, and b) did something cool, and Apple sweeps in and tells them they can't do this.

Can't - they did, it worked, it was cool and now it's gone.

Which means the next thing to happen in this chain of innovation never will.

If Gallelio had been like this we'd never have moved past those shitty ass helicopters he designed. Imagine a world without airplanes, rockets, spaceships, sattelites, helicopters and everything else we've built extending his IP.

selling stuff is fine, holding all of mankind back because you have a law that says you can is evil.

Re:Who's Evil

[dubstop]

1. Completely out of context, re-attribute Da Vinci's work to Galileo.

2. Misspell Galileo (see step 1).

3. Claim that, by forcing the withdrawal of a plug-in for iTunes that allows the sharing of music over a network, Apple are holding back mankind.

4. Point out that Apple are holding back mankind and thus are evil (see step 3).

5. ???

6. Profit!

Re:Who's Evil

[bpbond]

Oh, please. If Galileo had access to modern copyright laws, intellectual property lawyers, etc., he would have used them too. It's called protecting your investment.

If anyone can use/copy/extend/subvert your invention as soon as you put it out there--if you can't make any rules at all about how it will be used, ever--what exactly is the incentive to innovate?

Re:Who's Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. fuck Apple. and fuck the apple die hards. Religious zealotry is bad, and that's what these Apple users look like to me. I guess while I'm here I think we should go burn down all of the churches and publicly execute all their leaders.

Re:Who's Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that was funny!

Re:Who's Evil

[jaoswald]

1) you present no evidence that da Vinci's "designs" (basically concept sketches) led directly or indirectly to any of the things you mention.

2) da Vinci never took any real steps to make his speculative sketches into realized designs

3) you also ignore da Vinci's use of secret mirror writing to obscure his writing

Apple did the right thing

[gkirkend]

This was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Isn't this America? Can't I have everything for free?"

• 
  You can buy a cassette ... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.
  
  Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?
  
  Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them? No.
  
  There's the line ... but it's not clear. What's the difference? The fact that you haven't met these people? The fact that you don't deliver something you can hold in your hand? The fact that the quality is higher? The problem is that companies are answering these questions by threatening small developers with their tremendous legal resources. These questions need clarification in the law.

Apple: The Little Microsoft That Couldn't

[MattW]

If Apple was a $300B software giant, they'd be as bad or worse than Microsoft is. They're an amazing example of all the things that are disgusting in the computer and software industry. Rampant litigation, weak patents, disdain towards users. A+, A+, A+. It's nice to know that if they ever did supplant Microsoft, they'd be able to do it so well we wouldn't even know the difference.

mod_rendezvous and apache; it is all in the config

[dirkx]

Note that iCommune essentially used no code; it was just somethin which generated a few lines of apache config which would make the Music directory shared:

Alias /Foo/Music

Al.ow from all ...

Along with a small perl/python script which took your playlist and turned it into a .pls file. I.e. the type you normally click on.

That is all. Any one who can handle vi can do it manually.

However, combine this with Eric his mod_rendevous and then it gets interesting... http://homepage.mac.com/macdomeeu/dev/current/mod_ rendezvous/

As that will dynamically announce your web server to the local network.

In Safari; just go to bookmarks, rendezvous - and here we go. Sharing as it should be.

Dw.

Easy -- don't agree to the API license

[RobTerrell]

The problem isn't the APSL, it's the iTunes SDK license that developers have to agree to. That license keeps developers from making software plug-ins (except for visualizers).

In cases like this, just don't agree to the API license. There are tools for digging into Cocoa apps and figuring out the class interfaces. I've already dug into iCal and iChat -- they don't have APIs, but there is some interesting stuff in there. (If I'd been looking, I might have seen some of the unnanouced iLife hooks talked about at Macworld!)

That said, I don't think iTunes is Cocoa. It used to be Soundjam, right? So it's probably Carbon and the obj-c digging tools won't help much. Not sure the best way to figure out Carbon APIs. In the old days, we'd use MacNosy to "decompile" the code. Not sure what the Carbon equivalent would be.

Should Apple be allowed to do this?

[be-fan]

Apple is the OS provider. They really shouldn't be making products (like all the iApps) and bundling them with their OS. Especially when they use legal bullshit to keep people from competing with the iApps.

iYi Yi... (Audio Hijack)

[JavaJoint]

> The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).

One wonders why Apple didn't spring this at SFMW03. The cynic in me says that the keynote was so long already, that something had to get shelved.

In the meantime, here's something fun you can do with iTunes, indeed anything that outputs sound on a Mac:

Audio Hijack - AH lets you tweak the sound of any app....and it can record streams as well. An awesome app.

Gasp! The light dawns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

Now write "iCommune" on a thick rubber band and wear it around your wrist. Whenever the urge to say "Apple will never knuckle under to DRM" comes over you, draw back the rubber band four or five inches and give yourself a good smack.

Notice of breach and termination of license?

[WetCat]

Slightly offtopic but should I (if I am a writer of GNU software) send such notice to the
commercial exploiters of my program/library
that do it without giving out the source code?
How should it look like?

Apple is protecting itself from lawsuits

[hellfire]

Apple creates software that allows you to mix CDs called iTunes. Then someone creates an extension which somehow allows you to share music over a network.

Someone nudges Apple and says "Hey, are you supporting a file sharing network with that iTunes stuff and that software plugin?"

"No!" Says Apple, "and if someone is using it like that its against our license, we'll go squash them. Sorry mister big RIAA rep."

Apple may have a lot of cash but there is no value to be had for any major company to be supporting a file swapping network. This is CYA.

If you want to attack people, attack the RIAA and get them to allow this kind of thing. Don't blame Apple for trying to avoid lawsuits.

Re:mod_rendezvous and apache; it is all in the con

[dirkx]

Darn; the above lost it < and >s on display..

Alias /Foo/Music
<Directory /Users/Foo/Music>
allow from all
....
</Directory>

c'mon pudge

[Anonymous Coward]

when you respond to flamebait, the trolls have already won.

Not About P2P

[pudge]

This is not about P2P. iCommune sucks as a way to share music illegally, because you have to stream it, you can't copy it. Sure, that doesn't make it legal, but it makes it stupid as a means to "steal" music from a friend. The only way to copy an MP3 is outside of iTunes, using some external web client, as iCommune just shares via Apache. And if you are going to do that, you don't even need iCommune, you can just tell Apache to share your MP3 directory!

iCommune does not serve MP3s, Apache does. iCommune does not copy MP3s, only an external web client could. This isn't about stopping P2P. It is about Apple using its license to prevent someone from doing something they don't like, probably because, as only a few people mentioned, Apple is going to enable Rendezvous sharing in iTunes (in theory, someday).

Re:Not About P2P

[antibryce]

This isn't about stopping P2P. It is about Apple using its license to prevent someone from doing something they don't like, probably because, as only a few people mentioned, Apple is going to enable Rendezvous sharing in iTunes (in theory, someday).

*sigh*

Between the macslash article yesterday and the article on here today I'm getting really sick of having to explain what Rendezvous is. It is not a P2P framework. It's ONLY usable on local networks.

As for iTunes having Rendezvous, it's not just "theory", Jobs did a demo 2 macworlds ago. It only supports streaming from one Mac to another, no copying. Apple is very obviously trying to provide their users with the ability to share music (in the real sense of the word "share", not this "I'll give you a copy and you can keep it" BS that everyone seems to use)

That doesn't mean you can't write P2P apps for OSX. Hell, you can even have them automagically parse your iTunes library and share it. But Apple doesn't want the RIAA to get confused when they see iTunes users illegally copying music.

So you're partially right. It's not about stopping P2P. It's about covering their own ass to avoid the ire of the RIAA while quietly developing their own solutions. Technically streaming isn't legal either, but with Rendezvous you can only do it on your local network (thus adding great weight to the "just sharing music between friends" argument.) The more amazing thing is Apple seems to be the one company to come up with a way to share music while still having a quasi-legal leg to stand on.

Re:Not About P2P

[pudge]

Um ... you wrote all that about Rendezvous as if anything I wrote contradicted what you are saying. It doesn't. Nothing I said there is incorrect.

And yes, that Apple will enable the sharing is theory, as it has not yet been done, and there remains the possibility that it won't be done. It is, for now, by definition, vaporware.

Re:Not About P2P

[antibryce]

Sorry if I misunderstood. It seemed like you were saying that Apple killed iCommune because it competes with their Rendezvous-enabled iTunes, which is clearly not the case. Apple's not stupid, they know their Rendezvous iTunes is not geared for copyright infringement. Sorry if I seemed rude, but a lot of people seem to misunderstand what Rendezvous (zeroconf) is and how it works.

As for the vaporware thing, I guess our definitions of it just differ. Since hundreds of thousands of people saw it (both via the quicktime stream at macworld and at booths at the show) I don't really consider it vaporware, but I can see why some would. As far as I'm concerned it exists, so it's not vapor. Now if Jobs had just announced the existence of it without showing a demo and letting people play with it at the booths, then I would agree it is vapor.

Anyway, back to my quicktime exercises (holy jeebus it's easy to embed movies in your applications on a Mac :)

Re:Not About P2P

[pudge]

I am well-acquainted with Rendezvous; I was just saying that maybe Apple is afraid that iCommune, which works similarly to what we saw in the Macworld demo, might steal their thunder or conflict with their feature set. Maybe they aren't afraid of that, I was just positing that they could be. Dunno.

As to vaporware: for all we know, it was a rigged demo. I don't think it was, but the point is that until the product is released, the fact remains that it might never be released. Heck, it was supposed to already be out by now, if I remember correctly.

repost of artickrtil.

[Anonymous Coward]

1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):

WRONG -- it's illegal to give away any of them

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fundamentally wrong. It is illegal in all three of the cases you mentioned. You cannot give the copy of the cassette, you cannot give away the copy of the CD. You can make copies for your own personnel use, but that is it.

Re:WRONG -- it's illegal to give away any of them

[Zigg]

You can make copies for your own personnel use

Cool, then all I need to do is hire some people, then I can give them copies. But seriously...

With the DMCA, and DRM of any kind, you can't make copies for your own personal use.

Re:WRONG -- it's illegal to give away any of them

[usurper_ii]

I don't know that it is illegal for me to make you a copy of a cassette. More likely, it is a gray area of the law. I know the record companies didn't exactly support cassette players...but everyone knows what was going on with those dual-cassette decks you could get off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Personally, I think you would be hard pressed to find any person ever prosecuted for duplicating a cassette and giving it to a friend...and I highly doubt any jury would convict on this charge if it actually made it to trial.

The thing is, there does appear to be a double standard between analog and digital media. In the past this gray area didn't seem to matter as much because the copies degraded with each generation.

The thing is, entire generations grew up making copies of cassettes for their friends and/or borrowing cassettes and making copies of them.

Free music has been around for a long time. The real problem is that it just got a lot easier and the quality has improved.

Usurper_ii

They violated the license. Period.

[jdreed1024]

Apple issued a 'Notice of Breach and Termination of License' to iCommune, who have since pulled the download. Something tells me that they won't be putting it back up anytime soon. Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me.

Uh, it's not about Mac OS X being proprietary. It's not about the DMCA. It's not about the RIAA. It's not about Big Corporations squashing innovation. It's about the iCommune folks agreeing to a license when they used the API, and violating the terms of that license, and Apple revoking it. Apple is fully within their rights to do this, and I have no sympathy for iCommune at all. They agreed to the license, and they broke the rules. That's just too damn bad.

And it's not like Apple used the DMCA or something to do this. ALl they did was send a letter saying "Hey, you agreed to this license, and now you violated it. Please stop."

Come on people, it's a LICENSE. Just because you don't like the terms of it doesn't mean it's not real. You know that if someone violated the terms of the GPL and got in trouble for it, we'd all be celebrating. When you support the enforcement of one LICENSE and cry foul when another is enforced, you lose a lot of credibility.

Now, if the license was ambiguous, and what icommune did wasn't specifically prohibited, and then Apple tried to claim it was, then I'd be upset. But this is open and shut.

Frankly, I'm getting a little upset about seeing all these stories on /. designed to trick you into thinking someone is stomping on your rights. Like the one about the student who STOLE documents from a law firm. And this one about a LICENSE VIOLATION. What's next? "Man Arrested for Possession of Linux: Police arrest man for breaking into BestBuy and stealing copies of RedHat Linux"

Well gee.... let's think about this

[ShatteredDream]

You're turning their iTunes product into a vehicle for violating copyright law. In this day of paranoia about anything and everything that can be used for such purposes, they have a reason in that alone to take action.

Did a lot of slashdot users miss the memo that was sent out first in 1998 and sent out again to all of us a few days ago that the US Government and copyright holders are both against us on this issue?

Wake up idiots, look at what the RIAA did to the RIO player years back. That was benign compared to the ability to share music through iTunes. Apple could potentially face a serious lawsuit over iTunes if they didn't take action.

Don't license the API

[Sloppy]

Reverse Engineer it instead. Problem solved.

another reason NOT to buy a Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

shame, shame on all of you for continuing the myth that they're better because they're MACS...

That's why they command an astounding 9% of the PC market, anyways...

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[momobaxter]

Please give insight on how Apple steals from the open source community. If I recall correctly:

--They gave their changes to GCC back to the community
--They gave us Rendevous
--They are giving their changes to KHTML back to the KDE community
--They gave us Darwin to play with
--And quite possibly many many more that I don't know.

I'm feeding the troll, yes i know. But it's got to stop. Moderators, mod him down.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does this have to do with open source? Where do you see open source in this article? That's right, nowhere. Now STFU.

Source Code & The 1st Amendment

[d3xt3r]

I have a question that possibly a lawyer-type could answer....

If I were the creator of a product like this, and the binary plugin breached a contract included with this API, could I still make available the source code without violating the license?

Is source code fully protected by the 1st Ammendment? Could source code that, when compiled and executed, breaches a license still be considered legal? Isn't source code simply a set of instructions telling a computer (or person) how to do something?

Suppose I simply posted a plain English description of how one might create such a plugin, this would be legal. Is providing source code any different?

Re:Source Code & The 1st Amendment

[Tseran]

Okay, if I set up a system where every time you logged on to a library computer, it asked you to agree to a terms of use that said you would not view pornography, would not engage in illegal activities and not promote hatred of any group, and then, after agreeing and logging in, you went to a couple pron sites, downloaded some warez and posted a bunch of KKK promotional ads, could you get away with saying that your rights are protected by the 1st Ammendment? No way. When you agree to it, you are bound by it. It may "just be instructions" but you didn't write those instructions. If you programmed your own API from the ground up, that's different, but if you use someone elses code, you are bound by the limitations they set for it. If I write a set of code instructions that allow users to collaborate with each other, and say that I don't want them used for sharing illegal files, I have that right. If you want to share illegal files, write your own code, don't steal mine.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You can buy a cassette ... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.

No, you can't. Where did you get that idea?

Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?

No.

Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them?

No.

There's the line ... but it's not clear.

Seems crystal-clear to me. "It's against the law to give away copies of copyrighted materials." Hmm. No ambiguity there.

These questions need clarification in the law.

Your understanding of the law needs clarification.

Re:The Problems of GPL bigots

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that if it isn't the GPL, they bash it.

Even if the bashing case doesn't apply.

Way to open your mouth and insert your jack-boot covered foot.

Damn!

[frankrachel]

I hate when they take away my ability to do illegal things.

Hardware Device

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, couldn't iCommune just call the NIC in the computer the hardware device their plugin is supporting?

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you steal something that is free (as in speech) ? Free means anyone can use it, even if you don't like them, or what they do with it.

Granted, OSS isn't quite as free as speech, as it's use is governed by a license, but that is a different conversation.

Re:Hate to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

>...but it's gotta be said.
>Say what you want about Microsoft, but they never pull crap like this.

what make an API to their proprietary software as readily available to legitmate developers, that they might have to worry about people abusing it for things other then what it was licensed for?

You're right microsoft never would do anything like that.

Ahh... well.

[Jethro On Deathrow]

If you want to add editorial content to the stories, don't sell yourself as a news site.

Why not post the story, then grab the first post?

Re:Ahh... well.

[pudge]

You appear to be under the misapprehension that news cannot contain commentary. Benjamin Franklin, essentially the father of journalism in America, regularly injected commentary into news stories in his Pennsylvania Gazette. As long as it is clear that it is commentary, it's perfectly reasonable; that news cannot contain commentary is a thoroughly modern perspective. There is a place for both objective news as well as news with commentary. Slashdot has always been, largely, a place for the latter.

Re:Ahh... well.

[Jethro On Deathrow]

Ok, I stand corrected. At least you do make it clear where the story ends and where the commentary begins.

Thanks,

jtr

Re:Ahh... well.

[LetterJ]

Indeed. In fact, the idea that journalism SHOULD be objective is a relatively new one. News used to be reported with the understanding that you took the author's biases into account.

Re:Ahh... well.

[Ponty]

News that claims to be unbiased is more dangerous than news that plainly states its motivations. I believe that no matter how hard someone tries (and I've seen it happen, watch C-SPAN some time. Their hosts do an amazing job trying to be evenhanded) he can not eradicate all of his preconceptions and viewpoint. Wouldn't you rather be aware of the news source's opinion and use that as a factor in the creation of your own opinion than be subtly (or not-so-subtly) poisoned by the bias of the reporting? (Think FOX news.)

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[P. Niss]

It always sucks when you're going for (+1, Funny) and you end up getting (+1 Insightful).

Seriously, though, is that where we're at on Slashdot these days? A post with the keyphrases "Apple steals from OSS," "Apple is bad," and "Apple sucks," and not much else, is regarded as "Insightful?" And it's not even on-topic, as the story has nothing to do with open source, and pertains only to a specific license agreement between Apple and the maker of iCommune.

If we're going to express our disagreement with actions taken by Apple, could we at least find some non-retarded way to do it?

Re:They violated the license. Period.

[Izeickl]

Funny, when its Microsoft people start complaining about how restrictive their licenses are and squashing inovation etc etc, Apple do the same thing and its "Not their fault if you dont like their license". When Microsoft takes legal action to prevent something being done with the XBox or their software etc, people are up in arms.

Enough About the Evil

[KalenDarrie]

Really, I think the evil thing has been overused in all cases. I'm starting to get a bit sick of it myself.

This is a simple matter of Apple enforcing their license agreements. Microsoft does that too, yes, but by and large they spin their license agreements toward the insane when it comes to both deflecting liability and shoring up their rights to things that shouldn't be theirs.

That is why most people don't call Apple evil over this. Overall I'm inclined to agree with some other posters. Apple is in enough potential hot water with continuing to support MP3 fully as well as making it so easy to rip and burn CDs as well as burn DVDs. To have even a quasi-swapping service that they haven't run past their lawyers for loop holing is just plain mad.

Rumors are of them making an official version. You'd better believe they'll do their best to have it made legal before release.

That's what it all comes down to.

You are so wrong.

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

They work on KHTML and return all the fixes and work they put into it. When was the last time MS did something like that?

Apple simply and obviously DOES NOT WANT to have something the RIAA/MPAA/et.al. can piss on. It's being carefull. I say GREAT for Apple. I also think the project is great, but Apple is simpley covering it's tracks for the suit it will surely have one day by the RIAA/MPAA etc.

"Look, Ms. Rosen (you stupid c*nt) we DID try to stop all the file-sharing derivitaive works out there! We were aggressive in stoping piracy. Our iTunes v4 and iPod 80gig w/Rendezvous & Bluetooth STREAM files, they do not allow DOWNLOADING."

Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Master

[FreeUser]

Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.

You have just expressed a wry gladness that the project was killed, so that your convinience may be better served by having to look in only one place to find a file you are looking for, and with the next breath essentially said "I feel your pain" when you've made it rather clear you do not.

Not only that, but your grand One P2P to Rule Them All and Bind Them will be a propriatary, commercial venture, subject to all the long term instability that implies, such as cut budgests, etc.), inaccessibility (no guarantee it will be compatible with anyone else, limiting your trading to just other mac players, a very small percentage of online file sharers), licensing restrictions (which may or may not be draconian, but either way, where's your choice gone?), possible monitoring capabilities (it is one network, after all, with likely only one approved client), and (seemingly remote at this time, but that will change on a dime if political or economic pressures come to bear) possibly DRM technology built in.

Not to mention it will be a single point of failure. One good lawsuit from the media cartels, a single injunction, and you are out of business with no alternatives to turn to, and your own vendor prohibiting anyone else from offering you one.

Welcome to the world of proprietary software. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple is a much nicer Master than Microsoft, and both their equipment and software are superior in every way, but they remain a master, and you a serf subject to their corporate whims. Furthermore, as occasional actions like this have demonstrated time and time again historically, there is absolutely no guarantee that Apple will remain the kinder Master in the future. At some point, these sorts of restrictions make it clear even to the most subserviant that no amount of convinience is worth this kind of tradeoff, and that freedom actually is something worth a modicum of effort to achieve, maintain, and insure.

And when did making money become evil?

[jaaron]

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other. ...

So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff? ...

<rant>

Exactly. You know I'm really getting tired of slashdot articles _and_ comments which suggest that such and such a company or organization is evil or good. Whether it's Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA, things are not as black and white as most /.ers would like to think. Within each organization there are lots of different factions.

Since when did the FSF become the bastion of all that is good and pure? Since when did making money become a crime? I don't think I want to label any company as purely good or evil, and particularly not any action so general as making money! Too many of us here are simply zealots, blindly spewing doctrine based on some twisted free-software/open-source/unix-rules/fsck-the-gove rnment/take-your-pick dogma. Following the popular anti-whatever rhetoric gets you karma or a nice troll. I can say that because when I was first introduced to the concepts of free software and open source, I swallowed the whole philosphy. Reading slashdot and other open source forums have allowed me to look in the mirror enough to realize how stupid it can sometimes sound.

Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I agree with many of these principles. Heck, I contribute to couple projects and release open source code myself! But I hope I'm pragmatic enough not to simply buy the standard dogma that makes comments like "M$ sucks" or "making money is evil" rated "Insightful". Okay, <rant> off.

Re:And when did making money become evil?

[kevinank]

Since when did the FSF become the bastion of all that is good and pure? Since when did making money become a crime? I don't think I want to label any company as purely good or evil, and particularly not any action so general as making money! Too many of us here are simply zealots, blindly spewing doctrine based on some twisted free-software/open-source/unix-rules/fsck-the-gove rnment/take-your-pick dogma. Following the popular anti-whatever rhetoric gets you karma or a nice troll. I can say that because when I was first introduced to the concepts of free software and open source, I swallowed the whole philosphy. Reading slashdot and other open source forums have allowed me to look in the mirror enough to realize how stupid it can sometimes sound.

The FSF has been fighting from a moral stance on copyright since its inception. They have been a bastion of good since people started accepting those morals as good morals.

It has been the fashion now for twenty or more years never to refer to anyone as purely good or evil. Our culture has prevailed upon us to believe that all (or at least most) morality is relative to the culture it is a part of. In the past two years US culture has been moving away from being non-judgemental. Many sets of conflicting moral values are coming into conflict, and the morals of the FSF are only one of those. Contrast the arguments over property rights, freedom of expression, and freedom to share with the much more violent conflicts over family planning, abortion, and globalization.

So you see, I agree with you in a sense. There certainly isn't one global set of morals that we can all agree with. On the other hand I think the moral relativism mindset is doomed for the near future -- eventually you'll have to decide what you believe in or people will label you as a bullshit hypocrite, not as one who is tolerant.

Re:And when did making money become evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software as morals is decadant, selfish, and immature. Face it, it, RMS, and you are irrelevant.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[Kaimelar]

Hmmm . . . I smell troll on this one, but I'll bite anyway.

Some examples to show that Apple isn't "stealing from the OSS community . . ."

1. Darwin
2. OpenDarwin.org - "OpenDarwin.org, jointly founded in April 2002 by Internet Software Consortium, Inc. (ISC) and Apple, is an attempt to take cooperative Darwin development to the next level. Membership in the OpenDarwin project and access to its works are open to everyone. The project is also fully independent, with control over its own web site, project news, bug tracking information and CVS repository, as well as any other services that the community owners may wish to provide. Neither Apple nor ISC take any responsibility for, or exercise any editorial control over, the OpenDarwin project."
3. Rendezvous - see also http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/29/2310214.s html?tid=107

Apple's tactics regarding 3rd party developers, its choice of licences, etc. are open to debate. However, I don't think it's correct to say that all Apple is doing is "stealing". And besides, Open Source software is meant to be copied, looked at, modified, redistributed. (I'll save the discussion about "if you want people to abide by GNU, you have to be willing to abide by other licences" for someone else). Apple is doing just this, and as far as I can tell creating good products. If you don't like them, or their busincess practices, or their licences, cool, get something else. Vive la difference, non?

Apple = GAY

[Anonymous Coward]

Further proof that Apple is just Microsoft with a COMMUNIST FAGGOT twist.
I'll be keeping MY x86 hardware thank you very much! Despite Intel/MS's evil and Linux's incompetance, x86 is still the most open and free platform...

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[MachineShedFred]

Nice try, troll. Do you have something to actually contribute that isn't flamebait? I didn't think so.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[scighera]

LMAO. Open source doesn't pay enough for me to crap at night. I'm not going to trust the future of computing to OSS. Can you imagine if all IT workers suddenly didn't get paid. Wow, we'd have real innovation there. A bunch of unemployed workers churning out free code. I don't think anyone forced any open source developers to accept an offer with Apple now did they? Think before you post.

Re:They violated the license. Period.

[jdreed1024]

Funny, when its Microsoft people start complaining about how restrictive their licenses are and squashing inovation etc etc, Apple do the same thing and its "Not their fault if you dont like their license". When Microsoft takes legal action to prevent something being done with the XBox or their software etc, people are up in arms.

Not quite. Certainly, MS licenses are restrictive. Licenses in general are. If they weren't restrictive, there'd be no need for them. Are MS licenses too restrictive? Probably. Does this mean they can be violated? No. If there was an article about Corporation X, which made 500 copies of a Windows 2000 CD, and installed it on all of their computers, and got busted by the BSA or MSFT, I'd be on the side of MS, as much as I'd hate it. Apple licenses do tend to be less restrictive than MS licenses, especially the APSL, which, by nature, is less restrictive.

As for the Xbox mod chip stuff, that's totally different. There was no license involved. That was the DMCA (unless I'm mistaken). That's a whole different issue. If Apple had tried to use the DMCA against iCommune, you're damn right I'd be upset, because the DMCA has no place here. But they didn't. You're comparing Apples and Oranges. (no pun intended)

(Don't bother linking to the articles in which Apple has used the DMCA against people. I don't care. I'm only pointing out they didn't use the DMCA in THIS CASE.)

Why is stealing MP3's "OK"?

[biostatman]

Now, I have very little love for the **AA, and I think that the stranglehold over the music industry that they have is wrong, as is their notion of "media consumers" as helpless fetuses plugged into the (ir) matrix, as is their desire to infringe upon our fair use rights, etc... I also believe that the music industry should try and find a way to make file trading / downloading legal and reasonably priced (I really got what I feel is good value for my money from emusic).

However, while stealing^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h swapping songs may be seen as some sort of protest against their injustices, it is still stealing. So if some entity is in some way facilitating stealing, they have every right to shut it down. "Proprietary" seems to have little to do with it. I think the notion of "free" software is hurt tremendously if it tries to align itself with stealing. There are so many other positive virtues about free software that pitting it as a "robin hood" for people that really only care about getting free music does it a disservice.

I just get so tired of this viewpoint; it saddens me to think that all people really care about is free beer, not free speech. I certainly appreciate all of the great software I have been able to receive at no cost (although I contribute here and there both in $$$ and bug reports when I can), but the notion of being part of a community is much more valuable to me. That is why I don't want this community to become, or at least to be seen as, a bunch of whining freeloaders.

My Question

[SomeOtherGuy]

What is itunes? Is it a music player like XMMS? I see a lot of stories about itunes as if the people on that platform have no other way to play music.

Re:My Question

[micq]

Its not that we don't have any other way of playing music, but rather that iTunes is a very mature, very usable MP3 catalog/player. It does everything that most of us need and then some. And, like the rest of the iFamily, it comes free with OS X.

test - ignore

[jdreed1024]

test

What kind of Kool-Aid do Apple users like best?

[DesScorp]

As I read through the threads in this story, I kept noticing that the Apple users stood out from the rest, and that the vast majority seemed to just nod and go "MmmHmmm, good job Steve....whatever you say Steve.....you're right Steve....".

Maybe there's something to this Apple "cult" thing.

Apple is rotten to the core

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is rotten to the core for laying the smack down on the Icommunists, but I suspect that they will keep using Icommune anyway. You'll probably be able to find it on all the warez sites.

kazaa for mac/linux

[klparrot]

you would think that a someone in the biz of "free sharing" would make their code as open as possible

Kazaa makes their money off of the advertising and spyware they bundle with KMD (the Kazaa app). By opening up the code or the FastTrack protocol, they would cut off their revenue stream.

Given two ways of accessing the FastTrack network, one with ads and spyware, one without, which would you choose? As it is, Kazaa Lite probably puts a significant dent in their revenues. They don't want to add to that problem.

Does anyone know of any efforts to crack the FastTrack protocol by reverse-engineering KMD? I would love to see a client for my Mac and/or Linux box.

Re:kazaa for mac/linux

[goatboy_14]

I don't know about the mac, but kazaa lite runs in wine (english directions are 1/2 way down). I use it quite frequently.

Re:kazaa for mac/linux

[klparrot]

Wine is not an emulator, so it won't work on Mac (PPC). I'll have to get Wine up and running on my linux box one of these days tho; so far I've been too lazy to set up the Windows partition and mounts.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[slipstick]

Actually it depends where your from I guess.

In Canada we pay a "tax" on all blank tapes and blank CDs which goes to "artists"(cough,cough) for just such "fair use". In other words we pay for making those copies and thus it is legal to share them with your friends, at least as a hardcopy.

Depending on where you are than YMMV.

Almost all License "Agreements" are Void

[Bouncings]

I'll say up front that I don't know how iTunes' license agreement works. I don't have a Mac, and I don't have iTunes. I'm not a lawyer, but I am an enthusiast who has followed the controversy of how companies are starting to pretend that users need license agreements to use software.

Just because something is in a license agreement, doesn't make it a legally binding agreement. On the contrary, almost all license agreements are void and users are in the full rights to ignore them.

The reason we have license agreements is that before an amendment to the copyright law, users did need license agreements to use software. When you buy copyrighted material, you can use it without an agreement. That's why it's legal to read a book without signing a contract -- you aren't copying the software, hence no contract is involved. But with software, in order to use the software, it must be copied several times. From floppy disk or punch card, to hard drive, to memory, and often back again. There was legal ambiguity as to whether simply using software infringed on a copyright. As such, a license agreement was included to grant users rights outside of normal copyright law. That is, a license agreement extended the users rights.

However, to allow software to be used, copyright law was eventually changed several times to allow for archiving software, and copying software as needed for execution. As such, no license agreement is needed to use software. So unless you want to do something outside of your basic rights as an end user, you do not need a license agreement.

Since you do not need a license agreement to user the program, and you never signed a license agreement, you do not agree to a license agreement to use the software. In a nutshell, that's why almost all license agreements are sham and your argument that a violation of a license agreement is not valid because no agreement was entered into or needed to be entered into to use the software.

Re:Almost all License "Agreements" are Void

[jdreed1024]

I'll say up front that I don't know how iTunes' license agreement works.

Please to be reading the article.

This is not about iTunes license agreement, or about EULAs or shrinkwrap licenses at all. This is about the iTunes SDK license. This is very, very, very different. SDKs or development environments have had licenses long before 40 page EULAs became the standard. You're getting access to information that joeuser doesn't normally get. You're also not getting "software" per se, you're getting documentation, APIs, and maybe some libraries and header files. You're not getting a program you can "run" - you have to contribute your own code to make that.

You make a good argument for why software in general shouldn't have licenses. But that's not what's at issue here.

Re:Almost all License "Agreements" are Void

[Bouncings]

Aside from another link to a slashdot article, it doesn't seem that there was an article in this case. But unless there was a contract signed in INK or normal copyright wouldn't grant the rights needed, the license agreement is void and null.

Re:Almost all License "Agreements" are Void

[HarveyBirdman]

I'll say up front that I don't know how iTunes' license agreement works. I don't have a Mac, and I don't have iTunes.

So, I can stop reading your post right here then? OK.

Re:Almost all License "Agreements" are Void

[edbarrett]

Quote 1:

I'll say up front that I don't know how iTunes' license agreement works. I don't have a Mac, and I don't have iTunes. I'm not a lawyer, but I am an enthusiast who has followed the controversy of how companies are starting to pretend that users need license agreements to use software.

Quote 2:

Aside from another link to a slashdot article, it doesn't seem that there was an article in this case. But unless there was a contract signed in INK or normal copyright wouldn't grant the rights needed, the license agreement is void and null.

"Hi, I didn't read the blurb at the top, and I don't have a clue about what's going on in this story, but I'm gonna post a rant about software licenses, and when you point out that I'm clueless about this story, I'm going to prove it even more."

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[telbij]

Insightful? This is just sour apples. Apple has contributed plenty of code to the OSS community. If they had cash reserves of 40 billion dollars then I would agree they could be doing more, but even so I still don't see why they have the obligation to carry the burden of the OSS community at any cost.

Yes, Apple is a company trying to make a profit same as any other. Big deal. Why do you hold them to a higher standard than every other company in the world? I don't buy Macs because of some high-minded socialist software ideal. I buy them because they make a product that lets me do what I do better.

Are you bitter because Apple has made a more popular Unix than Linux? It can't possibly have a negative effect. People who write open source software will continue to do so, Apple does not reduce their output. As for end users adopting OS X instead of Linux, it forces many software companies to support a system that is much closer to Linux rather than supporting only Wintel and cementing Microsoft's dominance. It is much easier to port from OS X to Linux, and that can only benefit the OSS community.

I'm sorry, but your assertion amounts to saying that developing good software is not fair unless it is open source. I for one appreciate good software whether it is OS or not.

Hmmmm

[Gigacorpse]

As a fan of Macs, it is distrubing how heavy handed Apple can be. Maybe it's just as well that they own such a small market share.

Here's the url to download it:

[voisine]

Get it while it's hot:

http://icommune.150m.com/iCommune-1.0b2.sit

Re:Here's the url to download it:

[voisine]

Works when I option-click it using Safari. Will most likely
work using "save link as" type option in other browsers.

Re:Here's the url to download it:

[Nfnitloop]

Here's another link that was posted to VersionTracker

Difference between M$ and Apple...

[siskbc]

is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly to leverage if they wanted to. If M$ didn't have the market share they do, none of what they do would be illegal. I'm not saying Apple is a bunch of greedy assholes - but I am saying that there's no way to tell that they're not just as bad.

Re:Difference between M$ and Apple...

[drsmithy]

is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly to leverage if they wanted to.

But they do, and they leverage it mercilessly.

Apple Had To Do This...

[tassii]

Before everyone gets into a huff about this, you have to realize that Apple had to do this to survive. What iCommune did was basically create a iTunes-based Napster. Since RIAA has been suing every version of p2p they can track down, Apple stood to get involved in a huge lawsuit as well as being forced to change the way iTunes (and probably the iPod) works.

Basic survival intincts. Blame RIAA, not Apple.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In other words we pay for making those copies and thus it is legal to share them with your friends, at least as a hardcopy.

Not as I understand it. The law allows Canadians to make copies for personal use, but distribution does not qualify as personal use.

Great name.

[CdotZinger]

Amp Ache. Gotta get me some.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[PsychoSpunk]

Attention mods. rxed posted the same argument on the Mozilla snubbed by Safari story a couple of days ago. This is a -1 Flamebait or -1 Troll, as there is no supporting evidence to these claims.

WindowShade and iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

the same way they killed WindowShade (incorporated into System 7)

And then removed it from Mac OS X, for no apparent reason. Fortunately, there's a (shareware) WindowShade X. So if they add it back to Mac OS X 10.3, I'll have paid for window-shading functionality only ... 4 times. I can't wait!

Streaming not Sharing

[asv108]

I don't know where you got the idea that Apple is building a P2P network, but they are definitely NOT! The next release of itunes will feature streaming, which has nothing to do with P2P, its a great example of client server.

Why would a P2P network need support? If the technology is good and the interface is right, there is no need for support. Not like Apple would do such a thing anyway, if they were every to build any type of file sharing application it would be Mac only, in other feeble attempt to get people to switch. This is yet another example of why Apple's hardware focus conflicts with their software development.

Maybe its a DRM issue

[acomj]

Apple doesn't like Digital Rights Management. As such they want mp3s to be successful (as opposed to WMA files). Apple demonstrated similar music file sharing before, but never released it. Also they're promoting mpeg4 for video as opposed to Windows Media.

Maybe they just want itunes to stay off the RIAA/MPAA radar.

Then again maybe they added this functionality in itunes 3 upgrade which they are selling.

Regardless that itunes is the best mp3 player/organizer i've ever used.

Re:Maybe its a DRM issue

[pressman]

Of course they're supporting MPEG-4. Quicktime resides in the very core of that medium.

Re:They violated the license. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on people, it's a LICENSE. Just because you don't like the terms of it doesn't mean it's not real. You know that if someone violated the terms of the GPL and got in trouble for it, we'd all be celebrating. When you support the enforcement of one LICENSE and cry foul when another is enforced, you lose a lot of credibility.

Yeah, I guess that's the simplistic view. But crank the brains cells up a notch. The GPL doesn't limit use in any way. The GPL grants additional rights. It's a lot tougher to violate the GPL. Few people violate the GPL. That to me means that the GPL is better aligned with people's needs and wishes.

If all licenses were found invalid one day, GPL fans would probably just shrug and say, oh well, can't compel people to make source code available any more, on the other hand, we just eliminated all the shitty licenses out there, and we can read more stories on slashdot about folks doing new stuff with their software, instead of being told to stop.

So, I find it perfectly plausible that someone would support free software license and not, say, Apple's iTunes API license.

We can get down to the details of WHY one is better than the other, but I leave that to folks like the FSF.

By the way, this has nothing to do with the guy that stole documents and probably signed a real contract telling him not to do that.

Here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

why do some people believe that Apple had a responsibility to risk it's neck so you can download tunez more easily?

iCommune seems to allow downloading or streaming. If they had just shut down the "downloading" part, that argument would make sense. But they shut the whole thing down. Why? (I'm not sure, either.)

And why do we think Apple should let us stream music from one iTunes to another? Because they demoed that months ago, and told us we'd be getting that feature. MacWorlds have come and gone, iTunes updates have come and gone, Mac OS updates have come and gone, and we still haven't seen a thing.

Pure vaporware. Can't blame third-party developers for doing it.

apples and, well, oranges

[g4dget]

It's OK to do those things when you have 3% of the market. It's not OK to do those things when you have 90% of the market.

If you want "nice", use open source. While companies have profit motives that get in the way of quality and features, the interests of most open source developers are aligned with those of users because they are users.

Re:apples and, well, oranges

[drsmithy]

[...]the interests of most open source developers are aligned with those of users [...]

I think you'll find the interests of most open source developers are aligned with the interests of other open source developers.

Re:apples and, well, oranges

[g4dget]

Exactly: that's because the developers are the users.

Re:apples and, well, oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That's because there are no *real* users.

not quite accurate

[g4dget]

Microsoft has a long history of using underhanded business tactics (e.g. punative lawsuits,

Underhanded business tactics, yes. But what big abuses of the legal system by Microsoft can you think of?

Apple, on the other hand, started the infamous look-and-feel lawsuits and tried to enforce some of the first software patents (on QuickDraw bitmap code).

In any case, the notion that you can "trust" a big business is stupid. If Apple/Jobs were in Microsoft's place, they'd behave the same way. And if Microsoft didn't have 90% of the market, they'd rely more on lawsuits.

Re:not quite accurate

[dbrutus]

Let's see, Microsoft coded their news media review copies of win 95 to throw false errors when it was loaded on top of a DR-DOS system, they claimed that the Win32 api was completely open to ISVs and there was a chinese wall between the app programmers and system programmers at MS (later found ot be a lie) sucking many ISVs into their development environment at least in part on the strength of this lie, they flat out stole force feedback technology for their sidewinder joystick, etc, etc, etc.

MS has had a well documented history of corporate wrongdoing and its finally starting to catch up with them now that they've been formally labelled a monopoly, something that roughly translates into a sign on your back that says "hit me, I'm a pinata" for future corporate lawsuits.

Apple, whatever its history (and I'm not a great fan of Apple legal either) is now putting out technologies that are standard compliant. If iCal starts going wrong and becomes proprietary, I can take my old iCal and write out .ics files that other calendaring systems can read. This sort of thing is being introduced all up and down the Apple software line. It makes it difficult for future management to create lock-in because customers will always have alternatives and are likely to jump at the earliest sign of a shift away from standards compliance.

Re:not quite accurate

[g4dget]

The point remains: Microsoft has much less of a history than Apple (or Sun) of using lawsuits to get their way. Just because someone beats their wife, that doesn't mean that you can also accuse them of killing babies.

Its an API. What does one use an API for?

[pla]

Question #1:

Why release an API if you don't plan to allow anyone to develop to it?


Question #2:

Could Apple still shoot down a cleanroom implementation of the same thing (ie, a software plugin developed by simply reverse engineering the API, without going through Apple or their licensing BS to get it)?


Question #3:

Anyone want to join me in making a cleanroom API, to publish far and wide, just to piss of Apple?


Question #4:

Some have speculated that Apple killed iCommune because they have their own file sharing network planned. Considering the **AA's propensity for going after two-bit file sharing networks, they would *JUMP* at the chance to go after a "real" company sponsoring one. Has Apple finally decided to end it all, opting to commit corporate suicide to save fave?

Solution

[m0rph3us0]

iCommune solution.
wget http://www.xmms.org/xmmstarball.tar.gz
tar zvxf xmmstarball.tar.gz ./configure
make
make test
make install

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am fed up with Slashdot editors' agenda. Slashdot always posts "news" two weeks after every other site, and is completely biased in favour of Apple (a company that's as bad as Microsoft but can't even write their own OS; they had to copy BSD and make it slower and less stable). Is this stuff that matters? Maybe if Apple is paying you for editorial advertising...

Re:They violated the license. Period.

[aussersterne]

When you support the enforcement of one LICENSE and cry foul when another is enforced, you lose a lot of credibility.

No, because the licenses are different; if I disagree with the principles in one license but support those in another, and I disagree with the way the law handles intellectual property issues en masse anyway, then I find no inconsistency in supporting the enforcement of good licenses by law while not supporting the enforcement of bad licenses.

The GPL is not about freedom for Linus Torvalds or RMS, it's about freedom for the users. This is the exact opposite of most of the commercial licenses and EULAs, which are designed essentially to make the users screwable in the interest of guaranteeing greatest freedom and profitability for the company.

New client, new protocol, back to square one

[yerricde]

Does anyone know of any efforts to crack the FastTrack protocol by reverse-engineering KMD?

Well, there was giFT, but Kazaa killed giFT's FastTrack support by changing the protocol in the next client update. I assume that Kazaa will do the same thing in case of any attempt to crack future versions of the FastTrack protocol.

Re:New client, new protocol, back to square one

[klparrot]

Hmm, might it be possible to implement query forwarding in Kazaa Lite to allow more widespread access to the FastTrack network?

I guess downloading files from FastTrack clients is not a problem; there are many apps out there to do that. So if Kazaa Lite could forward (to FastTrack) a query it receives from a non-FastTrack client, then return the FastTrack results to the non-FT client ... wonder if that could work?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Post anything that even remotely criticises Apple in Slashdot, get modded down. Hey, editors, does your contract with Apple say you have to mod down any post that doesn't lick Steve Jobs' balls, or do you do it just because you're good puppies?

Re:Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Maste

[thedarkstorm]

Although I agree that it's not good to kill P2P projects because there will be a supported one, I do have to correct you on no alternatives.

There are plenty of P2P alternatives for MacOSX out there for networks such as Gnutella, Direct COnnect, the StreamCast network, eDonkey's network, OpenNAP, there's plenty.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough with this pathetic pro-Apple agenda. Apple is a greedy little company that likes to pretend it's Microsoft but doesn't have the weight or the brains to do it properly. Slashdot editors can try to silence everyone if they want, and they can advertise as much as they want in the "news items" (hah!), but all that will achieve is make Slashdot less and less relevant. Even Mac users are starting to find Slashdot biased, and they're used to Apple's marketing fantasies...

Audion already does a form of file sharing

[iamacat]

It lets you stream your playlists to a Shoutcast server. It also has mp3pro and shows correct length for VBR MP3. But it doesn't LOOK as good as iTunes. So I wrote a Java program to write an older header to my VBR files rather than switch.

I am kind of disappointed that Apple is bullying developers who promote their hardware and software for free. But I am not sure why you need plugin SDK for this project. iTunes writes its libraries and playlists as XML files. I wrote a tiny shell script to copy files in the playlist to my MP3 player, which acts as a USB hard drive. Why not just write a small web server that reads those XML files and lets others browse the files and listen to your playlists as streams?

Also, MacOSX has Samba and NFS in addition to Apple's own file sharing. On a local network, everyone can just export their MP3 collections and then just point MP3 players to the parent directory under which other collections are mounted. Should be even more transparent than the plugin.

(Meta) Use !=

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that < and > are reserved by HTML is why Slashdot users use "!=", the C/Perlism for "not equal to".

Apple vs. MS

[jmv]

Everytime I see a story like that, I imagine what it would be like if Apple was in the monopoly position that MS currently has. I really hate what MS is doing these days, but I think Apple would do 10 time worse it it was powerful enough.

Re:Its an API. What does one use an API for?

[Mononoke]

Why release an API if you don't plan to allow anyone to develop to it?

They do allow development. It's a device API. Devices, ya know. Hardware. They want other mp3 players to be compatible with iTunes. Kinda shoots the conspiracy theorists down when there's proof that Apple encourages access by competing hardware (ie: competitors to the iPod).

MSFT is a convicted monopolist

[yerricde]

Funny, when its Microsoft people start complaining about how restrictive their licenses are and squashing inovation etc etc, Apple do the same thing and its "Not their fault if you dont like their license"

A major difference between Microsoft Corporation and Apple Computer Inc. is that while Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Apple is not. Convicted monopolists must play by different rules under United States antitrust law.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[slipstick]

Well check for yourself here are the relevant portions of the act,

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770

Note that this section on "fair use" refers only to the person making the copy not the "owner of the medium" or some such language. So I can lend my disk to my friend and they can make a copy for their own private use. The closest objection to this interpretation would be from the "distributing" clause of subsection 2. But this refers to the act of copying for distribution being prohibited not the act of "distributing" the original to a friend who makes a copy.

So, in Canada it is perfectly legal to make a copy of my friend's CD collection and he can make a copy of mine, however, I can't make it for him and than give it to him. Furthermore while it isn't in the legislation, by "reading between the lines" you can surmise that MP3 sharing on the web is not fair use as defined by this legislation.

Apple vs. MS vs. GNU vs. whatever

[Winterblink]

Monopoly has NOTHING to do with this whatsoever. If you violate anyone's license you agreed to, don't be surprised if someone give you the smackdown.

Re:Apple vs. MS vs. GNU vs. whatever

[jmv]

My thought was: can you imagine if MS was as agressive as Apple with "defending its IP". Legal or not, Apple keeps threatening/suing everyone around, be it about iTunes, Aqua theme, transparent cases, look&feel, ...

If they were as powerful as MS is, I just can't imagine what hell we'd be in...

Re:Apple vs. MS vs. GNU vs. whatever

[Winterblink]

Well, I look at it this way. Like or not, Apple has a very distinctive style that differentiates it from other computer platforms both visually and ergonomically. I'm talking about hardware AND software. It's a part of the company really. Microsoft isn't synonymous with the designs of the hardware their OS's run on, but Apple micromanages the whole package. It's a part of their identity, in effect an extension of their logo as well as their IP. I can't say I blame them for being as agressive as possible in defending it.

EULAs are now backed by DMCA

[yerricde]

As such, no license agreement is needed to use software.

This was true from 1976, when 17 USC 117 became law, until October 1998, when 17 USC 1201(a) (the DMCA's anticircumvention provision) became law.

Most applications for the Microsoft Windows platform must be "installed" before it can be used. Most installers are compressed and possibly encrypted; they decrypt themselves when you Agree to the on-screen EULA. To extract the files without running the installer and clicking through the EULA, you have to break the encryption on the installer. Because the installer ties the decryption to the EULA as an access control mechanism, you've violated the DMCA. Go directly to jail; do not pass Go; do not collect $200.

Given the recent Eldred decision, I don't see the Supreme Court striking down section 1201 or any other expansions of the copyright owner's government-granted monopoly power anytime soon.

Re:Gasp! The light dawns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up, tool. This isn't DRM. DRM would be a hardware and/or software method of preventing trading of files and various other, more legitimate uses of copyrighted works.

This is developer license and copyright enforcement, along with a healthy dose of butt-covering.

Perhaps your open-source clue is defective. Try buying one.

by that logic

[sirshannon]

shouldn't Apple be the monopoly?

Re:by that logic

[Twirlip of the Mists]

There's one thing preventing Apple from taking over the world: price. Apple's products are better than everybody else's, but they're also more expensive, which means people who care more about price than quality (because they're financially constrained or because they're just dumb) won't buy them.

It is a market economy, after all, not a meritocracy.

Re:by that logic

[The Phantom Buffalo]

You think Apple's products are better than everyone else's. Better how? Maybe you find them easier to use, that's personal preference.

I keep hearing the quality arguement. Unless I just happen to be running across the only quality PC's then either the difference in PC vs Mac hardware is insignificant or Macs will last so long after they are obsolete that it is irrelevant.

Re:by that logic

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If you don't buy the quality argument, then you must never have owned a Mac. Go to the nearest Apple store and take a look at one. Get one of the employees to open it up, take a look at the insides. Feel it, examine the way it's put together. No flimsy plastic parts. Macs are made of magnesium, polycarbonate, titanium, or aircraft-grade aluminium. They're well-designed, well-built machines.

Feel a Mac's keyboard. Again, no cheap plastic parts. They're built to last. Take a look at an Apple-branded monitor. There is no brighter, sharper, more color-accurate LCD anywhere. Hell, even the mouse is an amazing work of engineering.

Here's just one example. Let me tell you how my Power Mac G4 is hooked up. The mouse is plugged into the keyboard (USB). The keyboard is plugged into the monitor (also USB). The monitor is plugged into the computer (ADC). The computer is plugged into the wall (power). That's it. There are no more cables. The monitor draws power from the computer over the ADC cable, so there's no need for a separate power plug. ADC also carries USB, so there's no need to run a long USB cable down to the floor for the keyboard and/or mouse. And both the monitor and the keyboard have two USB ports on them each, so when the need arises I can plug my digital camera or whatever directly into my keyboard, no muss or fuss.

This is some extremely well-thought-out stuff.

Then there's the thing about the OS, and how the Cocoa API's are the most powerful and yet easy-to-use API's for any operating system anywhere. But that's a whole other discussion entirely.

People who think Macs are really no different from PC's have never looked very closely at them.

Re:by that logic

[The Phantom Buffalo]

These are nice features, but I keep looking at this from a practical viewpoint.

Are my PCs pretty? No.
Are my PCs going to last until I find them obsolete? Yes.(I can't say I've never had a part fail, but in my opinion there are acceptable losses.)


Granted, I will upgrade the processor, memory and such when I feel like doing it. Ever since I put together the first one I wouldn't think of buying a complete system. I have good cases, hard drives, monitors. Why buy them again if I don't need them?

I'll cut this short, before I start rambling.
In addition to cheap and dumb, there is practical.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except replace "putting in a stereo" with "tampering with the odometer". These people made an addition that is legally shaky and explicitly disallowed in the license.

Re:Yes

[MrResistor]

Tampering with your odometer is not illegal. It is illegal to misrepresent the mileage of a vehicle you are trying to sell, and that is really the only reason why anyone would tamper with their odometer, but the tampering itself is not illegal.

Rendezvous sharing without iTunes

[thomasdeniau]

Hey, Whamb can share songs using Rendezvous and they've not been brought down by Apple yet ;)

Re:mod_rendezvous and apache; it is all in the con

[TheSHAD0W]

Well, according to the message below, you ought to be able to help this guy out in devising a replacement. Go for it.

Re:quit bitching (no)

[klez23]

You can buy a cassette ... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.

Uh, no, that's illegal. It's just not what the RIAA fight is about. They panicked when tape machines came out, but more so when cd-r promised PERFECT copies of music. Even more with the WIDESPREAD close-enough-to-perfect distribution of mp3s over p2p networks. But copying & giving away (or selling) copyrighted music in any format is illegal, except under the very limited scope of educational fair use.

Whether it's WRONG is an entirely different debate.

You can download with iCommune

[Drakonian]

Blockquoth the author:

I just released a free public beta of iCommune, a plug-in for iTunes that enables music sharing over the network. Your friends' music libraries appear in the iTunes source list. You can browse their collections, and choose to download or stream their music. It also allows you to make your own music library available to others.

However I do agree that this isn't about P2P either.

Re:You can download with iCommune

[pudge]

Aha! It supports it through drag and drop. Cool.

Still, this is just acting as an HTTP client, copying a song from Apache to the desktop. Big whoop. I can download my MP3s with a web browser, too, using Apache::MP3 and the stock Mac OS X Apache/mod_perl, instead of mod_dav. Outlaw Apache!

Yeah... but just release it unto the darknet.

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

Seems only natural, for this kind of software in this situation, for people who already have a copy of this, to P2P it out to the world through your choice of servent ;)

Reminds me of an old episode of Sliders where they were in an alternate universe that never had the Declaration of Independence, and they created a copy of it and unleashed it into numerous newsgroups in that world's Internet... ;)

Mirror here

[azav]

http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Archi ve/gst/snd/icommune-10b1.hqx

Re:Mirror here

[jefdiesel]

the 10b1 version is bugged.. causes iTunes to crash on startup, 10b2 is the version all the download sites link to at icommune.net, which is obviously no longer serving..

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

iCommune was interesting in it's use of Apache to share the library but didn't really innovate as you could always add files from another Mac's library to your own by just using personal FileSharing to mount the volume. Surprisingly that also works over the internet :)

OGG Plugin?

[Oopsz]

Does the iTunes OGG plugin use this API? If they are, wouldn't they be in contravention of the SDK license?

Software

[ucblockhead]

I guess that games that decision of whether or not to make an iTunes version of my plugin for me.

Thanks, Apple, for helping me decide not to support the Mac.

Re:Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, so you were going to write a plugin for your companies' MP3 player? That's *ALL* the Plugin architecture is designed for, and that's all the licence allows for. iTunes plugins CANNOT add new whiz-bang features, they're strictly for supporting MP3 players (all this did was emulate a mp3 player in software, and shuffled things back and forth over to Apache).

So unless you are a programmer for a company that makes MP3 players, I think you are just talking out of your ass.

Re: RIGHT - You forgot the FAIR USE clause...

[Anonymous Coward]

Built into the copyright laws is an inherent right of what's called "fair use." The one thing consumers have is their right to "use" their purchase of someone's copyrighted materials "in a fair way."

This battle first erupted when audiocassettes were first introduced in the '70s. But when music labels realized that the cassette's audio quality degraded over time and with each subsequent generation of recording, their complaints went away. The labels also recognized quickly that cassettes actually fostered a new upsurge in music purchases as consumers created their own compilations and favorite tapes and distributed them to each other.

This battle is about the "Fair Use" clause. The laws do not clearly define what is constituted by "Fair Use", and what was accepted as "Fair" with cassettes is no longer being accepted as "Fair" with digital copies of media.

So what?

[aztektum]

Someone will just write an opensource replacement some day anyway, and it will work on all platforms.

I don't see what the big deal is about one company killing a product that only 7% of the computer using population could use in the first place.

Re:So what?

[batobin]

Well, this was posted in the Apple section of Slashdot, so it's directed firmly at that 7%. Theoretically, this is a huge deal, because the targetted reader could very well be a user of this program.

Apple has the resources to kill anything, open source or not. This reminds me of the Trillian vs. AOL battle that waged for quite a while. In this case, however, the 3rd-party software is going to lose.

Fair Use Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop. Do not Copy
http://cactus.eas.asu.edu/partha/Columns/08-13-Cop yProtection.htm

Suppose you purchase a copy of Time magazine and find an article on the politics of Zimbabwe very interesting. You want your friend Bob to read the article. Can you just give him your magazine? Of course you can. Can Bob then pass it on to some of his friends? Sure he can. Can a library purchase just one copy and make it available to all of its readers to read. Sure, happens all the time. Can you make a photocopy of the column and give it to Bob. Oh well, in most cases, the answer is yes. How about you make hundreds of photocopies and hand them out at the street corner to all people who care to take one? Definitely not!

There may not seem much of a difference between handing out an original copy of a magazine for many people to read and copying the same for the readers. But there is a crucial difference and the difference is based on copyright law. Every country or jurisdiction has its own set of copyright laws and these laws though similar, vary quite a lot. Copyright law (and similar restrictions on patents and products) is designed to protect "artistic value" and "intellectual property". The article in the magazine belongs to the publisher of the magazine, and only the publisher is allowed to make copies and then distribute (sell or give away as per the publishers discretion). The discussion about copyright in this column will reflect the current US laws on copyright.

Copyright protects the authors, publishers and other creators of information, art, writing, books, music, videos, movies, pictures and such artifacts. Copyright, in a nutshell, creates ownership of creative works and prevents stealing of the same via copying. The first copyright law was enacted in England in 1710, and the US adopted copyright in 1790. The US law has been revised in 1831, 1870, 1909, 1976 and 2000, often to keep up with technological innovations.

Copyright is not a complete ban on copying. A purposely-crafted loophole in the law allows for copying for "fair use". That mean, if you like the article in Time magazine you could make a few copies to keep and throw the magazine away. You could also copy to let Bob read the article, if you do not want to give your copy of the magazine to him. In case of computer software, or music, or videos, you could make a copy for use in another location (like a copy of the music to play in your car).

Prevention of copying in the Western world is largely based on a deeply cultivated honor system. Most ordinary citizens do not copy books, music, videos, preferring to buy them because that is the "right thing to do". Breaking the law, even if it is easy and not detectable is a crime and a large majority has respect for the law. Hence, most vendors of artistic works, in fact have nothing to worry about. Of course, things do get copied and sure there is loss of revenue due to copying, but the loss is not significant enough to do something about it.

In addition to the honor system, people do not copy, because it is not convenient to do so and not financially very rewarding. Before the advent of copy machines, of course, copying books was not even possible. The earlier copyright laws prevented plagiarism. For example it would be illegal for some ordinary Joe from copying in his own hand, works from Shakespeare and passing it off as his own writings. The typewriter and then the copy machine made copying easier. However, even with a copy machine, copying a book is a painful task. Most people found it easier to buy the book than to make a copy. Hence, copying was not really a problem.

The first real threat to copying was the audiotape machines, particularly the audiocassette. Piracy of audiocassettes became more common and the music industry just had to bear with it. Luckily, the cassette reproduction was not as good as records or CDs so piracy was kind of limited by quality. Then came the VCR. Two VCR's can copy a videotape, but the quality is less than desirable.

Honor system aside, the incentive to copy rises with cost of the original. When movies became available at about $80 per tape, copying was rampant. Soon the movie vendors found that if they dropped the price to about $20 people stopped copying and purchased the original. In fact, they made more money selling videos at $20 than at $80 (due to enlarged volume).

To stem the loss of revenue from the few who choose to copy rather than buy, the industry started incorporating copy protection schemes. The first copy protection scheme was a method called Macrovision, invented by a company called Macrovision. Macrovision is a special invisible signal that is recorded along with the video on videotapes. A TV set is not affected by this signal but it fools a VCR, and when a Macrovision encoded video signal is recorded on a VCR the picture gets unstable and almost unviewable. Of course it is possible to defeat Macrovision by changing the design of the VCR recording circuitry, but VCR manufacturers were pressurized by the movie industry not to do it.

When the PC's started becoming popular, in the late 1980's software vendors found copying to be a real problem. The price of software was quite high and this promoted copying. It is too easy to make copies of software--one person buys it and makes copies for all the buddies, neighbors and other leeches. Some folks claimed this is permissible under the fair use clause, but it became quite clear that fair use was being stretched. So some software vendors turned to copy protecting the software.

Software is a string of digital bits stored on magnetic media such as hard disks or floppy diskettes. Any computer can make identical copies of the software--how can one copy protect it? The copy protection on diskettes involved techniques such as "nibble counting" and "hidden tracks". These are schemes that rely on some non-standard way of recording floppy disks such that the data is unreadable by the computer running standard software, but some special software provided by the software vendors can read the disks but will not copy them. Of course, there are ways to bypass these schemes.

The copy protected software soon died. Consumers refused to buy disks that they could not copy or backup. In fact there was a backlash, honest people said "I do not steal software, if you make it difficult for me to make a backup copy, as you don't trust me, I will not trust you. I will not buy your product." Other vendors notably Microsoft started selling software at prices so low that people did not copy them. The copy protected software vendors went bankrupt for loss of sales.

Since those days, we have come full circle. The current technology with recordable CDs, networks, massive digitization makes copying trivial. Producing high quality MP3 copies of music and sharing them over the Internet is quite easy. "Napster" is a service that pushed "fair use" to its limits. If someone has a copy of a hit song, he or she could publish this fact on the Internet, using Napster, and then all those who want this song for free can suddenly become this person's friend and download the song from his/her computer. After a long battle in courts, the legal eagles decided such use was not fair and Napster had to shut down.

A fancy scheme was invented for DVD video disks (called Divx) that make it possible to create DVD's such that the movie on it can be viewed only a few times. Then the disk becomes useless. Quite an invention, luckily it died, as no consumer wants to buy such stunted products.

The software from Microsoft has now reached the high ends of expense (encouraging copying) and Microsoft has decided to put an elaborate "registration" system in the new XP series of software products to make copying well next to impossible. Of course the registration strategy is quite nefarious and is an invasion of privacy (the software will contact Microsoft every so often to make sure it is running on a computer authorized to run that copy). Whether this will create a backlash is yet to be seen.

The new copyright law called Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DCMA) takes government control to a new height. This law, amongst other things, makes it illegal for anyone to create methods that bypass copy protection schemes. Research into analyzing encryption schemes to bypass them would be illegal. If I tell you how to bypass a particular copy protection method, I am guilty. That actually, in my opinion, infringes free speech rights and makes criminals out of people involved in academic pursuits.

The parade continues. Some claim that Macrovision has a new scheme by which converting music videos to MP3 digital copies would be made impossible. There may not be much truth to this rumor, but it is a sad commentary on how the music industry wants to reach out and harass the consumer. Over the years, copy protection schemes have been considered an affront to the honest consumer. The majority of these have proven unsuccessful. We should hope the current crop of greedy misguided ventures go the way of its predecessors.

Partha Dasgupta is on the faculty of the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Arizona State University in Tempe. His specializations are in the areas of Operating Systems, Cryptography and Networking. His homepage is at http://cactus.eas.asu.edu/partha.

mp3 pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I have still yet to grasp how many people steal music on a day to day basis and expect it as their birthright.

Most of you people should be getting paid enough to afford CDs. Not that much music released in the last decade or so is actually worth listening to.

Still Stupid?

[Oculus Habent]

How do you figure that not making yourself a huge target for the RIAA is stupid? Is it stupid to make a product and then protect your investment from unwanted liabilities, after having clearly stated that additions of that nature were not to be made.

Re:Still Stupid?

[MrResistor]

For a company like Apple, preventing it's customers from having what they clearly want is stupid.

More to the point, iTunes is a major selling point for the Mac, and not allowing users to take advantage of the APIs to extend iTunes to be more useful to them is stupid.

Further, since iCommune wasn't developed by Apple, it would be a tenuous legal arguement at best to make them responsible for it. I seriously doubt that Apple was ever in any actualy legal danger because of iCommune.

Regardless, their API policy is still stupid.

Re:Still Stupid?

[MoneyT]

Apple APIs are developed and controlled by Apple. A person / group /company which uses those APIs and distributes software based off them must agree to their terms of use. If they violate those terms of use, and Apple does nothing, Apple is more or less legaly aproving the new use. By Approving, Apple opens themselves up to litigation.

Re:Still Stupid?

[Alan Partridge]

if Apple allowed iCommune to trun iTunes into a pseudo p2p clinet for mp3 files then Apple would be indirectly supporting copyright theft, which they've always warned against in the past. Turning YOUR OWN Cds into mp3s so that you can enjoy them in a more convenient form is one thing, "broadcasting" them to god knows who is NOT fair use - and you play right into the tiaa's hands if you think it is.

Re:Still Stupid?

[MrResistor]

Apple APIs are developed and controlled by Apple. A person / group /company which uses those APIs and distributes software based off them must agree to their terms of use. If they violate those terms of use, and Apple does nothing, Apple is more or less legaly aproving the new use. By Approving, Apple opens themselves up to litigation.

In otherwords, Apple's own terms of use opens them up to litigation if they don't squash projects like iCommune. Like I said: stupid.

However, that isn't really my criticism of Apple, which I think is neatly summarized thusly:

Apple: "Here's a nifty Software Developement Kit, bit you can't use it to develope software."

THAT is what I'm saying is stupid. The fact is that Apple isn't going after iCommune because it's a p2p app. I wouldn't really have a problem with that, as I don't support piracy (never mind that the specific itch iCommune was developed to scratch is non-infringing, that isn't really relevant to this discussion). Apple is going after iCommune because it's software and Apple considers it's APIs to be for hardware only. Basically, Apple is trying to maintain an iron grip on the Mac user experience despite what the users are clearly showing they want.

Apple has always done this, and I have always thought it was stupid. This is merely the latest incarnation of what I have always considered to be Apples self-defeating policies.

apple is right in doing this

[claude_juan]

to all you people who feel apple is "stomping on your rights", this is comparable to the whole not using products in ways unintended.

basically, you sharing files is illegal 99.9% of the time. so apple wants no part of it. it makes total sense.

Apple bought windowshade from the developer

[pimpbott]

and built it into OS 7.5.

those who have actually kept up with apple

[Anonymous Coward]

would realize that they have been planning this type of connectivity within iTunes for some time via rendezvous. Steve Jobs demoed this functionality in the MWNY keynote in the summer of 2002.

while i'm not saying apple should have acted the way it did (in fact apple is frustrating in many ways), i just wanted to remind you that they had planned this functionality already.

Re:Its an API. What does one use an API for?

[pla]

They do allow development. It's a device API. Devices, ya know. Hardware.

Ah, therein lies my first point of confusion. I had the impression "API" stood for "Application Programming Interface". As in, "hooks that will allow *your* software to play nicely with *our* software". And the idea that a plugin could violate their license seemed to support my (evidently erroneous) view on that.

So, that cleared up, this "API" apparently does not include any sort of all-in-one (software) dev kit and documentation pack (or if it does, it doesn't really have any relevance to third-party software developers). So how, exactly, does Apple claim some a file-sharing plugin violates their license? For that matter, why would one even *need* a license for a hardware dev kit to develop such a plugin?

I apologize if this sounds really, really stupid. But I just don't get it... If I wanted to develop software to, say, map GPS data, I wouldn't start by ordering a *hardware* dev kit, I'd only care about the communication protocol for the device I needed to talk to.

"Same rules"? I don't think so...

[levik]

> They follow the same rules everyone else does.

The problem in this case, is that the rules are not the same for Microsoft, because of their unique market position (a monopoly on desktop OSes).

Had Apple held such a monopoly, many of its practices would cause just as much, if not more, of an uporar as the ones MS got in trouble for. Think about it: they bundle all sorts of software "as part of the OS", and they have repeatedly cracked down hard on clone and part makers trying to enter their niche market.

So, I say the actions of MS and Apple are pretty much the same. Only in the case of MS, these actions get defined as illegal, while for Apple they are merely low, dirty and unethical. But don't you think that sort of hair splitting should be left up to the lawyers?

Re:"Same rules"? I don't think so...

[drsmithy]

The problem in this case, is that the rules are not the same for Microsoft, because of their unique market position (a monopoly on desktop OSes).

Microsoft were not ruled a monopoly on desktop OSes, the were ruled a monopoly on desktop OSes *for intel-compatible PCs*. This is an important distinction - I seriously doubt they would have been found a monopoly of the entire desktop OS market.

Had Apple held such a monopoly [...]

Well, if you apply the equivalent market definition (desktop OSes for PPC-compatible PCs), it would be hard to see how they *don't*.

So, I say the actions of MS and Apple are pretty much the same.

On this, I agree completely. Same shit, different arseholes.

Re:"Same rules"? I don't think so...

[hype7]

So, I say the actions of MS and Apple are pretty much the same. Only in the case of MS, these actions get defined as illegal, while for Apple they are merely low, dirty and unethical. But don't you think that sort of hair splitting should be left up to the lawyers?

That deserves a response.

How is bundling apps "low, dirty or unethical"? This is different from what MS is doing - trying to reduce competition. For example, Apple didn't create Safari for the purpose to ensure it remained the dominant OS provider, or to kill the competition. They didn't change the operating system so that competitor's software wouldn't work. That would be "low, dirty and unethical". That is what MS does.

You want to characterise behaviour by entities, you have to look at the motives. Thanks to the DoJ prosecution, we know what MS's motives behind behind, for example, IE were. You can also get a pretty good idea of Apple's, by their behaviour - all the improvements that they make to the KHTML rendering engine will be re-released back into the open source community. This is not a company out to kill competition, to ensure that there are no competitor's products available - this is a company doing it's utmost to stimulate competition.

And as for cracking down on clone makers - well, what do you expect? I'm sure Sony would be within their rights to crack the shits if somebody started selling a box that played PS2 games. And as for your comments about part makers being cracked down on - that's not exactly true. I don't know of any "parts" makers that have been gone after unless they've blatantly broken the law - like making Apple cases or something.

Apple has not acted in a low, dirty or unethical way. There are probably reasons behind this move - most likely related to the RIAA. Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with how open the OS is... it's a piece of proprietary software. If you don't like it, go use something else. There's plenty of competition, because unlike MS, Apple hasn't tried to stifle it.

-- james

Re:"Same rules"? I don't think so...

[Frightened_Turtle]

"Think about it: they bundle all sorts of software "as part of the OS", and they have repeatedly cracked down hard on clone and part makers trying to enter their niche market."

One small thing you are missing here is that at any time, I can choose to change any of those bundled items with something else. To run a different browser than what came with the OS, all I have to do is load it on my hard drive and double-click on it. Do I want that other browser as my default? All I have to do is change the system default, which is about 3 or four mouse-clicks away. Do I want to get rid of something? I just delete it, it's gone. Done. No ghosts of applications past haunting the "system registry."

I'm not even stuck using an Apple OS. My oldest box ran on BeOS for a while, now it's a Linux box. I can switch to Linux any time I want on my other machines, but why bother when I already have a fully compliant UNIX with an incredibly well polished graphic interface on top of it? Sure, there are some pretty good window managers out there for Linux, but they really lack the spit and polish and attention to details that Aqua offers. Among the system administrators, network administrators, and software developers I know, most of them are walking around with Ti Powerbooks now than Dells.

So what if OS X isn't free? Actually, you can have it for free, just without Aqua and some of the other extras included with Aqua (That's what you really pay for). Just compile Darwin and you have FreeBSD. Hey, you have to pay a hell of a lot more for other UNIXes than Mac OS X: Irix, Solaris, etc.

To quote Jobs: "Apple is in the business of making hardware, not software." (Well, that point is arguable...) That's "why" he put the kabosh on licensing their ROMs to clone makers. Apple does not have the resources to take on Micro$oft head to head on their turf as a software manufacturer. Of course, with the initial flood of clones on the market, it was the first time I saw MacOS-based systems drop to a reasonable price-level. I still think that Apple should cut their prices by 25% from where they are now. In my opinion, that would trigger a massive surge in their market share.

Sure, Apple has a history of arrogance towards their customers and in their marketing. That's one of the reasons they don't have a strong market share today. But they do make a quality product, and it is a product I can configure any way I want once I have it. Heck, it's a lot easier to customize it via the UNIX underbelly to do the things I want than the old MacOS ever was! It's just a new paradigm, and people need to learn how to do it.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[CptNoSkill]

Since we are talking about aple and open source, dont forget about this. The KHTML based browser, Apple worked on alot of bugfixes and everything seems happy about the attention that KHTML is getting because of this...

Re:quit bitching (no)

[slipstick]

You can buy a cassette ... and you can make a copy of the songs on that cassette and LEGALLY give a copy to your friend.

In Canada you must "lend" the original to your friend and he must make the copy for this to be legal.

Now, if you make a copy of a CD and put it on another CD, can you LEGALLY give it to your friend?

Again for Canada see the above about tapes.

Now if you make a copy of that CD and put it on your computer and make it available to other people, can you LEGALLY give it to them? No.

There's the line ... but it's not clear. What's the difference? The fact that you haven't met these people? The fact that you don't deliver something you can hold in your hand? The fact that the quality is higher?

Actually at least in Canada this is very clear, the relevant section of the copyright act refers to infringement as an act which "distribute(s) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"(Section 27 Subsection 2) subsubsection b))

I'm absolutely positive that placing an mp3 for access to the world would be an act of distributing which would be "prejudicial" under this act.

In other words the extent to which you distribute is a direct measure of whether you will be found in violation of copyright. If you had 10,000 friends and you gave them all a copy of a CD that would be infringement as well.

color trademarks (sort of)

[toothfish]

here in the US, orange is trademarked by fedex. actually it's what they call a proprietary custom pantone, and supposedly only fedex and pantone know what the mix is. same goes for almost any major corporate color, and is usually described in the standards manual.

Re:Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Maste

[cappadocius]

your grand One P2P to Rule Them All and Bind Them will be a propriatary, commercial venture

That doesn't change much, iCommune was still dependant on the very proprietary iTunes.

no guarantee it will be compatible with anyone else, limiting your trading to just other mac players

IIRC, iCommune used Rendezvous, which simply the other macs on your local network. So again, no change.

possible monitoring capabilities (it is one network...

No, it isn't. The Rendezvous network does not extend beyond your intranet. There is a separate one any time two or more OSX machines are on a network. So the other machines could just be the computers in the other rooms of your house, or they could be every mac on your campus.

One good lawsuit from the media cartels

Here's the thing, though. iTunes 4 will only stream music, and presumably only one person can be listening to a song at one time. Thus, there will be no illegal activity going on.

I look forward to iTunes 4, but iCommune would likely have been dead on arrival for me. Why? because for p2p to work many people need to use it. Surely too few people in my dorm would have found iCommune. But everybody will upgrade iTunes so there will be many users.

While you may wax on about the control Apple has over the Mac platform you miss the point. That is the ideal behind the Mac. There is a controlling entity trying to make a consistant uniform environment. The Mac is about benevolent dictatorship, Linux is about absolute freedom, Windows is about neither. That's why people bag on MS and defend Apple.

the difference

[commodoresloat]

yes there is a difference. A pirate attacks ships in the ocean, usually in international waters. Someone attacking boats in a stream would probably simply be a common thug.

Stuff Licenses

[Snoopy77]

All these licenses are very restrictive. People and organisations who use license restrictive licenses should be boycotted. It's time the /. community really stood up against restrictive licensing.

Oh, but the boycott will exclude any GPL'ed products ofcourse. I mean, it's the GPL right.

New client, new protocol, back to square one

[yerricde]

So if Kazaa Lite could forward (to FastTrack) a query it receives from a non-FastTrack client, then return the FastTrack results to the non-FT client

Then Kazaa could push a new "security release" that kills Kazaa Lite clients, or at least the part of the Kazaa Lite client that forwards such queries.

Evil or EvilleR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple tries to dominate both sectors of the market, with their firewire and quicktime(and let us not forget their latest bid to take people from the pc market onto macs), until recently you could only get an Ipod for a mac.....
i feel what they are doing is worse than microsoft as they are making people buy fixed systems which ok give them their due are good at what they are designed for, but then again if apple hadnt been there someone else would have got the adobe license and hardware developers, and if you want nething which matches the same kind of amount of ram a pc has you have to spend loads more on their website or at a specialist dealer, is that fair? and of course if u even dare think about upgrading a mac, it has to be mac hardware or chipped with mac instruction e.g.Nvidia geforce cards for Mac

anyways i think microsoft are less or equally evil, and linux is getting more and more popular.

i have one question for you all when linux is more popular than windows, do you think it will still be free? when the developers see those cheque books open?

Org explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots companies make mp3 players. Some don't make them work with Macs. They say "that too much work."

Apple say "Here, we wrote most of the code already. We share it with you, to make your mp3 player work with our cool mp3 program." This code called an API. Apple put it on website.

Coder goes to Apple web site. Sees the code. Downloads it. Get message which says bunch of stuff, including "We are only sharing this code to make mp3 players work with Mac. Not for other stuff. You agree to only use it only to make mp3 player work with mac?" Coder clicks agree. Coder uses code to make program that is not to make mp3 player work with mac. Apple says "Hey, that not to make mp3 player work with Mac. Stop it. Keep promise you made when you got our code."

Exactly

[hackwrench]

I should't have someone deciding for me whether or not I need a sense of humor.

Re:mod_rendezvous and apache; it is all in the con

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does no one preview their posts?

Re:Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Maste

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, good diatribe, but isn't Rendezvous, or at least the technology underlying it, open-source?

Get it here...

[BoarderPhreak]

Get iCommune.tgz from the Everything Mac site

Rendezvous examples use music sharing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting to note that Apple's own Rendezvous documentation uses a music sharing jukebox as an example.

Big Difference

[TheRIAAMustDie]

Apple has NOT BROKEN THE LAW. M$ has. It's that simple.

Re:Apple is stealing from open source community!

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is different from when BSD code has a GPL added to it so the new code isn't BSDable again how?

Fresher..

[TheRIAAMustDie]

here's a fresh one

Just remove the space..

http://www.geocities.com/north noise/icommune-10b1.hqx

Re:Fresher..

[TheRIAAMustDie]

gone now, sorry

FROM THE ICOMMUNE LICENSE:

[payote]

"...TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, DAMAGE FOR PERSONAL INJURY, EVEN IF THE CORONADO INSTITUTE, INC. HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. All features and specifications subject to change without notice. Oh yeah, don't steal music." The last line being the salient point here: The Author DID JUST AS MUCH AS APPLE HAS DONE TO PREVENT MUSIC PIRACY. And they bitch-slap him for it. But fuck 'em. I've got my copy. "It's not illegal unless I get caught."

Just redefine 'device'

[payote]

If the plug-in eanbles the use of another 'device' - why can't that 'device' be another computer? Legally ambiguities - gotta love 'em.

Re:Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Maste

[smileyj68]

All the long term instability that implies? I like free software and OSS, but in terms of stability commercially backed ventures have the edge, particularly with something as low level as network integration. Frankly, Apple has a better shot of using their own MP3 player and their own system level networking than any OSS project...the "whole widget" phenomena. And with P2P sharing, Apple has the potential to get slammed for something like iCommune, as the iPod has already been often branded an "MP3 piracy device" by several news articles, the last thing they need is a DMCA case against them with iTunes and Rendezvous as complicit criminals. And a single point of failure? Suppose th iTunes code changes in iTunes 4? Any service not made by Apple instantly dies until some hacker patches it up again, adding code bloat and maybe losing functionality. And finally, it could be worse. If it were Microsoft, they'd kill iCommune, then release their own version of MP3 which deletes itself when transferred over TCP/IP. And only works in WMP.

iTunes 3 Already Has DRM-Ready features

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe that the "play-count" number attached to each song was included for the users' convenience? I always assumed that it was preparation for a future where we would be charged per-play...

Re:iTunes 3 Already Has DRM-Ready features

[MoneyT]

Not likely since there are many other applications that play MP3s availible for macs. You would have a right to be worried if the next implimentation of MP3 or Oog or whatever contained an unchangeable play count tag, but just because a single program has it means nothing.

horrible spelling/syntax - forgive me please.

[payote]

My mind was on my huge collection of legal mp3's that I can now listen to at work thanks to iCommune.

Samizdat?

[barcarolle]

Could this mark the emergence of samizdat software?

Re:Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Maste

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple is a much nicer Master than Microsoft, and both their equipment and software are superior in every way"

The fact that you actually seem to believe this, and aren't being sarcastic, pretty much reveals your complete ignorance and invalidates everything else you wrote.

Re:Gasp! The light dawns.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Congratulations, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

Now write "iCommune" on a thick rubber band and wear it around your wrist. Whenever the urge to say "Apple will never knuckle under to DRM" comes over you, draw back the rubber band four or five inches and give yourself a good smack.

Congratulations, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

Now write "General Public Licence" on a thick rubber band and wear it around your wrist. Whenever the urge to say "The open source community will never knuckle under to DRM" comes over you, draw back the rubber band four or five inches and give yourself a good smack.

This is not a case of DRM. This is a simple licence volation. Even the open source community uses licences and expects people to uphold the terms and conditions of the licence.

Double Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Person willfully accepted the terms of a licence. Willfully created and distributed software that was in direct violation of that licence. Was told to stop distributing the violating software. People feel sorry for him and start making allegations that Apple is part of "big media" (when they seem to be the only commercial company RESISTING closed DRM technologies...)

I just don't get it... Just because you prefer a completely open licence over a "proprietary" one, doesn't mean either of the licences are any lesser legally valid than each other. How many people would be ready to shoot this guy if he took GPL'ed software, made changes and distributed a binary, but didn't re-release the source? It's just a double standard.

And I'm sure it also had something to do with Apple not wanting to get sued by the RIAA and being forced to include DRM in their software and iPods, but the fact still remains, a person violated the terms of an agreement they willfully and legally entered into.

The same rules apply to this day: READ WHAT YOU SIGN.

Re:The Problems of the Apple License

[cioxx]

It's sort of ironic, considering the fact that in the last discussion I ripped iCommune for not being Open Source.

Here's the link to the comment. Maybe Apple wouldn't be so quick to strike down the iTunes plugin, have it been GPL'ed.

Before anyone yells fire in the crowded theater

[inkswamp]

Remember that Apple (like most tech companies) often times has to balance the needs of their users against other concerns coming at them from other sectors. Other World Computing was recently asked by Apple to cease distribution of a piece of software that allowed third party DVD burners to operate with iMovie. Everyone cried fowl and accused Apple of behaving like Microsoft, until it was later revealed (by MacCentral, I believe) that Apple would have been liable for enormous fees for potential use of licensed MPEG technology for the use of iMovie with third party hardware (not sure how, but that was the claim.) In that case, Apple had to protect itself from uses that may have cost them dearly. Who knows if such circumstances exist here. I think Apple has done enough to show that they want to empower their users in ways that other companies have long since given up on (compare and contrast to Sony and Microsoft for starters.)

So cut them a break and let's not all trample each other in the mad rush to scream Big Brother at them. Sometimes big companies have agreements and connections that force them into this kind of behavior from time to time.

I don't like seeing it happen either, but there is no cause for calling them "evil" like I've seen here. That's overreaction and says more about the person saying it than it says about Apple.

AppleScript!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did they use the iTunes SDK? Everyting they need to get iCommune running could have been done by talking to iTunes via AppleScript...

Anyway: iCommune was nothing more then a nice try. This won't have been they way music will be shared.

Say wha?

[__aafkqj3628]

Here is some logic working here, somebody poke a hole in it -

If the licence only includes hardware (and not software) then (eg. iPod) since the iPod contains hardware which is a plugin to iTunes, but it uses SOFTWARE to actually use it, then shouldn't it be in violation of the licence?

If the exception is that software that is contained in hardware is alright, then isn't the computer itself hardware and the plugin software?

Did they forge that software is required for hardware to run and plugin to iTunes?

Bits aren't stuff

[po8]

Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff?

Stuff? What stuff? There's no stuff here. Hand me a megabyte of music. No, no, not the floppy disk, or USB device. If there's a megabyte of music in there, I sure can't see it. The megabyte itself. OK, maybe that megabyte is like atoms or something: I can't see it because it's too small. I'll take it out of the disk and put it on my disk. Now I've got the megabyte of music. But wait, you still have it too! Maybe there were two of them in there, so I'll take out the other one. Nope, now I have two megabytes of music and you still have yours. I know, let's weigh the disk before and after, using the most precise conceivable balance scale. Nope, no matter how many times I take a megabyte of music out of the disk, it still weighs exactly the same. This sure isn't like any stuff I've ever played with before.

Bits are something or other, but they aren't stuff. Get used to it.

Re:Bits aren't stuff

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Stuff? What stuff? There's no stuff here.

Bet you think you're insightful, huh? Thinking that you can't do transactions with intangible things. It's not like that argument is old or trite or anything.

Digital music is just as much "stuff" as a book is. With digital music you have the data-- the pattern of audio samples-- and then you have the physical representation of that data, being magnetic or optical patterns on a disc or whatever. With a book you have the contents themselves-- the pattern of words-- and then you have the physical representation of the contents, being ink on paper.

Do we buy and sell books based not on the value of the ink and paper but the contents? Yes, we do. So are books "stuff?" Yes, they are. So is digital music, or software, or anything else that can be represented by bits. As you said, "Get used to it."

Hi, my name is Nathan and I'm addicted to Mac OS X

[iNub]

(offtopic: The subject of my response is the exact char limit of the input on the reply page. No point, I just found that amusing.) Apple is just as bad as any other monopoly. They rabidly attack anything they think might steal some thunder. Witness the banning of "rumor mongers" from the keynote speeches at MacWorld. Notice the C&D orders that are sent daily to the biggest fans the company will ever have. As a company, Apple sucks. As a product, the Macintosh is incredible.

Kinda like Volkswagen. Their cars are legendary, as any fanatic will tell you. They'll conveniently forget that VW used slaves provided by the Nazi party to make their legendary car.

I like Apple's product, but I find the company's actions reprehensible. They viciously and consistently attack their best customers. Whatever. I have no loyalty. I use Windows XP and Mac OS X. According to Microsoft and Apple, my desk should implode.

This new "open architecture" area is probably just unfamiliar territory for Apple. I guess they just need to get used to it.

MIRROR

[Cantus]

New Mirror made. Use it while there is still bandwidth available:

http://icommunemirror.150m.com/iCommune-1.0b2.sit

lol

[tux-sucks]

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

A company that sells stuff to make money?!

Evil indeed!

Damned communist.

There is a difference

[MoneyT]

That lies in the main purpose of the item.

iTunes: Music file organization / playback

iPod: portable music play back

CD/DVD burners: Data backup, storage and tranfer

Each one can be nicely covered by the don't steal music line because their primary purpose has nothing to do with the copy / "theft" of the music.

However, take a look at iCommune's primary purpose: transfer music files managed by iTunes across the net. That can not be covered by a simple do not steal music clause. Certainly not when they're using Apple's code.

Books and stuff

[po8]

Do we buy and sell books based not on the value of the ink and paper but the contents? Yes, we do. So are books "stuff?" Yes, they are.

The fact that you can have a financial transaction around bits doesn't make them stuff. After all, you can have financial transactions about such abstract concepts as real estate, honor, or liability. IMHO, to call liability "stuff" pushes the boundaries of the word beyond any useful meaning.

It's not clear on what basis a traditional ink-and-paper book is priced. Can't be entirely the bits; some publishers make good money selling books they also make freely available online. I would suggest that books, like music CDs, mainly represent a payment for services: I am willing to give the store owner $7 for a paperback in return for such considerations as providing me with a convenient venue for access, a convenient carrier for the bits, a reasonable assurance of some minimum quality control and evaluation (e.g. none of the pages are missing, the language is reasonably-edited, etc.), a convenient way to donate some money to the author, and other such services. Change any of these factors substantially, and the book price I will tolerate changes too. Change the actual content, the bits, and my price tolerance is unlikely to change: when I buy the book, I typically haven't even accessed most of the bits yet.

Data has a very different set of properties than the physical systems used to store and transfer it. This difference represents an opportunity and a challenge. The legal and political world would like to simplify their lives by ignoring the difference: I am not happy about this. I want different rules and different laws for bits and stuff.

Re:Books and stuff

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Data has a very different set of properties than the physical systems used to store and transfer it.

Data has one very important property that it shares with physical systems and all other things: scarcity. If you don't have it, then you're going to have to barter with somebody to get it. Legally, the only person who can give it to you is the owner, and the owner gets to name the terms of the deal.

The only thing that matters here is scarcity. Because all economic objects share the property of scarcity, they are and should continue to be treated the same way. Whether you are "happy about this" or not.

Re:Books and stuff

[po8]

Data has one very important property that it shares with physical systems and all other things: scarcity.

Surely scarcity is not an inherent property of bits? After all, bits are infinitely replicable at zero cost!

Legally you can't get bits from just anywhere. This is what economists call an "artificial scarcity". There is no physical or information-theoretic law that keeps bits scarce. Instead, bits are scarce (in the Western world) because people with guns enforce that scarcity. The people with guns "should" go away. This would make me and (to judge by the number of people that are willing to risk the wrath of people with guns to work around the artificial scarcity) many of those I share the planet with happier.

Re:Books and stuff

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Surely scarcity is not an inherent property of bits? After all, bits are infinitely replicable at zero cost!

"Dear Microsoft, because bits are infinitely replicable at zero cost, please send my copy of Microsoft Office, free of charge, to this address. Sincerely, po8."

Let me know how that works out. ;-)

Instead, bits are scarce (in the Western world) because people with guns enforce that scarcity. The people with guns "should" go away.

Yeah, I'm sure that's gonna go over real well with Microsoft, too. If you should happen to develop any interest in participating in the real world at any point in the future, do let us know, okay?

Neat!

[hemanman]

If it was me who were in charge of Apple, I'd do exactly the same. Apple dosen't need a lawsuit for being a Napster/Kazaa/(Insert your favorite pirate p2p system here) clone.

And I thank them for doing this, because else we would end up with a settlement that could mean the end of iTunes.

So, Apple recieves my tumbs up for this action. :-)

-H

OK, we're done here

[po8]

"Dear openoffice.org, because bits are infinitely replicable at zero cost, please send my copy of Open Office, free of charge, to this IP address. Sincerely, po8." Worked for me! Might want to try it yourself some time...it's pretty cool. Very "real world", in a manner of speaking. I wish you happiness, my friend, but I'm afraid I have real-world responsibilities and can't play on this thread any longer. Take care!

Re:OK, we're done here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So because vendor A is willing to give their product away for free, similar products from other vendors are not subject to scarcity? That's quite a leap.

Software is a commodity like any other: if someone else has it and you don't, you have to conduct a transaction to get it. Some vendors will be willing to give you their wares for free, but that doesn't change the facts that (1) most won't, and (2) the basic rules of economic scarcity still apply.

Besides, with Open Office, you definitely get what you pay for. ;-)

Re:OK, we're done here

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, with Open Office, you definitely get what you pay for. ;-)

yes a very good free offic app... then agan i would love to pay 400 for the same thing... o wait i forget that you have to it shif f7 in word and ctrl f7 in open office to get to the thesaurus... now you will say that ms offic comes with other things that cost money like fonts. to that i said buy staroffice $80 or ms office 400 wow this is a hard one

Re:OK, we're done here

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I think I speak for all of us here when I say... huh?

Re:The Problems of the Apple License

[Anonymous Coward]

As a software Engineer I say screw GNU. We are cutting our own graves by making all these software for free, like what happened to the Musicians with MP3s. Only the greedy harware manufactures who want free software to sell theiir hardware profits from all this, while the poor software engineer goes hungry. You work, expect to get paid for it.

Re:NEWS FLASH ABOUT APPLE USERS

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the GNU community, which is 100% gay

Re:eat my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you take time to answer that? arent you supposed to be sucking on Gates dick? Get back to work you asshole.

Know on what rug you stand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Young programmers are lazy. They think they invented 3D graphics, because they know how to call into OpenGL.

Get with the program people! Apple didn't "kill" iCommune, they just said, "we don't like what you're doing, so we're not going to let you freeload on our popular music app."

iCommune inherited all its functionality from other pieces of software -- and last time I checked, iTunes wasn't a "music operating system."

You could easily create a similar piece of software that reads the .xml version of your iTunes music library without ever touching Apple's iTunes APIs.

This is a non-story. How many people were even using this thing?

Tough Crowd

[asscroft]

damn, you guys ripped me. I had it coming. /. keeps you honest.

LIVE FREE OR DIE !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the old saying of unix
and it is TRUE TODAY !
APPLE you are DISAPPOINTING ME and all my money
is in YOUR STOCK.
LIVE FREE OR DIE
because one day you will hear someone say,
"Mac OS ? What, where did apple go ?"
And the computer says: "Apple, all your base are belong to us !"
"bye bye"

Illusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody having any illusions that Steve Jobs is less of a fascist than Bill Gates - is having illusions.

not a huge deal

[thedbp]

apple's rendezvous implementation will be tons better and is probably around the corner as it was demoed over 6 months ago. everyone knew apple was working on this, the iCommune people just got tired of waiting, like a lot of us did. The iCommune setup was a b*tch as it didn't use rendezvous, but provided somewhat similar functionality, a functionality that many users have been craving.

Personally, iCommune in a very real way could DETRACT from the iTunes experience for a person that didn't understand how it worked or what it did or that it was an EXTENSION to iTunes as opposed to a part of iTunes itself. So Apple really is justified in getting them to pull it, especially if it is detailed in the dev docs that only HARDWARE plugs be made.

And anyone who has wanted this functionality will still be able to find iCommune on P2P anyway until Apple releases theirs.

Seems kinda stupid...

[Jeedo]

...that although trying to kill off iCommune Apple is still hosting it:

This just made my day

An Apple Split ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple is so against iCommune being distributed, then one must ask why they are mirroring it on their website? Heh.

FYI: It was removed.

[peperone]

It was available until some hours ago but you get a 404 Error now.

Beta 2 mirrors

[nickshanks]

Beta 2 mirrors can be found if you look hard enough ;)

iCommune download now available...from APPLE :O

[sapporoitchy]

They're hosting it here for the time being. Get it while the irony lasts.

I can confirm that

[Jeedo]

File Not Found

The requested URL /Mirrors/Info-Mac.Archive/rec/icommune-10b1.hqx was not found on this server.

I wonder, might it have something to do with the fact thatApple reads Slashdot

Proof that Apple is Evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the first time Apple has squashed something they disagreed with.

They threw their weight around here, too

(see the bottom of the page...)

Off-Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see /. run a TV show called "Off-Topic". Every week there'd be a discussion topic, but all panelists would immediately start talking about anything else.

Almost all contributors to /. would qualify.