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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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 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

[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

[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?

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?

[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: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?

[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

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...

[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...

[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.

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...

[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"

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.

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

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

[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.

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]

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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...

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

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.

Stupid Computers.

[CleverNickName]

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

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:What?

[pudge]

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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"

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!

[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?

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: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Solution

[m0rph3us0]

iCommune solution.
wget http://www.xmms.org/xmmstarball.tar.gz
tar zvxf xmmstarball.tar.gz ./configure
make
make test
make install

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.

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).

Rendezvous sharing without iTunes

[thomasdeniau]

Hey, Whamb can share songs using Rendezvous and they've not been brought down by Apple yet ;)

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...

"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?

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.

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.

Seems kinda stupid...

[Jeedo]

...that although trying to kill off iCommune Apple is still hosting it:

This just made my day

FYI: It was removed.

[peperone]

It was available until some hours ago but you get a 404 Error now.