Mac P2P Music Sharing with iTunes is Online

kraksmoka writes "Spymac.com has already found a way to take the new features of iTunes 4 to new heights. Today they opened up a new section on their site entitled Spymac Music, which is a database of shared iTunes libraries. Anyone who wants can submit their music library to be shared. Currently it sports a search engine capable of searching title, album and artist. " I wonder how long this will last.

Comments

Apple promoting piracy?

[Freston Youseff]

This blows my mind. Surely it was intended for people to submit their own personally composed music library.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Textbook Error]

The shared file feature only works for INTRANET LAN's using Rendezvous.

Not quite - the discovery of servers on the local net is done with Rendezvous, but you can "share" (i.e., stream) music between any two IP addresses (if you're behind a firewall, you need to open port 3689).

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[pldms]

The shared file feature only works for INTRANET LAN's using Rendezvous.

Rendezvous is only for discovery - it essentially tells everyone on the local network "there's a service X running on this machine" (in this case DAAP). That doesn't stop others connecting, they just don't get the convienient discovery.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[squiggleslash]

While I'm not entirely sure this counts as "fair use" (the mass-redistribution of music to anonymous strangers is certainly not fair use as far as I can see), I doubt anyone involved in the production of music - be they the artists or the producers who stump up the cash to get it recorded - are going to lose any sleep over this.

What's being made use of here is a streaming technology built into iTunes. That means that when you "share" your playlist in this way, the receiver can only listen to the music you provide, while you're online. This isn't about grabbing an MP3, saving it on your hard disk, and then redistributing it even further.

Very few of the people on SpyMac's list are going to be able to stream more than one or two MP3s/AACs at a time - most of these people have DSL or cable modems.

So the feature is still limited, and while I'm not going to guarantee the record labels will demand a stop be put to it - they've done some bloody stupid things in the past - I suspect it'll end up being a net gain as it'll let people properly try music out before they buy, but in a way that nobody in their right mind would prefer to use instead of buying.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[squarefish]

well, you can load the other music directory to your ipod, then use a program like Podworks to put the music back into your private itunes library- a function that you cannot do with the stock ipod and itunes. This makes it very easy to steal music, still not one step, but it's not bad either!

and the software is only $8

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this EXACTLY what that bloke who got done for "creating the next napster" with his iTune workalike?

Y'know, the one who Apple got to pull his work because they said "he didn't have a valid license to buily his own app on our work"?

Fech!

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[margaret]

What's being made use of here is a streaming technology built into iTunes. That means that when you "share" your playlist in this way, the receiver can only listen to the music you provide, while you're online. This isn't about grabbing an MP3, saving it on your hard disk, and then redistributing it even further.

So the feature is still limited, and while I'm not going to guarantee the record labels will demand a stop be put to it - they've done some bloody stupid things in the past - I suspect it'll end up being a net gain as it'll let people properly try music out before they buy, but in a way that nobody in their right mind would prefer to use instead of buying.

The same thing could be said for internet radio, and that didn't go over too well with the RIAA either.

This technology is like a cross between internet radio and P2P file sharing, both of which the RIAA hates. And now that they've sucessfully lobbied for CARP royalties on webcasts, they're not going to like this P2P streaming system, which in effect lets people webcast music while bypassing the royalty payments.

The RIAA did all they could to kill independent internet radio. I don't see how they'd react any differently to this, especially when iTunes for Windows is released and the number of potential users dramatically increases.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Blic]

How is this any different than Winamp Shoutcast that has been around for years? If you go to shoutcast.com they have a listing of 4,000 streams you can listen to. Has the RIAA tried to bust them? Here's the legal bit they have up there if you're curious... http://www.shoutcast.com/download/broadcast.phtml# copyright

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't. When you connect to somebody else's music library, the only thing you can do is stream it. If you want to steal a copy for yourself, you'll have to hold up a microphone to the speaker, or use some other equally clumsy trick.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. This isn't even remotely the same thing.

That guy let you view somebody else's iTunes library and then COPY the files out of it using webdav. This feature lets you view somebody else's iTunes library and then STREAM the music out of it. The first case involves making illegal copies of music files, which is prohibited. The second case does not involve making illegal copies, so it's allowed.

Very different.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few of the people on SpyMac's list are going to be able to stream more than one or two MP3s/AACs at a time - most of these people have DSL or cable modems.

None of them are going to be able to serve more than five streams at one time. iTunes will only accept five connections at once.

So this is actually a very small-scale thing, not "mass-redistribution of music to anonymous strangers" at all.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[squarefish]

really? then why does the new itunes with the new ipod give me this option then? it will replace the library on my ipod, and the ipods are designed to not allow you to take music from them to a mac (the share is designed to only work one way), but this will work with podworks.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[squiggleslash]

Internet Radio didn't go down well with the RIAA because it was mass broadcast (or at least, would eventually have been so) without royalties going to the publishers and artists. Normal radio stations were screwed with the model. Ironically, they lost out with the eventual settlement that pretty much made it too expensive for both traditional broadcasters and net broadcasters to go onto the Internet.

In this case, the "shared streaming playlist" thing strikes me as being less of a threat. No one iTunes user is going to be able to service more than a handful (sorry, hand+one finger full) of users, so as a threat to any existing model it fails.

It's worth pointing out that the DRM scheme used by iTunes was agreed upon between Apple and the music industry. It's fair to suggest they probably have already deemed it "not enough of a threat to care about". But I guess time will tell.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

then why does the new itunes with the new ipod give me this option then?

It doesn't.

it will replace the library on my ipod

It won't.

See, the thing is, when you connect to somebody else's iTunes, you don't get access to their music files at all. You only get to stream the files for playback. That's all. You can't copy them to your iPod. It simply doesn't work that way.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[VoyagerRadio]

I with you. The RIAA will most likely come after this, for no other reason than they don't want anyone to be able to listen to music thoroughly prior to purchase. Perhaps their fearless leader's retirement later this year will slow them down some, though.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Alsee]

the mass-redistribution of music to anonymous strangers is certainly not fair use as far as I can see

Oh my god! All radio stations are nothing but PIRATES! OMG OMG! And so is MTV!!!!

-

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[squiggleslash]

Are you an idiot?

Radio stations and MTV are not claiming "fair use" when they engage in mass redistribution. They're claiming "we have permission".

As they do. They're licenced to redistribute. They pay royalties.

Re:Apple promoting piracy?

[Alsee]

Ok, I was being a bit flip there.

I just find it outrageous that the RIAA is pushing for - and getting - all sorts of outrageous restrictions and fees anytime the word "internet", "computer", or "digital" appears. For example they got crushing performance royalties for internet radio (on top of ASCAP and/or BMI and/or SESAC fee) whereas terrestrial radio has ZERO performance royalty.

As for "streaming", terrestrial radio is streaming and I can tape anything I like.

-

they are asking for it

[Jrod5000 at RPI]

we all know about the lawsuits slapped on the college kids concerning LAN search engines. at first i figured the RIAA will surely sue Apple. Now i'm not so sure. Anyone familiar with the size of Apple's legal department?

Re:they are asking for it

[wfmcwalter]

Corporations generally don't use their own legal departments to engage in litigation. The corporate legal folks are used for contracts, NDAs, employment law, intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyright), government relations, and compliance (SEC, FTC, EPA, etc.).

Either to engage in, or to defend, litigation a large corporation would generally engage a law firm specialising in litigation, and probably one specialising in the particular type of litigation - employment, competition, IP, environmental, etc.

So the question should be "how big is apple's legal budget?".

Re:they are asking for it

[amanpatelhotmail.com]

I'm sure that RIAA is aware of iTunes' capabilities. I'm also sure that Apple has negotiated deals with the RIAA such that they would circumvent such lawsuits.

Re:they are asking for it

[blibbler]

It is unlikely that a court case against apple over this would be successful. One of the reasons why the case against Napster was successful was it was clear that Napster was designed, from the start, to encourage copyright enfringement. There are plenty of legitimate uses for iTune's streaming capability... Also it is an unintentional side effect thta people are able to stream/download from all over the internet.

Not to mention that if it became an issue, Apple could just disable the sharing feature in future versions and avoid a negative decision.

Blibbler

Re:they are asking for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Understand that, if/when Apple wants this stopped it will stop. And, it's not always about coercion. Though "Apple Legal Rules" is a phrase often repeated, anyone familiar with rumor sites has also seem 'Removed at Apple's request'.
If the recording industry is smart about this instance of sharing, they will sit & watch for a bit. They might learn something about human behavior.
And changing human behavior is one of many art forms with which Apple has great, often unrecognized, expertise!

Re:they are asking for it

[jandrese]

That didn't save the site where you had to own the CD to get the songs, why do you think it will work for Apple?

Re:they are asking for it

[cappadocius]

at first i figured the RIAA will surely sue Apple.

Yeah, that would be a good bussiness move. Attempt to stop piracy by sueing the only company that's made a successful go at legal music distribution on the net.

Come to think of it, this is the RIAA, so you're probably right.

£;-)

Re:they are asking for it

[zuhl]

My wife is an attorney and her firm does all sorts of litigation work for really, really huge corporations, either as local counsel or as litigation specialists, so you are quite correct about General Counsels in large corps.

And to answer your question about Apple's legal budget, I'd say it is pretty large. Remember the Apple ][ days and the "Franklin"? Or more recently, shutting down Aqua look alike desktop themes.

My company does adecent amount of graphic design work for large entertainment companies and it seems like EVERYTHING has to go through the legal department to be "blessed" as OK or trademarkable or safe for human consumption or whatever. So I'd have a hard time believing that someone within the dens of Apple rabid legal team didn't go over iTunes' capabilities and say, "OK, we're clear. We won't get our clocks cleaned on this one."

Re:they are asking for it

[blibbler]

What are they going to do? If they go after apple now, will they go after microsoft next, because you can use IIS to serve mp3s? Are they going to go after Cisco for doing network stuff... because people can exchange mp3s on networks?

The iTunes streaming feature is not designed for piracy. at most they would make apple disable the streaming capabilities of the latest iTunes. I doubt that they would get an award of damages (could they prove that they sustained any damages from iTunes streaming?)

Blibbler

As it was intended...

[kaamos]

... This is simpely an extension of what was provided by apple : You can have ANYONE with iTunes 4 stream your music over if you wish to, they only made an online DB with it... Guess it's time I finally afforded a mac...

Re:As it was intended...

[Oculus Habent]

Exactly. It's all streamed. There is copying or transferring. And realistically, there are physical limits on the ability of any one person to stream - bandwidth probably being the biggest.

It's a chance to see what other people like, and maybe find something new to you.

Re:As it was intended...

[Anonymous Coward]

And realistically, there are physical limits on the ability of any one person to stream - bandwidth probably being the biggest.

Actually the biggest limitation is iTunes hardcoded limit of 5 streams at a time (ie, only 5 friends can listen at any given point.)

Re:As it was intended...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also logical limits. iTunes will only accept 5 connections at any one time. So no matter if you're on an OC-192, you're still only gonna serve up five streams at once.

A couple of days ago I connected to somebody's music library and listened to the soundtrack to Koyaaqatsi by Philip Glass. I decided I liked it, so I clicked over to the Music Store and bought a few of the tracks for a dollar each.

THAT's the way this is gonna work.

It's streaming

[ericdano]

It's not sharing, it's streaming from what I understand. I'm wondering if people who have it active will have to pay royalities to artists since it might be considered "broadcasting".

Re:It's streaming

[spoonist]

Yeah, and how hard is it to capture the stream and write it to disk?

(BTW, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is: "Not hard at all.".)

In my book, "saving a stream" ~ "sharing".

Re:It's streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

(BTW, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is: "Not hard at all.".)

Sorry for answering your rhetorical question, but I would argue the answer is "harder than it is worth." iTunes doesn't let you grab the stream at all, so you'd have to capture it via AudioHijack. After dumping the section you want you'd have to load it up in Audacity or Spark ME to edit the wave down just the songs you want. Then you'd have to encode the songs as mp3s and manually edit the ID3 tags. Or you could just go the the Apple Music Store, spend $0.99, and have the song right away.

Re:It's streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

If you borrow a CD from somebody and rip it, you get the basic metadata filled in for you from CDDB. You might have to edit that metadata; CDDB is notorious for having really bad disc info in it. And you'll have to fill in things like the album cover art and whatnot yourself.

So you can borrow a CD--a perfectly legal activity--and make an illegal copy of it with only a tiny amount of inconvenience.

If you use one of those "capture a stream to disk" programs, you don't even get separate tracks. You have to record the whole stream and then manually split it up into tracks, and then fill in ALL the metadata yourself.

So, in other words, it is LESS convenient and easy to pirate music through iTunes music sharing than it is to simply find a friend with the CD you want and rip it on your computer.

That's all anybody cares about. It should be NO MORE convenient or easy to steal music with all this new whiz-bang mumbo-jumbo technology than it was before it came along. That's all Apple or anybody else wants.

Re:It's streaming

[noxon]

Let's see.. It's not really streaming it as such. Streaming would imply that there is no real file sent, only data. In iTunes' case, it actually downloads the file into memory when/before it plays it, cause: The sharing is over http. The sharingdata is coded with gzip. The password is simple encrypted data. All you need is to download the database (which the server actually gives you if you submit the right command, mind you), parse the database, make a frontend that can search through this and submit the command back to itunes. And there you have a working method of downloading mp3's. Which, by the way, many people already have managed, and made apps for. Just for this, I had to turn on password on my itunes and only give it to close friends.

Re:It's streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

"sharing"="sharing"
"saving a stream without the streamer's explicit permission"="stealing"

If I leave a bench on my front lawn for any one to use and someone walks off with it, that person is the criminal, not me.

Re:It's streaming

[NotAnotherReboot]

I'm assuming there's probably a fairly easy way to do it.

When mp3.com had their whole streaming system where you would "beam" your cd's to verify you owned them. They claimed the system could only be used to stream, but by simply identifying yourself as something like WinAmp, it would let you download the entire file. I'm talking at speeds of like 100KB/sec (much faster than streaming). You could literally download the MP3, unmodified.

Re:It's streaming

[domninus.DDR]

IANA gui programmer but I saw some c once that would watch internet explorer's status bar and print what was there to console if it changed, through some win32 stuff I dont know about. Does OSX not have a similar thing? ex: rewrite audio hijack to save a file each time the song field changed in iTunes?

Re:It's streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Streaming != stealing
Capturing a stream = stealing

If a shopowner puts out candy in his store, that's not stealing...the kids who would ake the candy without paying are stealing it. I'm not saying this idea is flawless or anything, but just streaming over the net is not thievery, it's those who would steal that become thieves.

Re:It's streaming

[jooniqzb1tch]

streamripper will let you record a shoutcast stream to your hard drive in mp3 format, and it does cut and rename the files automatically when the stream's info change. It worked great the last time I tried it (been a while tho).

Awesome!

[wazzzup]

Let's give record companies reason not to go with Apple-style DRM and come running into the arms of Microsoft-style DRM.

I hope Apple patches this hole quick before the kiddies ruin it for music-loving adults. You know, I kinda like being able to burn a protected song to a CD whenever and however many times I want as well as uploading it to my iPod.

Re:Awesome!

[dfj225]

I hope Apple patches this hole...

Actually, this is not a hole in Apple's software. It is an advertised feature. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple, not the people using their software in a way it was designed to be used.

Re:Awesome!

[kolombangara]

Yeah, and I wished script kiddies ran the government because all adults do is horde everything and kill and maim: civilians and freindly's. Go adults!

PS Thanks for your inheritance. The fallout is devine.

Re:Awesome!

[feldsteins]

I'd personally like to backhand the geniuses behind at spymac for doing this. Jesus, don't they see that this is the first good thing that's happened to the music industry in ages? This - the humble iTunes Music Store - is the wedge in the door of getting the RIAA to actually do business with us online in a way that doesn't ....suck! This is what we've been asking for!

We should be building on this model, making it better rather than undermining it. What they are doing is going to give the RIAA the jitters and make them think twice about letting Apple and others expand the model. What spymac is doing is irrefuckingsponsible.

Re:Awesome!

[geddes]

Let's give record companies reason not to go with Apple-style DRM and come running into the arms of Microsoft-style DRM.

That's so true. This SpyMac thing really pissed me off cause it totally justifies the "treat the user as a criminal" approach that Apple is condeming.

It's just so lame - as other posts have mentioned, it's ineffective because it's streaming, so no one is gaining anything, but it is generating a ton of badwill for the "DRM light" approach that Apple is taking among the execs. It just proves that customers can't be trusted, which is incredibly sad.

Re:Awesome!

[phalse phace]

"If you want to blame someone, blame Apple, not the people using their software in a way it was designed to be used."

Actually, the software was *not* designed to be used to publicly stream music. It *was* designed, however, to allow users to access *their* "personal music library from any room in your house or over the internet from work to home."

So if anyone's to be blamed, blame those who are mis-using this feature. Apple's just distributing and supporting "software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends" .

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Upgrade.

Re:Awesome!

[GlassHeart]

Actually, this is not a hole in Apple's software. It is an advertised feature. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple, not the people using their software in a way it was designed to be used.

Nonsense. Apple provides the technology that can fall under "fair use" or "copyright infringement", the same way that the use of a gun can fall under "sport", "self defense", or "murder". Apple's software is designed to transport music; guns are designed to move projectiles at high speed. Using a product as designed doesn't excuse you from the penalties of law.

Re:Awesome!

[dfj225]

If Apple was really concerned about how this was used, they would have limited the maximum streams to 1 instead of 5 as I believe it is now.

Re:Awesome!

[dfj225]

If Apple was really concerned about how this was used they could have simply limited this to one stream and employed some kind of simple password needed to access the music. Besides, writing on their website that it is to be used personally, does not mean that the actual software team designing it thought the same.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're limited to five streams, and the password is optional. The feature can also be turned off and on; by default it's off.

How long?

[Quixote]

I wonder how long this will last

Oh, I'd hazard a guess and say not as long as this did?

I don't see how they can close it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...The server just says, "Hey, this guy posted his music library index online - take a look. By the way, his IP address is X.Y.Z", When I tried to test it out, his address was not responding. No different than Google if you ask me. But the users might start getting sued.

Re:I don't see how they can close it...

[Lysol]

Right, this will be seen as the same as the college kidz that got slapped with the recent lawsuit by the RIAA for developing a local search engine on their campus. all this did was index files and provide links to material. It did not store the files, but this did not stop the RIAA from going after them. The SpyMac server, and others, basically do the same thing.

It's safe to say that if you do anything similar to this and it's public, then your gonna get served by the RIAA at some point; which is their whole goal.

Why this won't live longin the public as is

[Lysol]

There were already some posts about this here a few days back.

I did try some other sites listed in those posts and I have to say that this is balancing on the dangerous zone. I could see the RIAA going after this specifically for that fact that there is little difference (if any), as far as they're concerned, with users 'broadcasting' stuff via iTunes vs. any other streamer.

I will not be suprised to see a few things happen:

1. all these public iTunes sharing sites will be shut down (or at least the biggest ones) via RIAA court orders
2. most of these public iTunes sites will simply turn off due to bandwidth limitations
3. Apple with either disable this feature in an update or publicly state that it is not meant for public sharing. Or some statement to that affect

That said, coupled with Rendezvous on a local lan, this is a pretty kick ass feature. :)

Re:Why this won't live longin the public as is

[Cantus]

Is anyone even aware that you can only stream to 5 (FIVE) people at the same time?

sahreitunes.com

[subrama6]

something else along these lines came out a few days ago

www.shareitunes.com

Not too long, I betcha

[arvindn]

I wonder how long this will last.

My guess: 10 minutes from the start of the slashdotting :)

READ!!! Read the site!

[cshotton]

This site is just a public registry for people who are using the STREAMING capability of iTunes to play music for others. This is nothing more than a "guestbook" app that lets you publish a URL for your Mac running iTunes 4.

This is not P2P file sharing, it's not piracy, and it has already been discussed to death in the media over the past 2 weeks.

Re:READ!!! Read the site!

[gl4ss]

so if i made a internet radio and streamed stuff to my friends i wouldnt need to worry about anything, and i could play any song i wanted without retribution? hmm... i wonder what the buzz about internet radios having to pay royalties was last fall/winter... must have been a bad dream.

or if i made a p2p program that called downloading 'streaming'(that it just HAPPENS to write to disc 'cache')..

sure if they were broadcasting their own stuff(or somethinge 'free' like machinae supremacy, a great band btw) it wouldnt really matter.. but how does it differ from an internet on demand music service _really_, because that's what it would be?

it would be ok if the itunes price included royalty for providing such access to the tune, but i doubt it doesn't?

Re:READ!!! Read the site!

[Textbook Error]

so if i made a internet radio and streamed stuff to my friends i wouldnt need to worry about anything, and i could play any song i wanted without retribution?

iTunes does limit the number of clients that can connect (to 5 I believe), so I imagine this has already been taken into consideration. I find it hard to imagine that streaming between two arbitrary IP addresses (rather than just the local subnet) would get into a product as significant as iTunes now is for Apple if they weren't 100% sure that the record industry was OK with it.

I suspect the client limit was specifically to turn this from a "internet radio" situation into "play your CDs to a couple of your friends, just as if they'd come over to your house".

It took about 5 minutes after iTunes was released to people start sharing stuff across the net, and about 10 minutes before people were writing apps/php scripts to list active servers, so this has to have been cleared beforehand.

Re:READ!!! Read the site!

[tbmaddux]

This is not P2P file sharing, it's not piracy...

Let's assume that you're right and that publishing your iTunes library to stream files to five people you may not know at all is still "for personal use" (which is debatable). Ok, so that's not piracy...

... but I'm pretty sure this is.

Re:READ!!! Read the site!

[Alsee]

if they weren't 100% sure that the record industry was OK with it.

Sigh. Doesn't it bother you that you just said that companies would/should only introduce audio related technology if they get the RIAA's approval? I don't need some farming association's approval before I introduce new technology for cooking food.

That is just so wrong.

-

Bad Karma

[Gryphon]

1. This is bad karma. I would share my iTunes music with my immediate circle of friends; this is just like them coming over to my place to listen to a new album. Posting my iTunes Library URL to something like Spymac Music is like leaving my CD collection outside my house, with a sign that says "Copy Me".

2. It probably won't work well anyway. Most cable and even some DSL links have upload speed caps of 20 to 30 kpbs. Even an MP3 encoded at 128 kbps will have trouble getting through that pipe quickly enough.

In short, I hope this Spymac Music "service" dies a quick death. Some may point out that not everybody will have copyrighted music in their iTunes Library, to which I would reply "Yeah. Some. Like 0.01% of the population."

In closing... maybe Spymac itself will die a quick death. Most Mac users recognize that it's rumor predictions are consistently way off base, the content is juvenile, and overall, it is just plain bad.

Re:Bad Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cable and even some DSL links have upload speed caps of 20 to 30 kpbs. Even an MP3 encoded at 128 kbps will have trouble getting through that pipe quickly enough.

Most cable and DSL links have an upload speed cap of 20 to 30 k Bytes per second (kBps), not k bits per second (kbps). A single MP3 encoded at 128 kbps should fit through the pipe just fine.

Re:Bad Karma

[Mike Schiraldi]

Posting my iTunes Library URL to something like Spymac Music is like leaving my CD collection outside my house, with a sign that says "Copy Me"

No it's not; it's like leaving your CD collection outside your house with a sign that says, "Listen to me."

You know, like libraries do with books. Like was generally accepted as the norm from the start of civilization until about 100 years ago.

Re:Bad Karma

[GlassHeart]

it's like leaving your CD collection outside your house with a sign that says, "Listen to me."

That's different. In the Real World, doing that will mean your CDs will be stolen, or perhaps damaged by users who are not careful. On the Internet, you can share without risk.

Point is, a publisher of a book or CD can count on the human nature to treasure one's own belongings to not do that. Publishers of on-line music cannot.

Re:Bad Karma

[Mike Schiraldi]

What does that have to do with legality or morality?

I hope Apple does fix things so that it's not easy to make copies of people's shared music. Then people would be able to share their music with the rest of the world when they're not using it, and it would be true sharing, since copies couldn't be made.

Yes, i know that people willing to make a serious effort will always be able to copy anything, regardless of protection, but you could say that about books in libraries. Just because it's possible for an expert with time on his hands to photocopy a book, it doesn't mean libraries are illegal, immoral, or should be shut down.

Re:Bad Karma

[Idarubicin]

That's different. In the Real World, doing that will mean your CDs will be stolen, or perhaps damaged by users who are not careful. On the Internet, you can share without risk.

My local library has been lending (for free) compact discs for years. Just like books. (For what it's worth I'm in Canada, which may or may not be considered part of the Real World.)

Re:Bad Karma

[GlassHeart]

What does that have to do with legality or morality?

Nothing. I'm pointing out that traditional publishers have "selfishness" (by that I mean the will to keep stuff you bought in good condition) to not just give it away freely. It works well enough for them to make money, even though in theory one book can be read by thousands of people.

Re:Bad Karma

[GlassHeart]

My local library has been lending (for free) compact discs for years. Just like books.

Libraries have different concerns than individuals. Their mission is to spread information. An individual who paid for something is less likely to just leave it outside to "share", if the item can easily be broken or stolen.

Even then, every library I've been to requires you to get a borrower's card, which they use to track which books are with which borrowers.

Re:Bad Karma

[Cantus]

[...]Most cable and even some DSL links have upload speed caps of 20 to 30 kpbs. Even an MP3 encoded at 128 kbps will have trouble getting through that pipe quickly enough.

That's wrong. An MP3 encoded at 128 kiloBITS/s will actually go through rather quickly on a 20-30 kiloBYTES/s pipe.

128 kiloBITS = 15.625 kiloBYTES

BYTES != BITS

Re:Bad Karma

[mlyle]

Cable upstream speeds can be really variable. I know someone on Cox cable and during the day he gets about 4-5 kilobytes per second up over TCP (this is probably about 35-45kbps of raw connectivity). At night he gets as much as 50-60kbytes up.

When I was on SBC/PacBell DSL 384k with a 128kbps upstream, I'd usually only see 10kbytes/sec up. This is nowhere near enough for a 128kbps+ MP3.

Re:Bad Karma

[Alsee]

Even then, every library I've been to requires you to get a borrower's card, which they use to track which books are with which borrowers.

When I loan stuff I usually just use my brain to track which stuff is lent to which borrowers, or sometimes I just trust people. If it will make you happy I can program up a "digital library card tracker" that can track tens of thousands of simultaneous music loans :)

Though I have to admit that if I loan someone a song I'd really preffer they didn't suck up my bandwith when they return it.

-

Re:Propaganda

[Pingular]

Yeah and I bet next you're going to try and say that eating something in a supermarket without paying for it is called 'stealing' next. Pathetic. :/

hmm

[tadheckaman]

"How long will it last"
you mean slashdotting, or RIAA?

Re:Propaganda

[Gropo]

Whether you think it's wrong or not, at least call it "music theft" which is what it is.

Being that the 'recipient' has no access to the actual media file itself, only playback thereof, this is not 'theft' - it's 'sharing'.

Re:Propaganda

[LordK2002]

Actually I believe the correct legal term is "copyright infringement". The use of the word "theft" is just propaganda from the record companies to make it sound more evil. There is no way that file sharing could be legally classed as "theft" under current law (in the UK, and presumably in the US as well) as it does not involve depriving anybody of material possessions.

If this kills iTunes, its a bad thing

[HighOrbit]

Apple had a hard time convincing the music companies to support iTunes in the first place. People doing things like this might cause the music companies to withdraw support from iTunes. Just when something was finally starting to go right with download music, some knothead wants to srcrew it up for everybody.

Re:If this kills iTunes, its a bad thing

[gnarled]

It is more than likely that it won't be any RIAA action that kills this feature, but rather Apple action, because this could be seen as a liability.

Re:If this kills iTunes, its a bad thing

[phillymjs]

If Apple does anything, they'll most likely just limit the library-sharing feature to local machines via Rendezvous.

Apple is on the right track, though-- any technical means to protect the music will simply be cracked, so the only alternative is to provide music of guaranteed sound quality (relative to some of the rather dodgy rips you find on KaZaa) for a decent price. If they make it more convenient for people to pay for the music than to steal it, people will pay for it. Well, 30% (as I write this) of them, anyway, according to the latest poll at CNN.com. The rest are just cheap, thieving fucks.

~Philly

Re:If this kills iTunes, its a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Look. Everybody celebrated that Apple had a million downloads in the first few days. That sounds like a lot, right?

Well, Apple's also advertising the heck out of the spiffy new iPod that holds 7500 songs. How many 30GB iPods will those 1 million songs fill? Do the math: 133.

We have technology now that would allow all of us to carry immense music libraries around on our hips, cheaply, but licensing the music at a buck a song puts this capability way out of reach of most people.

Apple is well aware that very few people are going to spend the thousands of dollars it would take to fill up their iPods from iTunes. They'll hit their budget limit and regretfully quit. What the music industry doesn't get is that if they lower the price, people will quit at that same limit...or possibly higher, since the value will be greater. The industry is seriously underestimating the elasticity of this market, and imo it's hurting their bottom line.

It should be a hand yanking out money from pockets

[The-Bus]

Heh... And here I thought the 'Business' icon was about 'Black Hats' hacking iMusic, I guess it's just a plain old derby hat. But who the fsck wears those anymore?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Give 'em an inch...

[caffeinex36]

They take a mile.

Now all the good press about Apple and music industry will go to shit.

Go back to KaZaa.....

Re:Propaganda

[pla]

Whether you think it's wrong or not, at least call it "music theft" which is what it is. If you're so convinced it's right then there's no need to sweep it under the rug as "sharing", "freedom", "fair use" or anything like that.

What word or words would you use to describe the act of obtaining a book from the library?

How about obtaining a CD or movie from the library (many libraries have extensive collections of CDs and movies, as well as books)? Does the fact that this revised situation involves music change your definition?

Now, how does leaving out the "library" part of the above picture, change the situation? Does sharing something become "theft" because individuals do it directly, rather than through a public-ish organization?

Although I partially agree with you, that people should call a spade a spade, not all music "sharing" counts as a euphemism for "stealing". As a better word, considering how most people I know use downloaded music, you might want to consider the phrase "free advertising".

And if "advertising" bothers you as yet another euphemism for "piracy", perhaps you can explain to me how Clearchannel differs from your typical pickpocket-on-the-street.

Re:Propaganda

[flyneye]

Nah,it's just another example to giggle at the follies of the MACies.Hey theres a reason that mouse only has one button.LOL

PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a way to listen to these streams on a PC, either in Linux or Windows?

Re:PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

Use SHOUTCast. It will put hair on your chest.

Nice, but not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ts a nice service. But I've done a quick search on a few band that I listen to that are reasonably well known to those that know the music (which is metal by the way). It gave me 1 song out of the 4 bands that I searched on. When will there be a service that will host what I want to listen to??

You can NOT copy the files

[Seth Morabito]

Repeat after me:

You can't copy this files. It's streaming. It's not sharing in the sense of sharing files, it's sharing in the sense of sharing music that can be listened to only while the person sharing is online.

You can NOT copy the files.

Got it? You're not sharing files, you're sharing a playlist of streamable music, that's it. Person turns off sharing or goes offline, you can't play them. You can't copy them to your local disk. You just can't.

You can NOT copy the files.

So please do a little research before you jump all over this as music piracy. It's not a bug, it's a feature that Apple has proudly advertised.

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of streamcatcher?

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[Anonymous Coward]

http://streamripper.sourceforge.net

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[Anonymous Coward]

audio hijack. pipes the output of itunes and writes it to MP3 in real time. will even adjust for network latency...

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[CausticWindow]

Why do you think it's any more difficult to save anything you stream to disk, than it is to write anything to a disk?

Streaming isn't some kind of magic ritual. It's only packets arriving on your computer, just in time for you to play them.

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[ocelotbob]

You can NOT copy the files.

Maybe no directly, but if you take one of dozens of programs that will capture an audio stream to file, it becomes trivial to copy files with it. Yes, you can't do it out of the box, but five minutes on google, and it's more than possible. Plus, I imagine that there's already someone hard at work reverse engineering the daap protocol, which will allow this to be used for sharing.

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[geoff2]

Well, with a product like Audio Hijack, it's trivially easy to capture the streamed audio and make your own file. /p>

As other posters have noted, it's clear that this feature was intended for people to share among their family and friends, not to let the whole world listen to (and, using something like Audio Hijack, copy) someone's iTunes library.

Why do people feel the need to do things like this anyway?

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[madgeorge]

True, but the analogy is like radio broadcasting to vinyl. I can record radio broadcasts and save them locally to listen to over and over. (I used to do that in high school, listening to my favorite Sunday night hip-hop shows all week.) But that's different than the radio station handing out prerecorded copies of each broadcast. And even that's much different than handing out prerecorded copies of each song in a broadcast.

Now I can see RIAA convincing some people that broadcasting fees will be owed, but anyway you look at it, sharing this ain't.

--madgeorge

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[Seth Morabito]

But it is magical! Because while you can easily get around it, iTunes is not automatically giving you permission to copy the files.

I stick by my statement, "you can not copy the files", but I'd better modify it because everyone's missing the point. "You can copy the data, but you can't use iTunes to easily copy the files to your disk without jumping through some third party hoops." There, happy?

You can use all sorts of hacks and workarounds and custom tools copy the stream and save it to your disk. But in all those cases you're working around the existing implementation.

If I don't have a deadbolt on my door, just a handle lock, am I giving you permission to enter my home without asking me? You can come in a window, or jimmy the lock, or slide down the chimney, it doesn't matter, you're still breaking the law. The point is, Apple is not giving you an easy way to copy the files. If you want to break the law, you have to go out of your way to do it.

Sheesh, nitpicky people.

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[cjsnell]

Actually, you don't even need to buy Audio Hijack. Good old netcat(1) (find it with Fink) can do the trick.

Chris

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[Myopic]

anything that can be streamed can be saved to a file, even if iTunes doesn't have explicit support for it. also, just because you can't save the file to disk doesn't mean it's not 'piracy' and doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[besson3c]

You're right that you can capture a stream, but you can capture *any other* legitimate steam (internet radio station) as well. The average person is not going to bother doing either. The whole iTunes system is about compromises, not about making some ultra secure unpenetrable tightly DRM locked system. The iTunes system is for the average person. The average person is NOT going to: - log in to a kiddy site like Spymac (or any other site keeping a database of iTunes IPs) - capture any sort of stream from somebody while they are online all while - hoping the person has the bandwidth to support a clean stream rip. On another topic, somebody asked why the radio stations were asked to pay royalities w. their streaming. Weren't they making money indirectly from their streaming?

Re:You can NOT copy the files

[0x0d0a]

Not exactly. Streaming might not provide support for retransmits, which makes lossless downloads of large files a bitch.

Re: Trollmania

[Anonymous Coward]

And that was a reason to giggle at the follies of the PCtards. Hey, there's a reason you can't seem to muster the ability to convey English at an 8th grade level...

Re:Propaganda

[snero3]

Yes Slashdot is pro-P2P. But this is not "music theft". itunes 4 is only capable of streaming, you can only

• listen to it streamed, you can't download it to your PC
• stream to 5 PCs (with online purchased music that is reduced to 3)
• once the streaming itunes 4 application is shut down thats it you, can't get it any more

this is no more music theft than you and a bunch of friends listening to one of your CD's

This is not illegal in the US

[class_A]

Remember, the files are streamed and not copied to the client. There is no way within iTunes to copy music from a shared library to your own machine.

iTunes Music Sharing is limited to five concurrent clients, whether using Rendezvous or IP. I believe that this means it is exempt from the RIAA webcasting restrictions.

Tools such as Audio Hijack will allow you to record the audio stream to an AIFF in real time, but this isn't Apple's problem. Audio Hijack has many other legitimate uses.

Do ./'ers not think that Apple would have thoroughly investigated this before allowing sharing over the wider internet? "I know, lets negotiate with Universal, BMG, RIAA et al and then when we've got everything sorted, we'll really piss them off with a sharing feature!"

Think before posting :-)

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[deanj]

Think before posting?

READ before posting. Others have already pointed out that the streams can be copied.

This is the same as software piracy...the people that do it justify it to themselves however they like, but it's STILL STEALING.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[class_A]

Yes, streams can be copied, but that involves real time recording which is not an iTunes feature. Of course recording streams is stealing, but recording streams is not Apple's problem. Nor is it an OS problem, as you could just as easily run SPDIF out to SPDIF in (or Line Out to Line In)

Recording a stream from a shared library, which forces you to browse for each song or use the server's playlists, is little different from going to the library, borrowing a CD and dubbing it to a cassette/MiniDisc.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[mithras the prophet]

It's much easier than that to copy songs from an iTunes library.

For obvious reasons I won't spell it out, but when you've done it right, a simple URL like http://your.mac.com:3689/somestuff/file.mp3 is all it takes. You just type it in your web browser and you've downloaded the file. Then you do it again, and again, and you've downloaded someone's entire music collection.

The fact is, Apple has built in a trivially easy-to-exploit mp3 downloading feature into their flagship music application. It was a stupid, stupid blunder.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Scudsucker]

Of course recording streams is stealing

actually that would be copyright infringment, not stealing.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The offense (and the crime, under the right circumstances) would be copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a special class of stealing, just like embezzlement and fraud are.

Copyright infringement is stealing.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Scudsucker]

No. Stealing is the act of removing something from your possesion and placing it in mine. If there is no transfer of possesion, there is no theft, period.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing is the act of removing something from your possesion and placing it in mine.

Where do you get that idea? I mean, seriously. Were you raised in a barn or something? Have you never heard of the phrase "theft of service?" You can steal lots of things, not just physical possessions. And all theft is wrong.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Scudsucker]

Where do you get that idea? I mean, seriously. Were you raised in a barn or something?

Did you have the same reaction when your elementary school teacher tried to explain that the world is round?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we have some 700,000 words in the English language to differentiate things that are totally different from eachother. Apples and oranges. Cars and trucks. Arson and murder. Theft and copyright infringment.

If you want a perfect example, look at the vandals looting from museums in Iraq. Once the vandal takes something from the museum - are you ready for this? - its not in the museum any more. He has it, the museum does not, therefore he has stolen it.

However, if said looter copied it, the origional item would still be in the museum. Now say there was an RIAA four thousand years ago and had copyrighted that item for all eternity. The worth of the origional has been degraded because there is a copy floating around - but the origional is still intact and still in the owners posession.

That is the key difference that you are either missing or ignoring. If there is no transfer of posession, there is no theft. Period. Deal with it. That's not to say its not legally or morally wrong, but arson and murder aren't the same things just because they are legally and morally wrong. Thats why we have terms like copyright, patent and trademark infringment: for things that aren't stolen but are copied without permission.

Have you never heard of the phrase "theft of service?"

Mostly irrelevant. Terms like "identity theft" are a misnomer, because until such time as you can erase a person's memory, its impossible to make a transfer of posession. We have perfectly good words that perfectly fit that sort of crime: fraud and forgery. But that doesn't sound as flashy as 'theft', so thats what the media uses, and what the RIAA is trying to use rather than 'copyright infringment'.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have the same reaction when your elementary school teacher tried to explain that the world is round?

Huh?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we have some 700,000 words in the English language to differentiate things that are totally different from eachother.

Actually, we have lots of words in the English language to describe things that are either precisely the same (woman and lady, cat and feline, toil and labor) or specific items in a larger class (coin and money, rain and precipitation, shoe and footwear, copyright infringement and theft).

That is the key difference that you are either missing or ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it, you fucktard. I'm telling you that IT DOES NOT MATTER. Theft by removal and theft by copying are merely two different kinds of theft: they result in a person's acquiring something that does not belong to them.

If there is no transfer of posession, there is no theft. Period. Deal with it.

That's how you think it should be in "Scudsucker's" little imaginary world. But that's not how it actually is. Neither legally nor ethically nor morally. Period. Deal with it.

Mostly irrelevant.

Cute. "Your perfectly reasonable example is difficult for me to deal with. I will dismiss it by calling it 'mostly irrelevant' and then proceed to demonstrate that a similar but distinctly different example is not compelling. Thus, I will win the argument without having to actually refute your point." Whatever, dude. Theft of service is a perfectly sensible description for things like hooking yourself up to cable TV without paying for it. Have you deprived anybody else of cable TV? No. You've deprived the cable TV company of the opportunity to sell you cable TV, though. Just like copyright infringement, which is (get this) also a form of theft.

We have perfectly good words that perfectly fit that sort of crime: fraud and forgery.

Right. We also have embezzlement and burglary and larceny and shoplifting. All perfectly good words to describe specific types of act of theft. Just like copyright infringement.

"Thou shalt not steal," dude.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Scudsucker]

You are funny. In the same sad, pathetic way as someone who insists that apples and oranges must be the exact same thing because they have a few things in common.

To drill this into your small little mind, why don't you give me your home address. Next week I'll break into your house with a laptop and rip your entire cd collection to mp3, leaving your cd's there. Your collection is still there in its entriety, complete and umdamaged. You haven't LOST anything so there has been no theft. Trespassing yes, copyright infringment maybe, theft no.

The week after that I'll break into your house again, this time taking all your cds with me. At that point you'd see that the difference between having your orgional item and not having it is a pretty fucking big one. Now do you see the difference, or is your head still lodged too far up your ass?

You are free to take words and do whatever you want with them, like those tv execs who claim that skipping ads is 'stealing', but to communicate with the rest of the world you should make like Billy Madison and go back to kindergarden to learn what theft really is:

1. \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
2. taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
   
   Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
   
   2. The thing stolen. [R.]
   
   If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.

Bwhaahahah! You got ownzored AC! Now go back to gobbling some nice fat cock and spare us from your stupidity.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

You are funny.

Fuck you. You're a fucking idiot, in the same sad, pathetic way as a person who continues to insist that X is Y even when he's been proven wrong time and again.

You haven't LOST anything so there has been no theft.

Of course *I* haven't lost anything, you fucking moron. *I* didn't own what you copied. I owned only the CD's themselves, not the data on them.

The people who owned the data on the CD's, on the other hand, will have lost a bundle. They will have lost their exclusivity. They will have lost the opportunity to sell you your own copies of the CD's. They will have lost the scarcity that supports the entertainment economy.

Jesus. You are SO fucking stupid it makes my head hurt.

go back to kindergarden to learn what theft really is:

How many dictionaries did you look through before you found one with a sufficiently narrow definition to suit your purposes? You have to read ALL the definitions, dickhead. Try this one on for size:

theft: the act of stealing

steal: to take (the property of another) without right or permission

Both from dictionary.com (through Sherlock), both are the first (and therefore most common, at least by the editor's opinion) definition given.

Bwhaahahah! You got ownzored AC!

Wow. You really got me that time.

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Scudsucker]

They will have lost their exclusivity. They will have lost the opportunity to sell you your own copies of the CD's. They will have lost the scarcity that supports the entertainment economy.

Thats all theoretical. Theft is concrete. If I download an album off the net rather than buying it, there is no guarantee I would have bought it at any point in the future. Whereas with theft, I either stole a car from the auto dealership or I didn't. There's no "maybe" about it.

Jesus. You are SO fucking stupid it makes my head hurt.

Hey its nobody's fault but you're own that you continue to insist that 1 + 1 = 3 despite any and all reason, logic and evidence that proves you are completely wrong.

How many dictionaries did you look through before you found one with a sufficiently narrow definition to suit your purposes?

About 3 seconds. Hmm, www.dictionary.com, pretty obscure reference. Having it show what a stubborn dumbass you are was just a bonus.

Try this one on for size:

I did read all the definitions, including the one's you posted, and they further backed up my point that there is no theft without transfer of posession. Theft is the act of taking, but with copying, you are just....drum roll....copying!

You ought to take tours to anti abortion groups, definitively proving that some fetusus should never have been carried to term. Have a nice day!

Re:This is not illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft is concrete.

Since when? Theft is taking without permission. It doesn't matter if the thing that's being taken can be touched or not.

If I download an album off the net rather than buying it, there is no guarantee I would have bought it at any point in the future.

True. Which is why we have to talk about loss of exclusivity and opportunity rather than revenue.

Hey its nobody's fault but you're own that you continue to insist that 1 + 1 = 3 despite any and all reason, logic and evidence that proves you are completely wrong.

Go back and read that sentence again. It applies to YOU, dude.

Theft is the act of taking, but with copying, you are just....drum roll....copying!

Oh, boy. Now we've got a dude who doesn't know what "taking" is. Christ, are you fucking stupid or fucking stubborn?

take: to get into one's possession

Oh, boy.

You ought to take tours to anti abortion groups, definitively proving that some fetusus should never have been carried to term.

Okay, NOW I'm lost. What the fuck are you talking about.

Wait a minute... aw, shit. Now I understand everything. It's all clear to me now.

I have been trolled.

Shit. Oh, well. That should teach me. Congratulations. You got me.

Security Issues not Withstanding

[Bruha]

That service gives up all those's peoples public ip addresses. Wonder how many of them know that.

Re:Security Issues not Withstanding

[Phroggy]

That service gives up all those's peoples public ip addresses. Wonder how many of them know that.

Um, yeah, they all know, and none of them care, because they're all running Mac OS X, which is secure by default (all services turned off) and comes with a nice easy-to-configure firewall (a GUI front end for ipfw). Who cares if you've got their IP addresses? What are you gonna do to them, besides slashdot their bandwidth with iTunes?

Kiddies...

[theGreater]

Yup. Only kids would be so irresponsible as to share music. All adults are obviously MUCH more inherently responsible, and none of them would EVER stoop so low as to share any kind of files. Now honestly, doesn't that seem just a BIT ridiculous?

Lack of chronology does NOT map directly to lack of maturity in all cases. Just because you managed not to die yet does NOT automatically make you inherently better or wiser than say, me.

/soapbox

-theGreater Age Bigot.

PS: Don't trust anyone over 30! :P

Love shared iTunes, but can't buy at the Store!

[Wanderer1]

This is great, I find an artist on a buddy's shared playlist, but I flip over to the iTunes Store, and that artist isn't in their selection. Foiled! Guess I'll have to fire up Kazaa.

I think this streaming thing is pretty good for music proliferation, but it would help if Herr Jobs would kick up the Store's encoding crew a notch or two. Many of the artists I'm interested in aren't there, but the feedback function gets used frequently.

Also note that it has been said the streaming feature has a maximum of 5 connections. I don't think this was an overlooked loophole in the DRM plan.

OH YES YOU CAN!!!

[jzaw]

as long as the iTunes share is not passworded
then yes you can dl the mp3's directly from iTunes
its basic but works ok and creates fully tagged mp3s
queue up files

google for "itunesdl" or "itdlgui"

anyone who thinks that you cant ALREADY do this with iTunes ... didnt do their home work

for testing purposes only ... ive done this from canada to the uk ... it defo works!

[wink][tongue]

Re:OH YES YOU CAN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do these apps exist, there are web sites like SpyMac's that go the final step and let you download (*not* simply listen, or stream, but DOWNLOAD) the actual MP3 file. Not in realtime, either. At whatever speed the server and your ISP can handle!

So to all those who are waxing poetic about how this is "just streaming," wake up and smell what's cooking. You are NOT aware of how quickly this has evolved and you are already out of the loop. I just hope it stays that way, so those IN the loop and enjoy for as long as possible. Once you dopes get wind of it, the party's over for sure.

Re:OH YES YOU CAN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there's another version of iTunesDL that has a field for password...also added album title too.. Keep looking, you'll find it.

Anyone actually read the iTunes license?

[bbum]

I read the license and did some research. I am not a lawyer.

However, it appears that the library sharing feature is legal. And there is precedent -- Microsoft's ThreeDegrees has a similar feature.

iTunes streaming does not appear to fall under the "webcasting" laws/tariffs as the potential audience is limited, it is not live, and the client has the full ability to browse the contents of the server.

Re:Anyone actually read the iTunes license?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is somewhat offtopic, but as long we we're saying that what iTunes is doing is Ok, what are the strictly defined limits? That is, when does my computer become a honest-to-god, fully regulated, web "radio" station and require a license, etc? In all the posts I've read, I still haven't seen any that spell out what is actually allowed before something becomes subject to webcasting regulations.

If I record something and want to stream it to the world, or want to broadcast audio live, how many other computers can connect simultaneously before it becomes regulated?

Also, where else can I find good information on this topic? I don't currently have any plans to webcast my neighbor's guitar solos, or cousin's birthday parties, but if I ever do want to do these sorts of things I'd like to not find myself on the wrong side of the law, or on my way out the door some morning bump in to a sounder of RIAA lawyers there to collect a hefty check...

Somebody MOD UP

[thatguywhoiam]

Parent is totally correct. iTunes limits # of streams to something like 5-6 people. It's just a tiny chunk of QuickTime Broadcaster running in there.

So to summarize: nothing illegal, no hole to patch, no piracy, nothing to see here. Apple knows what they are doing.

Re:Somebody MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes limits the number of streams to 3 people.

Re:Somebody MOD UP

[zsmooth]

Most people are limited to just a couple streams by their upload cap anyway.

Re:Somebody MOD UP

[nilepoc]

I know that my sharing capabillities are hampered by my bandwidth. Even without advertising my stream, I have as many as four users at a time.

I cannot imagine why you would want to advertise your collection, if you plan to use this yourself.

I use it primarily to save the battery on my ipod, when I am at school, with wireless everywhere. Its great, I no longer need to store mp3's on my laptop, and am not limited to what I can carry.

When it is just me streaming, I get no interuptions, but the stream is unlistenable over my cable connection with four people on it.

YOU *CAN* COPY THE FILES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has developed a tool that allows you to download music using iTunes' sharing feature. (No, I'm not talking about iCommune, either.)

Out of respect for Apple, I'm not going to say how you can download a copy of this tool, but, trust me, it IS out there.

Re:YOU *CAN* COPY THE FILES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it's not Craftsman's fault if I kill someone with a hammer, just like it's not Apple's fault if someone steals music with iTunes.

Seriously, if I really wanted to illegaly copy a friends MP3s, I think the one click to enable Mac OS X's built-in FTP server is a much simpler way to go than trying to record a stream.

QUICK THREAD RECAP (READ ME)

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic has already been discussed, at length, over on MacSlash.

Large-Scale Music Sharing With iTunes 4

Quick summary:

Sharing with friends/family (for personal use) is cool

Sharing with total strangers isn't legal and violates the iTunes license

Yes, streaming != downloading, but your rights to stream have some limits.

Spymac Music and others sites will be shut down by Apple and/or the RIAA

Sharing music with friends is cool -- let's not ruin a good thing, people!

You can download from iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

The iTunes client will not let you save shared music to disk, but the iTunes server has no idea what you are doing with the packets. Here's a way to use the curl client (command line tool included with OS X) to download a song. Get the sharing url for a song using ctrl-click. Type "curl url > my_faviorite.mp3" at the command line. Voila, you have the file.

Re:You can download from iTunes

[phillymjs]

Get the sharing url for a song using ctrl-click. Type "curl url > my_faviorite.mp3" at the command line. Voila, you have the file.

Great, except the "Get Sharing URL" feature is not available for remote music libraries your machine is connected to. And when a sharing URL looks like this:

daap://[computername]/resolve?database-spec='dmap. persistentid:0xd63645b768148d91'&playlist-spec='dm ap.persistentid:0xaa10915c0a85380b'&song-spec='dma p.persistentid:0x3e1050bf41fb7c8e'

I doubt you're gonna be doing any educated guessing as to what the exact URL is for the song you want.

~Philly

Re:You can download from iTunes

[mithras the prophet]

Except that if you first point your browser to http://[computername]:3689/databases/33/items (along with some other stuff I won't specify), you get a listing of all the songs on the iTunes share, including information needed to build that URL.

This news suggests

[News for nerds]

how much Apple is suffering now... Sell AAPL ASAP. Apple executives are doing it right now.

Re:This news suggests

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

Forgive me for my armchair stock analysis, but I think that's very bad advice. For a company that has large cash reserves and usually operates in the black, Apple is undervalued. The stock recently showed a nearly 30% gain over the past few weeks since the introduction of the iTunes Music Store. Even so, Apple stock is still not too far from its 52-week low, and with the economy showing some signs of minor improvement, it's very possible it will go up substantially (along with many other solvent, stable tech companies) over the next few years. This day may not be the beginning of the next bull market -- there may be more retreats -- but that day is close at hand. Dumping stock at such an undervalued price seems like bad investing strategy to me.

Reminder: Sharing music is for personal use only

[DougM]

When you elect to share your music library within iTunes 4 a pop-up is displayed:

• Reminder: Sharing music is for personal use only

I don't know the legal definition of "personal use" but in these terms I would consider it to be about limiting streaming in much the same way you would limit distribution of your purchased CD collection.

I really like this feature and I thank Apple for treating its customers like grown-ups. I'd hate for abuse to force them into dropping it.

You're kidding, right?

[phillymjs]

Contrary to what the headline says this is NOT P2P, it's basically a client-server connection via iTunes-- so how the hell ELSE do you expect people to connect to a server if they don't have the IP or domain name, brainiac? This service is basically a message board for people to say, "Hey, check out my music library, it's at [address]."

You're also forgetting that these are all Macs running OS X we're talking about-- this is not the 'major security hole found every week' Windows crowd putting their boxes on a "Soon to be 0wn3d" list.

~Philly

iTunes- The illegial copying program?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking into this a little bit (and reading Pudge's remarks on Perl.org)

The files are streamed as standard mp3 files, over http. Because of this, you can capture them, just as you can capture a "mp3 radio" station.
Using ngrep (which compiles cleanly on OSX), you can watch the network traffic.

192.168.1.101:49186 -> 192.168.1.102:3689 [AP]
GET /databases/35/items/289.mp3?session-id=11720 HTTP/1.1..Host: metadata:1..User-Agent: iTunes/4.0 (Macintosh; N; PPC)..connection: close.. ..

T 192.168.1.101:49187 -> 192.168.1.102:3689 [AP]
GET /databases/35/items/290.mp3?session-id=11720 HTTP/1.1..Host: 192.168.1.102..Cache-Control: no-cache..Accept: */*..x-audiocast-udpport:49177..icy-
metadata:1..User-Agent: iTunes/4.0 (Macintosh; N; PPC)..connection: close.. ..

T 192.168.1.101:49188 -> 192.168.1.102:3689 [AP]
GET /databases/35/items/291.mp3?session-id=11720 HTTP/1.1..Host: 192.168.1.102..Cache-Control: no-cache..Accept: */*..x-audiocast-udpport:49178..icy-
metadata:1..User-Agent: iTunes/4.0 (Macintosh; N; PPC)..connection: close.. ..

T 192.168.1.101:49189 -> 192.168.1.102:3689 [AP]
GET /databases/35/items/292.mp3?session-id=11720 HTTP/1.1..Host: 192.168.1.102..Cache-Control: no-cache..Accept: */*..x-audiocast-udpport:49179..icy-
metadata:1..User-Agent: iTunes/4.0 (Macintosh; N; PPC)..connection: close.. ..

File order (ie, the XXX.mp3) appears to be keyed on Date-Added. If you add the Date added field to itunes, and then stream the files, you can see they continue almost sequencially.

The ID of the music is continuing (XXX.mp3) is continuing, nearly sequencially.
One thing to note is that in some cases, this order might be screwed up slightly. This is because if a song is deleted from the user's libraby, it appears to keep it's number reserved.

The other thing that can screw the order up is songs that were batch-imported in the same minute. It seems that iTunes only tracks down to the minute, so the order within that minute is arbitrary, as far as I can tell.

If, after determining the URL via ngrep, and taking the IP, you retrieve it using curl (or wget), you add it to iTunes, it retains the id3 information.

ie- wget "http://192.168.1.102:3689/databases/35/items/311. mpg?session-id=11720"

It would be an interesting test to see if iTunes is adding information to the file before streaming it. (for identification, as Pudge suggested)
This would be possible by doing a binary diff on the two files. I don't have two macs with iTunes 4 installed (yet!, but I intend to install iTunes on the others soon), so I can't test this theory. Any volunteers?

(Side note- It would be trivial to write a perl script that parsed the ngrep output, and fed it into wget automatically, to download any songs you double-click.

[similiar to http://streamripper.sourceforge.net/ ]

You wouldn't even need to listen to the entire song. Just start it playing, and iTunes will finish for you. I won't post mine, for reasons below.)

Side note redux-
Apple may have inadvertantly created a file-sharing utility rivaling Napster/Kazaa. This creates an interesting legal issue. This creates an interesting legal issue. Keep in mind that a student was recently sued for creating a software device that searched Network shares for mp3 files.

Given the RIAA's stance towards piracy, and that they want to work with apple, I suspect they would sue whomever wrote the 4 line perl script, rather than Apple. They are also likely to ask "index" sites like spymac to shut down, and send a cease-and-desist, or a lawsuit..

I sure hope this Anonymous Coward thing works. I don't want to be sued today. I've done enough other questionable things.
-Crutz

Re:iTunes- The illegial copying program?

[Phroggy]

Each track in the iTunes Library is assigned a unique ID number; it makes sense that these would be assigned sequentially in the order that tracks are added - so, if you sort by ID number, the Date Added will also be in order. It also makes sense that there could be gaps in ID numbers if tracks were deleted.

Re:iTunes- The illegial copying program?

[The Creator]

For those of you that don't have macs, the same thing can be achieved by googling for the specs for the daap protocol specs, looking for ip#'s on the macspy website and then using wget for the rest.
for example:
wget 10.0.0.1:3689/login
The session id is coded into the four last bytes
wget 10.0.0.1:3689/databases?session-id=1234
The bd-id is encoded into the bytes after "miid"
wget 10.0.0.1:3689/databases/32/items?session-id=1234
Gives you a list of items, the item id(a number) is used to download the file
wget 10.0.0.1:3689/databases/32/items/12.mp3?session-id =1234

makes me think of Darwin Streaming Server

[stego]

Which is also a free download for Mac OS (but also for Linux AND Windows) and with which you can stream MP3s (or video). The new iTunes 4 isn't any different, in that it is up to the user to use the technology as they will. I mean if I buy a Real streaming server or set up whatever MS offers and then streamed a bunch of questionabale content it isn't either of those companies that would be targeted by the RIAA laywers. Apple has just made the entry barrier to streaming much lower, but the basic thing here isn't new. This will be neat to watch play out.

Like with that Canadian site that was streaming US television shows as a rebroadcast a while back -- nobody considered suing the people that they got their software from.

AAC Has Questionable quality?

[aliens]

I read this article
MacNet article
And they mention that AAC is crap quality compared to Mp3, and that others have said the same. Any slashdot comments on this? Certainly no point in paying $.99 for crap. The entire article is good.

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[Anita Coney]

The MacNet article is worth a read. Here's the MSNBC editorial it mentions:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/krakow.asp

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[zsmooth]

I don't know how much stock I'd put in what Manzione says. He's really pissed off right now cause he busted his 17" PowerBook and Apple wouldn't replace it for him. AAC may be crap quality compared to the actual CD, but very few people will claim that 128kbps AAC is worse than 128kbps MP3.

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[cabra771]

Unless you are a total audio nut (in which case you would bypass the whole mp3/wma/ogg/aac scene in the first place since they would all suck), then you have nothing to worry about. AAC sounds perfectly fine. Sure, they might sound a little muddy coming out of some iBook speakers, but with a good pair of headphones...well, anyway, if this were the Pepsi challenge, then it'd probably end up 50/50. If you want your music to sound exactly like your CD then frickin' rip the music right into .wav files and don't bitch when your harddrive is full after 40 CDs.

I am not a Mac user, but I play one at work

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Have you actually compared the quality of the two yourself. So far my comparison of AAC versus MP3, albeit only for 2 songs so far, shows AAC 128 kpbs chillingly superior to MP3 192 kbps in one case (Coldplay - The Scientist) and slightly better in another. And I think I will take my word for it...

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to get all conspiratorial or anything, but what does the "MS" stand for in MSNBC? Do THEY use AAC? No? Hmm.

Sounds good to me, including on my stereo. But this guy, running the final copy of DAVE, apparently thinks otherwise. Well, there's no argument like an argument between hi-fi guys. There's still lots of people buying Monster speaker cable -- because they like throwing their money away for zip.

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[ka-klick]

I've also been hearing a lot of mud slung in the direction of the AAC format they are using and was a bit nervous when buying the only album so far that I've ponied up for. After I even felt a bit of "buyers" remorse since I was hearing some intresting things when playing the music through iTunes. It sounded like there was some "pumping" going on and some un-natural-ness to the mix - then I found out about a bug in iTunes "Enhancer" feature that does some of these strange things - I turned it off and things sound much better.

In the mean time, I also did some ripping and A/B tests that were most interesting. First I ripped some music to 224k AAC and a/b'ed that w/ the original aiff still on the CD using Quicktime player - it has a great little feature for A/B testing - in the "Movie" menu is an item called "Play All Movies" which means that you can then select which version you listen to by making it the active window. When A/B'ing in this manner I could not tell the difference. I then later repeated this test by converting an aiff to a 128k AAC and repeating the test w/ that song. Again I really hear no difference in a real A/B test - not some "I burned a CD from those AAC's and listened in the same player to an original CD" - there's just too much room for bias to creep in and it all gets very subjective.

For people concerned about AAC quality I urge you to rip a song you own to a 128k AAC file and open it and the raw AIFF file still on the CD at the same time in quicktime player and do your own A/B.

btw- If you use the keyboard combo quickly enough you can even make the A/B switch un-noticible - if you're not fast enough there may be a bit of a pop or stutter, but it still gives better context to a sound than going back and forth between CDs

Re:AAC Has Questionable quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, though it's easy to hear tonal differences between AAC encoding from iTunes 4 and AAC encoding from QuickTime 6.2 Pro...

In addition to taking longer, QT Pro has an additional AAC setting for the encoder quality (up to Best), and takes considerably longer. I believe iTunes uses a lower quality for speed. Whilst both AAC files are superior to MP3, the QT Pro ones sound more 'rounded' and natural to my ears and seem to handle clippnig better (try something by Goldfrapp when she hits the high notes and compare distortion).

I've already submitted feedback to Apple asking for auto-detecting of QT Pro to give iTunes 4 the 'Fastest -> Best' AAC encode option.

After all, I don't mind waiting a bit longer for the encode to finish.

It's pretty obvious that where possible Apple are using 48kHz AAC encoding using the Best settings...

Re:Propaganda

[ahfoo]

Nice, but the law itself makes it even clearer. Libraries and archives can make and lend compies and they must be free and publicly available. P2P is an archive.
Read 'em and weep. This is from www.loc.gov/copyright Chapter 1. I abridged the subsections for brevity, but go look for yourself if you're suspicious, or even if you're not. Sharing is a right guaranteed by federal law.

± 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives39
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if-

(1) it is non-commerical

(2) it is publicly available

(3) You have to keep the copyrigh notice in tact.

If you want to fight against free sharing of copyrighted media between archives, you better change the law first.

Overreacting.

[mikedaisey]

1) The files aren't copied, they are streamed.

2)It isn't covered under the internet broadcasting laws as each iTunes client can not send to more than 5 clients at a time.

Re:Propaganda

[pla]

If you want to fight against free sharing of copyrighted media between archives, you better change the law first.

Kudos!

If I hadn't already posted on this topic, I'd mod you up.

Good to see that some people still have the ability to read and apply the law... Or rather, those sections of the law that grant us rights rather than only the ones taking away rights.

Thanks for the link.


Heh. Thinking about this, I find it somewhat ironic... All the people who collect music from the 'net but don't share their collections, out of fear of attracting the RIAA's attention, violate the law; but those who do share should qualify as per the passage you quoted.

AUDIBLE FILES

[zensmile]

I have come to the conclusion that files purchased and downloaded from Audible.com are NOT visible when streaming. I have a playlist that lists all of my audio books purchased from audible.com. These files are not visible to people who are listening to my music via "sharing".

5 User Limit on Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a 5 user limit on streaming. Plus you've got to be able to push data to each of them at about 30k sustained, or it just becomes a rebuffer nightmare

IMO, this isn't a problem. The RIAA might have a different opinion, but I would prefer that they target users, and not SpyMac for simply providing the service.

I don't know how SpyMac implemented the search function, but if they are cataloging shares on their server could it be reasoned that they have the ability to filter those results (like Napster)?

This is not new its shoutcast/icecast but for Macs

[Anonymous Coward]

So how is this any different than
Shoutcast ? [AOL/TW]
they have had this concept for years on PC/NIX platforms and Apple have only just found out ?

shows your playlists ? like shoutcast
streams mp3 style music ? like shoutcast
can have private streams for friends ? like shoutcast
can set limits on number of streams ? like shoutcast
can be recorded to disk if the user is determined to ? like shoutcast

move along please nothing to see here, it is 2003 not 1998

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

so using cable without intention of payment is ?
so using the telephone without intention of payment is ?
so using your neigbours electricity instead of paying for it is ?
so using a cloned cellphone is ?

i guess you aint been in contact with criminals much if you dont realise what theft can mean

USA or UK it don't matter theft of service is theft, theft isnt just based on tangible goods, labour (or alt a persons time or "services" )is one of the commodities that can be stolen too.

see really they (lawyers) could even argue that it is theft as a whole lot of tangible goods (even office supplies) went into constructing the product and you are not just buying the music but everything else that went into making it as well.

Apple vs. RIAA

[oaf357]

Could be a very interesting case (should it ever happen).

10 client limit, can't keep copies.

[Anonymous Freak]

It's that simple. Each iTunes share can only serve 10 clients (and most broadband internet connections could only handle one or two anyway, at 128kbps+ per connected user.)

Then there's the fact that you can't download and keep any of the shared files, you can only listen while the share-er is online.

qt streaming

[baldass]

1. I used to stream a playlist(to myself at work) using qtstreaming server, (free from apple for osx users), not much different than what itunes does now except I can choose which song instead of listening to a looped stream, so what Im saying is this is not really a new thing for apple users 2. you can stream itunes over ip, not just rendevous/lan if you open port 3689 with the built in firewall software. 3. I think the effect, once the novelty of the database sites dissapears will be that people will have a place to look for and listen to music they might never hear, and then might buy from apple's store. 4. This could be a great way for indie bands or labels to get the word out. 5. apple needs to fix some things, people are writing scripts that allow you to download and keep files from sharing servers....

Re:This is not new its shoutcast/icecast but for M

[joelhayhurst]

Unlike Shoutcast, the user looks through your library and streams any song he wishes. In Shoutcast, the DJ decides what everyone listens to, kind of like a radio station one connects to. With this setup, the user is not restricted to the DJ's preference at the time.

iTunes is well aware of Shoutcast and even has a built-in Radio section that organizes Shoutcast stations.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a lawyer? No? Then kindly shut the fuck up about legal jargon. The word "theft" (as well as the word "steal") has a specific legal meaning, but it also has a commonly understood meaning. "Theft" means "taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission." That's all. There's no clause requiring deprivation.

The whole "it's copyright infringement not theft" thing is just propaganda from the "information wants to be FREE!" crowd who would more often than not just as soon see the whole copyright system go away. So they fight tooth-and-nail to separate the notion of "copyright infringment" (which is a specific class of taking-without-permission, or theft) from actual theft.

Don't believe it for a second. The law recognizes several classes of crimes of taking-without-permission. Burglary is one (theft from a house). Embezzlement is one (theft of money from an employer). Fraud is one (theft of trust). And copyright infringement is one (theft of a copy of a protected work).

Protocol?

[Phroggy]

Is the Digital Audio Access Protocol (DAAP) documented anywhere? It would be nice to see an RFC on this. The port number it uses is registered with the IANA and the protocol appears to be mostly identical to HTTP. I'd like to see 3rd-party clients and servers that are compatible with iTunes...

Re:Protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be as soon as i finish writing up my docs. (Complete documentation, for both client, and server. There may even be an app or a library to accompany it). Watch this space.

It depends on the format.

[Dolemite_the_Wiz]

What format are they in 1, 2, 3, or 4? You can Stream with 1 and 4 only.

Dolemite
_____________

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up.

Re:Propaganda

[jayspec462]

And if "advertising" bothers you as yet another euphemism for "piracy", perhaps you can explain to me how Clearchannel differs from your typical pickpocket-on-the-street.

Pickpockets-on-the-street typically don't sign licensing agreements with ASCAP and BMI.

Re:Apple promoting piracy? So is radio.

[Anonymous Coward]

>it'll let people properly try music out before they >buy, but in a way that nobody in their right mind >would prefer to use instead of buying.

Or how about a novel concept where they can just turn on the radio and they can also try out the music for free before they buy?

Im sure the RIAA will close all those stations down, I mean, no listener is paying for the rights to hear the songs.

zack

This is news?

[mwelty]

I thought News was supposed to be exactly that: new. This is as timely as a Microsoft Security Update. This service was launched 5 days ago...not "today."

Another one...

[Xeo2]

There's another site that's designed specifically for this:
Share iTunes

5 days ago!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, this was launched nearly a week ago.. which means that you guys claiming that this will be shut down should think twice.. Apple works extremely fast on issues like this.

I know because i've had to deal with "apple legal" before for some issues on my small unknown mac site. They contacted me within 2hours with their demands.

Now, that was some small website that no one knew about.. not the largest internet mac community.

I think Spymac is safe and I love the new section. It's great being able to browse the songs of other members.. i like that more than actually listening to them (because of the rebuffering).

Way to go Spymac. You continue to prove that you're the best mac site out their.

Piracy is not the problem

[jfengel]

It's not like anybody needs extra piracy tools. They are copious and readily available.

The difference with iTunes is that it makes obtaining music convenient, efficient, and legal. Running iTunes doesn't feel like hacking into something. It feels like buying something. And a million downloads the first week suggests that a lot of people would rather get their music without feeling dirty and without having to wade through the bad connections, dubious rippings, and intermittent availablity of a P2P network.

This site changes very little. Apple has put just enough difficulties into iTunes protocol to make it easier to buy music than steal it. Slashdot caters to the technical crowd who want to know what's possible. There's a big difference between the possible and the feasible.

It's convenience vs. legality

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not illegal for Apple to provide or for users to take advantage of. It is illegal to use a third party app to record the streamed music. That is not Apple's problem. Most people will find this a hassle to do. It would be easier and probably faster to log onto Kazaa and download your stuff. Apple isn't required to provide a solution that completely elimnates all forms of illegal music trading. They are just required to make sure that what they do provide is legal.

Given the rather limited restrictions even placed on purchased music (the ability to burn the songs and then rip them as unprotected) means that Apple's agreement with the RIAA was simply to provide a SIMPLE legal ALTERNATIVE to the P2P networks that would encourage people to purchase music rather than obtain it illegally. The initial success of the service shows that most people will use such an alternative if it is SIMPLE and PAINLESS. A lot of people used the P2P networks because they were more convenient than going to a record store. I now find the iTMS more convenient than the P2P networks and I don't have to infringe on copyrights. That's the deal Apple made with the record companies (I don't realy know what the deal was, but that's how it seems given the limited restrictions in the service). They convinced the RIAA that people don't really want to do something illegal, they just want to do something convenient. It's just that before, the convenient thing to do was illegal. :)

Back to the streaming. It's a pain for MOST AVERAGE people to record a stream. The kiddies will do it no matter what, but the rest of us will listen to a friends tunes and then buy it for ourselves because it is MORE CONVENIENT and good karma.

Here's the best idea of all. Apple should add a 'buy song' button next to the songs that you are streaming from your friend (or complete strangers). If the song was originally purchased from the iTMS, it could have an identifier in it, so that it can be matched back to the Music Store and you could then purchase the song for yourself directly. You listen to your friends music, hear a song you like, and presto you can purchase it for yourself and have it in your collection and take it with you on your iPod or burn it to CD easily. This would require Apple/RIAA lifting the current restriction on streaming purchased music to only macs with your .mac ID, but if they added in the ability to purchase the music that you are streaming, I bet the RIAA would go along with it. It would just be another way to make sampling and purchasing music convenient.

kman

Re:It's convenience vs. legality

[Anonymous Coward]

"buy song"button---good idea! Do you have any Apple stock? They should give you some, Senior Coward

Simply Incorrect

[pneuma_66]

Where did you get this information from, I just tried it on my machine, and any url with the port 3689 just comes up blank. Files dont get downloaded, nothing happens. Maybe you should verify things before posting.

Re:Simply Incorrect

[mithras the prophet]

Some reflection would indicate that 'somestuff' in the URL
http://your.mac.com:3689/somestuff/file.mp3
is not meant to be taken literally! I did not spell it out precisely because I don't condone the stealing of music.

However, if you want to learn more, go to these two places:
pudge's journal
DAAP reverse-engineering project
A DAAP Wiki (collaborative webpage)

Briefly:
To just piggyback on iTunes:
Use tcpdump to watch for URLs of the form http://the.ip.address:3689/databases/32/233.mp3?se ssion_id=17934
Then use that URL with the web browser or download client of your choice to steal music.

To write your own client:
First you login with http://the.ip.address:3689/login
You parse the result for the session ID number
Then you do some logging in stuff
Then you ask for the contents of the iTunes database with http://the.ip.addrses:3689/databases/##/items
The n you download (or stream) files to your heart's content.

Downloading via DAAP is trivial

[Anonymous Coward]

It is trivial to download anything you can stream over DAAP. The protocol is effectively HTTP, and if you sniff the GET request for the music file you can use any web browser to download the track.

Not very impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero connections completed from the posted "servers".

Some were password protected, but most simply denied the connection outright.

Relax, Apple.

Re:Propaganda

[LordK2002]

Are you a lawyer? No? Then kindly shut the fuck up about legal jargon. The word "theft" (as well as the word "steal") has a specific legal meaning, but it also has a commonly understood meaning. "Theft" means "taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission." That's all. There's no clause requiring deprivation.

I agree entirely. However, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:

1) What you mean by "taking" in the context of downloading music, given that the copy can be made passively without changing the original in any way.

2) What you mean by "belonging" in the context of music.

Re:Propaganda

[noxon]

The protocol is easily usable by any other application that can download and use the database from itunes4 (which it in fact sends more than willingly). It's regular http. You can, in fact, just telnet to port 3689 on any itunes machine and submit regular http calls. So, yes, you can't use iTunes itself to copy it, but you CAN connect to the share. You CAN download files if you submit the right command. You just need an application that does just that, which have been made a few times already.

Macatism meets P2Pism

[charnov]

This is hilarious...seeing Mac zealotry smash head long into P2P fanaticism. I never would have dreamed that Mac users would be espousing almost the exact same arguments as windows users just a couple of years ago for P2P, sharing music, and the limits of copyright. This is going to be an interesting year.

Re:Macatism meets P2Pism

[Tokerat]

We've been right there with you the whole time.

-The Mac Crowd

Re:Macatism meets P2Pism

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the mac user demographic, one might even say that mac users have been, on average more rabid file sharers than the PC crowd.
I particularly like the Aquisition interface, which is a more macish front-end to Limewire technology.

Re:Apple promoting piracy? So is radio.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be retarded, of course someone pays the royalties. What do you think the ads are for? Honestly...

Re:shareitunes.com

[ryaker]

Thanks for the posting. Keep watching the site we are adding some new feature that make our intentions clear. Our parents taught us well. Don't Steal. Share. Come by and add your Share. http://www.shareitunes.com

Why won't it work?

[commodoresloat]

Every time I click a daap:// link it goes to iTunes and says "Connecting to shared music library" but then it disappears. I opened port 3689 but iTunes still won't connect to any of the servers. Am I doing something wrong or are they all offline?

Re:Why won't it work?

[pHDNgell]

You probably have a proxy of some sort enabled. Proxy support is broken quite badly (I can't use the store, either). I can share my music to people across the Internet, but I can't listen to music off my wife's computer locally.

Re:Why won't it work?

[commodoresloat]

Nope; no proxy for daap or iTunes that I'm aware of. I have privoxy configured for http but that shouldn't make a difference; should it?

Re:Why won't it work?

[pHDNgell]

Yep, that's the one. It tries to use the HTTP proxy but does not speak HTTP over it. I suggest complaining to Apple. It sucks.

This is Laverne and Shirley music sharing..

[mtec]

heretofore known as ShiVern (think KaZaa)

Sclemeel, schlemazel, hasenfeffer incorporated!!

Give us any chance, we'll take it.
Give us any rule, we'll break it.
We're gonna make our dreams come true.
Doin' it our way.

There is nothing we won't try,
Never heard the word impossible.
This time there's no stopping us.
We're gonna do it.

--
People freaking amaze me.

Re:Propaganda

[hoytt]

stream to 5 PCs (with online purchased music that is reduced to 3)

Technically you're correct, however those 5 can be any Mac anywhere , while the 3 for the purchased music have to be authorized machines. That's a significant difference.

Re:Apple promoting piracy? So is radio.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are hitherto ordered to stop asking your friends over to listen to your CDs. If a friend asks to connect his tape recorder to your disk player, you are required to turn him in.

The only people this threatens are radio stations. And to hell with them.

Link to the way around streaming

[ihatewinXP]

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/audiohijackpro/

Great app for recording anything being played on your computer, captures sound output from anything.

Also useful for getting fair use out of DRM cd's by hooking up your stereo and using hijack to get the audio-in.

Re:Link to the way around streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

And also the reason that no matter what they try it will never end. The genie is out of the bottle and it cant be put back...

Yeah dont use SpyMac

[ihatewinXP]

Ever since those bastards ran a hoax to launch their site I simply refuse to follow any link there (video of an Apple handheld, running some OSX lite, claimed they were there, then said Apples lawyers made them take it down) . "Journalistic integrity" may be a joke on the web but I still wont stoop to being the sucker for a "bait and switch."

And ill sign my name to this.

Re:Reminder: Sharing music is for personal use onl

[bbum]

Read the license. That is not what it says.

It says Remote access of copyrighted music is only provided for personal use or as otherwise legally permitted use only or when otherwise permitted by the law.

iTunesdl+google

[Anonymous Coward]

No more words are needed...

actually, the labels are leery of the feature

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal what these people are doing.

Sharing is for personal use only.

And if the labels don't like it, they will lean on Apple to remove the "connect to" feature. Will Apple remove it? Time will tell.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

What you mean by "taking" in the context of downloading music

To take means to obtain, to acquire.

What you mean by "belonging" in the context of music.

Uh. "Belonging" means the same thing in any context. To have ownership of. To have exclusive rights over.

Apple isn't as big as Microsoft

[yerricde]

it would help if Herr Jobs would kick up the Store's encoding crew a notch or two.

Please hold your horses. If a recording artist's label is not one of the top five in the United States (BMG, EMI, Sony, Uni, WB), the delay could be because Apple just hasn't yet got around to negotiating with that label or encoding that label's catalog. Remember that Apple isn't as big as Microsoft.

Many of the artists I'm interested in aren't there

For iTunes feedback to be effective, you have to contact both Apple (through the iTunes program) and the artist's record label.

Re:Propaganda

[ALpaca2500]

i dont think that's entirely accurate; if you download something, and read it, listen to it, or watch it (depending on what it is) and then delete it, that's similar to borrowing something from a library. libraries dont let you keep everything, which is uaully what happens when someone downloads something. also, libraries usually have only one copy of a book or movie or cd, so only one person can have it at a time. with file sharing, everyone can download the same file and keep it forever. don't say it's the same as a library.

Public performance

[yerricde]

Being that the 'recipient' has no access to the actual media file itself, only playback thereof

Under United States copyright law, the owner of copyright in a musical work (most often the songwriter's publisher) has a monopoly to authorize public performances of the work, which is generally delegated to a performance rights organization such as Broadcast Music Inc. The definition of "public performance" includes broadcasting. In addition, the owner of copyright in a sound recording (most often the artist's label) has a monopoly to authorize public performances of the sound recording through a digital transmission, except through the convoluted rules of 17 USC 114. Hiring attorneys and accountants to make sense of section 114 may prove more expensive than just licensing the recordings from the labels.

Re:Public performance

[Gropo]

The definition of "public performance" includes broadcasting.

There's the catch... Technically, iTunes sharing is narrowcasting thanks to the concurrent client restrictions.

Does this work for AACs?

[Drakonian]

Or does the Fairplay DRM limit it?

The moral code vs. the legal code

[yerricde]

"Belonging" means ... To have exclusive rights over.

Do you believe that such exclusive rights, as they are currently defined by law, match prevailing moral standards? Including the ban on singing "Happy Birthday to You" in public without the permission of AOL? Most people I ask are surprised that some older works are still under copyright, which can only mean that the exclusive rights in those works exist only in the legal code, not the moral code.

If you're using "theft" in a moral sense, match it up with a moral code. For rights such as the Bono Act and the DMCA that exist only in the legal code, only the legal definition of "theft" (the taking of physical property, such as larceny, automobile theft, robbery, and embezzlement) makes sense. Mixing legal and colloquial senses of a given word willy-nilly would in Microsoft executives getting life sentences for "killing" the competition. Though many Slashdotters would like to see that happen, I don't believe such a punishment would remotely fit the crime, morally or legally.

Re:The moral code vs. the legal code

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe that such exclusive rights, as they are currently defined by law, match prevailing moral standards?

Yes, of course. Property is property.

If you're using "theft" in a moral sense, match it up with a moral code.

Okay. Don't take what's not yours. How's that for a moral code? Read "Henny Penny" for deeper insight.

This isn't rocket science, guy. We all learned in kindegarten that we're not supposed to steal things.

Re:DAAP is basically HTTP

[alangmead]

From about 10 minutes worth of time I spent looking at
it, DAAP looks a lot like HTTP. There are certain, aparently fixed, list of URIs that itunes supports,

http://localhost:3689/server-info will give the name of the itunes shared library.

http://localhost:3689/login takes the optional password as an argument and sends you a session ID.

http://localhost:3689/databases takes your session id as an argument and returns the name of your playlists.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

But...

[coolmacdude]

Although this isn't piracy, it opens the door to other stuff that could be. Someone has already come out with a program called iTunesDL that can download songs from iTunes shares.

LAN == dorm == piracy

[xixax]

And even if the nodes are on a private network, recent experience says that to *AA's aren't going to treat it any differently.

Xix.

"property"

[yerricde]

Property is property.

Define "property" in colloquial terms so as to include copyrights. Most people I surveyed did not believe that "Happy Birthday to You" was morally the "property" of Warner Chappell music publishing.

Don't take what's not yours.

Define "yours". This will probably come in terms of "property".

Re:"property"

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "property" in colloquial terms so as to include copyrights.

If you didn't help bake the bread, you don't get to eat the bread.

Define "yours".

Ah. Now I understand. You're a troll. Well done. You got me.

Re:"property"

[FredFnord]

> Define "property" in colloquial terms so as to include copyrights. Most people I surveyed did
> not believe that "Happy Birthday to You" was morally the "property" of Warner Chappell music publishing.

Defining morality in terms of the prevailing view is just as dangerous as defining it in terms of the current legal system. If I go to a country where slavery is commonly accepted by the populace but not legal, is it my obligation to agitate for the legalization of slavery? This is an extreme example, of course, but so is the 'Happy Birthday' thing.

Basically, if you go around to people and ask them if they think that music has any value, they will tend to say yes. If you ask them whether an artist should have any control over his or her music after it leaves his or her mouth, most of them will say yes. If you go around and ask them if they think they should be able to sing 'Happy Birthday' in public, they'll tend to say yes. Believe it or not. There might be some kind of cognitive dissonance going on there, but such is life.

You never did answer the 'theft of services' point, which I think is a perfectly good one. If you sneak into a concert without paying, even if they don't sell all of the seats, that's still illegal.

-fred

Re:"property"

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't bother. This guy is nothing but a troll. A very, very clever troll, but a troll nonetheless. He spins ridiculously complex posts to dance around common sense, and then tries to pass them off as sincere or truthful. What a crock of shit.

Don't waste your time on this one.

Re:Propaganda

[ahfoo]

Well the easy way to clarify this is for you to simply read the law. It's not too difficult. You're totally off the mark here because the passage I quoted which is the second heading under fair use in the first chapter of federal copyright law that comes right after personal fair use is about copies made for lending to other archives. You're talking about a parton borrowing a book from a library. These are two separate issues under the law as you will see when you go read it yourself as I'm sure you'll do as a responsible American.
If you want to argue that I'm misreading the text, your best bet is to argue the definition of an archive. However, in my research so far the only solid definitions that have been given with regards to copyright law and fair use are that it is non-commercial collection of text and electronic media that is open to the public. I doubt you will find a more restrictive definition because the nature of archives makes it difficult to create a restrictive definition, but if you find something, please post it.

Re:Propaganda

[ahfoo]

Thanks, and feel free to spread the word. I think this is an extremely important point with particular bearing on the P2P issue since the core use of P2P is as a distributed archival system. If this is true, then the law already protects it in wording that preceeds the Betamax decision.
The archive issue is also important for other reasons as well. People like Ted Turner use the argument that archives are expensive to maintain so they're doing the public a service by keeping the material in a private archive. If P2P clearly identifies itself as a distributed archive technology then these policies will have to be restated to reflect the reality which is that the motive is to restrict fair use provisions of federal copyright law. This kind of behavior should be revealed for what it is --selling desks on the first day of class. Nobody owns the media under federal law.
I feel that the majority of the people screaming loudest and casting about derogatory terms like piracy and thievery are those who were duped the hardest by the CD scam. I know people like this. They would spend like a third of their pay check month in and month out over the years stocking up on thousands of CDs so they could have the ultimate media collection. These folks had social problems from the start and it's not surprising that they're frothing at the mouth now. But that doesn't make them right.
Again though, do spread the word. This is something I have heard very little of although I've seen a lot of reference to the Betamax decision. Betamax is also relevant here, but I think the public non-commercial archive issue is much more appropriate and can be demonstrated in many ways from various angles.

derivative works

[yerricde]

If you didn't help bake the bread, you don't get to eat the bread.

Does this help explain the copyright owner's right to forbid others from preparing derivative works, that is, from adding ingredients to the bread?

Re:derivative works

[Alsee]

I want to comment on the earlier issue of defining "belongs", but I figued I should reply to the newest post in the thread.

US CODE COLLECTION, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Section 109.

It BELONGS to the person who bought it, not the copyright holder. That is exactly why libraries, used book stores, and used music stores are entirely legal.

-

Re:derivative works

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Nice try. Creating derivative works is not "adding ingredients to the bread." It's stealing the recipe to make and sell your own bread. If you want to sell bread, come up with your own recipe.

Re:derivative works

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the whole point of this thread. We're not talking about legal definitions. We're talking about plain-English terms. In plain English, a work belongs to him what created it. The person who bought a copy owns only the copy, neither the original work nor the rights to it.

The precise legal explanation of the situation is far more complex, involving lots of clearly defined words. But since your average Slashdotter can't be bothered to read and understand the law-- thus his insistence that copyright infringement isn't stealing and that theft requires deprivation-- it's important for us to boil it down to the simplest terms possible.

Re:derivative works

[Alsee]

We're talking about plain-English terms. In plain English, a work belongs to him what created it.

In plain english I bought it, I own it.

Any time you reffer to a specific copy everyone knows it belongs to the person that bought it. If you walk into a room with a song playing on the CD player and say "Cool, Hotel California! Who does that belong to?" the person who bought the CD is going to say "Me!". There is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to respond "It belongs to Elektra Entertainment Group".

I doubt a random 8th grader is going to have any difficulty with the plain english sentence "This is my book/music, it is copyrighted by the author".

So legally and in plain english, I own it. The copyright lobby is trying to spread the false impression that the copyright holder owns it, but it just isn't true. Copyright is not ownership of the copies, never was, (hopefully)never will be. They are trying to justify DRM by saying it's not your data, they want to claim it is their data. The fact is that it IS your data. You bought it, it's yours. You have the right to use it in a school project, you have the right to play it backwards, you have the right to cut it up in pieces, you have the right to scramble it any way you like. And if the file is encrypted then one of the ways to scramble it happens to decrypt it. The DMCA tries to make decryption a crime, but it is a crime you can commit merely by thinking and sitting motionless.

As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

OneLook Dictionary Search provides two definitions and links to TWENTY-FOUR other dictionary definitions. Not a single one gives any hint that theft might cover copyright infringment, and most of them explicity rule it out. For example Merriam-Webster says "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property ".

Reffering to infringement as theft is at best a figurative use of the word, and based on 28 dictionary definitions I'd say it's clearly a new usage.

If you went back in time before the internet existed, I think people would have looked at you a bit funny if you called it theft when someone copied a music cassette.

The common english term for copyright violation is copyright violation. The copyright lobby is trying to get what it wants by redefining the language. Copyrights are not property. Infringment is not theft. The RIAA does not own the DRM file I bought any more than Ace Publishing owns the book I bought. BTW, patents aren't property either.

-

Re:derivative works

[Alsee]

Minor correction, I said:

As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

I meant:
As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright lobby is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

-

Re:derivative works

[Anonymous Coward]

In plain english I bought it, I own it.

You bought a copy. You didn't buy the original or the rights to it.

The copyright lobby is trying to spread the false impression that the copyright holder owns it, but it just isn't true.

Nope. You own the copy. You don't own the original or the rights to the original. No 8th grader is going to have trouble with the notion of plagarism, either. Theft is theft.

As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

The notion of intellectual property predates copyright law. By about 60,000 years. Look it up. Aboriginal cultures have understood the idea of ownership as it applies to stories and songs for far longer than the 300-odd years we've had copyright laws.

For example Merriam-Webster says "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property ".

Works are property. I really don't understand why you can't understand this. It's simple stuff. Are you just dumb, or what?

If you went back in time before the internet existed, I think people would have looked at you a bit funny if you called it theft when someone copied a music cassette.

Are you nuts? That's precisely what it was, and everybody knew it. Copying somebody else's tape instead of buying your own copy was theft, and it still is.

The common english term for copyright violation is copyright violation.

The common English term for copyright infringement is theft. I really don't understand what agenda you're trying to push here, unless it's possibly the "property is bad" one. You can't reject the notion of intellectual property unless you reject the notion of property in general. You can't deny that copyright infringement is a type of theft unless you deny that theft is a crime at all.

The RIAA does not own the DRM file I bought any more than Ace Publishing owns the book I bought.

Actually, as an author I can assure you that the rights over the book you bought belong to the author of it, not the publisher. The publisher agrees to pay the author for the right to publish the work for a period of time. At the end of that period, rights revert to the author.

You own the copy. You don't own the work. Either you're just not very smart, or you're trying to advance some kind of counter-establishment agenda here. I can't figure out which.

Re:derivative works

[Alsee]

You bought a copy.

Yeah, I bought it and I own it.

You didn't buy the original or the rights to it.

Heck, the author could have sold me "the original" I'd own that. The author can sell me every copy he has and every peice of property he owns leaving him empty handed and buck naked, and he'd still have the copyright. The copyright isn't a piece of property. It is also impossible to steal a copyright.

Works are property.

Patents and copyrights are not property. They are patents and copyrights. They exist independantly of any property.

I really don't understand what agenda you're trying to push here, unless it's possibly the "property is bad"

WTF? Property is bad?? I never said any such thing. And if you are think I said patents or copyrights are bad then you are arguing with a figment of your own imagination.

You can't reject the notion of intellectual property unless you reject the notion of property in general.

Nonsense. I am not rejecting patents or copyrights. I'm just saying they aren't property. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. The right to vote isn't property either, that certainly doesn't mean I'm rejecting it LOL!

Double voting isn't theft even if you "steal" a US Presidential election by doing it. It's a crime, but it's not theft.

Actually, as an author I can assure you that the rights over the book you bought belong to the author

The author CAN sell his copyright to the publisher. I was comparing it to the RIAA and DRM where pulisher often des own the copyright and they are attempting to assert that they own the DRM file on your computer.

-

'Publicly' means 'to strangers'

[yerricde]

Technically, iTunes sharing is narrowcasting

I'm guessing that your argument is that "narrowcasting" does not count as a public performance. Let me get more specific, quoting from 17 USC 101:

To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means - (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

The key point of the definition of public performance lies in whether or not strangers can perceive the performance. It would appear that opening up even one simultaneous iTunes stream to strangers is a public performance.

Divisibility

[yerricde]

I find that the most obvious way to define theft of service is in terms of the marginal cost of adding another customer. Unauthorized use of electricity is theft because coal has a marginal cost. Unauthorized use of point-to-point communication networks such as phones and cellphones[1] is theft because switches and trunk lines (or cell towers) have a marginal cost. Unauthorized use of basic cable television signals is theft because signal distribution amplifiers have a marginal cost.

Copyright, on the other hand, is a different matter. Production of an original work of authorship and copies thereof involves large fixed costs of product development (including your office supplies) and negligible marginal costs of replication (especially in the age of peer-to-peer digital dissemination networks). Copyright is a subsidy from the government "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" (U.S. Const. I.8.8). The most obvious business model under copyright is sale of copies[2], which fakes divisibility of the fixed costs, but once the publisher has sold enough copies to pay off the cost of the labor involved in production, then what do the proceeds from sales of further copies pay for, and from whom do so-called "lost sales" "steal"?

Also, if an infringement occurs after the copyright owner has refused to authorize a specific use of a work, what has been stolen from the copyright owner?

[1] I don't find adding a "cloned cellphone" to be theft of service if done with the full knowledge and consent of the account holder who pays the bill to the cellphone service provider. In fact, many cellphone service providers now advertise cloned cellphones as an option in plans.

[2] There are alternatives to the copy sales model that do not require copyright, such as patronage (e.g. having an advertiser commission the labor of a songwriter and a recording artist) or the so-called Street Performer Protocol. I do not discuss them further because arguing against copyright itself is beside the point.

Life after death

[yerricde]

[Legalizing slavery] is an extreme example, of course, but so is the 'Happy Birthday' thing.

The means are delineated by the extremes.

If you ask them whether an artist should have any control over his or her music after it leaves his or her mouth, most of them will say yes.

If you ask them whether an artist should have any control over his or her music after he or she dies, what will most of them say? My argument isn't against copyright, which I consider a useful tool, but rather against excess and abuse.

You never did answer the 'theft of services' point

Thanks for reminding me to address the issue. I have done so. And about sneaking into a concert: For one thing, additional labor is needed to clean up after those who fill empty seats.

spymac, macwhispers and co.

[Andre Breton]

In closing... maybe Spymac itself will die a quick death. Most Mac users recognize that it's rumor predictions are consistently way off base, the content is juvenile, and overall, it is just plain bad.

Spymac, just as macwhispers, is just another venture for Jack Campbell to sell his crap from macmice/MacTable.

Read here.

I would really like to see newspages like /. and all the other relevant ones would refrain from giving that guys like him that much attention :/

17 USC makes my head hurt.

[Gropo]

Yet in 17 USC 110:

(5), (A): Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless

(i): a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
(ii): the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;

On the other hand, under 17 USC 114:

(d) Limitations on Exclusive Right. -

(2) Statutory licensing of certain transmissions. - (v): the transmitting entity cooperates to prevent, to the extent feasible without imposing substantial costs or burdens, a transmission recipient or any other person or entity from automatically scanning the transmitting entity's transmissions alone or together with transmissions by other transmitting entities in order to select a particular sound recording to be transmitted to the transmission recipient, except that the requirement of this clause shall not apply to a satellite digital audio service that is in operation, or that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, on or before July 31, 1998;

So it looks like The Law has the iTunes 'transmitter' by the balls there...

Circular?

[yerricde]

It's stealing the recipe to make and sell your own bread.

Now your analogy assumes that published recipes can be "stolen". When defining copyright's morality through analogy, you can't appeal to copyright without reasoning in circles.

If you want to sell bread, come up with your own recipe.

Then what if it turns out that the most basic recipe for bread itself is copyrighted? Then nobody can make bread at all.

I't dead already

[Anonymous Coward]

Spymac Music is dead already. That was quick, five days I think total lifespan.