Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.