Slashdot Mirror
Apple Updates, Cripples iTunes
squiggleslash writes "Apple has issued an update to iTunes 4, iTunes 4.0.1. It can be downloaded via Software Update. The big change seems to be that iTunes will now only stream music to other Macs on the same subnet. This is presumably a response to people publishing public lists of shared iTunes playlists, though it does mean that anyone wanting to stream music from home to work or vice versa is SOL. Oh well." You can't share between 4.0 and 4.0.1 iTunes, so be careful in updating. AppleScript access to shared playlist tracks is fixed, though. Woop woop.
I don't have access to a Mac (let alone two) but couldn't you use a VPN if you wanted to stream from home to work or vice versa? You know, tunnel the traffic so it looks like one local network even though it isn't?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Is it just me, or do companies seem to do this too often... Oh, here's a new version that fixes the bugs that you've complained about, but we snuck in a few restrictions too... (think MS and XP SP1...)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Internet sharing was pretty useful for a lot of people. It's too bad that just a few developers screwed everything up for the majority of users.
They took Rip, from Rip-Mix-Burn, where they shouldn't have.
I can understand Apple's need to restrist internet streaming but there are those of us who like to stream our tunes from home to office and it seems like fair use to stream your own music to yourself no matter how far apart your computers are.
So, Upgrade and lose functionality, or not upgrade....
At least it's not a critical windows security problem.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I wouldn't think there was much of an "oops" about it. I'm sure it's all carefully planned.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Apple must have OCD or something. They keep changing....ugh. I hate them. :-)
This should be a wakeup to you Apple people: your company will be just as willing to cater to the RIAA as ours, but it's better at letting you think you're getting your way. It's just a matter of time before iTunes becomes entirely music rental.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
there are a million ways around this, though assumingly unbeknownst to most mac users.
Who knows what the next version will bring? No more sharing at all? AAC-only? Stronger DRM? Deactivate all your downloads and make you pay again? Mac OS X will disallow downloads of store-bought files at the OS level?
WHO KNOWS!
I was loving being able to sit at work and connect to my password-protected home library and stream the tunes.
I'm sure someone will find a way around it, but it still sucks. Guess I'll stick with 4.0 for the time being.
This is simply part of the iTunes 4.0.1 "Stream Different" campaign.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Step 1: Update software with silly restrictions.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Netjuke...streaming, admin, etc. Internet access galore....just the thing for home to office. I use it daily. Just between me and me.
Note Netjuke uses PHP, Apache & MySQL, and can be tricky setting up on OS X, but once it's done you are set for remote music access/admin.
So, if you want to listen to music you have at home at work, why not just put the music on a CD-R and bring it in to work?
> Face it, Apple is after your dollars just like everyone else.
Erm... of course
I mean... it's a company
What did you expect?
Apple never claimed they were going to make free illegal MP3's legal, they only claimed that it was possible to integrate the internet into a solid profitable business plan, showing to the music industry that music over the net can be used for "good" as well.
Of course, if you prefer Kazaa's "we don't think we should pay for what other people put money and effort into" approach, that's fine. Getting muic for free always sounds like a good idea to the people on the receiving end. Funny how many people have a "philosophy" that they should get things for free in life. Thank god Kazaa isn't after your dollars... (oh wait, it is)
We could have seen the end of the feature completely. Now i can still go to a friends with my laptop and listen to his music. If streaming your music to your work is that big of a deal, there are other programs to do so that will grant you more control over it.
...to create a "hotfix" for that? I guess that's 5 mins work and a 3k binary to repair this, for a skilled person... Then just put the "hotfix" along with your music list...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
How hard would it be to develop some sort of proxy? Is it a problem with iTunes refusing to connect to a "far away" source or a problem with iTunes refusing to stream to a "far away" destination?
iTunes 4.0 shares on a local network appear grayed out and will not let you connect. The "connect to shared music (CMD+K) button" is removed as well meaning that only shares found by rendezvous are accessible. Clicking on daap:// links causes the current song to stop and itunes to sit idle.
Fortunatly you can run iTunes 4.0 and 4.0.1 on the same system without any trouble.
I used to share (stream) with a couple of neighbors but looks like those days are over. I don't believe that this was done to save iTMS from the wrath of labels: m4p files wouldn't play unless you had been authorized - and all files from iTMS were in the protected format. Standard MP3/M4A files would download and play without incident so the pirates will just move on to gnutella and not think twice.
Why not a file format that would stream but not download or require authorization from the streaming computer to play - that way you'd only have to download it once. If you ony let 1 user play at a time it would be like a library.
It was fun while it lasted.
I find it inane that Apple a) didn't simply say "the music execs, thinking stupidly, that this was a great way to steal music, so we downgraded, sorry". b) didn't point out to them that there are some 10 better, faster, simpler, more robust ways to steal music than iTunes 4 and Audio Hijack... ask them if they had ever heard of Gnutella, Kazza, Grokster, Limewire, yada yada yada.
this is stupid, it doesn't so anything to stop "stealing", and only hurts people who were using the functionality legitmately.
I had a bad tingling in my bones when Apple and the big 5 got together.. i hope this is where this kind of bullshit compromizing ends. What are they going to do next, shitcan iChat 2's teleconferenceing because someone can send files back and forth on it and some a-hole at Sony Music complains?
Come on, Apple - if this is what you have to do in order to sleep with the music companies, then to hell with them.
and speaking of which - where the hell are the indie artists' and their music on iTMS? Huh?
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I just wanted to let you know that the project you mention in your .sig is one hell of an idea. Perhaps you should start a journal on it...?
I saw a hint about this on MacOSXHints...
- than-$3.50-in-my-pocket
I the SliMP3 server software for the super-awesome-gotta-have-one-as-soon-as-have-more
SliMP3 music thingy is GREAT and it reads iTunes ID3v2 tags (unlike most stuff), works with Rendezvous, allows you to make and save playlists, and streams anywhere you like over HTTP.
You can have multiple machines each playing a different playlist, you can *synchronize* multiple machines, you can control everything from one web page. AWESOME!!
I was looking for web-based streaming and went through a whole bunch of crap (none of it could read the iTunes tags for one thing), and never even thought of this, even though I'm planning to buy the SliMP3 player.
Check it out, stream your music that way.
No it doesn't work with AAC (even unprotected) unfortunately but I have all my stuff in MP3 and I've re-encoded the few bought tracks I have back to MP3 so I can play them on my other machines.
...uhh what? RIGHT CLICK!?
But then, that Apple never was either, was it?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
> Face it, Apple is after your dollars just like everyone else.
Well.. yeah.. They are a business.
But because this is Apple nothing of the kind has happened... uh, I'll get my coat.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, i'm complaining, and i'm sure others will as well.
Apple is rapidly approaching a point that their only saving grace is that there is nary a hint that Apple is actively maintaining rights to my Mac to disable any software that may do this, if iTunes 4 won't - such as in XP, w2k, etc.
If/when that happens, then yeah, i will remove X and install YDL on the whole damn hard drive.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Yes, iTunes + plug-in will play them. Today, I put on my iBook a little app (freeware, used to be shareware, but not open source ... at least, I don't *see* a link to source ;)) called Whamb.
...
Which has zero zilch nada to do with all the *other* things iTunes can do wrt streaming etc, just a note if that's the reason you're bringing up Ye Olde Medyia Player, and since it's the reason I'm bringing up mine
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Apple's Music Store allows you to authorize up to three Macs to play your purchased music. They could have allowed you to share music with any machine that has your key. This would satisfy the "want to listen to home music at work" request while still meeting their responsibility not to allow outright piracy.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
It would be naive to think that more changes like this are not coming as Mac users figure out how to do what they actually want by working around the "soft" restrictions that has been placed on the music service so far.
:-(.
Personally, I find the general acceptance of Apple's DRM system, especially here, very frightening. When you accept DRM, you accept giving up control over your own computer, and ALL power to use the data in the manner that you see fit. Then you are the subject of the DRM system, which may grant you ability to do things, when and if it feels fit. It doesn't matter if the DRM system has been your friend up until today: tomorrow you could wake up and find that due to new terms from the music industry you can no longer make any copies of the music what so ever. Or that you have to pay per play for your entire music catalogue. Or that the DRM system has been discontinued and all its your... sorry... its encrypted files are useless.
This is exactly the old frog boiling analogy. The music company services like Pressplay and co. made the DRM too annoying, so the users jumped right out. By making the DRM initially quite lenient, the Apple strategy is to get users to accept the the concept that their computers decide what they can and cannot do, because it seems the cauldron actually isn't such a bad place for a swim. Expect the limitations to get tighter and tighter as the general acceptance grows...
And I, who was so fond of my ipod
...and I don't really care. I haven't read the posts here yet, but I hope there's not a lot of grousing about it. Apple is fully in the right on this, if their software is being used in a way they don't like, they can certainly change it. They've never been up for pirating, and shouldn't be.
It's yet another biased, sensationalist Slashdot story. Oh, Apple stopped supporting the abuse of a feature that was never intended to be used in the way that's now being restricted! They MUST be evil (this week)! Folks, this is not the crippling of iTunes; it's a bunch of fixes (like the volume levels problem) and the end of an opportunity for people to pirate music.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but that doesn't make piracy of their stuff acceptable. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the music. Apple worked very hard to get the RIAA to soften up as much as it has with DRM in the iTunes Music Store. To risk it all now just to let a few geeks listen to their home music at the office would be a stupid move and it's not as if this particular feature was the only way of doing so. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the beginning of an evil trend of Apple crushing its users in DRM or anything like that!
Unfortunately, a more objective article (as in, one that doesn't shout that Apple is crippling iTunes in the headline) seems to be too much to ask of Slashdot. Sorry guys, I'm as liberal as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that large corporations are necessarily evil demons trying to take over the world. I think I'm leaving this site for good, in case anyone cares (I am registered, but figured that I am alone in being reasonable and might as well be anonymous to you all.).
Whatchutalkinboutwillis?
This worked just fine from both a local Linux and Solaris box:
ssh -g -L 3689:homemac:3689 me@homemac
Then point the workmac -> daap://worklinux
The trick is, you can't set up the SSH tunnel *from* the Mac itself, because iTunes doesn't like connecting to localhost or even 127.0.0.1 (or maybe it was ports other than 3689).
This is a fair move by Apple.
It keeps the RIAA happy. (An unfortunate necessity in order to main catalogue diversity).
It still allows for a modicum of fair use.
The way I see it (and so do Apple I assume) is that when you are on the move, or away from your mac, you listen to your iPod. When you are at home / work (wherever your mac is), you can listen to whatever the hell you like, and if you like it, you can buy it and burn it.
Apple are setting the benchmark for this market now - if other companies join in and add more draconian DRM, they will fail.
I, for one, welcome our new, fruity overlords.
\\ Mitch
Can this be worked around by setting your netmask to something like 0.0.0.0 (i.e. local subnet include whole internet).
Real SUV's don't have cupholders
It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
All this time, I thought the subnet restriction was already in place because the README had already stated it. I guess 4.0.1 simply implements what the documentation said all along. (and to think that I could have streamed from my LAN to wireless at home all this time.. I should look into bridging..).
As far as I can see, all the sharing functionality is still built in to iTunes 4.0.1. All the resource files still have the dialogs and menu items. Only the executable has changed to exclude that one "Connect to Shared Library..." menu item. The executable actually gained a bit of weight. I don't know a whole lot about resource hacking but I'm trying to add the item back in to the Advanced menu. I bet you all it'll work then. I'll post here again if I'm successful. Apple engineers rarely take copy protection to more than a superficial level until the next major revision.
I stream from my Powerbook G4, connected to my office network via Airport on a private subnet, to my desktop G4, connected to a public IP address on a different subnet. The computers sit side-by-side, but this allows me to keep the collection with me on the 'book and to play it through my big desktop speakers when I'm at the office, all without plugging in another wire.
The music sharing was the single coolest thing about iTunes 4 and is the reason I updated from 3.
I just made the iTunes 4 update inactive on both machines. God this sucks.
A simple datapipe would fix this problem.
While they're at it, why doesn't apple just remove file sharing and iChat from OSX. OS X has a one click ftp and web server for sharing all the mp3s you want to share. This was just a convenient way for people to stream their music over the internet without having to download it to another machine. Who cares if a few friends take advantage of it. Who wants to spend time using AudioHijack or other software to record an mp3/mp4 stream in real time? I can just open up Kazaa on a pc or Direct Connect on the mac and find the mp3. I send more mp3s over AIM (using Apple's iChat) to other people. Never used iTunes music sharing but this is just sheer stupidity on Apple's part.
Since your WinAMP/WMP/MusicMatch does this too? Sure you can broadcast shoutcast/icecast streams, but this was on-demand streaming of tracks.
;)
This is hardly much of a change in digital rights management. If you want to share your music from elsewhere then either run an ssh tunnel, use vpn, or set up your itunes folder as a share and connect to it remotely.
Apple stated its original intent was for families to be able to share libraries within the house. That hasn't changed. They went beyond this with the original implementation allowing users to connect to their libraries from work easily, and without hassal. Since everyone went and used it to share music with random people, and then on top of that people used it for music piracy, Apple removed this extra feature that wasn't even mentioned in the original announcement Jobs made.
If Apple had, say, changed the number of tracks you could authorize iTMS tracks on, then that would be leaning more towards draconian DRM methods that we love to loathe.
Your comment is a troll, and has already been moderated as such (by others.. I never seem to have mod points when I need them
So me and about five other people scattered across this college network all have each other's IPs, and we all share our itunes playlists with each other. None of us are sharing with hosts off of the college network, because that would be too slow.
If we upgraded to 4.01, which we won't, this would mean we would no longer be able to do this. Isn't that the point of the playlist sharing? How is that not fair use? And where's the logic in allowing us to share to our entire dorm floor (same subnet), but not allowing us to share to the next dorm over (different subnet)? I refuse to believe it would be fair use for me to walk 200ft to the next dorm and lend Chris a CD, but not fair use for Chris to stream my mp3s 200ft from a different subnet.
Big friggin deal. This isn't going to stop people like me and my friends. We just won't use 4.01, and if we meet someone who uses 4.01 we'll find a way to downgrade their system. If apple finds some way to force us to 4.01, like announces you can't buy from the apple music store with 4.0, we'll just set up some kind of VPN tunneling thing, that's easy. And you know what? The pirates apple's trying to stop with this update will do the same fricking thing. Congratulations, without curbing or slowing piracy in the least, you've just befuddled Joe User at some corporation as to how to share an mp3 with steve in accounting. And all that the effect this will be is that Joe User will just send the mp3 to Steve over AIM. And maybe, next time Joe is considering buying an mp3 from the apple store, he'll think "well, if i buy this, i won't be able to share it with anyone since they're not on the same 'subnet', whatever this means. maybe i'll just see if i can download this as an mp3 off Acquisition."
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I wonder if those who have already bought apple music store tracks could complain or threaten to sue based on the fact that they bought the APple Music Store stuff having been told "it will do X Y and Z" and now two weeks later they're being told "you can't do Z to anyone outside your house".
Posting AC because my e-mail address gives away what college i go to.
They don't have iTunes for another platform yet so in order to stay completely legitimate in the eyes of the labels and public they had to do this. Once they have a Windows version there will be no reason for them to not expand that.
Until then I don't see the big deal. You can burn your downloads to a CD right? Just burn them to a CD and then rip the CD as oggs or mp3s if you really need to share.
This is all about propaganda. If Apple stays 110% on the right side of the law while still being liberal in its feature set then that's a major accomplishment. It will only further undermine the subscription models and similar schemes.
As long as you can burn to a CD and rip that CD, Apple is just doing stuff like this for show. It's so that they can more easily hit the labels right back in the face if they get taken to court for one of the typical bogus reasons.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
This is fine. People just seem to be too stupid to be trusted with any real discressionary rope. So it is hardwired. Pitty cause it was a good feature.
anyone know if they've changed the protocol at all?
In other words, does one 2 oh my god still work?
I dont think anyone around me has updated to 4.0.1 yet, so I can't check myself....
<shameless self promotion>
in any case, feel free to check out one 2 oh my god. it's pretty sweet
</shameless self promotion>
I agree with you 100%... the whole concept of actually "bringing" media with you is so 20th century.
Can't you VPN to your home box? Shouldn't this solve the issue of restriction, yet maintain old fuctionality?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND APPLE COMPUTER, INC. (?APPLE?) STATING THE TERMS THAT GOVERN YOUR USE OF THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE SERVICE. [...] IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, DO NOT CLICK ?AGREE,? AND DO NOT USE THE SERVICE. [...] ... APPLE MAY REFUSE ACCESS TO THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY PART OF THIS AGREEMENT.
... include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (?Usage Rules?). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. ... You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form [...]
.. Apple suspects that you have failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement .... Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement ... and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof).
... to disclose any Registration Data [to] a third party, as Apple believes is reasonably necessary or appropriate to .. verify compliance with any part of this Agreement
... this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates ... will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
[...]
You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service
[...]
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
[...]
Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
[...]
You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case.
[...]
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability.
[...]
THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PART OF THE SERVICE, EXCEPT FOR USE OF THE SERVICE AS PERMITTED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND INFRINGES ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE MONETARY DAMAGES, FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
If
[...]
You agree that Apple has the right
[...]
Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? Kinda like a microsoft EULA but in a nicer font!
Seems this whold internet and local sharing thing doesnt matter for some because it had problems with proxies in some conditions. 4.0.1 has fixed this and now at least I can Get local playlists so I'm happy.
If the gun industry was like the computer industry all guns would come filled with concrete. Thus, there'd be no risk of you killing somebody and blaming it on the gun manufacturer.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The license was simple, Don't Steal Music, but still some people did not manage to understand it. Streaming was nice and innocent until some really smart people started ripping the streams and do other funny things.
If you abuse it, they will shut it down - simple and easy.
In the end Apple ist just a company and has its responsibilites. You want to steal music? Fine, get Kaaza/Limewire/What ever, why abuse iTunes?
Thank you guys, just another neat feature disappears...
Weeeee
...when it comes to Virtual Property. Did Magic: The Gathering Online teach you people ANYTHING?
Ok, this is exactly the problem with DRM. First, a product comes out. Then, you work out how to use it to do something you'd obviously like to do. Last, company takes that ability away from you.
Don't you see?
You don't really own this music. You're under their permission to do *anything* with it. If Apple decides burning the music to CD is a bad idea, what can you really do about it?
The Mac users are commenting, but they're doing so on the Mac specific forums first, THEN going to general forums like Slashdot. Later, I may check and see if Fark.com is talking about it as well, you never know with them.
Your post was about 3 or 4 minutes after I heard the story on MacCentral.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
"Optimized for local MP3, OGG and WMA audio content, but also supports internet radio streams, other audio formats, and/or remote content by adding them manually."
Did you go to the site and check it out? Netjuke simply provides mtu's (or streams, in conjunction with ShoutCast, QTTS, etc.)....the 'play' ability depends on the player on the client side. It is a web based interface, and if your OS and client support a given format you're good to go. We already know how to convert AAC files...
http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda/home.asp
Been using this for years... easier than iTunes and no restrictions.
After years of M$ abuse the crowds have become accustomed to the reverse meaning, not! The public streaming facility did step over RIAAs toes in that non DRMd files (ripped CDs and P2P mp3s) could be easily downloaded and remotely saved with wget (and a little help from perl... it's somewhere on google). Now, Apple had to face a choice: plug the hole and keep the labels from huddling up beneath M$'s MediaPlayer10 (whatever) or just joyride and wait for the MusicStore's dismantlement. I'm not shure if and when Apple will turn sour and start holding hostage of our playlists but for the time being it's the most reasonable attempt to get this darn 'net music thing up and running. The alternative is .wma 'subscription' and 'jukebox' services for hell's sake! ATM iTMS is still joung and vulnerable enough for an M$ consultant to chime labels away from it and dry it up completely; you don't want to type your CC code in that 3degrees thing everytime you unlock your screensaver do you?
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Man, wmp is already crippled by our standard. You realize any further restriction in wmp would mean somethin' eerily like the matrix plug?
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
4.01 fixes this problem completely which should make it worth upgrading too if you care about the quality of your music.
Thats what you get for using closed source bullshit from a money grubbing corporation.
Ok, I have a question. Why not just run a QuickTime streaming server if its that big of a deal? I have my walkman at home plugged into my audio in and have QTSS streaming my favorite radio station. Sound quality is fine, no buffering or network issues, no DRM issues. The area where I work does not allow me to bring any electronic devices in, so I cannot just bring in a radio.
Should be just as easy to set up with your iTunes library.
...and the one i employ, is i keep all of my music on a firewire hard drive. within itunes, you can set the firewire music directory as the default itunes one, and then i just move it back and forth between work and home.
granted, there is a financial investment -- but it works out well.
go get it
This ipod theme is really nice looking. You should consider updating the front page to use it by default! ^_^
"Until the copyright laws change or artists can start hitting the big time without signing to one of the major labels, no amount of pressure on online music stores - whether Apple's, the upcoming Napster (tm), or anything else with major content - will change this. "
The copyright laws by themselves aren't the problem, for individual copyright holders fall under the same terms as the corporate. And as demonstrated by a recent "Ask Slashdot" the assumption that the RIAA is the sole reason that an artist can't succeed is challenged.
I'm not a big fan of either the RIAA, or the "distortion" that is present day copyright, but I'm even less a fan of the ommission that the "anti" side brings to the table.
Yes, but that requires that you have two copies of your music (which could be several gigs worth). That's a hassle that was otherwise avoided.
Avoid? Bull. CD-R is much cheaper than streaming the data repeatedly through a network connection, especially because entry-level residential high-speed Internet access 1. isn't affordable everywhere and 2. is most often limited to 112 kbps upstream after TCP/IP overhead is subtracted. A hundred dollars worth of iTunes recordings encoded as 128 kbps AAC will fit on a single 50 cent CD-R disc; how much does it cost to upgrade to second-tier residential broadband?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Go ahead, blame the victim...
:-) But thanks to the idiots they have drawn more attention to how immature and untrustworthy many folk are and it will probably only get worse, cuz they will keep trying. And make life less fun for everyone.
They made cool software and TRIED not to make it too restrictive, TRIED to give us the ability to listen to our music anywhere... and then a bunch of LOUDMOUTHED morons ruined it for everybody. They DARED Apple to do this, and Apple had no choice... Do you seriously think if it wasn't for Cletus, Zeke, Jim-Bob, et-al, VERY-PUBLICLY announcing how they were going to share copy-righted materials that this would have happened?
The people who publicized all the public shares and websites for itunes music are to blame. quit pointing fingers anywhere else. And if they say they didn't know this would happen, they are liars.
We all KNEW this feature could be abused, but most of us didn't abuse it because we like the feature and hoped to keep using it AS IT WAS INTENDED... (or to discretely share with friends
They are just as bad as spammers -- Open relays _should_ be OK and _should_ be available for people to use. But because of all the idiots in the world the technology gets harder and more restrictive to use instead of easier and more open.
Focus the blame for things at the right target, in this case the show-boaters who blew it for us all!!!
While Apple crawls back, the M$ product named "Six Degrees" allows the same thing (sharing your MP3 with your friends, even outside your subnet) AND they did not issue a fix. Even worse than haveing something taken away from you is if you see the big bully beside you (the one that always laughed at you) still keeping his cool stuff :-(
Because i don't feel like carrying around 70 gig of cd-r's you fucking nimrod.
If you listen to music for twelve straight hours a day, then at just under 1 MB/min (iTunes's data rate), you've only filled about one 700 MB CD. Why do you feel the need to carry 100 half-days worth of music?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I dont get it... so now you cant stream your mp3 playlist to your pals. Let's see Shoutcast (which is is incidentally owned by AOL/TW, the biggest record company out there) allows you to do this.
Windows media server is free as is a 10 user version of Real's Helix Server.... How is any of that different?
I can understand filesharing being a problem, but streaming? I can download an album in 5 minutes but if I want to get it via stream isnt it going to take me an hour w/ some tool like total recorder open?
I really must be missing something here cuz this just sounds silly...
Because the cryptographic primitives needed to implement [a limit of one stream] securely don't exist?
You mean like opening the file for reading in exclusive mode? What cryptographic primitives are you talking about?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Apple appears to have removed the limiter thing that reduced the volume of the music when it went too high. Sounds much better in 4.0.1.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
and speaking of which - where the hell are the indie artists' and their music on iTMS? Huh?
You know, you can suggest recording artists to the iTunes Music Store. Try doing that and also approaching the label; it may be more effective.
It also takes time to encode a label's catalog and to negotiate digital distribution rights with artists whose contracts were written before digital distribution rights existed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Where is this defeatist attitude comming from? Do I have to unplug my network card to oggenc my CDs next? Screw that and screw stupid restrictions. I'm not a music publisher, I'm just someone who wants to listen to my music. I might even swap those encoded files like I used to swap cassette tapes. It was legal then and it's legal now.
You could free yourself. Stupid shit like this is why I don't own a Rio and I don't own a Ipod. I've got a Zaurus and it plays ogg just fine. Compact flash is cheap and easy. I like it better open, which has better programs and works well with CF eathernet and wifi. I'd never trust a closed source "update" for it. Propriatory drivers and criple ware suck and ultimately make hardware into paperweights.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
We'd get the usual treatises on monopoly law, quotes by open source developers who've had to resort to eating garbage to survive due to Microsoft's unfair business practices, "All Hail Linux" posts, etc, etc, and ad nauseam.
This Slashdot double standard towards Apple is just mind boggling.
No, if the gun industry was like the computer industry guns would randomly explode, killing the user, or include backdoors (intended or not) that allowed strangers use the gun to kill passerby without the owners permission. This analogy is fairly true when talking about Microsoft software, which is why they don't have a large following among people experienced enought to know better (astroturfers don't count, btw).
But because this is Apple nothing of the kind has happened... uh, I'll get my coat.
Apple iTunes 4.0.1 release date: 5-27-03
Today's date: 5-27-03
Story posted: 6:05 PM.
Comment made: 6:22 PM.
You might want to wait more than 17 minutes to complain about the lack of attention there, Sparky.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I'm searching for a webenabled jukebox (not streaming - real jukebox) - to play music on the server.
I used something old with a perlscript, mysql and mpeg123/rxaudio with a php GUI - but that hasn't been touched by anyone in years... Does someone have an alternative?
Much appreciated!
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
It's actually Threedegrees, not Six Degrees. Previously mentioned on /. here.
You can download a beta of this stuff from the website. I highly recommend it.
That's why I laugh when I see the Microsoft icon with Bill Gates as a Borg. Who are the real parrots for a central intelligence? Mac owners. Who provides your hardware? Who provides your software? Who provides your excuses? That's right, the Queen aka Steve Jobs.
I frankly don't care what Apple does but the lack of intellectual consistency by owners of their computers and software is absolutely stunning.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
I was streaming music from my work Mac to home Mac since iTunes first came out using Apple personal file sharing over TCP/IP. I just mounted the work hard drive on my home computer, switched Library location to the mounted drive, then copied the iTunes Music Library files onto my home Mac. Unfortately, I haven't tried this with 4.0 since I'm using an iPod for this now... I also never tried this method with more than one Mac streaming.
mod parent down, streaming does not get around DRM, you could only stream non AMS files (unless the computer was authorized with that AMS account). Also he is a flaming idiot.
If this is true, and you want to share your playlists, assuming you have a firewall in place, simply NAT any "outside" or non-local traffic to an address on you "inside" subnet on only the ports required (sorry I'm not familiar with iTunes).
Then hey-presto, all requests appear to come from your local subnet.
Simple no?
Is what iTunes wanted to be.
A caveat, all of the Nex models are a bit flimsy. Sometimes stuff breaks off the circuit board, bad solder joints. Press the buttons lightly, snap them off, Frontier can't/won't help you, maybe you can find an old TV repairmam good with a soldering gun.
Anyway, the compact flash card that powers the Nex can be put into a PCMCIA adapter and plugged into a laptop, a good way to go.
Oh well, sometimes it's just boring and stupid. I love to read an interesting article and suddenly realise "Oh my god, it's a TROLL!". Seeing plain "suck my ass" is lame. But I was nicely surprised to see a "horse cock". Horse cocks are nice :)
In iTunes 4.0, you couldn't listen to other people's shared music if you used a web proxy (whether located on your own computer or another). Anyone know if this is fixed?
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
This is another one of Apple's weak attempts at controlling piracy by making the methods nonobvious. Given the Unixy nature of OSX, it's almost trivial to set up a tunnel in order to get streaming from home to work. In fact, I would bet that within 24 hours someone will be offering a free utility geared to exactly this kind of usage.
I suppose this is as good as it gets, as far as DRM is concerned. Circumventable when necessary, but just inconvenient enough that Joe 31337 won't bother trying anything funny.
Couldn't you just set up a second ip on your box and use ipfw to NAT incoming connections to it? That way it will look like the streaming request is coming from your local server. Isn't technology neat?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Ok, fine, stop using iTunes then. What are you gonna use? Oh, tons of other programs, right. It's a free program, sheesh.
Also, if this is all so lame, why are so many large companies rushing to catch up (again, just like with the iPod)?
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
Since 1998 when Bill Clinton signed the DMCA into law and made everyone in America into a criminal for wanting to do with their own music as they wished.
Haha. yes. the bold/strong horse cock post is somewhat common. I know what you mean. I don't think a lot of people realize the power of a good troll. I mean, to really create a well crafted troll post requires more effort than posting a BSD is dying post and likewise (although I'd really like to find out if a troll actually wrote the first ever "Netcraft confirms it" one right here on slashdot and expected its widespread adoption to this date). I also appreciate the more original creative ones, even though many of them are way too obvious sometimes. I rarely see one that really does the trick with attracting replies and creating a small bit of confusion and chaos
Look what happened to Sony after it became a "content" producer. Its electronics division went to shit because the bits were more valuable than the atoms they used to sell.
Apple is getting into the music business, and that doesn't bode well for its hardware.
- chad
Fruity....
Er you might want to compare the submitter's Slashdot ID to that of the person you were replying to...
Yep... Another way is to sneak an info users really hate, like that guy who snuck up "Trinity dies by the end of Martix Revolution" in his very much on-topic and insightful post on something very different... :)
:)
Ok, gonna go to sleep, see you in another troll
ahh goodnight. and yes i do remember that spoiler troll! it was right at the last or second to last paragraph right near the beginning of the story. everything leading up totally threw the reader off.
This program has offered this capability for a while, and not one eyebrow is raised! (Check out the "Media Server" description.) Leave it to Apple to intro a update with such grand fashion, that it gets everyone all hot and bothered about something that's nothing new.
I remember that one. There was also the person who gave us pay-before-you-pump gas stations.
because in 4.x, the music "fades" in and out...
...regardless of whether you turn normalization (or whatever Apple calls it) on or off.
for streaming music, i'll continue to use XMMS.
if you want to go back to iTunes 3.x, find and use "Pacifist.dmg" - a package-extraction utility that allows you to go back to the install CD and pull out the original iTunes...
One thing I've thought of -
What's to stop you from buying songs from the Apple music store, burning them to normal *audio* CDs, then re-ripping them to AAC or MP3 without the associated copy protection?
Sure, you'll lose a bit of quality, but that would seem to be the way to do it.. Did this for a friend who bought an audiobook from audible.com, and wanted it as un-protected MP3s.. Had him burn an audio CD, then ripped it back to MP3..
No, "the big change" is that the volume fluxuation problem is fixed. That was a much bigger problem than being able to (or not being able to) stream music with other computers.
The RIAA are calling for the US Government to put forward a bill to chop all US citizen's fingers off, citing that they are a "circumvention device" and allow them to copy music...while in the far east CDs are burned by the truckload without anybody batting an eyelid.
this is another example of the RIAA barking up the wrong tree, and flexing their muscles to the wrong people.
For those who need a GUI.
SSH Tunnel Manager
Apple was fast, selfdefending and just in implementing this limitation to daap://. I predicted this update to my friends since I discovered it the possibilities of the sharing. If someone coded the downloader apps into an iTunes plug-in with centralized hosts, iTunes would become Mac KaZaA, and the iTunes Music Store would die.
Oh my god, its just like this movie I saw this weekend, "The Martyr Reloaded". If you haven't heard about it, its about how there is this underlying system everywhere that's out to get me. I swear to god everywhere I look now I see it in action. Its like my eyes are finally open to the Truth.
I'm scared.
Come on guys and gals, just buy the Fn CD of your favorite band. Skrew KzAAAA, Knapsteeer. If your poor tune FM.
I suspect that Apple did the AppleScript update first, and then under pressure from the recording companies that so graciously allowed the lame DRM that iTunes had, they stopped the WAN sharing. But honestly, how long could that last? At least they still let you do LAN sharing, which if you're at an office or something like that could be quite nice.
Shared office music library. Push your copanies T3 line to the max.
- Sherman
I think this is just a token nod to get the music industry off Apple's back.
Hey, Darwin Streaming Server can still stream mp3's. True, it's tougher to configure and set up, but it's free and it runs on a Mac.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
just use VNC (there is an OSX version)
Instead of whining about not being able to listen to your home music at work, why don't ypu just use rsync to keep your iTunes music folders synced?
-- "The reward of suffering is experience." - Aeschylus
It just seems that streaming isn't really the problem...you can listen to streams any number of other ways, from countless other sources. To be able to (easily & painlessly) grab anyone's public iTunes shares as usable .mp3s strikes me as far, far more offensive to those in power. In fact it flies directly in the face of allowing iTunes to stream but not really share files...
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
My roommate, Blake is the leader of the netjuke project. Although we both think AAC is crap, it is supported in Netjuke. If you player is enabled to play a file it will play. Netjuke can also effortless support huge collections, unlike itunes
You mean like most College dorm which are on the same sub-net and now can't be accessed from outside the subnet (i.e. Other Sharers and/or the RIAA).
/Ronald Weasley
/end RW
Bloody Brilliant!!!
Also, please note it was said that "shares can be seen, but not accessed".
Don't forget that OS X has small things like: FTP/HTTP/AFP/SMB/SSH/SFTP....which I hear can be used to *gasp* share anything!!!
Uh-oh. (ssssshhhh!)
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Man I finally get an ibook and try to find a firmware hack to reset the dvd reigon and they go and cripple itoons on me. Next thing you know they'll take away my stikies because they have words contained in songs.
I'm tired of all the fighting over copyrights. I'm ready for revolution. Let's end it now, NO MORE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. No more secrets.
Musicians should make their money on public performance and teaching. Companies should have their charter revoked. I would gladly accept a pre-Industrial revolution economy over these stupid restrictions.
So who will be the first against the wall???
>> ....can't help wonder what this change will do to sales of the iPod...
...Not many left.
The impact, I suspect, will be nil.
Take the number of people who can and want to listen to only their music at work.
Subtract everyone who doesn't sit in front of a computer at work.
Subtract everyone who sits in front of a computer that can't get to the net.
Subtract everyone who doesn't own a Mac.
Subtract every Mac owner who doesn't run OS X.
Subtract every home OS X user who doesn't know how to share his iTunes collection with himself at work.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If you look at 4.0's help files, it states that sharing is only on local networks (you'll have to go through the package contents as Help will fetch the newer stuff off the net)
AC comments get piped to
I don't know what we're going to do without your sanctimonious, self-righteous pronouncements!
By the way, did you notice the DOZENS of posts agreeing exactly with what you said? GET OVER YOURSELF AND YOUR PERSECUTION COMPLEX!
All IP-tunneling applications, and the users thereof, violate the DMCA because they could be used as tools that defeat Apple's copy-protection measures?
ifconfig lan0 (ip) netmask 0.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Linux is like a tango with an inexperienced partner. Fast, exciting and, as happens many times, one slips and is injured. GNU/Linux is young and free (as in speech) but still needs a fair amount of work. Only minor complaints about the work ahead because most realize the importance.
Apple is like getting fucked up the ass by your cell mate. One mistake, one improper grab for the "good life", and your owned by a 300 pound psychopath chasing you around the cell with a stiffy. The Mac GUI is a thing of beauty. It's like it was handed down by the hand of God. But then the bill comes, and comes and comes. Yearly OS updates ($130), iLife ($50), .Mac ($100) and expensive third party applications. And don't forget about the premium you'll pay for replacement parts (like coughing up $200 for a $50 power supply). Macs are incredible computers but they may cost you more than you're willing to pay.
Freedom or comfort, it's your choice.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Apple did what they had to do to keep the music industry happy. In order to allow users to buy music and download it, they had to prove to the music industry that people wouldn't use this as a way to pirate music. To keep the music coming, they had to shut down the streaming they were providing unknowingly. Sure there are ways around it, but average joe user, who isn't a terminal whiz, isn't going to try SSH forwarding or a VPN. They still allow sharing inside of the same subnet. That's all that's needed for a small home network for someone who wants to use the music on the desktop upstairs on the laptop downstairs. Apple finally came up with a decent business model for music downloading and all people want to do is pirate. Sure, the streaming from home to work is a viable, legal option, but more people where attempting to use it for illegal deeds. Apple is in a tough spot, with having to please the music companies to keep them from cutting the music flow, and end users who want to use their music everywhere. Keep the tunes flowing and I'll be happy!
Oops, you already did? Maybe some /.er will post the old version around...maybe on a peer to peer?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Well, let's see... According to all the stuff I've read here on /., Apple has like 3 or 4 percent market share. So I'm reading all these posts that are 'all so authoritative and knowing' - about 400 replies on this topic so far. 4 percent of 400 is 16, so that means that 16 of you actually have a Mac. Now, according to some of the surveys I've seen less than a third of current Mac owners have even seen iTunes Music Store. So... Now I'm left with only six or so people on this entire topic besides myself that actually KNOW what it's all about and how it works. So I guess what I'm really saying about Apple and the iTunes subject is that "Ya'all is mostly fulla shit!" It's good stuff and Apple isn't going to just 'fuck you over' like many of you seem to think. It's like beer, give it a try, you might like it.
Personally, I find the general acceptance of Montana's speed limit, especially here, very frightening.
:-(
When you accept traffic laws, you accept giving up control over your own car, and ALL power to use the roads in the manner that you see fit. Then you are the subject of the traffic system, which may grant you ability to do things, when and if it feels fit. It doesn't matter if the traffic system has been your friend up until today: tomorrow you could wake up and find that due to new terms from the insurance industry you can no longer make any left turns what so ever. Or that you have to pay per mile for your entire commute. Or that the traffic system has been discontinued and your... sorry... its car is useless.
This is exactly the old frog boiling analogy. Other states made the traffic laws too annoying, so the drivers jumped right out. By making the traffic laws initially quite lenient, Montana's strategy is to get drivers to accept the concept that their cars decide what they can and cannot do, because it seems the cauldron actually isn't such a bad place for a swim. Expect the limitations to get tighter and tighter as the general acceptance grows...
And I, who was so fond of my Mini Cooper
I swear, you fucking idiots have no clue how business works. Apple have just convinced the record industries to give them rights to distribute songs with a very minimal set of restrictions. Do you think that introducing software which became a P2P sharing service within a matter of weeks will do wonders for the business relationship?
Apple had to plug that hole as soon as possible, and anyone with any sort of business sense would tell you the same. So what if a dozen or so /.ers can't listen to music at work? The people who actually used that capability in iTunes in the first place (the "Connect to Shared Music Manually" function and entering a manually assigned host name or their IP address) are already well ahead of everyone else, and they'll find ways to stream their music legitimately. I shared my music library from my home machine using iTunes 3.0 well before 4.0 came out using AppleShare and the Library Import function.
This was a good, sound business decision. Apple decided that giving Mac users the key to creating the next P2P service on the platform would be detrimental to their relationship with the RIAA (who, like it or not, would have held Apple responsible had iTunes P2P ever gotten big), and therefore detrimental to their recently launched iTunes Music Service, which is in its infancy. Let's not even talk about how pissed the RIAA would have been had this capability carried over to the Windows version of iTunes. Apple was smart and plugged this hole before it started leaking too badly. Get it?
You completely missed the point. Apple's DRM is more like equipping a gun with a mechanism that would only allow the owner to fire it, so that the gun cannot be used illegally. I think this kind of mechanism would work really well, along with stricter background check of people who purchase them.
... iTunes used Rendevous to do the sharing! Rendevous would only allow devices on the same subnet to publish services to each other anyway, so the (un)doings of 4.0.1 is to remove the EXTRA ENGINEERING EFFORT spent to allow iTunes to share to other networks in the first place!
Sorry, but I'm finding myself both stumped and humoured at the same time! (Only because I never share music.)
ifconfig interface netmask 0xffffffff
Damn I just put the whole internet in my subnet... what a shame!
-CompuDroid
http://www.zoo-crew.org
Apple seems to be doing the world a favor by disallowing the rest of the world from hearing what college kids are listening to.
someone has to havce access to the physical switch but hey it will work our dorm does :)
not sure if it handles AAC files, and dosent offer the convienience of iTunes for defining playlists, but MP3 Sushi does allow easy streaming to itunes, and sharing via www -
http://www.maliasoft.com/mp3sushi/
another "Type-R" with a bigger wing might pull up next to him in the 'hood, and he'll need to be able to play just the right smack-down tune for the situation
That's why you make a Smackdown CD, just for such occasions. A single CD can hold over 160 tunes that could be just the right tune.
Will I retire or break 10K?
When the other guy already has a copy
The crypto primitives for preventing the other guy from getting an unauthorized perfect digital copy already exist. They're called signed audio output drivers and signed codecs, and Microsoft has assembled them into a Secure Audio Path. All decryption is done in kernel space by components signed by Microsoft.
Anything less than a perfect digital copy is likely to qualify as time-shifting, which American courts consider fair use. (Australian courts say otherwise, but that's beside the point because Warner, Sony, Uni, BMG, Apple Computer, and Microsoft do quite a bit of business in the States.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I guess your cunning retort defeats his entire argument. Thank you, oh wise one, for contributing so much to the discussion.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I approve the added limitation, I think that's fair.
Apple is not screwing you too badly this time.
When (if) iTunes for WIndows will be available I'm sure that iTunes in Mac and PC in the same subnet will work together pretty well.
but my take on the whole shebang can be found here.
"We communicate daily and say nothing. We have rebuilt the Tower of Babel and it is a television antenna." -- Ted Koppel
So when is someone going to put a Gnutella front end onto an iTunes proxy? Would certainly deal with a lot of the complaining about 4.0.1
Totally agree with the comments about ssh tunelling by the way, this means I can still play music from my home store at work. Besides, how many people are lucky enough to (a) work from a Mac, and (b) have enough bandwidth at home to usefully play this stuff?
The only thing iTunes 4.0.1. stops is blatant library sharing with strangers. Apple dodges the legal responsibility (blame the law & the music industry, not Apple) which is a Good Thing and whomever comes up with an iTunes Proxy will join the Gazaa/Gnutella/Limewire, thus drawing away the packs of lawyers from Apple.
How long did we think making music library sharing so simple that non-techies could do it would last before it was smote by the lawyers? Seriously? The cat is now out of the bag, but until copyright law is more balanced, it will take individuals who can evade the lawyers to produce the interface between your music and the outside world.
M.
Montana has speed limits!? FUCK!
I guess I'll never get to see that state again...
Help. Help. I'm being oppressed.
No you're not (yet). But this simple move by Apple demonstrates that they can and will restrict rights to music you bought.
There was no need to tunnel stuff, the need has been created by Apple to prevent piracy, but it also restricts fair use.
There's no garantee that they're not gonna restrict your rights further. This just shows owning the music is better than any DRM solution. What if my Mac died and all I have left is linux-PC with 3000 songs I can't listen to anymore?
I cannot speak for the US , so you may be right, or may not. But around here we can copy on other media/make backup copy as of a performance long as this is for personal private usage.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
it's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes"
fuck you.
You can still play your AAC files purchaced from the iTunes Music Store, even if you Mac "died" (as you put it). For that matter, you can archive all of those files as either AAC or AIFF files on any media you chose, including the HD of your Linux PC (which should be able to support AAC "any day now")
You seem to have this crazy notion that AAC is another Windows Media Player file alternative, created solely to place ultra restrictions on files and force you to "rent" music rather than purchace it (as a new Microsoft music service is expected to do in a few months). Nothing could be further from the truth. AAC was invented at Dolby for the purpose of offering a better compression algorythm than MP3, and it succeeds briliantly. At a bit-rate of 128, it sounds as good or better than a 192 VBR MP3. Yes, it stores some information in the DRM layer... this is exactly why it will become the new standard. It permits fair use (archiving, copying to other sources, listening on other playback equipment, sharing it with close friends) without allowing you to freely rip off and distribute the files they sell you (and are trying to sell to others) to the entire world.
Kindly offer one example of "fair use" which is prevented by the DRM restrictions Apple places on the files they sell you (and only the files they sell you). Here's a little help: "Fair Use," according to US copyright law, includes the right to make back-ups, to make copies to other media, to extract samples for educational use. Fare Use does not include the right to make copies available to other people, although the files sold by Apple actually allow that on a limited basis.
Now, which Fair Use rights do you think we are being denied? We are all very anxious to hear this.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think you are a troll, sir.
First, I think people of your ilk should quit with calling everybody "sir" when you try to make a point. Do you walk around town screeching: "Mark my words, paper boy! You, sir, will rue the day you left my paper in the rain!"
It's pretentious and stupid.
Second, you're wrong. "Copyright infringement" is not "theft." Theft is what happens when I take something from you, in spite of the fact that I have no right to do so. Since I've taken it, you can't have it any more. Theft is what would happen if I went over there and took your computer from you. The denizens of Slashdot wold rejoice, yes. But I nonetheless would have stolen from you.
"Theft," "sir," is what happens when record companies exploit artists. Recording companies are useless anachronisms that are to recording artists what Sicilian mobsters are to family businesses. The market position of the record companies is part protection racket, part confidence scam. The result is profits in the pockets of "businessmen" who did nothing to earn them, all at the expensive of the well being and livelihood of artists.
"Theft" is also what recording companies do to the general public... they curtail the distribution of sincere arts & culture through the promotion and popularization of what are basically record commercials. Christina Aguillera, for instance. She's not an artist. She's a brand. The product is reflective data-bearing disks, soft drink products, and other tawdry wares.
She exists for two interrelated purposes: 1. to turn listeners into consumptive sheep who will buy not only the company's overpriced albums and singles but also an array of endorsed third-party products and services; and, 2. to fill up time that would prevent... shock, maybe, a thought-provoking artist... from making it into the headspace of average people.
This is *theft.*
Now, thanks to a variety of failures in our system of governance, some jerkoff decided that ideas and art should have *owners.* This jerkoff probably meant well--after all, how can an artist exist when all wealth is based on property? Art, except in the very limited sense as it relates to the physical medium carrying the art, isn't property... so what can we do?
That jerkoff, however, succeeded in building one of the greatest cultural swindles in probably all of human history.
Copyright infringement -- a violation of the contrived rights of some people to own "ideas" and "expressions" and "culture" itself -- is not theft, any more than taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa is theft (thought you might find yourself with a bruised ass, for other reasons, since flash photograph destroys art that old).
It's copying. It's illegal. It's utterly moral. Say any of those things, but, it is most certainly not theft.
Ideas belong to humanity. If for some reason artists cannot thrive in our society unless we lock up their ideas and sell them off to those who can afford them... well, I'd say we've really fucked things up as a race and we'd better re-organize our priorities.
Wow, that sounds awesome! Where do I sign up!?
This shows that even with a good company like Apple, and even though this particular restriction isn't a big deal, yeah...
Okay, that wasn't a terribly coherent sentence so I'll try and explain.
I'm not ragging on Apple, and I'm betting as long as management doesn't change too much things like iTunes will still stay relatively free, but the fact that there is *any* DRM means that there is potential for *more* DRM. In fact, I could get really zealotous and say that the fact that it's closed source means there's potential for DRM.
Truly open systems are the only cure, and yes, Apple and iTunes are stil happy now, but this is a sobering reminder that if Apple gets a little change in management, iTunes might take a serious turn for the worse.
Or, to put it all shortly: any DRM is too much DRM.
I thought it was a lame feature anyway.
It has its purposes, but one of them certainly wasn't listening to some random guy's massive collection of Bright Eyes on his ISDN connection, not my idea of fun, no sir.
and sensationalism there would be no stories and no choir.
This may have been posted already, but I didn't see it in a tertiary glance of the comments.
I have been sharing for over a year with previous versions of iTunes. Just set up your home mac for file sharing in system preferences and log into it from another computer using Appleshare over IP (apple-K from the finder). Then make an alias of your home iTunes folder and put it on your work machine in the music folder of your work's home directory. When you launch iTunes everything will be exactly like it is on your home machine, ratings and all. It is just that when you play the music it pulls it through appleshare.
It works great, but can get choppy with bigger mp3 files over my cable connection. It is also admittedly less graceful than iTunes sharing... : \
There's that from the obvious Apple fan-boy (or girl) who will defend Apple to the death - the type who still contends that their $2500 PowerBook is faster than their neighbours £1250 Dell.
The other is from the DRM hater who believes all music should be free and was gunning for Apple from the moment they announced they'd be charging for music and you wouldn't automatically get mailed CD copies to hand out to strangers in the street.
I'd like to position myself between these two camps. I'm not a great lover of Macs, but I do have a sneaking admiration for Apple. Apple are the first company that has actually managed to bring the record labels together and produce a service that actually does work. You can search for a tune you want, click and it's in your ears on your Ipod on your way to work the next morning - all legitimately, artists having been paid etc etc.
The problem as a few people have touched upon is that this update could be the tip of the iceberg - they've changed the way my software operates at the behest of some evil RIAA request, does this mean they'll cave into every whim of them in furutre?
So far Apple have closed an undocumented 'feature' of their previous offering. They never said you'd be able to do it, so you can't sue them now they've closed it. If you don't like it, don't upgrade, stop using ITunes, put a masonary spike through your ipod and post it back to Steve - otherwise quit whinging.
It's not SHARING if it's being downloaded.
Let's look at it this way. What do you define as sharing?
1) You've got your window open, blaring your radio the 5-person crowd on the street. THIS is iTunes sharing...
2) You've got your stereo on and are copying your music collection to cd, then placing them on the window sill for anyone to take. Or worse, people are reaching in, up to 5 at a time, and taking those cds without asking you. THIS is what Apple stopped.
I can't see why this is hard to understand - in the second scenario, you're either distributing or being stolen from, and that's all that's changed.
You can still tunnel to the Mac if you want, and you can still set up web sharing to give out your music if you want. But *you* have to do it - Apple won't do it for you!
And can you blame them? (Obviously, some can...maybe we need to start teaching civics and ethics again).
Are you allowed to drive in Montana without having a device installed which physically limits the speed of your vehicle so that you CAN'T drive over the limit (without taking steps to circumvent that device)?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Theft is what happens when I take something from you, in spite of the fact that I have no right to do so. Since I've taken it, you can't have it any more.
Methinks you must be a troll, madam.
"Theft," "sir," is what happens when record companies exploit artists.
What was it that the record companies took from the artists, in spite of the fact that they had no right to do so, such that since they've taken it, the artist can't have it any more?
"Theft" is also what recording companies do to the general public...
What was it that the record companies took from the general public, in spite of the fact that they had no right to do so, such that since they've taken it, the general public can't have it any more?
It's ridiculously one-sided contracts. It's rip-off prices. It's utterly immoral. Say any of those things, but, it is most certainly not theft.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
um. Sarcasm.
SAR - CAS - M!
sarcasm... (sigh)
It's a common misconception that us mac users use black dildos. We mac users actually use iDildo's, which have attractive titanium-covered finish and play mp3's that you can download for 99 cents from Apple.
We also write Applescript for our iDildos, such as
tell application "dildo"
vibrate
end tell
While PC users tend to make fun of us for not using more conservative beige-colored dildos, we smile and think nothing of it as we watch them fiddle for hours on end just trying to get their dildos to work.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Apple tries to make it convenient for us to have our music where and when we want it. For the few who have abused that privaledge, some freedom is taken away. When are people going to learn NOT to abuse the nice things in life? Apple has resisted the scum and villany at the RIAA, innovated better software than the Borg, and generally has a pretty happy and loyal customer base. Please, idiots, pirates, and unix heads, don't ruin anymore of this great program Apple has GIVEN us. If you keep finding ways to circumvent Apple's safeguards to protect the artists and music industry as well as give is userbase FREEDOM to with their music as they please, there won't be an Apple Music Store for long.
Stop messing around with iTunes, port numbers, SSH, etc...
Why not slap them into the face and not downloading that update?
You are the customers, you vote with your choice.
carry my tunes with anywhere I went, work, train,
plane, beach, rental car, bicycle, Segway, 4-wheeler,
Ski-Do, hang glider, etc.
Why do I need to stream my music to work? Think about it,
all the other defenses of Apple make sense, and
assuming you are all satisfy these criteria :
1. You can listen to music at work.
2. You have a persistent connection at home.
3. Your connection allows you to run incoming services.
4. You own a Mac.
I think you can afford an iPod to carry your bleeding tunes
to work. Honestly, If you can figure out how to update your
DHCP and run things on high ports so your ISP can't filter,
I think you ought to be able to get your self an iPod, or some kind of
portable storage to bring along to work. Why make it hard?
Bloody peasant!
Do you mean, like this one? Playa - The AAC Decoder/Player
Ah, they want to prevent theft. I suppose that makes my house crippled because of the locks on the doors and windows...
I am sure the Government and Big Business beg to differ...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
that sux now i have to buy about 20 cds to burn muy itns library
Now take your hands off the mouse and step away from the keyboard.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
quit sucking off Jobs you damn M.a.c. hippie.
Is there literally nothing apple could do that you freaks would not defend to the death?
If the gun industry was like the computer industry, we would have one manufacturer making stylish guns in translucent, fruity colors, but good luck trying to find bullets for it.
The other manufacturer would own 95% of the market and you could even assemble it yourself, but there's no guarantee that all the pieces would work together and the gun would frequently blow up in your face.
I think the real issue is that the internet provides the opportunity for a real barter economy - I share something with you; you recipricate.
The amount of sharing going on on the net does not equal the drop off in record sales. The simple fact of the matter is that what is being produced today is not wanted (dare I say it sucks?), as much as they would like to shove it down our throats. Just because a record is released doesn't mean it should automatically make money (particularly if it sucks).
I urge anyone reading this to boycott the major record labels, and conversely start donating small amounts to independent OPEN SOURCE record labels - LIKE THIS ONE
If you are involved in music just to make money, then you are in it for the wrong reasons. Do us all a favor, and become a used car salesman...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
People always try to give me reasons why their music stealing is perfectly allright. They try to tell me it doesn't hurt anyone because the musician can make money some other way, damn RIAA, greedy labels, etc.
Well, I call bullsh*t, this feature was disabled because of all the A-holes who decided to post links to their iTunes for anyone to browse and to create Web sites dedicated to streaming music to anyone. Although I don't agree with it, this probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal, until some other A-hole started telling everyone how he has this great utility to rip those streams to mp3, which caused thousands of other A-holes to start stealing music.
Well thanks a f*ck'n lot. Because now a cool utility that let me stream my music from my machine at home to my machine at work is being taken away. (at some point I'll have to upgrade, I imagine)
This is the biggest problem with people who steal music. (and remember kids, no matter how you try to spin it - it's still just stealing). You cause the powers that be to take fair use rights away from me, and I hate you all for it.
"Getting fucked up the ass by your cellmate" is "comfort"?
Still....I would not buy a song that was in a lossy format...I'd rather buy the original uncompressed song, and compress it as I needed for portables, etc. But, I'd want the original format of the song for long term storage, and to play on my home stereo, where you can hear the difference.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No one can afford 2 macs! I can see one, but 2 is definately out of the question :P
Well, that's just really bloody Insightful. Kudos all around.
You're point - which I can only guess at - is, Apple stuff is great, it costs money, you don't like that, and somehow you feel sodomized by that.
Words escape me.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
No, because then they'd get sued for providing the concrete that was used to bash someone's skull open. I would say something along the lines of a flame-retardant foam...
"Theft" is also what recording companies do to the general public... they curtail the distribution of sincere arts & culture through the promotion and popularization of what are basically record commercials. Christina Aguillera, for instance. She's not an artist. She's a brand. The product is reflective data-bearing disks, soft drink products, and other tawdry wares.
Sorry, no - you paid for her album, they gave you a crappy album. But there's no theft going on. You paid for that crap.
This is akin to tobacco companies, or McDonald's... They're selling you something that's downright unhealthy for you, but they aren't stealing - there's no theft going on, even if they're removing from your 'headspace' the option to do something healthy.
As for your other points - that ideas belong to humanity in general, and not the creator of said idea - that's a wonderful concept... but wait, how do they earn enough to stay alive and continue producing ideas? Welfare, government dole, artist grants (and scientist, inventor, writer, musician, etc. grants)? Socialism/Utopianism? Sure, wonderful, they all get paid, and the ideas are purchased as a whole by society in the form of taxation on non-idea producers...
Now, what if I decide that that's not fair that they aren't doing any 'work' and I am? So, I decide that I'll be a writer too so that I can live for free... I put out crappy works of literature and line up each week for my government check - and don't say that my art is less valid than someone else's art, simply because you don't like the ideas that Iv'e created. So, you say 'if he can do it, so can I', and before long everyone in society is an 'artist' and no one is working to provide the resources to pay for it. Poof, collapsed economy.
Can you think of a way around this? Under our current technological constraints, there isn't one. You can't have a society that is made up purely of an artist/scientist class with no workers (at least until we have autonomous robots).
So, ideas are valuable... and thus the person who has the idea has the value and can sell and buy them same as any other commodity... and the only way to do that is to have intellectual property rights. It isn't theft to take someone's idea, since they still have the original idea, but it is infringement, and dilutes the value of the original idea with every copy made...
Consider, if you're the one person with the idea on how to make cold fusion work - that's a highly valuable idea... Now, consider if you're one of five people with that idea - the value of the idea is still the same, but since it's shared among the five of you, you now are worth just 1/5th of the value. Your value hasn't been stolen, but it has been diluted, which is the real point behind IP rights.
-T
Yes kids, that's right. If you want to stream your tunes to/from the office, just download and install QuickTime Streaming Server/Darwin Streaming Server.
You can even set up specific playlists (different and separate from your iTunes playlists). Then, anyone in the whole world can listen to your music.
Just my $0.02CDN
Any DRM is always about restricting rights. Most often these restrictions also restrict fair use.
You don't seem to understand this kind of DRM is bad, even when it's covered with nice Apple PR, and announced by Steve Jobs.
Music purchased from the Apple Music Store can:
- be played on up to 3 Macs
- be burned on CD (10 times (-playlist thingy-))
- be played on any number of iPods.
It can however not:
- be played on windows(TM) / linux(TM)
- be played on any other portable MP3 player
- be used in all applications on the Mac
Even the US copyright laws consider streaming MY music from MY home to MY office to be legal.
So this really restricts my fair use rights, doesn't it?
(Yes, I know the solution is not to purchase music from the AMS.)
If you want to use this for personal use like suggested in the article. Stream from home to work then just set you up a cheapo Linux VPN server. Dial-in from work and let the tunes flow.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
But not being played on Windows/Linux is not about DRM!
It's the lack of a suitable player!
Same with playback on portable MP3 players; they aren't MP3s!
And... it can be used in 'all' applications on the Mac. It imports fine into iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, Quicktime... and if Quicktime can open it, then every app that uses Quicktime can use it.
GPL Deconstructed
And why not call it stealing?
g
There are other euphemisms, of course.
Advertising
Distributing
Broadcasting
Sharin
Listening
Advocating
Each has a context, and each applies to different situations.
'Steal' and 'Theft' do not *only* apply in situations/contexts of scarcity. How about someone who steals ideas? Or steals 'intellectual property'?
And how about a converse situation? Say you have a nearly limitless amount of an item, a suprlus as it were. Is it not stealing then, if you take something that isn't scarce?
Millions of apples, hundreds per store, thousands everywhere, and you go into a supermarket and take one. Is that not theft, even though there is *no* scarcity of apples?
How about a can of soda?
Or a jellybean from a bulk candy counter?
Or am I bringing up strawmen?
The point is that there are people who 'deserve' recompense for the act of production, invention, distribution, advertising, replication, and manufacture of this music, and by 'copying', you bypass all those mechanisms (good) but fail to recompense the people who made it possible (bad).
The Apple Music store *also* bypasses those mechanisms (good), which leads to an increase in efficiency, but *also* gives them some money for the effort (also good).
GPL Deconstructed
Yeah, in a compressed format
Most newer rock CDs are over-compressed in mastering anyways. For example, according to Cool Edit Pro's clip restore filter, Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers appears to have peaks over +9 dBFS! In fact, I find it largely unlistenable unless I pass the tracks through clip restore. To avoid destroying the depth of the sound, level compression and limiting should be used in moderation.
Oh, you mean audio data compression? FLAC is a form of data reduction coding, but it's lossless. Even lossy coding (e.g. 192 kbps VBR MP3) can sound transparent to the average listener's stannous ear.
if I need to lay the smackdown on some joker in the lane next to me, I need crystal-clear high fidelity coming out of the speakers (in my trunk)!
You'll probably overdo the bass and mask the treble, so store the treble at a lower bitrate. (Do this by EQing down the treble before you encode the audio, and then reverse EQ in the car.)
Besides, any grumbling about lossy vs. lossless coding is Offtopic in a story about iTunes Music Store, which uses a lossy format for delivery.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What I don't understand is why anyone would want to "steal" an iTunes music stream. An mp3/aac of an mp3/aac is a terrible way to steal, it's much lower quality than the original. Everytime one compresses a compressed file, the quality degrades substantially, so even if someone found it worthwhile to steal an iTunes stream, subsequent streaming and theft of the stolen files would result in even further quality degradation. Ultimately, iTunes streaming may allow some stealing of streamed conent by those with low quality standards, but it wouldn't allow for any propagation of the streamed content due to degradation.
This is the chicken crying wolf, IMO.
The link you gave is a rant and probably doesn't describe the technology accuretly
"Rant" is misleading. Most of the description is condensed directly from Microsoft's own Secure Audio Path documentation.
finding a key hidden in plain view in the code
Even if you do find the key in the Windows Media software, it'll be a public key, and deducing Microsoft's private signing key from the public verification key (factoring or the discrete logarithm depending on the cipher that Authenticode uses) is currently considered a Hard Problem(tm).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Should be a glossary in the back.
The glossary in the back of copyright law is 17 USC 101.
What you call distribution would equally qualify for allowing the audio signal read by my CD player to travel through the RCA connectors to a series of other audio devices (amplifier, audio mixer, etc).
Only distribution "to the public" is monopolized (17 USC 106), and by "distribution" I meant "distribution to the public". I'm sorry for having possibly misled you.
Coping MY CD's (ie. I bought them and have all right entitled) to digital format for MY personal listening and use is completely legal.
I know it's perfectly legal in the States under the Betamax interpretation of fair use. I also understand that you own the phonorecord, which gives you some rights under copyright law (especially chapter 10 as interpreted by RIAA v. Diamond).
And provided your home broadband connection has 160 kbps upstream or faster, you're already perfectly free to set up password-protected HTTP streaming using Apache and play the music on your headphones[1].
[1] Using headphones avoids the danger of performing the recording and the musical work embodied therein "publicly", that is, "outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" (17 USC 101).
Will I retire or break 10K?
At one time or another you must have access to it, to play the file. You can find this key by analysing what the kernel(+signed drivers) code does.
What if the DRM system's binaries themselves are encrypted, and the DRM system shuts down if a running debugger can see kernel space?
Will I retire or break 10K?
You mean it sounds as good or better than a 192 VBR MP3 encoded with iTunes. AAC files unfortunately sound worse than LAME-encoded VBR MP3 files of the same average bitrate, in all the comparative tests I've seen reported (including my own).
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Most newer rock CDs are over-compressed in mastering anyways.
[point of order] I was referring to data compression, not dynamic compression [/point]
For example, according to Cool Edit Pro's clip restore filter, Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers appears to have peaks over +9 dBFS!
Okay, IAAAE (I am an audio engineer) - it is impossible to have peaks at +9 dBFS... In fact, it's impossible to have peaks at +0.0000000001 dBFS.
FS stands for Full Scale - 0 dBFS is the reference level for digital recordings where 0 dBFS is the largest amplitude a sound can possibly be: in a 16-bit recording, this would be the samples 1111 1111 1111 1111 and 0000 0000 0000 0000 (full scale both above and below - in any PCM system 1000 0000 0000 0000 is 0 amplitude).
So, how can you go over 0 dBFS? You can't! There is nothing larger than 1111 1111 1111 1111 in a 16-bit recording. No 17th bit.
[in a 24-bit system, 0 dBFS is with all 24 bits 1s or 0s... the 0 dBFS point moves depending on your bit-depth, by definition]
In fact, I find it largely unlistenable unless I pass the tracks through clip restore. To avoid destroying the depth of the sound, level compression and limiting should be used in moderation.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with exceeding 0 dBFS... On the other hand, if your song was consistantly at +9 dBVU, that would be pretty annoying. VU stands for Volume Units, and 0 dBVU is defined as whatever you want it to be... Under the SMPTE standard, 0 dBVU = 85 dBSPL = -18 dBFS - but there's nothing, other than the standard, that says it has to be there. However, a +9 dBVU recording would be consistently at 97 dBSPL (pretty annoying) and at -9 dBFS... which would only give it 9 dB of headroom, drastically increasing the likelihood of distortion.
Oh, you mean audio data compression? FLAC is a form of data reduction coding, but it's lossless. Even lossy coding (e.g. 192 kbps VBR MP3) can sound transparent to the average listener's stannous ear.
There are many forms of lossless data compression. Know what? They don't work that well on audio.
Data compression relies on repeating sections... and audio, complicated audio, has very few repeating sections of data. If you've only got silence, you can compress the hell out of it with no loss, or if you've only got simple tones or sustained notes that don't have harmonics that vary over time. Synthesizers are very good at generating those, which is why they can store tons of sounds in very small amounts of memory. A sine wave takes just a few kbytes to reproduce perfectly, and you can simply repeat it for hours, if necessary.
"if I need to lay the smackdown on some joker in the lane next to me, I need crystal-clear high fidelity coming out of the speakers (in my trunk)!"
You'll probably overdo the bass and mask the treble, so store the treble at a lower bitrate. (Do this by EQing down the treble before you encode the audio, and then reverse EQ in the car.)
My comment was meant as a joke, but I'll respond to this... turning down the amplitude of the higher frequency stuff doesn't store it at a lower bitrate - it simply throws out a lot of it, since, at a lower amplitude, it will be acoustically masked by the low frequency stuff. Then, when you reverse EQ, what do you bring back? Nothing - those high frequency pieces were thrown out. When you turn up the treble EQ on playback, you end with more noise and high frequency artifacts - the original audio is not there anymore
Besides, any grumbling about lossy vs. lossless coding is Offtopic in a story about iTunes Music Store, which uses a lossy format for delivery.
Yes, but it was quite on topic for the joke I made referring to grandparent.
However, any discussion of dynamic compression in this story is COMPLETELY offtopic. :)
-T
I've bought half a dozen tunes from the iTunes music store because they were one-off songs I happened to like from artists whose work I generally dislike. In return for being able to buy the one Eagles track I like for 99 cents and not have to pay $12 for a CD, I'm prepared to put up with the minor restrictions Apple has placed on iTunes music store files.
I say "minor" because I can play the files on any Mac I want, and doubtless any Windows PC once iTunes gets ported, and I can burn the songs onto a perfectly ordinary audio CD. That's all I care about.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
...then upgrade to WHAMB!, which not only has uncrippled streaming, but also has a much better quality MP3 decoder.
Oh, and encode your MP3s with LAME, which is much better than even the AAC encoder in iTunes (yes, at the same average bitrates).
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Don't forget: 7. Don't even need to back up my music because I can redownload it all for free on any registered Mac (for free).
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
it is impossible to have peaks at +9 dBFS
It is impossible for a PCM waveform to hold a +9 dBFS sample value explicitly. However, it is possible for a recording to have peaks that were +9 dBFS before limiting (floating-point can represent values less than -1 and greater than +1) and that the clip restoration filter guesses are at +9 dBFS before it attenuates the signal to fit in [-1..1).
Compact Disc has a 115 dB dynamic range after dithering. Why didn't Warner use it?
audio, complicated audio, has very few repeating sections of data.
However, it does have some sample-to-sample correlation, and this is what FLAC exploits. Lossless coding is not nearly as effective on audio as lossy coding, but that doesn't stop recordings of live performances from being traded in .shn/.flac formats in communities such as etree.org.
turning down the amplitude of the higher frequency stuff doesn't store it at a lower bitrate - it simply throws out a lot of it
Exactly. It uses fewer bits on the treble and more bits on the bass. And because what you'll be playing out of the woofers in the trunk is primarily bass, that's a win.
When you turn up the treble EQ on playback, you end with more noise and high frequency artifacts
No, you're compensating for an overpowered amplifier used on the woofers in the trunk.
However, any discussion of dynamic compression in this story is COMPLETELY offtopic. :)
Part joke on the dual meaning of "compression" and part rant about over-compressed recordings.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well then the key/instructions to decrypt them whould have to be available
Not without the threat of sexual assault.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No, if you really care about the quality of your music, you use a non-lossy format. Besides, the volume fluctuation bug screwed up your music no matter what you encoded it with.
As I write this I am listening to a stream from my home server, running Media Jukebox. Why is streaming such a big deal for Macs? PCs have had this for years. Shoutcast, Icecast, the list goes on...
Da Blog
I see two sides considering the iTunes store- the people that like it and the people that hate it (for a myriad of reasons).
For the people that hate it- fine, hate it, complain all you want, but since all of you "know" how it could be better, cool, go off and create a better service that people will use. Kinda like the "go write your own program" thing.
I have seen so many "if Apple did this", or "if Apple did that" that I could punch one of you idiots. Do you really think that Apple didn't think of all these different things already? The company comes up with the best online music solution (besides those who want free music) so far, yet ya'll keep bitching.
Meh.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
However, for some things, iTMS kicks ass. For example, remember The Who's electronics phase in the 80's? Those albums mostly really sucked, but a three or four of the songs from that time (Emenence Front, Teenage Wasteland, etc.) were downright catchy. Now I can have them for a buck a piece without having to pay for the "pleasure" of enduring the filler crap that they padded those albums out with. Yes, they are AAC, which is != 44.1 Compact Disc audio, but those recordings were not exactly Sheffield Labs "Direct-To-Disk" feats of audio engineering in the first place, so it's not like I'm losing much by getting AAC files. Even on my high-end living room stereo with sweet B&W speakers, it sounds pretty darn good.
Like you, I will still insist on CD (or vinyl!) for excelent hi-fi albums, like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon," or my Reference Recordings disk of Oue conducting "Pictures at an Exhibition," but for 90% of my pop music I am already leaving the CD's in the case and listening to them by plugging my iPod into the stereo.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
All digital formats are inherently lossy, unless the original music is entirely digitally created, which most isn't. The question is how much loss one is prepared to accept.
If CD is your benchmark, and human hearing is your measurement device, you can achieve the same quality using MP3, a good encoder, VBR, and a suitable bit rate. Quite what that bit rate needs to be depends on the listener and the listener's audio equipment.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You're still completely missing my point aren't you? 4.0 has a big volume fluctuation bug, which affects all formats, at all bitrates, VBR or CBR, everything. Upgrading to 4.0.1 fixes it. If you're more interested in your music sounding good than being able to stream it over the internet, the upgrade is worth it.
If you want to keep nitpicking, even listening at a concert is lossy, considering how the sound degrades travelling through the air on the way to your ears. Do you see how ridiculous this has become?
The problem is that there is significant sound degradation when one converts a compressed audio file format to AIFF and then compresses it again. The AIFF file contains all of the originals imperfections, and then the newly compressed file contains the original imperfections plus new imperfections added by the compression.
The degradation in sound quality with the second compression is much greater than with the first, because a flawed file was being compressed. Expect fairly bad audio quality unless the original was high bitrate (>200).
I still don't understand what's so great about compressed audio--it sounds like arse to me, compared to CD-quality audio. I'm happy with my home, computer, and car CD players, I can play my entire music collection, and it sounds superb. No mp3s for me! (And aac can kiss my arse).
M.a.c.?
???
That was classic intercourse!
In the 'good old days' of 1997, Apple authored a list of "ten commandments" as a part of it's compatibility tech note. It is the seventh commandment which is particularly interesting: "VII. Thou shalt think twice about code designed strictly as copy protection." Note, that these are the the commandments that are "determined from extensive testing of our diverse software base."
Of course as soon as you choose to make allies in the music industry, you are going to have to negotiate, but one of the primary issues (mentioned so many times on slashdot that there is no point in providing links) is the question of whether we should have our liberty constrained in order to prevent us from breaking the law.
We would love to say 'No!', but then watch how many of us flaunt copyright law as a standard practice.
But also Apple was right - copyright protection is an unending waste of human resource, computer resource, comms resource, and slashdot posts!
Again and again we find that the music/video/text/etc. copyright and patent laws are incompatible with the Internet as a technology, and the Internet is not going to go away. Sorry, lawmakers, but one day soon you will have to wake up to the revolution that came from a direction you didn't expect, and then we will stop having to put kludges on top of kludges to deal with the cultural soup that we are in.
Creative minds will find a way of being able to provide a direct passage to it's audience. The huge publishing corporates are hanging onto a dying game. Monolithic software corporations are being replaced by interoperability standards.
Apple, Listen! Remember! Think different!
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
How many individual, private Mac owners have five boxes set up at once, all of which are capable of even running the latest OS X, all of which they want to play iTunes songs on? How many people bought their brand new 30GB iPod but object stenuously to carrying it from room to room because they'd rather listen to their iBook speakers? (You say "the bitch" [ugh] can't be heard over headphones.)
What kind of hobbyist are you, exactly? Is this a small business?
Nothing against you, not anything at all, but you seem like a heck of an outlier in this situation. Maybe your Rendezvous suggestion's the way to go, but it's hard to imagine the argument Apple would make to the record companies to loosen this DRM restriction based on the frustration of people like you. Unless there's, say, more than one of you...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I imagine Apple trying to convince the industry types who wanted this restriction to prevent "abuse" using your argument:
It's true, the AAC w/DRM Apple's using doesn't truly make the music totally portable without some equipment in support of it. Neither does any other available format in the history of music. (You'll need more than two 30GB iPods to satisfy your ravenous hunger for portable music.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You know, money was created because it's superior in many ways to a barter economy... After all, it's much easier tog et change.
AustralianIT also covers this with their own article. In this, it states that 3 Million songs have beeen paid for and downloaded so far. This is absolutly amazing. Apples market share is nothing compared to Windows. Imagine if it was even close to have a market share like windows, or imagine if instead each other market share was switched for a moment. Im guess there'd be a hell of a lot of Mp3s being sold. This could eventualy make up a very large part of Apples future. Well, they've said they've been wanting to go into this area for quite a while now, i never really though they'd pull it off though. Looks like they've jumped their first hurdle! :}
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Media access control. You know, that's what MAC stands for in all those MAC vs PC discussions.
NEWSFLASH: CD audio is still lossy. It loses frequencies above about 22 khz, and quantizes loudness levels to a mere 65535 possible values. I mean, come on! Who wants to listen to that shit?
Oh wait, I bet you haven't even listened critically to a well encoded AAC. Pass a double blind test and I'll be fucking impressed.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Links, please? I'm genuinely curious. Were they double-blind? If not, I honestly think even the most subtle unconscious bias makes the tests useless. I've seen plenty of tests so far that made all kinds of claims, but they were performed with the tester knowing ahead of time which file was which. Totally useless.
.0001% of Golden Ears.
I performed my own tests and could not consistently distinguish between a 160 kbps AAC, VBR LAME-encoded MP3 at highest quality, and the original CD source. I like to believe I have pretty darn good ears as a musician, but I know they're not in that top
But the bottom line is whether YOU can HEAR (not PERCEIVE, which is a different thing, given aforementioned possible bias) any difference. Beyond that, who the fuck cares what masked inaudible sounds are actually missing?
Turn off the "constant volume" feature and fluctuation stops.
Switch to WHAMB! and you get better decoder quality too.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
No, it doesn't. Turning off the sound enhancer and volume check help alleviate the problem but don't make it go away. Turning down the pre-amp in the EQ also helps a little bit, but the problem was still there.
BTW - I downloaded your Red Pill screensaver a couple weeks ago and it's pretty dang cool. I just realized that it's yours. Unfortunately I can't leave it on because it gets my PB12 pretty dang hot, and I'd prefer it to cool down when I'm not using it. :)
"Anyone who listens to AAC audio will want to upgrade to iTunes 4.0.1, since it fixes a playback problem that existed in version 4.0.[...]
Before installing version 4.0.1, simply drag the iTunes application icon out of the Applications folder and into a different folder. Then install the 4.0.1 update.
When you want Internet sharing, simply launch version 4.0."
See? Even hacking on a Mac is sooo easy :)
The change in iTunes 4.0.1 does not change what you can do with your Apple purchased AAC songs. It merely changes what is provided by the iTunes application. Frankly, iTunes 4.0 was a really poor server for public use. There are no access controls, or even logs. It was never really suitable for anything other than sharing on the local network using Rendezvous. Meanwhile, if you want to share your music, nothing is stopping you. Your iTunes catalog is an easily parseable XML file. Existing fully supported protocols can be enabled to allow fetching both the catalog and the files names. It's all quite doable in simple scripting languages. Don't gripe because the software that Apple is not providing you with your swipeware for free. iTunes sharing was never advertised as being for anything but Rendezvous sharing. In fact, it could be argued the fact that it would *allow* outside connections without explicit authorization to accept outside connections was a bug.
Oh..right...because *that* just transmits SO well through text...