Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Internet Sharing Restored With Third-Party App
Suppafly writes "As reported at boingboing, iCommune creator Jim Speth whipped up a little application called 401(ok) that combines a few hacks to restore internet-wide sharing to iTunes 4.0.1. You can download the app from SF.net." As one might expect, it is basically a port redirector.
Is there any consumer-based reason to want to upgrade. Was anything fixed that was truly broken?
Is there any possible way this oculd be a first post?
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
I was wondering what happened to iCommune. It's good to see that if Apple can't provide the product someone else will. I just wonde how long it will be until Apple figures out a way to shut this down. I get the impression this guy will keep hacking iTunes every time Apple shuts him down just out of spite for that sease-and-desist letter.
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
So Apple is trying to prove to the music companies that it's software is trustworthy. Musci companies notice that anyone can stream tunes ffrom anywhere with iTunes. They also notice that within two weeks someone has come up with a way to take those streamed music feeds and convert them into MP3/s. They get pissed. Apple gets egg on their faces. This program is counterproductive. If we want to convince music companies that the computer is a viable distribution model and that we want those distributed files fairly unfettered by copy protection, than this goes against all that. It makes Apple look bad, and we're at the point where Apple is really our best hope for a scheme which we like. This needs to catch on, or else something worse (Microsoft) comes along and takes over another branch of the internet. Sad thing is, I like the idea of being able to stream across the internet. Leave it to script kiddies to ruin it for everyone.
I'd get it damn quick, if Apple's swift wrath over iCommune is anything to go by.
-- james
In life nothing is free. Either you pay now, or you pay in the long run. Unfortunately this doesn't simply means a delay of payment. We may end with free music now and no music in the future. This might seem silly, since many can make pretty decent music on their instruments and spread it for free on the net. But it's different with games and movies. I don't see anyone making The Matrix Reloaded on their PC or Mac with only their free time. How the ITMS ends up now, will guide the decision for the moviemakers. And then I haven't even mentioned that DRM-stuff the americans are facing.
Now Apple will come out with iTunes 4.0.2 which will make sure programs like this wont work. Then someone will invent i******* which will alow it again. Then iTunes 4.0.3 will come along .....
In the 'good old days' of 1997, Apple authored a list of "ten commandments" as a part of it's compatibility tech note [apple.com]. 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.
-I don't see anyone making The Matrix Reloaded-
Your right, only a huge Hollywood conglomerate would have the resources to pay someone who can't act $30M to play the lead role, and come up with a marketing machine that will make Americans "95% brand aware" of their movie. How foolish we would be to try attain such a level of quality. At least my movies wouldn't rely on product placement, media pressure or company stockholder demands....
Hell this keeps sounding better, maybe we _should_ drive all these media companies out of business. Here is the deal: they can buy up all the media outlets (like the FCC just bowed down and gave them the right to do) program them with homogenized crap with harldy even resembles art, and then sell you the right to watch/listen to (but not own) thier crap for $20 a CD and $30 a DVD until everyone wakes up and realizes that its in our best interests to steal from them and drive em out of business.
(at this point I would post a Matrix Reloaded torrent link, but you should really take the time and look around. torrent sites are great for all kinds of TV/movies/anime)
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
With the loss of freedom in the USA today, I am happy to be living in Europe. I hope that ITMS will be big succes. I think that might provide us with content, while retaining our freedom.
You don't really think those companies are going to stand idly by while there profit melts away?
Just because a tool is available that enables something illegal doesn't mean that the tool, the designer, the manufacturer, or the distributor is to blame for the crime that is committed. It's the BA$TARD that commits the crime that is to blame and NOBODY ELSE.
I, for one, am SICK AND TIRED of people's mentality about culpibility with regard to digital piracy. It's like watching parents blame TV or the school for little Jonny's behavior problem. It is freaking disgusting and just stupid.
I say don't assume that just because a crime CAN be committed that it WILL be committed and let the tools be made but bring the hammer down on those individuals who use them for illegal purposes.
Every time the music companies and the RIAA try to stop file sharing, it seems that somebody out there will find a way to do it. Some say that this can only hurt the music industry because artists won't get paid, and the label won't make a profit, blah, blah, blah. If you ask me, I think the time for pop stars and record labels making millions is almost at an end.
Here's my vision of the future of music: People everywhere are able to share the music they purchase with anyone they want. That gets the musicians' product to millions of people, fast. The musician then has to tour and play live to make money. At the live show, maybe the musician sells some more CDs and other merch, and the cycle begins anew. What's so bad about that? Live shows are great! Maybe this whole new process will weed out those fakers that aren't any good without ProTools. Our ears may get a well deserved break from the cookie-cutter pop music crap that radio stations are forced to play by big-money record labels.
It'll make the quality of the music better as well. Without the domination by a few music acts that get all the airplay and spots on TRL, musicians will have to be extraordinary, musically and lyrically, in order to really shine and rise above the rest. Sure, they won't make the millions that artists do now. Oh well. That just means musicians that are in it for the music will continue to play.
One can only dream. And in case you are wondering: Yes, I am a musician. The thing is, I know there are so many musicians out there who are way better than I am. I'd still be at the bottom of the pile. Then again, that could be a good thing.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
a) The streaming feature was never meant to be used other than locally.
b) Their testing missed the hole.
Ignoring that, one reason they don't do copy protection is that they trust people who can pay for products they use will pay for products they use. Streaming music to unknown people not only isn't fair use(*), but may qualify individuals as internet radio stations. Remember the licensing fees that were approved? Would you want Apple to have to collect those?
Personally, I don't think copyright/patent laws are incompatible with the internet directly, but that endless extensions undermine fair use, free expression, and human progress in general, regardless of the medium they are applied to.
* A counter example would be 'If I play my CDs loud at the beach, am I broadcasting?' My best guess is since only people in the vicinity can hear it then no, though in the courts it's anyone's guess. An ancillary thought would be if having a radio tuned to a game at a beach counts as a rebroadcast, but I'm probably thinking too much.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
At least it would seem so from a few perspectives. Why the hell do you need to pump your music selection out to the masses? Do you really think I want to hear you favorite crap indie garage band mp3's? I mean really, people. Get over yourselves. If you really want to share your music selection with a friend (and I mean someone you know by thier birthname, not some jack off in another country with the AIM logon of DickBig070002) there are simple and perfectly legal ways of doing so. Burn a CD, or, if you're so smart, set up your own private pptp session between your 2 Macs and share that way. But honestly folks, what the hell do you need to be wasting bandwidth for? Does that bootleg of Madonna's latest album make you naughty bits tingle? Do you feel like you are a part of the revolution sitting at your computer taking money from the pockets of the performers and artists? Good for you. Viva la revelutione you bad ass. My god. No wonder everyone hates you. And don't think for a minute that I don't have aspirations of grandeure, and dream of becoming the next underground sensation that people will love forever and my music will be the greatest colelction of free speech/thought on the internet. Guess what. You are a dime a dozen in the world, so get over yourself. Go outside. Say hi to your neighbor and share some music with them. See if you don't enjoy someones actual company for once. Maybe they own a Mac too and you just didn't know if because you were too freakin busy posting on /. how much the RIAA and MPAA and Microsuck was beating you down. Asshats. All of you.
As an aside, I think it's pathetic how the RIAA pressured Apple into stopping the internet sharing. Come on, there was a hard coded limit of how many users could connect at one time. Plus, anything you stream on the net, whether it's audio or video or peanut butter, you can _ALWAYS_ capture to file. Bits are bits are bits. Nothing will ever stop them from being captured and written to disk. Asshats. That is the nature of computers. Geez. Maybe the RIAA thinks that the internet is a magical cloud of pixie dust and the data is magically wisked from one computer to another and if you have the pink pixie dust of the grand poohbah DRM you can't capture the data bits (kind of like a good acid trip). Morons. The entertainment industry is about ethereal things. Only it's too settled into the world of brick and mortar. They need to get out of the concrete and back into the minds of the audience. Interesting paradox; there are 5 media giant companies, who own 100's of affiliate distributions, that pump out the same 2 things, black or white (sides of the issue, not color of the skin). Maybe the biggest failure of our society is that we are such a binary culture.
Anyway. Enough postulating. Back to coding (WORK SLAVE WORK)
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
There are other types of music than just popular music. For example, an experimental music composer can't really do a live show to make money (short of setting up a P.A. and playing his/her CD). Why would anyone pay to see that if they already had the CD? Also, what about artists who are a single man/woman who play and record all of the instruments on the CD? That is HARD work, and to tour with that is expensive because then you have to pay people to play your music.
Music is an orignal creation and chould be copyrighted and protected. People like you need to realize this and stop being so cheap. Just pay for the stuff and stop complaining.
I share* my iTunes music collection from my mac with apache.
sharing is one of the things I didn't even look in iTunes (as the store, but primarily because they don't want to sell to me).
-
* between different room of the house. No internet service, but this is my choice. Technically, it could be done, I just don't want to.
that should at least get you the right to this
t ri x.Reloaded.TS-ESOTERiC.torrent
http://www.lickmytaint.com/upload/2003-05-14_Ma
an admittedly sorry (compared ot real dvd) theatre shot copy of matrix. no 6 channel sound, no hdtv and progressive scan quality, and no director commentary.
There is only one way to convince them change their business model so that it supports us and not just their stockholders, and thats to nearly drive them into the ground and let smaller indie companies back in the fray.
The dam has been unleashed when it comes to the pirating of digital media. You can make a case for not pirating software, but things like the Itunes music store and the iPod would not exist today if the big 5 labels had a choice in the matter. Look at their intentions with copy protected CD's and shutting down and spoofing sites as long ago as scour.net (the original online 2-3 years before napster)...
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
People like you need to realize this and stop being so cheap. Just pay for the stuff and stop complaining.
Where, in my post did I ever make any sort of complaint? Where did I ever advocate the need to share music? Nowhere. I was merely stating my vision of the future if sharing got so out of hand that record companies had to fold. I'm not cheap. I'm just being realistic: there are many others out there who are cheap, or share music just because they can. I'm not in any way promoting the stealing of music. All I'm saying is that the more you try and stop it, the more it's going to happen. Artists are going to have to make a big adjustment to this reality.
For example, an experimental music composer can't really do a live show to make money (short of setting up a P.A. and playing his/her CD). Why would anyone pay to see that if they already had the CD? Also, what about artists who are a single man/woman who play and record all of the instruments on the CD? That is HARD work
Yes. Music is very hard work. If you work hard enough, and make good music, you might end up giving people a reason to buy the music. And why would you not want to see them live if you already bought the CD? Are they not good enough for you with out ProTools and studio modifications?
Music is an orignal creation and chould be copyrighted and protected.
Protected against what? Copyright infringement? Does that destroy their music at all? No. It just destroys their ability to make money off their music. Again, artists who must be paid for their music are not artist at all; they are manufacturers of a product. That's all. In today's world of inevitable file sharing, a musician should know going in that they may not make any money. Besides, you are an Anonymous Coward, and no one here cares what you have to say.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
I had and have no intention of using the internet streaming feature, but I downloaded this plugin as soon as it came up because it was something I used to be able to do and now I can't do it any more.
As my communications teacher would have said in my class on persuasion, "Scarcity principle."
My knee- jerk reaction was `What the f*** were they thinking?'
If Apple yanked Internet- wide MP3 streaming because of third- party apps, what makes you think they won't yank streaming ALTOGETHER because of this third- party app?
That is, assuming the copying programs work with it . . . which I myself have no intention of verifying.
Awesome, now we can all celebrate our reclaimed ability to do something we will never do, meanwhile getting Apple in trouble again. I really don't think this is some wonderful "secret feature," and frankly its usefulness is, in my opinion, limited to those people who want to stream music from their own computers at some other location (work perhaps), which narrows the legitimate audience for this hack down to about a dozen people. Trying to stream music from random users on the internet is an exercise in futility. Mac users: Don't believe me? try it. PC users: When was the last time you were able to download something off a sharing program at a constant speed with no interruptions?
Since this feature is so easy to root out, I have suspicions that Apple had planned/is planning to let users do this, but that's just speculation.
As soon as iTunes 4 came out I fell in love with the internet sharing feature. Finally I could be at work and stream my music from home. Cable is awesome, it's like the music is right there... anyway a few "Thieves" had to ruin it and as I figured Apple would have to move to block it. The ironic this is those thieves probably would never have bought any of the music anyway, but to the RIAA that's besides the point I guess. What I wish Apple would have doon with 4.0.1 is limit the number of internet shares to 1-3 or something like that. That way a person like me who has music being shared would be very unlikely to let others log on since it would eliminate them from listening to their own music. Clean, simple, Apple!
(and for the record, I'm downloading the app now so i can stick it to the man)
will it be possible for the itunes playlist to be shared with others, like me, who's using suse linux on their machine? Other than kazaa? 401(ok) bridges 4.0 and 4.1; please build another bridge for another a larger group...
Except for you, evidently.
irb(main):001:0>
Yes. Music is very hard work. If you work hard enough, and make good music, you might end up giving people a reason to buy the music. And why would you not want to see them live if you already bought the CD? Are they not good enough for you with out ProTools and studio modifications?
What about the first question from grandparent - what about experimental music composers who can't do live shows (or can, but they don't really compare)? Do they not count?
For example, what about Nine Inch Nails? Trent Reznor toured with a band, but the albums were just him, on all the instruments. Can't really do that live, and his live shows lacked that Trent-ness since the others were playing parts that he wrote, rather than doing their own bits.
Should that type of music simply go away - your personal opinion as to whether it's 'good' or 'bad' music aside, should an entire genre be dismissed because it's not economically viable under your model?
-T
Should that type of music simply go away - your personal opinion as to whether it's 'good' or 'bad' music aside, should an entire genre be dismissed because it's not economically viable under your model?
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm not in control here. I guess I don't equate music with economics they way some folks do. I was thinking of a time when it would become so difficult for a musician to make money selling recordings of their music, that they would have to find other ways of surviving. Live shows were one of the ways (and that's a pretty good way, since many people like live music). And, for the third time, if the artist is that good, their music would sell itself.
Take, for instance, J Mascis of Dinosaur Jr., now of J Mascis and the Fog. He records all the instruments himself, but live he just plays guitar with his live band. Lemme tell you, his guitar playing really stands out and the whole band rules it live!!! He lives for the music, and he sure as hell doesn't make as much money as pop artists do.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
Touché...But my name was on the parent. Not his. I got a rep (and an ego) to protect.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
This is exactly how I feel. Developers should not be blamed when their products or features of their products are found to be used for copyright infringement by some users.
The offending users should be held responsible.
A tool is a tool is a tool. It's how you use the tool that is right or wrong. The responsibiliy lies with he who wields the tool!
Again, people are trying to blame the wrong people because it is cheaper and easier than holding the real offenders responsible.
It's not the artists that are bribing our public officials into eroding our freedoms, it is the RIAA / MPAA / etc. Don't use the word 'artists' when you really mean 'publishing houses.'
I'm just poking fun. No harm meant. ;-)
irb(main):001:0>
Okay, would you and the others spreading this myth cool it? I'm getting sick of seeing it.
iCommune (in its original form) was in violation of the license the author signed in good faith in order to use the API he had used in creating the product.
Apple hasn't even given a second glance to the new version of iCommune. Why? It doesn't use the iTunes API or fall under its license.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
i'd just like to state that i know where you're coming from, there is so much crap pop music out there now overwhelming the market and if i had my way....the likes of justin and britney would be 'workin it hard slogging on the endless gravy train of lives shows. but you know what,it wouldn't change a thing,justin and britney would still sell stadiums and the new corporations would be the promoters whom choose whom to put on stage and pick the live acts for music festivals the situation now is the result of the state of the common music palette,most ppl are just happy to swallow anything on the radio.there can't be very many ppl like you,perhaps just 5%(familiar statistic innit?) whom take the plunge and really bother to push the envelope with the music they listen to. ergo...there will always be huge corporations because they are the only way into making it into the industry and getting your "music" out to masses via radio, yes, it's dirty and rotten because ppl make "music" to make money but *sigh* it's the truth and it's gonna stay that way.
haha this brought tears to my eyes for some reason
hahaha funny stuff
i like nike but wait a minute
the neighborhood supports so put some money in it
what the corporations owe
they gotta give up the dough
to my town or else we gotta shut em' down
Who made me judge jury and executioner? the apathy of a million indoctorinated consumer tools such as yourself.
businesses should support us because we support them, simple enough? i dont wait for change i make it. posting a link and making this argument is a tiny aspect of the change i try to enact for those around me and my community as a whole.
like i said earlier, if it were up to the corporations you would have no mp3, no ipod, and honestly no consumer rights, you would just be a consuming commodity where your lifetime customer value determines your worth.
DJ Rap, Paul Oakenfold, Brian Transeau are all electronic musicians.
They're also some of the biggest live acts in all of Ibiza. And yeah, they use pro-tools on stage. It's more of an improvized jam session that keeps them coming to the shows...
So, to answer your questions - even someone who's only instrument is his computer will still make money from live shows.
-- Funksaw.
Point taken. :) All of those guys can easily make money in a purely file sharing world, ibid my parent post.
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
When Apple first released iTunes 4 with its network streaming capabilities, and various Mac fan sites began posting URL's to shared music, I was taken aback at Apple's genius -- but then, as a solid Mac user, I often am. As P2P PC clients are slowly crashing and burning (although Kazaa is still running strong, one wonders how long they will be able to persist), Apple has devised a way to share free music, without placing any blame on themselves. Upon updating my system a month later, I was at first shocked to find that Apple had limited its streaming capabilities, forbidding sharing outside of the user's local network. But now I am beginning to see the whole picture, and honestly, I'm surprised few have hinted at this picture aside from myself, as there are many more proficient and enthusiastic Mac users than I. Apple has revealed a way that not only allows for integrated music streaming, but track ripping and sharing as well. They revealed their software's ability to share tracks across the internet, but only momentarily, as to provoke interest yet avoid legal consequences. If a music sharing service is going to survive, its success has to be dependent on the users, and not to the service provider. If thousands of people are writing hacks for iTunes to allow internet music streaming, Apple can't be held legally responsible, at least as far as I can imagine. And the courts will have quite some time pinning down every single copy of every single hack, and eradicating the use of them entirely. Apple has essentially created a lock-tight plan for future music sharing, and as I read all the comments about how Apple is feeding its customers shit, I am taken aback. There are various debates about the nature of copyright laws -- quoted from another /. post, "copyright protection is an unending waste of human resource, computer resource, comms resource, and slashdot posts!". Ripping songs off the internet is essentially no different than recording them off the radio, only easier, faster, of higher quality, and seemingly the most important -- more widely used. Its only a matter of time before the very nature of information sharing evolves into a higher form ... now, for the development and distribution of iTunes hacks so we can all share our music, while promoting a service that although is allowing free track sharing, is also supporting the artists whose tracks are being shared.
There is no indication, no quote, no source, not even a wild rumor that the music industry applied any pressure to Apple. They've not even commented. That was my first thought too. Put up or shut up.
Abuse of this app by a few pirates, like anything else, (big surprise) leads to all being "penalized."
Apple did the right thing. All the thieves out there have been griping about prices and everything else under the sun. The iTunes Apple Store addresses *all* those concerns. Keep on stealing music? Up to you. Software? Up to you. Cars? Boost me a 1978 Z28 if you have the time....