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.

Comments

This isn't very helpful...

[sockit2me9000]

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.

Re:This isn't very helpful...

[Zhe Mappel]

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.

I don't see how. It's not the burden of consumers not to disappoint the music industry. Rather, it's the burden of the music industry not to disappoint consumers.

It makes Apple look bad, and we're at the point where Apple is really our best hope for a scheme which we like.

Well, it is in the nature of some hacks to make the hackee look bad, but I wouldn't say this is one of those. Actually, Apple's castration of iTunes made Apple look far too willing to please its new partners at the expense of users.

What's more, it's too early to say Apple is the "best hope" in this emerging market. And emerging it is: just because kids learned how to swap music online before stodgy music executives signed off on the deal doesn't mean that we're anywhere near the point of last best hopes. Don't be surprised if the notoriously fickle music industry gives it a go with Apple before moving onto other, probably bigger, players.

Apple, read your own advice (repost)

[mrthoughtful]

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!

Re:Apple, read your own advice (repost)

[prell]

So, you actually use this "feature," right? You are actually streaming music through iTunes from internet users on a non-novelty basis? I think sharing music with others is the "number one" way to get new music, but frankly this feature is just something to talk about on Slashdot and never have to try and endure: It does not work well.

The iTunes Music Store is not Winzip: It does not have a useless license agreement and serial key evaluator for purchases. Apple has presented a burgeoning distribution model for music, and while in one breath, we sigh "finally," in the other, we cry foul? I understand that iTMS has been a long-time-coming, and we want to nurture it and not see it go astray, but to interpret Apple's fair use policy (which is very fair for where we are now), and its reaction to community software, and scream "unfair," is, in my opinion, overdoing it.

I don't want to call DRM a "necessary evil," but I would like to make two points: The internet, and especially internet distribution of information, is not mature; DRM is a "stepping stone," and sort of an awkward one, as it is a ridiculous notion to think that someone can have a bunch of files and not ever be able to access them: They will eventually. However, this is how the iTMS works, and its DRM is currently not the draconian hardware-supported DRM of Palladium. Will we be using some form of DRM in sixty years? Will we force the square peg of internet distribution into the round hole of pre-1990s commerce? We'll see.

It comes down to this: You can stream music from people and hijack the audio into your own files. While you can always do that with your iPods, CD players, and other devices, I think it's fair to say that the internet is sort of a sore spot for the record companies, and perhaps we should back off a little for now, and let the nascent iTMS allay any fears the record industry may have. That being said, we have to keep pushing for our rights and interests in what you have rightly interpreted to be the "brave new world" of internet communication. This iTunes hack is one way we could sort-of say "this is what we want," but again, I really don't think this feature is very useful.

expression must become free (again?)

[ihatewinXP]

-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)

Sign of things to come?

[nycroft]

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.

Re:You are forgetting...

[nycroft]

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.

Re:As the owner of a mixed network...

[lfourrier]

DAAP (http://daap.sourceforge.net/docs/) seems interesting (at least intellectually), but my solution works, so I don't feel very compeled to change(ain't not broken don't fix it)
from sf.net, what you can get is:
libdaap

This is a C++ library with C and Objective-C/Cocoa wrappers that will, in time, implement a full DAAP client and server. It is licensed under the GNU Lesser Public License, which allows developers to use the library even in non-free software as long as a few restrictions are followed.

At the moment only the C++ interface is available, and it only understands the basic format of the data. It does not yet perform any network operations and thus also doesn't have a higher level interface for listing music and playlists. It also can only act as a client for the moment.

Certainly at this early stage, the primary aim is to get a fully working client so that it gets adopted quickly. We will then look at writing the server interface so that music programs can share their libraries like iTunes does.

Documentation
Very little documentation is available for the library at the moment, but hopefully this shall soon be remedied. Most of the documentation is to be found in the source code, and hopefully that is enough to get certain people going. We are hoping to post some proper documentation and sample code soon.

Contributing
Contributions to the library are more than welcome. This library is essentially developed in the authors' free time, so does not get as much attention as it may need. Contributions can vary from writing code or documentation to promoting it (telling your favorite digital audio player's author about what they could do with this, for example).

--------------
there is only one database, all the music(all the CDs my wife and I ever bought) is on one mac. the clients are win (98,98se,me,xp). the users are me (on mac), a daugther, my wife, the au-pair. I don't feel like I'm going to sell them to write there own client ...

Re:You are forgetting...

[Theaetetus]

"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?

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