Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iTunes Internet Sharing Restored With Third-Party App

Posted by pudge on from the w00p-w00p dept.

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.

32 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. This isn't very helpful... by sockit2me9000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This isn't very helpful... by lpp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with this approach is that it doesn't change the fact that circumvention is possible in the first place. With that fact established, all this would amount to is a moratorium on hacks to make iTunes stream across any network, until such time as the music companies feel comfortable with the net as a profit medium. What then? Let loose the hackers of music (pardon the badly twisted phrase)?

      Eventually these kinds of applications will be written. If anything, expedient examples of circumvention should lead us more quickly to the point of equilibrium where the music companies and the listeners are happy. Or at least where both positions aren't going to go anywhere different.

      I'm having trouble with coherence right now (laying off of caffeine and...it...bites!).

    2. Re:This isn't very helpful... by Noonian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not with tools like 401(ok) enabling people to bypass the artificial restriction in iTunes of not being able to stream music accross subnets -- there's nothing intrinsically bad or wrong or illegal about it. For example, I can stream music to my laptop on the wireless network on campus from my music collection on my home computer. As long as I legitimately have a copy of that music, its all fair game.

      The problem arises when people start constructing mechanisms to allow people to share their music with complete strangers. That's when things get much more into shadow.

      Remember the apple mantra: Don't steal music.

      iTunes music streaming is for personal use only. 401(ok) doesn't change that.

    3. Re:This isn't very helpful... by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Yea, the fact that CDs could be ripped to tape and now to CDs didnt' stop the music industry from making them. The fact that the VCR was going to "ruin all media" thorugh piracy didnt' stop the MPAA from producing tapes.

      Let's just hope Apple doesnt' start swinging the DMCA around. I'd hope they'd save something like that as a last resort, and you know how Apple's legal dept. gets...

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    4. Re:This isn't very helpful... by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  2. Re:About time by dmayle · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same thing that happened to iSociale. After iCapitale started creeping through Russia, it was relegated to a much smaller amount of the world, though I hear a hacked version of it is still enjoying widespread circulation in China...

    Or maybe this should read: In Soviet Russia, iCommune shares YOU...

  3. Re:4.0 Just fine for now by djward · · Score: 4, Informative
    Was anything fixed that was truly broken?

    Yes, several things - the interface corruption bug that happened when going back to a playlist from the iTMS when a sample was playing, the sound limiter problem that was flattening out audio and making many songs sound crappy, just to name two. A worthwile update, except for the internet sharing cutoff. But that was good too, in a way, as a gesture to the labels.

  4. nothing is free by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. So the viscious cycle starts again. by McAddress · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 .....

  6. Apple, read your own advice (repost) by mrthoughtful · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Apple, read your own advice (repost) by cjhuitt · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I think that Apple was probably very aware of how iTunes 4.0's wide-area playlist streaming was viewed by the RIAA, etc., they also had other reasons to release iTunes 4.0.1 to limit the broadcast range of the program.

      First of all, the documentation for 4.0 specifically had said that it was local sharing only, which seems to me to mean that they intended it to be that way from the start.

      Add to that the fact that they have received bug reports about the wide-area broadcast from companies whose employees were streaming music from their home. (Repeating second-hand, but I might be able to dig up the original report I read of this.) For the companies, this was a bug, as many have to pay for the bandwidth used by their employees, and streaming music does use up a fair amount of bandwidth.

      Finally, realize that the reason that the streams were being wide-area broadcast was, if I remember correctly, forgetting to set a field in the data packets sent out. A very simple fix, and they have fixed a bug, made corporate administrators happy, and not coincindentally, reassured the music industry that they are on top of these things.

      Now, who knows what they will do about this new development? My guess is that they will do nothing, recognizing that, as you say, copyright protection can be an unending waste of human resource. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the next release, for whatever needs fixing/updating, just "accidentally" renders this inoperative. Then an update to this program will be made, and Apple will probably go along ignoring it as usual.

    2. Re:Apple, read your own advice (repost) by prell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  7. expression must become free (again?) by ihatewinXP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    -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.
  8. what the industry thinks is what matters by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    no, not eveyone is doing things illegal. But it's the perception that the industry has that matters. This might convince them there is no other way then pouring DRM-stuff down our throats.

    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?

  9. So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Sign of things to come? by nycroft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  11. It's not copy protection, it's fair use protection by NaugaHunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. MP3 sharing is becoming like a religion... by DAQ42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:MP3 sharing is becoming like a religion... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny
      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).

      I have an Internet computing exam tomorrow. Mind if I quote that?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:You are forgetting... by nycroft · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  14. Re:you paid your $8 by Mononoke · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.
    So, you declare yourself to be lord over media product, and if some company gets too big by your estimation, then you'll release a free copy of their product to the masses "just to show them who's boss"???

    Why should their business model "support us"? Businesses exist to make money, most of which they give to their employees, who then spend the money with other businesses. Studios aren't there to "support us". Without the money loaned to the company by stockholders, the company (and therefore the product) don't exist at all.

    So, how are you helping again?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  15. Re:4.0 Just fine for now by no_demons · · Score: 2, Informative

    There sure is: I couldn't for the life of me get the local area network sharing to work in 4.0 on the University network. I just assumed it was being blocked somewhere down the line.

    But, when me and a couple of others upgraded, the Rendezvous sharing kicked in and worked first time. Now I can share tunes from all my friends around campus, without fear of being attacked by the RIAA.

    Although as I live in the UK, that is probably a little unlikely anyway. : )

  16. Ain't psychology wonderful? by grantsellis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  17. Why do this? by xyrw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:4.0 Just fine for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was absolutely no consumer-based reason t upgrade to 4.0.1, other than to appease the record labels.

    Wrong. Not just a little bit wrong. Completely wrong.

    1. The sound enhancer bug was serious. Turning on the feature basically made your shiny, new AAC's sound like hammered shit. And leaving it off was bad for people with average or below-average speakers.

    2. The AAC encoder was hard-coded to use the "fast" setting, when it was supposed to be hard-coded to use "best." As a result, AAC's encoded with iTunes 4 don't sound nearly as good as they should have.

    3. A variety of issues existed regarding ITMS and firewalls. These have been fixed.

    4. Internet music sharing was never actually supposed to be possible. According to the documentation, it was supposed to be limited to the local network segment, either via Rendezvous discovery or via direct connection. The fact that you could share music over the Internet was a bug, not a feature.

    I think they may have snuck in some minor networking fixes, but overall the motives were quite... arbitrary.

    No, the motives were quite specific and concrete. "We screwed up, and people are using iTunes for music piracy. That's the ONE thing we won't stand for. Fix it! Now!"

  19. iTunes 4.0.1 by dbirling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  20. DMCA by pcp_ip · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Just a question... Wouldn't this be considered a violation of the DMCA? Essentially this app is circumventing the DRM system that Apple has choosen for iTunes.

    (and for the record, I'm downloading the app now so i can stick it to the man)

  21. Re:As the owner of a mixed network... by lfourrier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 ...

  22. Re:You are forgetting... by transient · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Besides, you are an Anonymous Coward, and no one here cares what you have to say.

    Except for you, evidently.

    --

    irb(main):001:0>
  23. Re:You are forgetting... by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "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

  24. Re:4.0 Just fine for now by andrewski · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. The sound enhancer bug was serious. Turning on the feature basically made your shiny, new AAC's sound like hammered shit. And leaving it off was bad for people with average or below-average speakers.

    Actually, comparing waveforms of pre-iTunes 4.0.1 AACs and 4.0 AAC from the same source material prove that the encoder is identical, when recorded at 96, stereo, velocity enabled.

    Go home troll!

  25. Cool it with the misconception by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    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