Free iTunes Over a Browser

Ade writes "One may now listen and search for Apple iTunes music via this front end or any webserver running the perl script called iTMS-4-ALL, which was written by Jason Rohrer, programmer of the secure filesharing system MUTE who hopes the script 'helps revive everyone's ITMS interfaces.' Music activists Downhill Battle, who organised the Grey Tuesday protests for disseminating censored music, run a copy of the script and say 'this is a cute tool, but it has the potential to become a powerful weapon to fight the major record label monopoly' in the ways they outline. Playing the music requires QuickTime for the ~600kb downloadable MP4 snippets to be heard." Update: 04/19 01:41 GMT by H : Thanks to Aaron at Punboy for sending us a link to a faster server.

Comments

Re:Misleading.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real news is that the protocol has been reverse-engineered, so you can write whatever iTunes frontend you want.

Re:Misleading.

[in7ane]

Descriptions isn't: "listen and search for Apple iTunes music " ... " for the ~600kb downloadable MP4 snippets to be heard."

Title probably implies free as in speech (can be accessed from anywhere) rather than beer (you get free songs)

Probably won't last long

[Have Blue]

Look at some of the suggested uses for this... Constantly downloading free previews? Using them for P2P? What makes you think Apple will allow their service to be abused like this? They control both the server and the only client that they want to be accessing it, it would be trivial for them to break this without affecting anyone using iTunes at all.

It's this zero-tolerance attitude that will cement hardware DRM's inevitability. Apple tried to meet customers halfway and they still get attacked.

Re:Probably won't last long

[dpete4552]

Who cares. You get one 30 second clip of the song. It's no different than what the RIAA themselves are distributing on p2p networks. The only difference is that these are not looped over and over again to make them appear as full songs.

Not that I don't think Apple will do everything they can to shut this service down -- just out of principle.

The real solution

[ciryon]

would be to port iTunes to Linux. I can't think of any reason how that could hurt Apple.

Re:The real solution

[.com b4 .storm]

would be to port iTunes to Linux. I can't think of any reason how that could hurt Apple.

This has been brought up before, and the ultimate problem is that iTunes relies very heavily on QuickTime, and since QuickTime does not exist on Linux, it would have to be ported as well. Now they could probably hack something like how mplayer does it, using the Windows DLLs and bolting the iTunes interface onto it, but that would not be very elegant... And that ties in with another reason Apple would probably not want to bother:

Some people will not like to acknowledge it, but Linux is a pain in the ass to support commercially with closed source. Yes, there are companies that do it, but it is difficult and for most it is not worth the bother. Apple has probably already looked at the situation, and seen that it would take a lot of money not only to port iTunes (and probably QuickTime), but also to support it. How much of a pain would it be to support say, just Mandrake and SuSE? Enough of one that they would likely not recoup their development and support costs through the handful of Linux users that actually care to buy music from the iTMS. They'd have to worry about building RPMs for versions X, Y, and Z of distros A, B, and C, and then worry about God knows what a given Linux user will do to customize (i.e. screw up) things on their system, thus potentially breaking iTunes.

Ultimately, I really don't think Apple would make enough money off of iTunes on Linux to make it worth the cost of porting it, supporting it, and keeping up with the rather chaotic placement of and frequently breaking changes to system libraries, GUI toolkits, etc.

Re:should have done this

[Momo_CCCP]

And because their Windows/MacOS ITMS covers 95 % of their clients and they don't give a f*** about the rest (hey, long haired hippies don't buy music anyway, they don't even buy their OS, doh...)

Cost of Porting

[Fished]

It would cost them a great deal of money to port iTunes to Linux, and it is not immediately clear that such a port would provide them with any tangible financial benefit. duh.

Re:Cost of Porting

[c]

It would cost them a great deal of money to port iTunes to Linux, and it is not immediately clear that such a port would provide them with any tangible financial benefit.

It ain't about spending the money.

They could publish enough of the protocols that someone could write software to handle payment and downloading tracks. Someone probably would do this.

Of course, they'd have to accept that an open source client would strip out any DRM using playfair. shrug People will do it anyways with iTunes-downloaded music so I'm not sure there's really any overall loss.

But that probably wouldn't sell many iPod's and Apple would lose it's coveted control over the iTunes process. So it ain't gonna happen.

c.

Thanks, Downhillbattle.org!

[Luckboy]

I'd like to thank the jilted, bitter, preachy musicians who created the Downhillbattle.org website and are hosting this script. The search engine is actually more responsive than iTunes, so I can find the songs I want to buy from iTunes even faster!

Please, guys. Get off your high horse and work on finding a new way to do things rather than just trying to take the old system down. When you find a better way, the rest will work itself out.

Bad Interface

[djroute66]

They claim that this is great because you don't have to use the iTunes interface. But the interface to this perl script is horrible. It reminds me how perfect Apple got it the first time.

Quicktime?

[evilviper]

Playing the music requires Apple Quicktime for the ~600kb downloadable MP4 snippets to be heard."

Why recomend quicktime? How about VLC, or MPlayer? Both play the files just fine. If you're going to go the closed-source route, just run iTunes in the first place.

Re:Free

[The Only Druid]

No, try and keep your scope proper next time you post. iTunes is, and always has been, entirely free to download. The Apple Music Store meanwhile is also free to use, although the actual purchasing of music costs money as the definition of 'purchase' requires.

That magic juju

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, apple isn't doing anything heroic. They're not offering anything special.

I buy completely legit, DRM free, albums...any album you can name for $7 each, brand new (shipped to your door for that price). That comes out to about $.50 a song, and I can resell the CD's when I'm done.

CD's are only expensive for the impatient. The "oh, I can't wait 5 days, I must have that song NOW!" crowd. But if you can wait 5 days. FIVE days. Then you can get great deals.

Or there are used CD's.

But I don't get why Apple is "magic" but KMart offereing essentially the same thing is "evil".

Look. I'm typing this on a powerbook. I own 6 apple computers, I have 2 iPods. But I don't think iTMS is magic. its not special. I don't think Apple has done anything special except convince certain people that iTMS is something revolutionary.

Is isn't.

Paying $10/CD for 128kb DRM encrusted music may be your idea of fantastic. But I think I'll pass on that kind of generosity.

Re:That magic juju

[huchida]

Paying $10/CD for 128kb DRM encrusted music may be your idea of fantastic. But I think I'll pass on that kind of generosity.

Right. And with DRM, you only have temporary access to the music at that-- I can guarantee you that most people who buy a song on iTunes will be buying that same piece of music in another format somewhere down the line (say, a computer or two later... Or is the hard drive you're downloading to going to be the one you use for the rest of your life?)

Re:should have done this

[djbrums]

why didn't apple make itunes work with any browser to why didn't apple make itunes work with any browser to begin with?

Because they can tightly control the itunes viewing experience. Trying to make everything web-browser accessible may be a proper goal in some areas, but in others it just doesn't make sense. With the way it is structured now, they can add tags at whim to redefine how items are presented on the screen, etc and be completely certain how it will look to the user without trying it out on upteen hundred browsers, or adding the silly "best viewed on {insert web browser here}" icon.

A similar line of reasoning is why you must use apple hardware to use apple software...they don't have to cater to the masses, only their customers.

Also misleading summary.

[line.at.infinity]

It says this is a powerful weapon to fight the major record label monopoly, but it doesn't fight major record labels any more than it does minor record labels.

Parent is absolutely correct, NOT flamebait

[DavidinAla]

You are absolutely correct. Whover thinks your comment is flamebait doesn't understand simple logic. Unfortunately, the guys at Downhill Battle are just punks who believe in vandalizing other people's property instead of finding real solutions. I certainly wouldn't want to count them among MY allies.

Re:should have done this

[2nd Post!]

You forgot three things:

Apple needs to interface with the iPod.
Apple has it's pride in design and usability.
Profit (tied tightly to the iPod of course)

You attribute to malice and stupidity when there is real, technical, reason. Apple's key to making money is ease of use, high design, and quality, and if it can't do that, why is it Apple? If it is none of those things, then you might as well have a third party reverse engineer and develop the software to browse, buy, manage, play, and synch music files... notably which has happened with regards to:

Quicktime
iTMS
iPod
AAC/iTunes

So whether they are right or wrong, I doubt it was a gut anti-Linux move so much as a simple return on investment calculation. Simply put, without lifting a finger Apple has accomplished all of the goals by relying on the characteristic DIY nature of the Linux and OSS movements.

Your bias works against you; unless you don't believe in thinking intelligently and instead suppose we should always turn first towards our biases and second to external evidence?

Many (most?) CDs only have 1 or 2 worthwhile songs

[Optic7]

That's where being able to buy individual songs can definitely save money over buying a full CD, even at $7.

But I actually agree with most of what you say. I don't like Apple's DRM either. It may sound like they are very generous, but they are just trying to lock you in to their software and hardware players.

As much as it pains me to give Microsoft any credit, their WMA format is, in a way, more "open" than Apple AACs, since they license their DRM to other software and hardware vendors. Just look around and you will see that almost every portable or car MP3 player out there can also play WMAs. I was thinking about starting to buy songs on ITMS, but since I have not found any portable or car players other than iPods, I nixed that idea. I can buy a car stereo that plays WMAs for $160, or a portable CD WMA player (with a car adapter too) for $40! I have no choice with AACs.

Since I don't want to contribute to Microsoft's monopoly, and thanks to Apple's greediness and lack of vision, I'm afraid I will have to buy used CDs and burn my own MP3s. If Apple ever decides to license or give their DRM to other software and hardware vendors, I will reconsider.