Slashdot Mirror


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.

39 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading. by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Misleading title. This front end merely lets you listen to the samples, not actually download/listen to the actual purchased songs.

    --
    And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    1. Re:Misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Misleading. by in7ane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

    3. Re:Misleading. by Abjifyicious · · Score: 5, Informative
      DAAP is the protocol used for the LAN sharing feature of iTunes. The music store has nothing to do with it.

      In a sense though, this isn't completely new. The search interface was hacked long ago, so Apple added some encryption stuff to lock out non-iTunes clients. All that's been hacked is the encryption key.

    4. Re:Misleading. by prockcore · · Score: 5, Informative

      And now I'm wondering how long it will take before the protocol will be changed slightly to lock out this program...

      I'm the one who discovered the AES key, it took me about 4 hours. Now that I know where to look, even if they change it, it won't take long to get the new key.

      So the question is, how often does Apple want to break older versions of iTunes and force everyone to upgrade? The other question is, why would Apple want to do that in the first place?

  2. should have done this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:should have done this by dr.badass · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      Because they were going for seamless integration with iTunes the app and the iPod. What good would it be to use a browser interface be if you had to use iTunes to play the music anyway?

      It may seem like a nice idea to use a web browser interface, but it would completely shatter the sense of integration that they were going for, and succeeded at.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    2. Re:should have done this by Momo_CCCP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...)

    3. Re:should have done this by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh, how difficult? You wouldn't believe the answer if you can't imagine it in the first place.

      A straight Linux port would require:

      Quicktime
      Carbon/MacOS ToolKit

      And Quicktime would require a working audio subsystem, a working video subsystem, as well as their networking, 2d, and maybe even 3d stack, if you do a full Quicktime port.

      And if you ask "Why Quicktime?" the answer would have to be, "Why would Apple port iTunes without Quicktime?"

      I don't know why Quicktime doesn't work on 98/ME, but I don't think they were omitted lightly.

    4. Re:should have done this by Monx · · Score: 4, Informative

      GNUstep won't help you port Carbon applications. It only works for some Cocoa apps. Carbon is not objective c based. QuickTime (and iTunes IIRC) are still Carbon at heart. Sure there are Cocoa interfaces to QuickTime, but the core is Carbon. Porting Carbon to Linux probably isn't high on Apple's priority list.

    5. Re:should have done this by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:should have done this by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To put it more simply, Apple doesn't have a Linux business plan, that's all. No conspiracy, no idiocy, no MS-like behaviors.

      Apple isn't a conscious being; someone has to make the plans and training and data to be transmitted all the way down to the sales people.

      Which iPod to sell to Linux users?
      Which software to use? Would it be bundled with the iPod? Would it include source? Would it include a linux distro on a disk?
      What are the requirements? What libraries? What toolkits? What scripting languages? What interpreters? What hardware platforms?

      Then there's iTunes! How about song management? File management? All the same questions as the above. And then there's support software. Rendezvous, for streaming and networking. Firewire for synching and powering.

      Finally iTMS: How would authentication work out?

      Apple has to have all of these things in place before it can sell the iPod and iTunes and iTMS to Linux users. They need the support center info, support structure, and training.

      Will it pan out? I mean, this is exactly the reason why games have a hard time being ported to the Mac platform. Most companies don't have the resources to pull it off (much less for Linux).

  3. Probably won't last long by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Probably won't last long by dpete4552 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    2. Re:Probably won't last long by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It can create users. For example, I have a few Linux desktops and _ONE_ windows XP desktop at home. I don't use windows xp for much and don't install software on it. I also did not want to install Apple's iTunes application just to check it out to see if they have the songs I like. So I downloaded this app, did a quick search, and wham, iTMS does have the songs I like. I now will probably give iTMS a try to see how I like it. Though I doubt I personally will use it much since I purchased tons of CD's years ago and mostly listen to them. With this little app I can preview some newer material to see if there is anything I may be interested in buying. I personally don't want to use windows XP and I don't want to have to use it to browse music to see if there is anything new I may like. Linux has 25% of the server market and 2.8% of the desktop. Just about the same desktop share as Apple. So, Apple has the same potential market size that they get from their Mac OS X users. The only reason I can think of for Apple not to have even a non-supported Linux client is because they want a hardware monopoly. They have to support MS Windows if they want any success, and if it is not MS Windows, they want it to be their OS. That is just wrong to me and not any different then the tactics by MS. Thier iTMS should be platform agnostic and only exist to drive iPOD sales to _all_ consumers regardless of that consumers OS of choice.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  4. Well... by Momo_CCCP · · Score: 4, Informative

    you can use vlc instead of quicktime if you use an OSS system. Now the ITMS itself is going to be slashdotted, whoops...

  5. Theft of service? by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    At least one of the ideas struck me as being intriguing (using the iTunes database as a source for determining if a song might be controlled by the RIAA) but some of the others would be problematic.

    Having a P2P service pulling album covers and other metadata from Apple's pay service is as likely to be considered stealing as pulling copyrighted music without paying for it. Even checking their database from a non-iTunes application may raise hackles. It's a cute hack, but why risk upsetting Apple when they're already providing the fairest online music store to date?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  6. The real solution by ciryon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:The real solution by dpete4552 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because Linux is just as much of a competitor to Apple as it is to Microsoft. For all the reasons Microsoft doesn't want to do anything to help Linux on the desktop (e.g. porting applications), Apple really doesn't want to do anything to help Linux on the desktop. As I read elsewhere, it's all about mindset. Apple doesn't want people thinking "Linux vs. Microsoft" they want people thinking "Apple vs. Microsoft".

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    2. Re:The real solution by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
  7. Re:This could be.... by spoonboy42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linux/BSD users already can listen to and download music shared over iTunes using TunesBrowser. The project is rather young, so a do-it-yourself compile is necessary, but it does present a very nice, clean GUI interface to iTunes shares.

    (Incidentally, if you'd RTFA, your would notice that this project actually allows you to browse samples from the iTMS store, and has nothing to do with network song sharing.)

    --
    Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
    Andy Grove: "Not Much."
  8. Cost of Porting by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Cost of Porting by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  9. Thanks, Downhillbattle.org! by Luckboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:This could be.... by dr.badass · · Score: 4, Informative

    ....the first step in allowing us linux and BSD users to listen to iTunes shared music. While we can share music (and its well documented) we cannot, to the best of my knowledge, listen to others music without using iTunes. Perhaps if this is doable, somebody can make a hack to allow us to listen to shared music?

    It's already been done. Personally, I don't know how well it works, but it sounds promising. IIRC, the Rhythmbox (iTunes clone for GNOME) guys are planning on including it when it's "ready".

    (The hack in this article is unrelated to iTunes' sharing.)

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  11. Winamp Plays DRM'ed MP4s Just Fine by lotsofno · · Score: 5, Informative
    Playing the music requires Apple Quicktime for the ~600kb downloadable MP4 snippets to be heard.
    Actually, using an easy to install plug-in, you can listen to iTMS' proprietary DRM'ed AAC tracks in Winamp, easy.
  12. Bad Interface by djroute66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bad Interface by DaHat · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe that you have forgotten about another free iTunes client, one which has an amazing front end, flawless iPod integration, it even lets you purchase music from the iTunes Music Store... it's name: iTunes. Not all free things are bad, nor would I hope anyone be stupid enough to say that... iTunes is great! This web based system that this story refers to... isn't too good IMO. But then, I own an iPod and have no problem using iTunes, in fact, because of it I no longer use Winamp.

  13. Quicktime? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. Re:Free by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  15. That magic juju by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Puh-leeeeeze. by LocoSpitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Right now this is a cute tool, but it has the potential to become a powerful weapon to fight the major record label monopoly.

    Give me a fecking break. The people at Downhill Battle have a history of vastly overstating the importance and relevance of their "accomplishments", and this is no different. Being able to browse iTunes over the Internet (something that won't last long once Apple hears about this) will do nothing to defeat the record companies. The amount of self-delusion that must go into a thought like that is startling.

    While I'm on a rant, let me talk about something else that's been bothering me. Just what is it that Downhill Battle hopes to accomplish? One of their projects is showcased here. So, you guys buy a digital camera from Wal-Mart and then document yourselves vandalizing CDs, in-store displays, and music preview hardware (which, incidentally, has led me on more than one occasion to purchase indie-label music that I would not have found without the machines), and then fraudulently returned the camera. And this accomplished.... what? Far as I can tell, nothing beyond proving just how immature these guys are. Does Downhill Battle do anything of value, or is it all just lame anti-RIAA posturing?

  17. Also misleading summary. by line.at.infinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. "the 30sec attention span generation" request by zpok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great, I'm thinking of a script that lets me listen to an endless stream of 30sec previews. Who wants to put more effort than that in music anyway.

    What? You still talking about that?

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  19. Parent is absolutely correct, NOT flamebait by DavidinAla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Apple offers a similar tool by bullitB · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Apple-provided iTMS Link Maker has similar functionality. It's great for searching for music outside of iTunes or for linking to music you like. If they're offering this kind of stuff themselves, I'd imagine they wouldn't have a huge problem with others doing it too.

  21. Re:RIAA "monopoly" = BULLSHIT by green_crocadilian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should I feed the troll? Yes, I think I should.

    The companies comprising RIAA form an oligopoly (and the RIAA itself can be considered to form a monopoly if it usually acts as a single body) simply by virtue of their dominance of the market. It doesn't matter if they provide a useful service. It doesn't matter if they charge, or don't charge, exorbirant rates. It doesn't matter if they have 10 million competitors (each with $0.12 in annual sales). As long as you have 5 firms dominating (>50%) a given market, that's oligopoly for you.

    Now, is oligopoly good? Classical economics says it's not an efficient way to distribute goods. I.e. RIAA makes a killing, the consumers get ripped off, and the ripping off part actually outweighs the making a killing part. On the other hand, if I understand it right, under some circumstances oligopolies produce more research and development than a monopoly or a large number of small firms. If only that research was directed at something useful and not at turning a given random person off the street into a pop star...

  22. Weapon to fight RIAA labels by Rich+Klein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It lets you dig into the iTunes metadata and see what label owns a given song, so you could write a perl script to weed out RIAA-affiliated songs.

    --
    -Rich
  23. Re:This could be good for Apple by jmelloy · · Score: 4, Informative

    First off, you can browse the iTunes Music Store without an iPod. Did you try the "Browse" button?

    Secondly, all of Apple's audiobooks are through audible.com ... the catalogs, if not identical, are very very close.