Slashdot Mirror
Crossplatform iTunes Sharing and Trading
An anonymous reader writes "As reported on Cnet
and others, an open source java iTunes client named ourTunes has been released under the GPL by a group of anonymous hackers. Unlike the Apple iTunes for Windows and Mac, ourTunes allows a user to queue up and save to disk the music shared by other users. Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products.'"
Why do people have to come up with so uncreative names? Apple has the nTunes thing going, take a couple of minutes and make up your own naming scheme.
Since Rendevous requires the machines to be on the same network, this sounds like it is just beating around the regular local network file sharing. I wouldn't think there would be too many legal issues involved here unless someone magically manages to get this working over the internet.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Wow. Talk about demonising the wrong entity here. The DMCA isn't Apple's fault. Apple just did what they had to in order to keep the labels from shutting down the iTMS entirely. If you hate the DMCA, say so, but don't blame Apple for it. Apple != Congress.
This article has pretty much convinced me that the folks running p2pnet are only concerned about piracy -- as in committing it -- rather than having an intelligent discussion about the real issues here.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
The court ruling was not a blanket protection for anyone writing P2P software. The court ruled that in the case of the P2P clients they were shown, significant legitimate use prevented the creators from being held liable for copyright infringement. Read the fucking ruling before you make comments on it PLEASE.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
But this whole I-want-Apple-to-do-it-my-way thing is really confusing to me.
You can cry if you want to share or download your tunes in a different way. You can complain about the evil DRM software Apple uses in its proprietary format. You can moan about lack of options and the iTMS/iPod lock-down.
I just don't understand why everyone clicks the "Yes" on the user agreement. If you want it to work a different way, don't support it.
Seems like all these 'benevolent' iTMS hacks, reverse engineers and DRM stripping apps are getting held up in some sort of martyr-like light.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
??
Yes, even if they did say this (which I cannot find a reference to) it's more like someone complaining to the police that a thief stole their dope sack.
Afterall the RIAA is nothing more than a mafia-like music control group. They use their money and muscle to get what they want. They buy out government officials and bully around whoever they want.
These are criminals extorting the artists and pushing the common people around for meddling in their business affairs.
No. But I remember when the Internet wasn't full of people who thought they where entitled to the works of others without compensation or permission. When you could release a program as shareware and actualy have people register rather then crack it.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Ask the RIAA. They are the ones that want to keep people from sharing the music. Apple is currently being permitted to sell the RIAA's music as long as they make it hard (if not impossible) to easily share the music.
This makes it easy to share the music and the RIAA isn't going to get their mafia-like 90%. When the mafia doesn't get their money what do they do?
The burn it down.
When you could release a program as shareware and actualy have people register rather then crack it.
Pfff! As if that ever existed! I remember friends swapping floppies of registered shareware back before PCs even had modems! Of course, I was pretty naive. I would ask, "Isn't that wrong?" and get the response, "It's no biggie, we're just sharing with friends!"
With that firmly ingrained in our heads, this proved even back then that any business model that involved easily reproduced goods should be careful to take their reproduction into account. i.e. Make it easier for people to pay for stuff than steal it, and try to target markets that actually have money to spend!
The RIAA failed when they tried to stop MP3s instead of being the originators of an online MP3 service. Now iTunes is saving their butts by picking up the remaining pieces of what would have been complete destruction for the music industry.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Songs that are legally purchased with iTMS and shared using Rendezvous (iTunes or other) wouldn't be able to be played by other people unless they were authorized.
Nobody has cracked the encryption to date. They have found ways to unencapsulate the file from being encrypted but unless your machine is authorized for the songs they are worthless. Copy the songs till your heart is content, you can't use the files. I believe this model will still enable iTunes sharing to continue the way it is.
I am actually very upset that the original way iTunes shared music was changed. You used to be able to give your friends your IP address and they could connect to your iTunes music (by default out of the box).. but then a TON of sites went up where you could register your IP address of your iTunes library and it would pull down your list of songs and have it searchable to use much like Napster. This obviously lasted long enough till the next incremental iTunes release came out and "fixed it" so sharing worked only on the local network.
RIAA failed when they tried to stop MP3s instead of being the originators of an online MP3 service
#1) The RIAA is an enforcement agency. That is what they do. They do not distibute works.
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
I've been thinking a lot about what a song is worth, and the only conclusion I can come to is ... nothing.
Before the birth of the recording industry, what did it cost to listen to a song? Nothing. It may cost something to go to an event, a concert or opera, but to hear a song being sung cost nothing. The singer sang, you listened, and it cost you nothing.
So the recording technology shows up, and the recording industry is built up. The recording industry exists solely for the purpose of transporting the song from the studio to my speakers. So all the trucks and equipment and so on incur costs, and that's what I pay for. But not for the songs themselves.
What's a metallica song worth? Nothing, I've already heard them all. Going to a Metallica concert might be worth 50 bucks. Maybe buying the bobblehead dolls and Metallica Pop Tarts is worth a few bucks. I can see a 5" plasic disc in a case with liner notes and photos having value. The music recorded on that disc, however does not.
To download off the internet, it's reasonable to expect to be compensated for bandwidth. But I can't see the songs themselves having any intrinsic value. A Van Gogh painting has value because there's only one of them. A photograph of one has nothing. Similarly, watching the artist perform has some value, but a snapshot of their performance (a song recording) doesn't.
I must be missing something, but I can't think of what. Music is worth nothing. Artists don't profit from "music", they profit from performances and mercahndizing. The only ones who profit selling "music" are middlemen and distributors who are increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, the service they provide may or may not have value, but the "music" itself does not.
A friend I chat with online is in a band, and they've been moderately successful, and opened for some fairly big artists and are completing their first album. He'll DCC the songs to anyone who'll listen to them. Why would he do this? Because they themselves have no value.
If you say that music has value, it makes no sense. Because according to the industry, all music has the same value. A song according to Apple is worth 99 cents. But music is subjective. I wouldnt pay 5 cents for a band I don't like, I might even pay more for one that I do - heck, I already have by spending 20 bucks for a disc with 10 songs on it.
Music is a personal expression, just like a thought or opinion. Thoughts have no monetary value.
Music has no monetary value, and just look at all the handwaving and idiocy that's occuring because of societies need to attach a price tag to everything.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Um. Would that be the same Constitution that authorizes the congress and the states to enact laws?
Wrapping yourself in the Bill of Rights may look clever to your libertine friends, but it's a piss-poor and disingenuous way to rationalize your unauthorized use of other people's work.
If you have to pick a document to bolster your self-centered worldview, may I suggest something by LaVey or Crowley?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Not in Canada, it's not. Up here we call it 'Fair Use'.
Besides, no matter how you slice it, you can't really call it theft or stealing. The best you can get is (as pointed out by another respondant) copywrite infringement, which isn't nearly as catchy or loaded a phrase.
The question people should be asking is "when a business model breaks, do you blame your customers, or your business strategy?"
It doesn't matter whether the legal term is "stealing" or copyright infringement.
Don't be ridiculous, that is almost the only thing that does matter.
Stealing violates criminal law. Copyright infringement violates civil law. There's a world of difference between the two.
Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
...
Oxygen bars, bottled water, tanning salons, parking stations...
Quality, convenience, features, gimmicks,