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.'"
developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for any copyright infringement
The dam is just about to break.
In light of the recent court decision, will Apple still be able to use the DMCA to bully Sourceforge into taking down the software?
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/20/174 8226&tid=141&tid=108&tid=3&tid=218
Shouldn't that be "weTunes" in order to use the pronoun in the subjective case?
"It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal the food from artists' tables." - RIAA
There seems to be a handful of java DAAP clients that all look the same:
c ords: http://www.cdavies.org/applerecords.html
One2ohmygod: http://one2ohmygod.sourceforge.net/
jtunes4: http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtunes4/
AppleRe
and yet another called "Get It Together"
http://www.deleet.de/projekte/daap/
They all look the same but have varying degrees of functionality.
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.
That's hilarious. Although I'm opposed to all Satan programs that take away our Christmas, I might learn to like this one.
If you blog it...
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?
??
From the ourTunes home page ( ourtunes.sf.net: )
1) What is ourTunes?
ourTunes is the continuation of several open source projects designed to allow you to browse and download from other people's iTunes Music Shares?
2) Is this a Peer to Peer (P2P) program? Aren't those things created by Satan to steal Christmas from Baby Jesus?
It's not "really" a peer-to-peer program, because it doesn't allow you the opportunity to share any files or music.
3) Why am I not seeing any hosts? Is the whole internet dead?
There probably aren't any people on your network sharing iTunes music. ourTunes only allows you to view connections within your networks "subnet" (often the building you are currently in, maybe a little bit more). If you are running ourTunes from home, I'm sorry to say but you'll probably be pretty disappointed. It's really only a viable program where there are lots of people living on a fast network with good taste in music (*cough* college campus *cough*).
It allows you to share with other people on the same network! OMG. nothing to see here.
Come on, please don't moderate me to oblivion.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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?"
You don't need Rendevous to use DAAP. Rendezvous makes it easy to find stuff on a local network, but all you have to do is point your DAAP client at the host sharing the music and you can play it. It's just http.
I don't see a problem with ourTunes... I mean, iTunes itself allows sharing within the local area network, ourTunes does the same thing, it doesn't extend beyond the current capabilities of iTunes (except it's actually more multiplatform).. So what's wrong with it? It looks to me as though it's just a way to let everyone utilize those features of iTunes, not just Mac/Winduz people.. Soooo.. Anyone that'd sue them over that is pretty messed up... Or maybe I just need to research this more... But I don't see anything wrong..
I have my music on an old G3 in the basement, and want to play it over the network from my powerbook.
As it stands, I can listen to what ever I click on, or in the default order - but no custom playlist or random order.
Again, DRM and 'copy-protection' annoys the casual user, without providing any return.
But there's a way you can enjoy free music downloads without getting into trouble. Listen to the legal music that many unsigned and independent artists provide as a way to promote themselves. Find out how in my article:
-
Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
If you downloaded such music instead of infringing copyright on the p2p networks, we'd make short work of the RIAA. You'd start listening to bands that aren't signed with RIAA labels, and the RIAA would have no cause to complain because no one's copyright is being infringed. The RIAA labels would wither away because no one is buying their music anymore, and a lot of deserving artists would get the exposure they deserve.Here's a page that I found out about just a couple days ago and haven't added to the article yet. etree offers a page of Bit Torrent Downloads, all of them TradeFriendly.
If you feel as I do that more people need to read my article, you can help by linking to it from your own website, your web log, or from message boards. Be sure to email the link to all your friends who use P2P!
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The 9th Circuit court ruling is that software developers *can* be held liable,
a) if their software did not have significant non-infringing uses, OR,
b) if the software developers are in a position of power or control over the specific infringing activity and have a right and ability to stop the infringing activity AND had knowledge of the specific infringing activity OR
c) the software developers provide material aid (such as providing computer servers) in commiting the software infringement and had knowledge of the specific infringing activity.
The 9th Circuit did not want to expand copyright law to include parties which merely produced technology with significant non-infringing uses, who had no way of preventing the piracy that did take place, and did not provide any material aid to any piracy once the piracy become known to them.
The decision (as a few others pointed out) did not give blanket immunity.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
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.
What, you hate java apps because you don't know how to run them?
Stop being such a fucktard, it's like saying that computers don't work because you can't find the power button
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.
Then iTunes comes out, providing EXACTLY that. But were the complainers happy? Nope, instead they stab Apple in the back and devise ways to get Apple's product without paying for it.
Way to show your appreciation folks!! Is it really any wonder why the likes of the RIAA wants to hunt you down??
Apps like this aren't motivated by free speech, this is all about free beer. I just wish some of you would be honest about that.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
Where are you going to get music? You can buy the CDs, you can download them from a Windows-based service, or you can download them with iTunes. That is, in reality, you don't have the kind of choice of contracts that you might get in a free market.
So, why are people rebelling and breaking their agreements? Because they feel that those agreements have been forced upon them and therefore feel they are not ethically bound by them (even if there is a small legal risk in doing so).
Convenience and legality. That's why many people do actually use iTunes Music Store. People who consider their time is worth something. People who value a consistent and legally bought item above an inconsistent and stolen item.
One of the tennets of freedom is the right for people to be able to decide how what they create should be used. Linus used that right to place Linux under the GPL, Theo uses that freedom to choose the BSD license. Just because you disagree with the license offered with a product does not give you the "freedom" to ignore the license and take the product anyway, nor is the fact that it's impossible to stop file-sharing make it "right." SCO obviously disagrees with the GPL, but how many people here support their claim that they have the "right" to Linux?
If you don't like the terms (be it CD, DRMed file, carved stone tablet), fine, don't buy it. I guarantee that if you choose to look around, there's talented musicians who aren't associated with any major music lable who would love you to listen to their recordings. Musicians' freedom includes choosing what terms they want to distribute their creations under, or selling that right to someone else. If you want to fight the system, respect them and seek out the alternatives, don't gloat about the gigabytes of commercial stuff that the latest product lets you aquire.
Fine, send me a plane ticket and a few hundred bucks. What? You'd rather have a preview of what I sound like? Well I'll need a recording studio and a distribution channel. You'd rather just send me 99 cents online? How do I know you'll be willing to pay me directly when you won't even buy a CD?
Ripping off artists directly instead of indirectly ain't any fairer.
cat * >> sig
That guy spent $13900.00 on music in the last what...year? Wow. Either that or he drinks a lot of pepsi. I think that addictions beats my coffee habit.
Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
...
Oxygen bars, bottled water, tanning salons, parking stations...
Quality, convenience, features, gimmicks,
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
In the US, drinkable water is essentially free for the taking.
In the US, bottled water is a billion-dollar industry
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
eh.. how about "not in some way that presumes I am a crook."
This would also be my perferred way to pay for games.
Quite frankly, I am *pretty* sure that I, or my roommate, have paid for every game I have played that wasn't free.
Can I make the same assertion about music? Only kind of. Back in the day I did some napsterizing, but all of that was experimental. That is, I never napsterized anything that I wanted to "own" but I did do a lot of pick a song, check out the playlist of the user that had that song, download things that looked interesting. Can't say that I listened to much, if any of that more than once.
My roomate is into audio production and I am into writing. We naturally have these conversations about theme and content. So somewhere I think I *still* have nine versions of "little bunny foo foo." They are all *quite* terrible.
In its heyday Napster was very much the Star Trek experience of "computer, find me citations on (x)" querying, even if it was just music.
And honestly, I don't know that I have scrubbed out every reference to every song that was so fetched. I also think that several other people had access to the one computer as it was a house resource for brief period of extremity.
I say all this because if there had been a way to take the song tracks that I had already fetched and use them as a key to a payment system. I'd have done that on several occasions.
The way iTunes etc work, you pay your money and then you take your chance.
Given god like powers, or the money and title to make things different I'd do the following.
1) offer a large catalog of music (in fact every title I could, no exceptions) for free download at "good quality" (at least 128bit mp3, possibly more).
2) provide an app with a big drag-and-drop target (etc)(sort of a Big Red Button). When you take the free title and apply it to the app, it sends of a dime or two to The People Who Deserve Money(tm).
2a) the app would then let that computer download "really high bitrate" versions of that same song. Yes, it is only the one computer that is so authorized, and no, the good copies are not DRMed to be frozen to that box or anything like that. I wouldn't even bother to brand the high bitrate songs as comming from that computer.
2b) even the high-bitrate titles from 2a could be dropped onto the Big Red Button (on a different computer) to send money to those who deserve to be paid.
2c) using the Big Red Button will also get you money off credits for songs containing that version of that title on full CD purchases from the attached online store.
3) provide the old napster structure of search and share, and wire it up to automatically carry the free-quality songs freely.
4) treat the persions who pay for the very-high quality tracks not to spread them around, as the "good quality" tracks are available to everyone.
5) generally treat the customers as nominally honest and dignified humans.
5a) the very-high quality tracks are suitable for burning of CDs and the people are encouraged not to share these, and the napster-like applicaiton would be "resistent" to sharing these version, but they are not blocked from doing so by DRM or "playlist burn counts" etc.
So the p2p system removes my cost to distribute. The people who are "Causal Copiers" will be given all the music they want (a-la radio) and those who want more are going to get more by paying money. Marketing is automatic and quite rich, the whole "persons who have this song also have these" is implicit. Money is to be made at the low and high end. The "illicit feeling" is removed from the transaction. And most importantly, you know exactly what you are getting with every purchase, so quality must be good and there will be no "the rest of the album sucked" or "this wasn't what I thought it was" problems because there is no risk to the purchaser.
It could be done cheaply and it would work.
(Consider... Napster is the only reason that I ever bought Green Day... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press