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.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/20/174 8226&tid=141&tid=108&tid=3&tid=218
"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
If you want to be pedantic, the i in iTunes isn't a pronoun, but an abbreviation of "internet". Additionally, since the development team is trying to convey a specific agenda, the name is appropriate.
You lose at linguistics.
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...
The two issues are unrelated. If Apple is asking Sourceforge to take down software that circumvents access control, that's a DMCA thing.
This ruling, on the other hand, says that P2P vendors cannot be generally held accountable for how some (most) may use their software. This ruling does not permit circumvention of access control, as added by DMCA
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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?"
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.
I was thinking usTunes sounded more patriotic, like freedom fries. Or Tunes R Us?
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
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.
Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
...
Oxygen bars, bottled water, tanning salons, parking stations...
Quality, convenience, features, gimmicks,