Slashdot Mirror


VLC 1.1 Forced To Drop Shoutcast Due To AOL Anti-OSS Provision

The folks over at VideoLAN are in the process of releasing version 1.1.0 of VLC, and one of the major changes is the removal of SHOUTcast, a media-streaming module from AOL-owned Nullsoft. "During the last year, the VLC developers have received several injunctions by e-mail from employees at AOL, asking us to either comply to a license not compatible with free software or remove the SHOUTcast capability in VLC." Within the license is a clause prohibiting the distribution of SHOUTcast with any product whose own license requires that it be "disclosed or distributed in source code form," "licensed for the purpose of making derivative works," or "redistributable at no charge." The license would also force VideoLAN to bundle Nullsoft adware with VLC. Update: 06/22 00:52 GMT by H : The 1.1 release is ready from their site; you can also read up on the release information.

60 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first and not the last by jlechem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to say fuck you AOL. Seriously quit being a dick.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:Not the first and not the last by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's way too late for AOL. They could hand out free puppy dogs and ice cream for the next year and nobody would ever love them again.

      All 3 remaining shareholders need to get someone to fire everyone in the top 30% of pay recipients there, break the company into smaller ones with independent leadership and f'ing BURY they name AOL forever. RIP.

    2. Re:Not the first and not the last by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the way to do it? remove shoutcast, make it a module, put the module outside the usa, and make it auto install. call it "aol can go to hell-shuotcast plugin OSS version"

      then say, "we cant control plugin makers, sorry, but our product does not have shoutcast compatability in it."

      Do a video press release flipping the bird the entire time. ALA vietnam and korea war POW film reels.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Not the first and not the last by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is this even an issue? Isn't VLC based in France?

      Were they using the source code from Nullsoft? Couldn't they rewrite the code themselves?

      TFA says:

      We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Not the first and not the last by WED+Fan · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem is, they'd package the free puppy dogs inside the celophane magazine wrappers and people would be tossing DEAD puppies out in droves. Then you'd have the smart alek posting a website about the 101 things you could do with a dead AOL puppy.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    5. Re:Not the first and not the last by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem with AOL giving away puppies and icecream is that they don't make very good coasters.

    6. Re:Not the first and not the last by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently, three of the 101 uses are NOT "coming when you call", "chasing squirrels at all", or "being much fun".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Not the first and not the last by rsteele19 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hate to interrupt a good old-fashioned witch-hunt, but AOL was instrumental in the creation of a little group called the Mozilla Foundation, transferring hardware and intellectual property to them and donating $2 million.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#History

      So maybe they're not all bad.

      --

      This sig is umop apisdn.

    8. Re:Not the first and not the last by Tassach · · Score: 5, Informative

      AOL only bought Netscape for the traffic going to the portal site. Management viewed Netscape's software portfolio as unwanted baggage, so they jettisoned that as early as they could, getting as much goodwill and publicity out of it as possible. $2M is chump change for a company bringing in over a billion in cash every year. The irony is that immediately after taking over, traffic on the Netscape.com portal site dropped by 90-95%. AOL has an amazing talent for buying high-traffic web properties and turning them into low-traffic ones. Having witnessed it first-hand, the disconnect between AOL's management and reality is utterly mind-boggling. /ex-AOL employee

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    9. Re:Not the first and not the last by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's wrong with AOL and ME?! I'm runnin' AOL 9.0 right now on my Windows ME eMachines desktop with Norton, McAfee, and XP Antivirus Pro 2010. I got my Yahoo!, Ask.com, Windows Live, Altavista, and Mapquest toolbars for browsing with IE 6.0. I download all the latest movies before they come out, using Limewire, and all the latest cracked video games as well. Whenever my computer slows down I just call my geek friend to fix it.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    10. Re:Not the first and not the last by kriston · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, yet by the time they bought them, Netscape was a sad shell of company that didn't know it was dead yet. Nobody was going to Netscape.com by that time, and AOL tried to integrate as much of the My Netscape product into the failed My AOL product and actually brought My AOL back from the dead on iPlanet server. Traffic kept dropping over at Netscape.com and they finally put it out of its misery and redirected people to a somewhat revitalized My AOL product with the "Netscape" brand "chrome" on it. After all this, My AOL features were blended with AOL.COM and it survived to some success over the years. Today you go to my.netscape.com and it is my.aol.com with a Netscape "skin" running on a combination of Apache and AOLserver servers, the latter being an open-source project since 1999. -another ex-AOL employee.

      --

      Kriston

    11. Re:Not the first and not the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also stole GAIM's name making a client called AIM and then turned around and sued the GAIM project for trademark infringement.

    12. Re:Not the first and not the last by segin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that they aren't using so much as one line of Nullsoft code. The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license. It just says that any software that uses the SHOUTcast service cannot be published as source code, or require that it's source code be published, or even allow for people to make copies for gratis.

      In other words, it's saying that GPL'd software can't send commands to their server and get back data. No matter who wrote the damn code.

      After all, the name of the specific license that AOL is pushing is "SHOUTcast Radio Directory License Agreement and Terms of Service".

      For more clarification as to why this service license can dictate what license the client software utilizes (or at least, why AOL thinks they can dictate the license of client software that connects to their directory), let's take a little look at their "license".

      First, it refers to the client software as an "Integrated Product". This term is defined, by the license, as "a version of Your Product into which the API is integrated, whether in "works like," "works like-looks like," prototype, intermediate form, final form, or other form."

      "API", is then defined by the license as "the specifications, code samples, header files, libraries, and applications provided to You by Nullsoft, and any changes, alterations, corrections, or enhancements made thereto at any time by Nullsoft."

      Note the text I put in bold, "the specifications". Basically, if I write brand new code from scratch, and it can connect to the SHOUTcast Directory, then it somehow must conform to these specifications (even if I did not use Nullsoft/AOL's published documents providing these specifications - which are basically the underlying protocol for client/server interaction). As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.

      Note: I don't support Nullsoft/Aee-Oh-Hell (AOL)/Whoever-the-fuck-makes-this-shit, even if I sound like I do. I am simply explaining how this license supposedly works, or at least what seems to be Aee-Oh-Hell's interpretation of it.

      As with that, I think I might fork VLC and keep the SHOUTcast Directory browser code in the main codebase. Let Aee-Oh-Hell come after me, I'll tell them to go fuck themselves.

    13. Re:Not the first and not the last by aiht · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a) They did write their own damn code.
      b) They are respecting the license, by pulling their own damn code from their own damn codebase.
      What are you complaining about, again?

    14. Re:Not the first and not the last by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The license agreement in question is a service license, not a software license.

      As long as the VLC developers don't use the service, thy cannot be held to any service license.

      As such, even though this is 100% free of Nullsoft code, it conforms to Nullsoft's specifications (as if it didn't, it would be unable to interact with the SHOUTcast Directory server), and is thus supposedly covered under the SHOUTcast Directory Service License, as the software uses the service.

      This of course is a complete and utter overreach on the part of AOL. If such an interpretation of the law had a chance in hell of prevailing in court, Microsoft would have put an end to WINE years ago.

      Just another case of a large corporation abusing copyright law to bully small developers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. AO-who? by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd think those guys would seize any opportunity to stay relevant. It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, another to do it when you're inches from death.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:AO-who? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe their just trying to take themselves out of their own misery.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:AO-who? by mikkelm · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have to admire their consistency. I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.

    3. Re:AO-who? by trytoguess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AOL are the folks behind Engadget, Joystiq, wow.com, autoblog, games.com etc. They are, for better or for worse still quite relevant (if much smaller), and apparently very good good at making people ignore their involvement in things. Probably a good thing.

    4. Re:AO-who? by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.

      They used to send me free floppies in the mail, that was cool.
      Then they started sending useless plastic discs, that wasn't cool.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:AO-who? by Zelucifer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're kidding right? You can either pay cents for a floppy... or FREE FRISBEE, Woohoo! Seriously though, we used to grab a stack of them, and play ultimate death frisbee in an empty parking lot

      --
      The corner of a round room
    6. Re:AO-who? by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.

      Well, they did release AOLserver. From wikipedia:

      "AOLserver was the first HTTP server program to combine multithreading, a built-in scripting language, and the pooling of persistent database connections. For database-backed Web sites, this enabled performance improvements of 100X compared to the standard practices at the time of CGI scripts that opened fresh database connections on every page load. Eventually other HTTP server programs were able to achieve similar performance with a similar architecture, but AOLserver was several years ahead of the competition."

    7. Re:AO-who? by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boxee from XBMC which was first. XBMC has supported ShoutCast forever and Boxee is a fork of XBMC. Just a nit, Boxee being more commercial doesn't win it any points in my book.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  3. Sayonara SHOUTcast! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AOL wants to flex what little muscle it has left and try to have an impact on something? KMA AOL, VLC is going to cast your SHOUTcast aside. No one will miss it, and more importantly, no one will miss AOL when it fades off into the sunset.

    1. Re:Sayonara SHOUTcast! by spinkham · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.

      There's a replacement, it's free and user editable. Sounds like the death of SHOUTcast to me.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  4. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doesn't VLC already come with DeCSS inside to decode DVD video? Isn't DeCSS "illegal software" ? ... so why does that make this module any different? Can't they just ignore the injunction and keep going?

    Promise I'm not trolling, just confused, or perhaps not understanding the situation.

    1. Re:Wait... by localman57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because that would be wrong. Open source software needs to set an example by respecting the licenses under which code is provided. Otherwise, we have no moral authority to go after companies that violate the GPL and demand that they post their code. DVD decoding is a bit different story, because of the fuzzyness of various laws that protect content, and your ability to use it in ways to make it compatible with your system.

    2. Re:Wait... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the RIAA and RIAA-like companys simply raised the white flag on the CSS case, after all you may buy a legit DVD and wants to see then on your PC without need to buy extra (and generaly crappy) "licenced" software to be able to watch then.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    3. Re:Wait... by andymadigan · · Score: 2, Informative

      DeCSS is only illegal under the DMCA and other "anti-circumvention" laws. Open source has a history of respecting copyrights, but the DMCA is completely different. The DMCA also doesn't exist in most countries, and OSS has no interest init being followed. OSS does have an interest in copyright and copyright does exist in most jurisdictions.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    4. Re:Wait... by slackergod · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed! Just to clarify things for the AC above...

      This is an issue of the authors of some code demanding "adhere to our license or get rid of our code". Which I think everyone can understand the need to honor, if just as a matter of "do unto others, or else".

      DeCSS is a completely different case. The code was written by a Norwegian named Jon Johansen, who not only did the cryptographic research to invent the algorithm in the first place, but wrote the code and then released it to the world. Copyright-wise, the code is legally open-source. And for all countries except the US, the code is legal for use. So for anyone outside the US, there aren't any legal problems with the code. And VLC isn't a US-developed piece of software (though to help Americans, DeCSS is distributed as a separate library under many linux distributions).

      The only thing which taints the algorithm in the US is the "DCMA" law, which outlawed the use of any algorithms which circumvent a "copy protection scheme". The law is so broad that almost *anything* which alters the encoding of data (ROT13, etc) is a copy protection scheme; despite the fact that encrypting a DVD in no way prevents you from making copies of it (copies of encrypted bits play just like the original). So the DVD "CSS" encryption scheme doesn't even stop copying, yet it's able to wrap itself in the legal mantle the DCMA provides. What CSS *does* do is prevent you from playing a DVD unless the software author has paid a license fee to the people who created CSS (NOTE: not the people who creating the video codec it uses, that's just MPEG2). So all it does is stop you from making use of your fair use rights under US copyright law. It's your DVD, you have a right to play it, sell it, etc.

      Now, you might argue that the DCMA, while unjust, is still the law, and Americans should abide by it. And that's a whole can of worms to which Slashdot has devoted many pages of discussion over the last decade. But initially, the effects of the DMCA were broader: worldwide, there were *no* open source DVD players. Period. Because the CSS algorithm wasn't even available in source form anywhere. DVD player authors worldwide had to pay a license just to link in a binary-only library. That is, until Jon Johansen (and cohorts) successfully reverse engineered the algorithm in a completely-legal-for-Norway manner (he was tried in court and found innocent of any wrongdoing). Thus allowing the rest of the world to watch dvds without having to pay money under a racket created by a US-only law.

      And *thats* where DeCSS came from, and why it's nothing like this situation, which (while foot-and-bullet stupid) is perfectly within all internationally recognized rights of the authors.

    5. Re:Wait... by cpghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And for all countries except the US, the code is legal for use.

      I would be very careful with such broad assertions. Actually, some countries (like Germany and many others) worsened their Copyright laws significantly in the last couple of years, mimicking the US-DMCA w.r.t. anti-circumvention measures. DeCSS could very well be illegal there... but fortunately, they don't seem to care enforcing those anti-circumvention measures all that much (though they still could, if the US government puts enough pressure on them).

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  5. Re:Good riddance.... by jsnipy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Shoutcast is great, not an AOL creation, just acquired.

    --
    -- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
  6. Re:Seriously, how is AOL even marginally relevant? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sure. Just type in the AOL Keyword, "AOL".

  7. AOL makes software? by zill · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, I didn't know AOL developed software. I thought they were just a Frisbee manufacturer.


    Speaking of which I really miss getting the free sample Frisbees from them every month. Did they go bankrupt or something?

    1. Re:AOL makes software? by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 2, Funny

      i thought they made coasters

    2. Re:AOL makes software? by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I'm sure that their overpriced drugs and the people who are being gouged for them are paying for all of that crapola. I'd rather they turn around and subsidize the cost for some of their lower income customers, but we all know *that* isn't about to happen.

      I grew up with industry schwag as well, but that industry was far better off when it couldn't direct market to patients. Turns doctors into mere "prescribers".

      Pharma is out of control in the US -- and they're more bloated and less "innovative" than ever.

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
  8. Magnusson-Moss by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reverse engineering and design for interoperability is legal in the US. Unless there is an active patent or AOL's code is incorporated into VLC they don't have a leg to stand on and are just engaging in bully tactics. Considering that this is AOL I'm not surprised that they're likely to shift to the SCO business model and squeeze all they can from the fumes of their diminished empire.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  9. OSS not the real reason by bzzfzz · · Score: 5, Informative
    From TFA:

    "When sold or distributed to End Users, the Integrated Product shall not [...] (c) incorporate any Publically Available Software, in whole or in part, in a manner that may subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast Radio Materials, in whole or in part, to all or part of the license obligations of any Publically Available Software. As used herein, the term "Publicly Available Software" means any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software or similar licensing or distribution models; and that requires as a condition of use, modification or distribution that such software or other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software: (1) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (2) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (3) be redistributable at no charge." (Emphasis mine)

    This is a standard provision that is part of any license agreement for commercial software, and all it says is that you can't distribute the software in a way that makes it subject to the GFDL or some other Free license.

    I'm not sure what the real reason is, but the OSS provision isn't it.

  10. SHOUTcast? by flabordec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, is anyone using this? With the horrible memories I have of AOL I would not use anything they made and I would think most people feel similarly.

    --
    "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    1. Re:SHOUTcast? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes Shoutcast and icecast stations are all over. Lots of awesome radio is on shoutcast and icecast stations.

      Most have moved to icecast, but some are running on really out of date shoutcast servers.

      What is the suckiest is the WNA and RM streams... only real idiots use those for streaming radio.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. XBMC? by CoffeeDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    DISCLAIMER: If you are an employee of AOL you are not authorized to read the following comment.

    How does XBMC get away with SHOUTcast support then? Or should I be asking this question?

  12. That by jamesyouwish · · Score: 5, Funny

    really whips the llama's ass

  13. So what? Stay using Icecast by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    SHOUTcast is just a bad copy of icecast. Keep using icecast for your audio and video streaming and do not accept lesser, closed source imitations.

    I do hope that the specific VLC developers involved with the shoutcast fiasco get the drubbing they deserve, if for no other reason than as an example for others and as payment for the trouble they've caused the rest of the project. It's 2010, closed source does not belong on the net and FOSS developers have no business undercutting FOSS projects.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  14. Re: iPhone by fistfullast33l · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an iPhone developer, I can tell you the majority of streaming radio apps on mobile phones are listening to Shoutcast servers. That's where most of the money lies for AOL/Nullsoft in Shoutcast. The protocol is very simple and similar to HTTP so the iPhone OS supports it (sort of) out of the box, and some of the more advanced features (like in-stream song names) can be taken advantage of by manipulating the HTTP headers.

  15. Re:So what? Stay using Icecast by mmkkbb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shoutcast predates icecast. And, in any case, this appears to have been a Shoutcast directory client, not a media server.

    --
    -mkb
  16. Don't use terms you don't understand by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You didn't get 'several email injunctions from AOL employees'. A judge puts an injunction into place. AOL asked you to stop. It may have lead to an injunction at some point had you told them to piss off, but you complied, and thats where it ended.

    The 'license issue' you quoted also basically says 'if your software license imposes restrictions that are anti-closed source software, then we don't want to play with you.' This is pretty much identical to the point of GPL but in the other direction. Same stupid constraint, you're just pointing it out like you license is different than there. Same rule, just used by the other side. Get used to it, they are just doing to you what you want to do to them, you have nothing to bitch about here.

    The toolbar bundling issue is just another retarded constraint, but GPL (in my opinion) is full of retarded constraints that make it less than open by my definition. I wouldn't do it either if it were me, but thats what happens when you want to use someone elses stuff, you have to play nice with them.

    Yes, I'm going to be marked as a troll, but really this is just as much a GPL being anti-closed source as it is AOL being anti-open source. Both sides are doing the same retarded thing, using a license the other one doesn't like and then blaming it on the other person.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Don't use terms you don't understand by kriston · · Score: 2, Informative

      The letters all refer to something called the "Shoutcast Radio." This is the free, yet proprietary, directory of people using Shoutcast servers to serve audio data. I don't see anything that talks about the protocol itself, which is open and is used to serve audio to tens of millions of iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch users via apps like iheartradio, CBS Radio, and many others.

      This isn't such a big deal but I sure hope the VLC people don't think it means they should remove the Shoutcast streaming protocol, which it pretty clearly does NOT refer to.

      --

      Kriston

  17. So don't distribute it with VLC by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Make it a separately installed "plug-in". What's the problem? Do the same with any other module of questionable legality.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  18. Who's AOL? by maliqua · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember something about junk mail in the form of floppy's and CD's but its all so blurry. AOL used to sell something didn't they? well it escapes me. At least they found a way to make themselves even less relevant. I almost thought it couldn't be done

  19. Re:Open Sound System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder; the EU might make email address portability mandatory if we start shouting loud enough about this. Would you like that AOL? Do you really want to annoy us?

    Is this really feasible?

    Software and stuff uses the host part of the address to know where to send it, would there have to be a kind of secondary DNS system for email addresses or would it just be made mandatory that all existing servers are modified to do a kind of transparent forwarding.

    Also if some server shut down then that would cause a lot of problems

  20. Burn in hell by soundguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've operated a media distribution system (mostly video ppv) for about a decade. About 7 years ago, I ended up blocking the AOL browser completely. It was a worthless piece of shit that caused 50% of our customer service issues. Coupled with their idiotic "no refresh for 30 days" DNS servers (which means any time you moved a website to a new IP, it "vanished" for a month for all AOLosers) and their proxy servers that made tracking large-scale credit card fraud extremely difficult, it literally cost us money to even have AOLosers in the customer base. I was in the process of compiling a list of AOL IP ranges and had plans to block them completely when they finally rolled over and died in the dial-up market. Almost overnight, they became 99% irrelevant and my life got so much easier, I was able to start taking regular vacations.

    In summation, GO TO HELL, AOL! You're nothing but a festering boil on the ass of the internet and your rotting corpse needs to be dumped into an active volcano.

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
  21. Re:Now websites choose terms on browsing by mini+me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't even have to look the the future: I am the author of an alternative browser for the iPhone that formats pages for easy reading on the small screen.

    I was recently contacted by a website owner informing me that my browser would be blocked from accessing their website because it does not display web pages in exactly the way they had intended.

    What is the point in using a format (HTML) that is designed to be interpreted in many different ways, depending on who is reading it, if you need exact control over your content? There are better tools for that job.

  22. That's hysterical by Akita24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having AOL say "you can't bundle our stuff" is right up there with Real Media saying the same thing. Who the f* cares? I mean really. Good bye, good riddance.

  23. Amarok by c_g_hills · · Score: 4, Informative

    Amarok dropped Shoutcast support in version 2.2 (October 2009) because of this.

  24. AOL Doing Its Best to Become Irrelevant by DrEnter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously AOL, are you that determined to drive every last customer away?

  25. Re:Open Sound System by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no. Now look what you've done. You have me thinking that maybe I should install FreeBSD when I get this other Opteron assembled with all the rest of the stuff laying around. You proselytizer!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  26. Hello from SHOUTcast by friskygeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi all. We were disappointed to see VLC's announcement today that they were removing access to the SHOUTcast service in VLC. While the SHOUTcast service is proprietary, SHOUTcast has always supported open source development since its birth in 1999 and we will continue to do so in the future. The SHOUTcast API terms of service allow the SHOUTcast API to be incorporated into open source software applications via SHOUTcast API partner program so long as the terms of such open source software do not subject SHOUTcast Radio or the SHOUTcast service to the open source terms. VLC's comment that the SHOUTcast Toolbar is spyware is not accurate. The SHOUTcast Toolbar is not spyware. The SHOUTcast toolbar may only be downloaded by a user upon their prior consent. We will be reaching out directly to VLC to clear up any confusion that exists about this situation.

    1. Re:Hello from SHOUTcast by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      VLC's comment that the SHOUTcast Toolbar is spyware is not accurate. The SHOUTcast Toolbar is not spyware. The SHOUTcast toolbar may only be downloaded by a user upon their prior consent.

      Where consent is identified by a checkbox buried on next-to-final page in the installer of "partner software" that is ticked by default?

      C'mon, this is 2010. Any bundled browser toolbar is malware (whether it's spyware is debatable) pretty much by definition.

  27. Re:Or Make Your Own... since people think it is ea by kriston · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, the article and the C&D letters appear to be about the directory service provided by Shoutcast, called Shoutcast Radio. This is separate from Shoutcast, the protocol. The quoted sections posted over at the VLC web site specifically say "Shoutcast Radio" so it's reasonable to think they're talking about the directory service, not the streaming protocol. The protocol itself for streaming the audio is open, and AOL even tried to promote it under the name "Ultravox" and it never seemed to get anywhere. But all I see that the VLC site is talking about is Shoutcast Radio, the directory service.

    It's also important to know that the protocol behind Shoutcast serves way more than half a million people. Most iPhone Apps that receive streaming audio are receiving them via the Shoutcast streaming protocol even if they're not using the Shoutcast Radio directory. In many cases the ICEcast open-source implementation of Shoutcast is what's being used. Let's see, CBS Radio (AOL and Yahoo Radio), AMFM's iheartradio, and so many others are using something very much like the Shoutcast protocol, once and no longer known as "Ultravox," for serving iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad clients. I don't know about Android but I would suspect they're using ICEcast since it's the one supported by the Ogg Vorbis crowd, too.

    Shoutcast/ICEcast ICY protocol is in so many more places than people know. It might not be purely AOL's Shoutcast by Nullsoft, but it's someting mighty close to it, serving tens of millions of people.

    We don't need the Shoutcast Radio directory. That's the technology in question from what I'm reading at VLC's web site.

    --

    Kriston

  28. Re:Open Sound System by Ixokai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But that's a completely absurd thing to expect.

    It would mean that once you have a customer, you're now obligated basically forever to handle all the traffic that comes to their address -- and after a certain number of customers, that can become quite a bit -- for free. Suddenly its not just your paid customers who are eating up your bandwidth, but *past* customers too?

    Now sure, AOL has plenty of bandwidth. But still, that's not the point. The design of the email system isn't like phone numbers-- there's not a centralized and organized series of exchanges which route where numbers need to go and arrange for them to arrive at their proper destination... there's just "aol.com". AOL /has/ to receive and process that mail. And now you think they should forward that off forever?

    Sure, it'd be *nice* of them, as a service.

    Obligating someone to serve a former-customer forever is sort of silly though, even if they are dicks to said former-customer. The remedy to being the customer of a dick, is to stop being their customer.

    If the potential cost of someone not finding you at your new email address is worth more then dealing with a dick-- you're free to make that choice.