Sounds like they broke the contract they'd made with you. If you're an organized person, get the customers together with threats of a class-action.

Not to be too much of a kooky conspiracy theorist, but do you suppose the record companies may have had something to do with this? After all, we don't know the details of the agreements between them and Apple.

No, no! This is insanely great!!!

Woah "Mac-Apologists" ? - This was a feature that IIRC was announced in iTunes4 and hadn't been implemented properly, until now. And I'm sure by the poor implementation, that maybe, Apple wanted this functionality but are being bullied by the MPAA/RIAA/Insert Acronym Here to disable it.

I've already had to dis-enhance my Mac to iTunes 3, because iTunes 4 cannot burn CDs to non-Apple burners. Feh. I haven't figured out how to keep both running at once--it seems to be a one-or-the-other proposition.

There are, of course, little apps that do a nice job of streaming for you, and I don't think Apple prevents those from working. And I'm thinking really hard about Audion...

um, Apple had always said that songs purchased over the iTMS would not be streamable. They aren't now, even before this patch! I'm not sure what the big deal is? The internet streaming technique was _never_ advertised by Apple, only the within-subnet streaming. What you're complaining about is that they no longer allow you to do something they never said you could do.

Whoa, man.. go easy on apple. 1. it's a free program that enchances your life by helping you organize. 2. It's the best way to keep your music with you if you own an iPod. 3.the restrictions are still rediculously generous, and inline with a reasonable amount of sharing through traditional means (borrowing, copying physical media) 4. It's the best way to buy music I've ever used. Maybe you've had a better experience somewhere else, and if you have, I'd love to see it.

The facts remain though... This "update" removes something that was there before that people used. A lot. They really liked it. If Apple didn't intend for Internet sharing to happen, why was it in there to begin with? To tease people? If they got pressure from the (RI|MP)AA, why didn't they see it coming? We're they preparing for fight and then decided not to at the end? The whole things reeks of "wtf".

Also for those that equate file sharing with stealing, how do you reconcile sharing on the subnet with sharing on the Internet? What's the difference? An office/dorm/hotel subnet can have a lot of users...

1. It's a free program that plays music that costs $0.99/track, music in which I've already made a substantial investment, in good faith, on the basis that the functionality in their player was there to stay.

2. Who said it wasn't? But who says it always will be? If Apple is willing to *eliminate features* from iTunes on the basis of the RIAA's demands, then what guarantee is there that iTunes will do tomorrow everything it does today?

3. Ridiculous, but not generous. "Generosity" implies that they're giving me something. In fact, I'm giving *them* something. Money. For goods. I'm purchasing music. With an MP3, I can put it on my iPod, stream it to another computer, burn my playlists an arbitrary number of times, and listen to the music on my home server while I'm at work. Those are my rights. I bought the music, I own it. With Apple's DRM AACs, I can only do a small subset of those things, at Apple's whim, subject to change at any time (as has been just demonstrated).

4. eMusic. I can buy music and stream it, rip it, transcode it, move it to another machine, install it on any portable player, back it up, and use it even if my network connection goes down and it can't be "authorized."

Edited by author 05-27-2003 08:44 PM
I did post something agreeing with davidpolk about streaming of iTMS-bought music not being possible in previous versions. In fact it _was_ possible - apparently you just needed to authorize the computer you were going to stream to. So Apple have done a switch on people who have bought music from the store. Oh well.

Mark, I am currently streaming an ITMS AAC, Peggy Lee's "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot," over the Internet. It resides on an iBook 800 sitting on my desk at home. I am listening to it on my 12" PowerBook on my desk at work. Over the Internet. Ergo, either you are wrong, or I am hallucinating. I am not hallucinating.

RIght -- I was replying to your earlier, unedited post. Glad we're all straight on this.

Apple is really pissing me off these days. I had a long conversation with a friend who works at Apple about why the iPod 2.0 features will NEVER be available on my iPod that I purchased less than a year ago. It's because they want to force people to buy new hardware to get the new software features. Nevermind that this is a completely new mode of operation, and that practically every piece of hardware that Apple has sold in the last 20 years and has been software upgradable has tracked new features for several years (except for the OS X divide, which was given plenty of fair warning). So I pay $400 for a device that is no longer upgradable just a few months later? Color me furious.

Now Apple is doing the weasle and screwing people who have already paid for music by limiting the utility of past purchases. And we know it's only going to be a day or two before someone posts an SSL or proxy hack that will allow people to cross subnet boundaries, so this will only hurt non-geeks who wouldn't be "stealing" the music but just using it for personal sharing.

So if your car stalls out at the Canadian border, and the response from the manufacturer is "Hey, we never promised you could drive it outside the US", you're not going to complain?

After all, driving beyond a specific geographic region wasn't
a publicized feature, so what right do you have to bitch when
it won't go there anymore?

> With Apple's DRM AACs, I can only do a small subset of those things,
> at Apple's whim, subject to change at any time (as has been just
> demonstrated

I'm subject to change my inclination to purchase AACs and stick with MP3s. Changing DRM after the fact gives me no confidence in AAC files. At least with my MP3s, I KNOW my rights and I have the power to use them in any legal way I choose. I hope OS X doesn't slowly become OS XP. Bad move, Apple...

A friend points out "Jeez...just set up a tunnel and quit yer bitchin'..."
Which naturally brings up the question:
Would this count as a "circumvention measure" under the DMCA?

Roadknight:

Does it use encryption? Yes? Well I guess then they find a way to make it illegal.

Yeah yeah I am snitty.

The whole Apple store didn't give me a very warm feeling to begin with and I wasn't sure I wanted to buy the stuff online much less in AAC format which (with some of the soundbits) sounded a bit worse than my MP3 rips (might just have been the music) but this proofs that DRM is a bad idea from a customers point of view.

The question comes up: is Apple eventually going to restrict import to AAC format?

By the way, the old version can't talk to the new version.

On the gripping hand, don't forget that sharing over the internet does open one up to charges from the RIAA; having the possibility eliminated may be a blessing for Joe User, though it's a thorough-going nuisance.

Me, I think I'm going to keep two versions.

I guess what I find obnoxious is that Apple did the worst social engineering nightmare...talk about fair use...give people what they want...then take it away. I mean come on...if someone wants to steal it so badly...there are ways...but how is that different than anything else in life? You expect that there will be SOME theft. Companies have shitloads of software licensing strategies...and people still steal software...yet I don't have 500 dongles hanging off my keyboard. Some loss is expected.

If you want to take your power back...go visit this link:

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003...memade_dot_mac.html

Tip 2 will allow you to stream your tunes regardless of AAC or subnet or the update (should still work). Thanks for Apache Apple...oh yeah, and fuck you!

Edited by author 05-27-2003 09:48 PM
Seems like an ok time to plug my app, Andromeda which serves music via the Web. (you do need to turn on Apache and PHP)

I also just put up a special OS X doc that covers how to configure it to serve directly from your iTunes folder, and also how to configure it to serve M4A and M4P files (like those from the iTunes Music Store).

roadknight:

Perhaps it is more akin to driving a car into
a nearby body of water (sorta like Homer
Simpson did when he got to drive that
electric car).


tom
-=W=-

Cory, did you actually think that Apple would allow Internet music sharing to continue after all of the pirate sites appeared w/ software to download music?

I agree: this sucks. But it was inevitable.

A couple of workarounds:

1. Keep a copy of iTunes 4.0 on your system specifically for sharing. I've moved mine into my MP3 application folder, and then I've installed the 4.0.1 version for listening at home. The sound quality is definitely improved.

2. Use that application that no one seems to talk about anymore, iCommune: http://www.icommune.net/ - it works just fine for me, plus you can actually download tunes from playlists just fine.

I prefer MP3 Sushi (based on gnump3d). I never did figure out which ports to open on my router for iTunes 4, but for MP3 Sushi I only had to open 8888, and it's available with any web browser.

Oh dear. A hyper-expensive luxury item's dealer slightly curtailed a feature it had just added in order to reduce its possible liability in the face of a hyper-litigious organization, and it is not only the end of the world, but that hyper-expensive luxury item's dealer is force-feeding us excrement.

Oh dear oh dear.

Look, Cory -- this is why your writing hasn't advanced to the next level yet. You write geek, but you're not geek, and it's sometimes excruciatingly obvious.

If you were really concerned with listening to your home music in the office or whatever, then you would simply do what everyone else and their mom is currently doing -- writing reflectors to port-forward the localnet on to the office. Routing around the problem, literally.

Instead, you make it a big whiny deal because your multi-hundred dollar toy, which didn't have feature X at all a few months back, suddenly has feature 9/10X? Loser. Ha ha, only serious.

And, may I add, Apple is the fucking devil because their repair policy is bogus and their one-year warranty is a fiction.


I hate them I hate them I hate them.

My understand is that the notes with version 4.0 said that it could only be used on the local subnet. This version is just fixing what should of been there in the first place.

John Galt, not everyone is geeky enough to roll for every single problem, and there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, being the kind of condescending asshole that gives geeks a bad name... the less of your kind there are, the better. Maybe geeks will have an easier time getting laid without having to pay first.

The point was that Cory (and I, and many hundreds of thousands of other people) paid for something, and now part of what we've paid for has been summarily removed. The fact that what we paid for didn't exist a few months ago is irrelevant -- if your new car had satellite radio thrown in for free and the manufacturer suddenly decided to pull the unit out, wouldn't you be well in your rights to complain?

Question for those of you massively upset over this: Aren't there dozens of workarounds (like Turnstyle's Andromeda link, SSH tunneling, et cetera) being posted even as we speak? If you want to stream music from your desktop, can't you still do this? Won't even simpler, one-click ways to do so abound in the next few weeks?

To me, this seems a mere sacrificial lamb, a symbolic gesture Apple offered to the RIAA that placates them while essentially leaving users with the same freedoms they had before. While I can sympathize with the argument that you have technically been denied a feature iTunes previously had, doesn't it seem like a reasonable accommodation, considering Apple gets to promote iTunes as being anti-pirate and you still get to listen to your music remotely?

Meanwhile, Microsoft is still focusing on using DRM to force you to rent music instead of buying it, and working on ways to lock up your portable player if you haven't paid your music bill. I guess I just can't work up quite the amount of venom Cory's title implies that I ought to, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

How can Apple be blamed for taking something away, when they explicitly claimed that their product didn't what was taken away?

Piss poor implementation, yes.

Guilty of "Obscurity = security", yes.

But how can one take away a feature, when that feature supposedly didn't exist to begin with.

Don't reply to John Galt...he's a fucking troll.

Changing DRM after the fact gives me no confidence in AAC files.

This update does NOT change ANYTHING in iTunes' DRM functionality.

I can see why you'd be pissed if you used this a lot, Cory, but I frankly didn't use it at all. So, it's somewhat hard for me to get worked up about something I never used. If I want to listen to music away from my Power Mac, I take my iPod.

It was stupid of Apple to include this if it never meant for it to be there, but I'm with Dan Z. I just can't get worked up over it.

As for your investment, you can burn your AACs as a music CD and then rip them as MP3s, as far as I know as many times as you want. Yes, it's an extra step and, yes, there may be some loss of quality. But I plan on burning all my AACs as a matter of course. Who knows how long either AAC, MP3 or music CDs will be around? Better to keep them in as many formats as possible. That is, alas, the nature of technology.

For the record, Joe Stalin, at least some non-Apple burners do work with iTunes 4. I just burned a music CD with iTunes 4 to my 52x La Cie external drive. Probably not much consolation if yours doesn't work anymore but it's not a plot to make people buy new Apple machines. New drives maybe...

The removal of a dubious feature which few used legitimately but which possibly stops the evil record companies pulling the plug on the iTMS in a years time, a good thing? I think most people who want to download music legally would say yes.

Also the 4.0.1 update fixes the bug whereby music sharing wouldn't work if a proxy server was defined, yay!

I hear you on your last comment. It is without a doubt a world we don't want to find ourselves any further into.
Where are the Independent labels and artists who might get together and with some Creative Commoner spirit (and lisences) and approach apple; WE WANT TO SHARE!
After all, isn't iTunes 4.0.1 a major(ly f'd up) update from the Major Labels, not Apple. Apple wants Us to share.
Tim

A real geek wouldn't whine, he'd set up SSH tunnelling to share iTunes outside his local network. But it doesn't matter anyway. iTunes sharing just doesn't work well across the wider internet, it stutters and dies and it's almost impossible to get a stable connection. They're removing a feature that doesn't really work except inside a LAN. If this sort of raw bandwidth-intensive filesharing took off on multiple platforms, it really has the potential to eat a major chunk of the entire internet's bandwidth. Maybe the sharing iTunes across the whole net really isn't a good idea.

A bit late to the party, but here's my take.

The word from Apple:

http://news.com.com/2117-1027-1010541.html

Apple said in the statement that it was "disappointed" that people had used the new feature in iTunes to copy music with strangers.

 "Rendezvous music sharing...has been used by some in ways that have surprised and disappointed us," Apple said. "We designed it to allow friends and family to easily stream (not copy) their music between computers at home or in a small group setting, and it does this well. But some people are taking advantage of it to stream music over the Internet to people they do not even know."

I paid $50 or so for downloadable iTunes tracks

People still buy music?

One of the best things that ever came with my Diamond Rio was free credit at "MJuice". It proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that buying music as a downloadable file was stupid. Files never played using the tools I used to listen to the rest of my collection. You pay something, you get nothing. I want a CD that I can lend to a friend, or resell. I don't want to throw my money down a pit.

I think we should organize a national protest this weekend in which we stream music from our iPods while at our local Starbuck's, and taking pictures.

Edited by author 05-28-2003 04:38 AM
I agree that software should not lose features, but I do think you're overreacting.

Apple is a company which wants to remain in bussiness, and pissing off the recording industry is not the way to do it. The music store only works if the record company's are willing to work together with apple, and that was at risk when people started copying music using functionality of iTunes.

I agree that it sucks, but Apple is not the one to battle against the recording industry. That should be the job of politicians or other institutions in the public realm (the court room, for example). Apple cannot afford this battle, nor is Apple supposed to fight it.

What about VPNs? That would get around the subnet restriction.

(Have Apple disabled the ability to run an ssh tunnel, too?)

I also think no one has mentioned that, prior to this fix, music could be nabbed off of your machine without your permission or knowing. That is a bad thing.

"Apple is not the one to battle against the recording industry."

Yeah, where could we have gotten the idea that Apple was supposed to fight for freedom?

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/1984.html

I'm upset too -- my brothers and sister were sharing my database of tunes from across the continent.

But if you want to report this honestly, you should note that Apple, right from the start, always touted this as a way to share iTunes songs over a network. Apple never promoted it as sharable over the Internet. That was something people discovered on their own.

Apple has -- unfortunately in my view -- restored the application to what it was originally promoted to do.

And I'm guessing that they did this under pressure from the music licensors.

-=-Joe

boo hoo. get a different computer if you don't like it.

I'm as big an Apple fan as there is, but honestly, you can't seriously think they would have let this one go, did you?

Surely we all realize that as great as their products are, Apple is not out to provide semi-legal options that are substantially out of step with the rest of the industry.

So just steal music from your coworkers at the office like everyone does anyway. If someone across the country has a song you like, chances are someone in your office has it too.

Why do we ever trust Disney or Apple? These people are not your friends.

Richard Stallman is your friend!

"Apple is a company which wants to remain in bussiness, and
pissing of the recording industry is not the way to do it."

"Apple is not out to provide semi-legal options that are substantially out of step with the rest of the industry."

These statements reflect a profound misconception about the way that technology and entertainment companies have historically interacted. When Marconi was sued by the Vaudeville artists for Napsterizing the music halls, he didn't go back to the drawing board and build himself a radio that could only be used to play music that was properly licensed.

When Sony was sued by the movie companies over creating the VCR, it didn't pull the Betamax from the market until it could figure out how to invent a recorder that would only tape shows that weren't infringing.

When the studios went to the National Information Infrastructure hearings in 1995 and asked Congress to get rid of the Internet and replace it with a MiniTel-like system, the computer companies didn't roll over and stop building Internet technology.

The bottom line is that the entertainment industry has been at this since the piano roll suit in 1908, and it's never been in a tech company's interests to appease them. In fact, it was Sony's unwillingness to develop an MP3 walkman (at a time when the RIAA was suing companies that did) that cost them the market for portable digital music-players and opened the door for Creative Labs and other niche companies to destroy them in that market.

Your Marconi and Sony examples, though, are slightly different in that the record companies can just take back the right to distribute, and Apple would have no music to offer in a way that would make it worth Apple's while.

A TV show can't disallow recordings - it's broadcast, and the courts have ruled that those *devices* have non-infringing uses. Apple has a software product that is expressly for browsing and downloading music. Apple has said it doesn't want to be a radio station/streaming/subscription service, so it needs the permission of the music co.s for the product it wants to offer.

If Apple doesn't plug the hole in the ship, the passengers jump with their cargo.

Question: would it have been equally heinous if the original iTunes 4 release DIDN'T include this "stream via the Internet to all your friends" option. Because it wasn't supposed to. It looks like it was a glitch, based on the README that accompanies the original release, that sharing outside of one's subnet was allowed in the first place.

I don't think there's a misconception about how entertainment and tech companies have historically interacted. I'm not even sure how they have "historically interacted" is even relevant. The Internet, as Lessig often points out, changes everything. If you're going to use that argument, you have to be willing to play both sides of the coin. This is a compromise between two rapidly converging industries so that innovation in one -- tech -- will continue to flourish. Besides, the Internet detects censorship as damage and routes around it. Tunnel in via SSH or a VPN, as has been suggested already.

Internet streaming via iTunes sucked anyway. It was a marginally useful, often frustrating, "feature" at best. I gave up and stuck with my iPod at work.

No, you're wrong, the Marconi example is *exactly* parallel. The radio broadcasters played music without permission, and faced lawsuits because of it. TV shows can't disallow recordings *because* Sony built the device, got sued, and secured the Betamax ruling that allows recordings. These things didn't occur in a vacuum, they occured because the technology vendors fought back against the legal threats of the entertainment industry -- and what's more, the companies that *didn't* fight back, like Sony, with MP3 walkmen, lost out bigtime.

I gotta go with Corey here...the simple fact is that there will always be an element of society that chooses to steal vs fair use. When people were making tapes of their favorite music from the radio or mix tapes for friends, the music industry did not collapse into bankruptcy.

You can cripple technology in any number of ways, and people will still find a way to steal. You can't change that fact with more locks on doors. You have to trust your audience and expect that a certain portion of your marketplace will be lost to theft. A fact of business...some clients are deadbeats.

The fact is that technology has always driven media sales...not the other way around. The DVD breathed new life into the sagging video sales. The walkman brought a new audience to the recording industry. Further proof...I recently listened to an individuals playlist and discovered two artists I never heard of before...and because of this, I bought their music so I could put it on my iPod...all because of iTunes sharing.

What the RIAA and music industry don't get...is the natural viral marketing effect of sharing...it's fucking brilliant. Being able to link and listen to other playlists opens you up to new music, and promotes sales...and not one penny spent by recording companies on marketing. It's like having access to millions and millions of tiny radio stations promoting your music. And if they were smart, they would make it easy for you to buy music that you sample from someone else.

This attitude here that Apple should fucking rollover to appease the recording industry so we can keep the Apple store is ludicrous. It is the same type of jackboot thug tactics the music industry is famous for. If Apple bends for this...what's next? They know they can push them around. I say if you want to start backing off your feature set to make them happy...keep your fucking store...I want nothing to do with it.

Question: would it have been equally heinous if the original iTunes 4 release DIDN'T include this "stream via the Internet to all your friends" option. Because it wasn't supposed to. It looks like it was a glitch, based on the README that accompanies the original release, that sharing outside of one's subnet was allowed in the first place.

Glitch my ass...Apple can't backpeddle this...the feature was very clear...Connect to Shared Music...type in any IP or URL...that isn't a glitch. They have even said that essentially it was the few bad apples (sorry) that ruined it for everyone else.

Glitch my ass...Apple can't backpeddle this...the feature was very clear...Connect to Shared Music...type in any IP or URL...that isn't a glitch. They have even said that essentially it was the few bad apples (sorry) that ruined it for everyone else.

*sigh* Please, calm yourself before you blow a gasket. Honestly, this is not something worth getting so worked up about.

I've still got the "old" iTunes 4 on my machine here at work. From the help file:

About shared music

If your computer is connected to any other computers over a local network, you can share the music in your library and playlists with up to five of those computers. The computers need to be in the same subnet as your computer (see the Network pane of System Preferences to see what subnet your computer is in). You choose the items you share in the Sharing pane of iTunes preferences.

[...]

It would seem that the intention all along was to allow people to share their music files locally, not with 50,000 of their bestest Internet pals. Does this still leave the feature open for abuse? Of course -- look at most college campus networks, they're usually on the same subnet, and we all know those dern snoopy college kids are evil music thieves. However, this was a (say it with me now) compromise.

So what if it was a compromise? It was a compromise that screwed Apple's customers, went well beyond legal sufficiency (since the 1984 Betamax ruling, it has been the law of the land that a technology capable of a substantial non-infringing use is itself not infringing), and is the kind of compromise that incumbents make at their peril (as when Sony opted not to build MP3 walkmen and lost its dominance of that market).

So: it's bad business that has nothing to do with the law and screws Apple's customers. And it's a compromise. So what?

Again, I ask, if the feature never existed, would you still consider Apple to be "screwing their customers"? Because you were never supposed to share your music beyond your subnet, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable expectation to me.

I think saying "It's a compromise, so what?" kind of conveniently ignores one very basic fact: nothing exists in a vacuum, certainly not business.

I hate the entertainment moguls as much as the next geek, but I also understand that extremism is just as dangerous when it swings one way as it does the other. There are technological solutions to this "problem", route around the damage. That's part of what being a geek means.

What's *really* dangerous is moving the goalposts so that offering legal equipment for sale is called "extremist." Saying that Apple should serve the market demand for lawful products isn't extremist, it's conservative. Downright traditional.

I'll tell you what an extremist position is: it's arguing that Apple should remove legal features from its offerings on the grounds that these features make record executives sad.

If Apple hadn't shipped iTunes 4.0 with WAN sharing, I wouldn't have bought as much music as I did. So the question is moot.

The ability to steal MP3s via internet streaming makes record executives "sad" ... and it's also illegal. And likely to bring the wrath of the RIAA down upon Apple's head.

I'm not thrilled with Apple's decision, but it's completely understandable. Whether or not they "goofed" with iTunes 4.0, they're only adhering to their stated documentation on the product with this update.

If you like, Cory, I can email you a copy of my iTunes 4.0 (I haven't updated yet) and you can revert to that version.

The people claiming that of course Apple was going to change it as it was a feature that was never intended to be a feature and that the Record companies may yank their product if Apple didn't comply are in my opinion missing an important point. The particular feature is irrelevant. It shows a trend and a willingness to cow-tow that when combined with the controls the DRM provides could (and almost certainly will) be used to shift the sands again. You'll never know or be able to trust where you stand with the media you're buying from them. That's bad for us. Ultimately it's bad for them too, but its REALLY bad for us.

Say that a service springs up that allows you to authorize and deauthorize your computer for a variety of accounts. In this way regardless of who bought the music, you share it and in the background the computer just deals with making the machine fit to play the song. It's certainly possible. The record industry will certainly hate it. Apple will be disappointed, and now you can't authorize multiple Macs anymore.

One example can become another, can become another.... I've never bought into the idea that Apple was committed to fair use for their users. I've always known that they were going to go down the untenable DRM route. This just gives proof of that. They want to control what we do with our computers and our media. We shouldn't let them. We have the power to say no. Just don't buy these disabled and crippled things from them.

"The ability to steal MP3s via internet streaming makes record executives "sad" ... and it's also illegal."

No it isn't -- no more than Ford making an automobile that can be used to drive away from a bank-robbery is illegal. ROBBING A BANK IS ILLEGAL. Infringing downloads are illegal. Making a general purpose tool is legal. Go back and re-read this thread -- you're repeating points that have been made and answered.

"I can email you a copy of my iTunes 4.0 (I haven't updated yet) and you can revert to that version."

First of all, THAT would be illegal.

Second of all, it doesn't solve my problem. If OS X 10.3 requires iTunes 4.0.1, how will having a copy of iTunes 4.0 help me? Go back and read the post, I've already addressed this.

I'm not being a troll, I'm just genuinely confused:

Why would it be illegal for me to let you borrow my copy -- not my songs, but just my copy -- of iTunes 4.0?

"Why would it be illegal for me to let you borrow my copy -- not my songs, but just my copy -- of iTunes 4.0?"

A couple of reasons:

* This isn't a "loan" -- it's making a copy. The rights-holder (Apple) here has explicit terms of service that forbid making copies for someone other than yourself

* Your license agreement for iTunes forbids it

(All of this notwithstanding, if Apple decided to go after you, you could cite fair use in your defense against the infringment claim and argue that the noncommercial nature of the copying made it fair; this is the same argument raised by Napster and others. As to the breach-of-contract, you could try arguing that the non-negotiable "contract" that is your click-through license is a unenforceable because it was unreasonable. I give your odds of winning at slightly lower than those of someone who let a stranger stream a song off his iTunes share).

I guess I should read those licenses I so quickly agree to when I download software. :(

Well, still, if you'd like me to < wink>loan</ wink> you a copy, let me know.

I agree that Apple has indeed kowtowed -- but I understand they may have had to do so just to keep the service alive. As a stockholder I support this decision (of course with the tight lippedness at Apple who the fuck knows what is going on--as a stockholder I do not appreciate this fact!).

But to be so severely pissed off about the lack of streaming, is a bit much for me. I hadn't set up my home computer as the be all and end all of my music collection. That is a cool idea but I know, even with my spiffy broadband connection, there would be quality of service issues with listening to my home library at the office.

That said, if I desire to stream, iTunes 4.0 was the easiest solution. Now that it is gone there are still many solutions available. The free Quicktime Streaming server comes to mind, as does Quicktime Broadcaster (easy to setup). Not to mention Shoutcast or many other available tools.

Really? How would you use the QuickTime Streaming Server, the Quicktime Broadcaster, or tools like Andromeda to stream iTunes-store-purchased AACs from one authorized computer to another?

Edited by author 05-28-2003 03:04 PM
QuickTime broadcaster is not a solution for streaming audio on demand...it is intended for broadcasting of "live" content. QuickTime Streaming Server is free, but there you create playlists that generally are already running...since it is a live stream of pre-recorded content, you cannot skip tracks or pause and pick up where you left off (and it doesn't recognize AAC as far as I know).

There are several work-arounds built into OS X and iTunes (no matter how they collar it) that don't require thrid-party software. However, most people don't want to screw around with that...they just want to click one button and enjoy.

Again, I'd like to point out that the sharing feature is one of the best viral marketing tools I've ever seen...and the recording industry has their heads up their asses, once again. What is it worth in terms of marketing dollars to look at one computer streaming content to five more computers...and multiply that by millions of users. You like what you hear...then all Apple has to do is make a link to buy that song for yourself.

So Steve should have taken his reality distortion field to the labels and said, "Listen, you may see some theft (a relatively small percentage of total streams), but your marketing reach just went through the roof."

And let's look at another issue that people are missing...one reason Corey is pissed is because the AAC files he bought and owns...cannot be streamed to his own machines outside the subnet. Previously you could stream any MP3s from other machines, but could not stream store tracks to anything but your own authorized machine. So I could in the past sit here in this coffee shop and play tunes that don't all fit on my iPod. My content streamed to my machine across town. Now if you buy tracks from the Apple store...you can't stream it to yourself. The tracks he purchased are locked away from himself.

And all this tech shit people are spewing about opening up tunnels and using other solutions...why should your average person have to deal with that. Yeah...I got VPN...but most people don't know anything about that. I should have the right to connect to my own music no matter the geographic location or the subnet.

Cory: "Really? How would you use the QuickTime Streaming Server, the Quicktime Broadcaster, or tools like Andromeda to stream iTunes-store-purchased AACs from one authorized computer to another?"

You might have missed it: Andromeda & OS X tips

It was written with the help of a number of users, and covers: 1) how to serve music directly from your iTunes folder, and 2) how to configure Andromeda for M4A and M4P files (ie iTunes Music Store files).

If I got anything wrong in the doc, please let me know!

The nature of the internet is such that within a few days, if anyone besides Cory truly cares, you'll have a perfectly easy to use VPN solution that will let you listen to all the music you want.

I'm with, however, the people who think it's more than a little stupid to call a fix of a feature to be in line with the documentation an attempt to 'force feed customers shit'.

Apple is under no obligation to stand on the barricades waving the Red Flag of Righteousness on Cory Doctorow's behalf. Cory spending his $15 or whatever never got him the job as Apple CEO. Screaming like my toddler is neither going to magically bring back the feature nor bring Steve Jobs stumbling into a press conference apologizing for not having seen the One True Way of Cory Doctorow and enlisting in the People's Army of Music Liberation; and howling that Apple is feeding him shit and 'this is not a world that I want to live in' over the most minute and trivially remedied nuisance of a sub-$100 purchase of a luxury item is not bringing me to the rally either.

Apple elected not to take the bullet. Their software can still be used to do everything Cory wants, with a tiny (really, tiny) amount of effort on Cory's or anyone's else's part. The only change is that it becomes equally less trivial to commit casual piracy, which we can all obviously agree would have quickly become the number one function of the software.

"And all this tech shit people are spewing about opening up tunnels and using other solutions...why should your average person have to deal with that. Yeah...I got VPN...but most people don't know anything about that. I should have the right to connect to my own music no matter the geographic location or the subnet."

Wow, it went from a brand new software feature to being in the Bill Of Rights in about ten seconds flat. Nice.

I'm interested in knowing: before iTunes 4.0, which vendors were you pounding at the door screaming about force-feeding shit because they were violating your 'rights' by not permitting you to 'connect to your own music'?

Ever think about buying, say, a discman or an iPod to 'connect to your own music' without spamming the Internet?

Edited by author 05-28-2003 04:38 PM
Wait wait wait! The guy who decided that using "Hollywood" as a synonym for "the mainstream American film industry, largely headquartered in Hollywood, California" was defamatory to people who weren't film execs but happened to live in or around Hollywood has dropped in to tell us all that we're overreacting and being self-righteous because a company that we bought stuff from has removed our freedom to lawfully use that stuff, calling it an "enhancement?"

Now, *that*'s irony.

(and don't even get me started on the irony of criticising my post's persuasiveness by comparing it to an infant's whining -- clearly, you are some expert on how to win friends and influence people)

As it so happens, I own an iPod. Why is that relevant?

We've just learned that Apple is ready and willing to "enhance" the tools and media we buy from it by removing legal features from it. If iPods start to displease the music industry tomorrow, why shouldn't I take yesterday's "enhancement" as a sign that Apple will gladly "enhance" my iPod in much the same fashion?

This was written by John Manzione, publisher of MacNETv2 on May 14th, two weeks ago;

"Despite Napster, Aimster, Kazaa, Limewire, Acquisition, and other P2P applications out there, CD’s are still selling. If record companies really wanted to make some serious money they might try giving the customer what they want. Treating the customer as a criminal only pisses of the customer and when someone cracks the DRM on Apple’s music files it will spread like a virus on a PC. There will be no one to blame for this but the record companies who insisted that Apple cripple the files, that CD’s sell for twice what they should, and most of the money spent on promotions are spent on tried and true artists. If you ask me the record business is doing everything it can to assure that the battle continues, and they will never win. Software hackers are too good and too numerous. Give a hacker a reason to crack something and you can rest assured it will be cracked. "

The rest of this excellent piece can be found here: http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=339_0_1_0_M

Cory's point is well taken, Apple caved instantly to the record companies. Today Apple even expressed 'sadness' that people were abusing their precious itunes software. What bullshit!

Regardless of the fact that the software was or was not supposed to do what it did, it did it! Period. And because the record companies bitched and moaned about it Apple took steps to prevent it. Apple Aplogists see nothing wrong, what's unual about that? Suddenly it's okay to steal software and other things on Caccarcho, Limewire and eDonkey, but not from precious Apple? Fuck that! You apologists sicken me because you are all so delusional.

As long as Apple continues to take baby steps in strict DRM the apologists will support it, all the way up to and beyond anything M$ ever thought of. Won't you be surprised?

It took Apple less than a month to ADD to their own DRM, what's next?

We all, indeed, joust with our own windmills. I'm not sure *that's* irony, though. Irony would be if I had complained that you were 'force feeding me shit'.

So, on to the 'shit' -- Apple 'removed your freedom' (wave that flag!) in what way? They fixed their app to be in accordance with their original design, as per the documentation. Your freedom to lawfully listen to music in your home or office is completely unchanged from before iTunes 4.0.0. In fact, as you own an iPod (a device which, get this -- you can carry! from home! to office!), it's unclear how iTunes 4.0.1 irrevocably shattered your rights and, y'know, pried your protesting jaw open and so on with the poop and the pushing and the oy gevalt.

As far as comparing you to my infant's whining: it's not just me (and that's not 'ironic', either); obviously several people in this thread just don't get why you think that Apple is committing a brutal, sadistic, poo-based assault on the mouths of its unwilling customers. Many have gone on to offer you real free solutions, one of which appears to require about 4 cut and paste operations in order to provide an even higher level of functionality;
and yet you continue to rail about the injustice and the damage to your rights. Even my infant stops howling when I give him a free lollipop.

As for the scales falling from your eyes and the sudden realization that the Corporate Interests _don't necessarily have your best interest at heart_ (!) and aren't willing to leap onto the barricades to receive their sucking chest wound as a sign of their courageous commitment to your cause...well; yeah! You've written about hackers for some time now -- welcome to rule number one of our world.

"rule number one" -- eat number two

hrm; had people not abused the functionality in the first place, would Apple have reverted it? i don't think so. that wasn't their initial goal. they tried a more liberal approach, and it was broken. that's a shame.

I'm weighing in with MiskatonicU on the infantile whining issue. The very topic of this thread should have been my first warning. Get real. All the actions you take issue with were voluntary and the so called problems are all easily solvable.

Earlier in the thread, Cory Doctrow said:

"If Apple hadn't shipped iTunes 4.0 with WAN sharing, I wouldn't have bought as much music as I did."

Let me see if I understand this right. You based your spending on a bug (undocumented feature) which caused the program to behave in a way which contradicted the features advertised in the readme. When this bug was fixed in a voluntary software update you decided to start this troll of a thread?

If not for the brand value of your name as a writer, I really doubt this sort of foolishness would have gotten so much attention. You will have to work a bit harder than this to get my attention from now on.

I'd be delighted to get less attention from you, Chris.

In honor of Cory's decision to continue branding the city of Hollywood as evil for the deeds of a few who don't even live there, and in light of the importance of making sure the Cory Doctorow brand reflects that which it truly stands up for, I hereby call that we from now on refer to Cory as 'Cory "a corporation made me eat excrement" Doctorow'.

It may be a little extra typing, but that's 'digital identity management' I can get behind. So to speak.

To summarize the best bits of this thread so far:

1. The proper order for posting to BoingBoing is 1)coffee and smokes first, *then* 2)long screed on Apple's betrayal. Because it has been clearly established that the BoingBoing editorial collective is *never* allowed to make a mistake. Ever.

2. Independent artists who want their music shared should pester Apple. Kind of a cool idea, but wouldn't it be easier to do this with Bit Torrent, a central web page highlighting artists, and some sort of Amazonian evaluation system so you don't get tricked into downloading ukelele covers of Pearl Jam. It would be awesome and truly revolutionary to have a p2p app that enabled consistent distribution of uncopyrighted works of art with measurable download stats (sort by popularity) and collaborative recommendations.

3. There are a bazillion other ways to share your music. Perhaps the simplest is to drag your tunes into a web-enabled folder and let people paste the URL into Winamp (a windows app). It just isn't hard to turn on Apache in OS X. Even non-geeky bad writers can do it. (I include myself in that group). Heck, everyone who has OSX could do that right now and post the URLS to this topic. Come on, I dare you. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU.

4. "Cory would be a better writer if he were more of a geek." Then he could achieve "the next level." History has provided us with many, many examples of hard core geeks who wrote great stuff. One that comes immediately to mind is William Gibson, who got on the internet about ten minutes ago, and now even has a blog. A blog! Frankly, I wish he didn't because it totally kills his authorial mystique. You can't be the next Pynchon if you have a blog, for crying out loud. The corollary to this is "People who tone down their arrogant geekiness are offered more sexual encounters with strangers." This sounds like one of those unsolvable, "tying buttered toast to your cat and throwing it in the air" kinds of problems, because everyone knows that even bad authors are getting nooky from book groupies. So who gets more Nookage? Nice geeks or authors? Obviously, the answer is nice geeks who are *also* authors. Rarely does the list of people who do the nasty on a consistent basis include Mean Little Nerds who make allusions to anything Ayn Rand-ish.

One thing (among many) that I don't understand: are you prohibited from *streaming* across the country or *sharing* across the internet? I.e. making local copies. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Am I bound to keep laws that I don't agree with, that are generally stupid and have no real victims?" It seems to have been historically proven that few will obey a law that is a) inconvenient, b) has no apparent victim, and c) little chance of enforcement. Does anyone actually drive 55 on the freeway? What constitutes moral behavior among the digeratii?

Given the number of posts that contain strike-through text I'd say the boingboing editorial staff often make mistakes but more importantly own up to them, often quite happily it seems. Craniac: you write well and interestingly but your jabs leave much to be desired.

Edited by author 05-29-2003 01:35 PM
Chris Barker: "You based your spending on a bug (undocumented feature) which caused the program to behave in a way which contradicted the features advertised in the readme. When this bug was fixed in a voluntary software update you decided to start this troll of a thread?"

blind leading the blind...Chris...you should do your research before making such a silly post.

A lot of people here are working on the premise that Apple, by mistake, included sharing across any subnet. Everyone keeps talking about how it was a bug. If you know ANYTHING about programming and can imagine the type of quality control that goes on over at Apple, you know why this could not have been a bug. The pulldown menu binded to the sharing feature was no accident.
 
The first thing that pisses me off is that they stretched the truth...twice.

Truth Stretch #1: Oops, that wasn't suppose to be there

Here is why it WASN'T a bug...from Apple's iTunes Help file:
"...that's being shared in the same subnet as your computer and have it appear in your Source list. If you know a computer's IP address, you can also see shared music on that computer even if it isn't in the same subnet."

I suppose this text was also a bug?

Truth Stretch #2: iTunes 4.0.1 has "network access enhancements,"

enhance
1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
2. To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features: computer software enhanced with cutting-edge functionalities.

Removing features is not an enhancement. We now know the feature was intended to be there, and then removing said feature and calling it an enhancement...constitutes in my mind, "Apple force-feeds customers shit, calls it sunshine"


MiskatonicU: "I'm with, however, the people who think it's more than a little stupid to call a fix of a feature to be in line with the documentation an attempt to 'force feed customers shit'."

MiskatonicU, your arguement is weak...and now...wrong. They did not fix the feature...they removed it. You talk about how geeky you are...I think you'd realize the difference.

In another section of the help file, Apple says that sharing is for personal use only...and guess what...that is just what I want it for. Now one way Apple could have handled this was to ADD A FEATURE...not REMOVE ONE (which is how MiskatonicU fixes software). They could have put a security feature that would make it possible to stream, but only to authorized machines or machines with a certain password...there are any number of ways to handle this. Instead they allow folks to infer it wasn't suppose to work that way and yank it. Of course it wasn't suppose to allow people to steal, but why not actually make an ENHANCEMENT so that you still get to stream, but you don't get the theft...that would be progress.

I'll say that many people here have posted good arguements. However, what is at stake here isn't just shared music...it is the premise (and a dangerous one) that fair use is only defined by whatever the music industry defines it to be. The courts have already ruled on this folks. If Apple was pressured, they could even break the OS to prevent people from using third-party streaming solutions. If you start to compromise on one issue, next thing you know you've compromised yourself into OS RIAA.

Apple is the one who has constantly propped themselves up as the defender of fair use. They got me to Think Different. I have every right to call them on their hypocrisy.

Mr. Happy wrote: " Craniac: you write well and interestingly but your jabs leave much to be desired"

Thanks, I think, although not much jabbage occured in that post. And of course, I think that the employees of the BoingBoing pop culture sweatshop can make all the mistakes they want. I grow tired of the odd presence and mean comments of some of the neo-libertarians in this space.

The real crime of the RIAA/etc. is not that they are attempting to prevent illegal copying, but that they have *changed the terms of the argument* to the degree that we can't even imagine leaving the streaming option in place. And that's the best way for them to win anything--not arguing directly, but gradually changing the terms of the discussion.

So ultimately I see Cory's rant as an attempt to restructure the argument a little. Changing our discussion of legal media sharing will probably bring about greater changes than learning to set up a VPN. Or not, just speculating.

MiskatonicU: do you write anywhere else besides here?

Paul: all over the place. Why, is my style a dead giveaway for somewhere else?

No, just wondering where else I could go to read you.

You got it goin' on, writing-wise. Shame to have to lurk here to enjoy it.

He does write pretty, unfortunately his facts leave something to be desired. I hear there is an opening at the Times.

to paraphrase homer simpson: "facts? you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true."

Agraham999 writes:
"MiskatonicU, your arguement is weak...and now...wrong. They did not fix the feature...they removed it. You talk about how geeky you are...I think you'd realize the difference."

Sometimes fixing a difference between the documentation and the application entails removing unintended functionality. However, now that you point out that the documentation contradicts itself, I withdraw the part about this being a fix of a misfeature. It sounds like the dev team wrestled with whether or not to include out-of-the-subnet browsing, and ended up including it before retracting it.

That said, it doesn't matter what their intent is. Maybe they meant to maliciously taunt you. Nothing they did actually changed your rights or abilities to listen to music anywhere you want. This thread has included several free and trivially set up ways to listen to your desktop music anywhere in the world, and even set up a public site perfect for pirating if that's what turns you on.

All that changed is that a couple of confused people, who mistakenly believed that a multi-million dollar ad campaign produced by a giant publicly held multinational corporation really meant that that corporation was their close personal friend who shared all their intimate political beliefs and couldn't wait to go to the rally with them and shout political slogans at The Man, became slightly less confused.

Folks, the 1984 commercial was made by an ad agency. Everyone you see is wearing carefully applied makeup. The cameras they used cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The director, Ridley Scott, eventually abandoned whatever principles he held and directed Black Hawk Down in enthusiastic cooperation with the US military. Chiat/Day, the agency responsible for the carefully crafted populist message, went on to represent, among other clients, the brazenly corrupt and generally evil International Olympic Committee.

There are no positive human-centered righteous corporations. Ben & Jerry's, you say? Bought by gigantic faceless Eurocombine Unilever, no longer even remotely socially responsible except for marketing purposes. Cascadian Farms? "In December 1999, Small Planet Foods was purchased by General Mills, affording us the opportunity to bring our products to even more people around the world."

I actually don't call myself a geek. Only people who read Jon Katz's "columns" on purpose call themselves geeks. I call myself a hacker. And what hackers know is generally as follows. First, no corporation is your friend, no matter how much they claim to be. Your only hope is, that as with Apple tends to be the case, they might be less evil than others. Second, if you want something, you must do it yourself. Whining at Apple and bringing excrement into the equation is not only going to do nothing, it's going to reduce their goodwill towards you.

paul: thanks for the compliment. I'll make sure to post here when my book, "Down And Out And Forced To Eat Excrement In the One Infinite Loop Kingdom" comes out as a 446M PDF file.

Don't forget to use "Shrub" somewhere in the preface. That always works. :)

MiskatonicU, I agree, they haven't removed the ability to stream tunes if I really wanted to. There are a number of legal ways I can go outside (or inside) to do it. I also don't believe that Apple is my friend or pal. There are a number of levels why this upsets me...and it isn't being downtrodden by The Man.

1. Apple obviously meant to include the feature...they engineered it to allow people to share music for personal use outside a subnet...they documented it. The intention was a valid one because THEY understand that allowing someone to use their own music regardless of location is perfectly legal fair use.

Period...end of story.

When the feature was misused and a few people used the technology for piracy, they didn't FIX the problem, they removed funcitonality...and called it an enhancement...implying progress or improvement. As a former executive in the software business, this smells bad...it is bad engineering and bad business. Now many people will say that it was good business decision, allowing Apple to appease the media companies and keep the store open.

Wrong.

The correct approach to fixing this problem is progressively. You look at what causes the feature to be misused and repair it, enhance it. You don't remove it out of fear.

2. Don't bullshit me. Don't tell me you don't trust me, remove the feature, and tell me you are enhancing it.

Nowhere did I say that Apple violated my rights...or that Apple didn't have the right to do it...they OWN the software. I do think it is sloppy programming, bad business, and poor PR. I also don't think it addresses the real issues or help the problem of staving off piracy. In fact what it tells the music industry is that they have the power to control the development of technology...if they don't like something...just smash it. Do you really want that? I can point you to several court cases where the RIAA has actually sued technology companies that now provide you with MP3 players, CD players, etc.

I'm not sitting here holding up the Constitution or Bill of Rights...that is something inferred incorrectly. I am saying that on mutliple levels, this was the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to do it. I do have the right to stream music and Apple has the right to do whatever to their software, but don't bullshit your customers...and that is why the title of this discussion is so apropos.

1. I agree that Apple's behavior here was less than perfect. However, I can count the number of times I've had the opportunity to fix a serious legality-related code problem slowly, progressively, and in an enlightened manner on the fingers of my left unicorn horn. While we are all making guesses, my guess is that a memo came down from Apple Legal or Apple Executive demanding an instant fix, and the engineers scrambled to solve the problem. Think the engineers talk back to Steve Jobs much?

1a. 'Period...end of story' doesn't apply yet, because the deeply critical, nation-riveting story of the $50 iTunes software is not done yet. Perhaps Apple will release a 4.0.2 that includes the password-protection feature you suggested.

2. Agreed, Apple engaged in egregious bullshit a la Microsoft continually talking about their "great software". And indeed they've always done this ("the G4 is the world's first personal supercomputer", and so forth), as has every other corporation on the planet.

So why are they 'force feeding customers shit'? Not because of their corporate marketspeak, but because some twits got incredibly outraged at their own misbegotten belief that Apple was trying to Change The World. Apple is not wrapped up in your flag, Apple is wrapped up in their flag. Their flag is the hot sweet green heat-mirage-shimmering sweat-stained Vegas-smelling flag of American corporate capitalism.

Cory "a corporation made me eat excrement" Doctorow, as a wannabe champion of the geeks, should know better. Maybe he does by now.

agraham999 said in /m80 : "you should do your research before making such a silly post."

You made your point clearly. I see what you mean about contradictions in the readme. My use of the word "bug" was less than optimal.

agraham999 continued in /m80 : "If you know ANYTHING about programming and can imagine the type of quality control that goes on over at Apple, you know why this could not have been a bug."

Please dont make assumptions about my ignorance in the same sentance as you question my ability to speculate. I dont work for Apple, do you? if so please document the process you speak of.

lastly, agraham999 nearly concluded /m80 with : ".it is the premise (and a dangerous one) that fair use is only defined by whatever the music industry defines it to be. The courts have already ruled on this folks."

As of now "fair use" is a doctrine. It is not protected by law in the context which we are discussing. If I am wrong, please cite a court case which protects the act of streaming digital audio across public networks.

MiskatonicU speculated at the end of /m91 : "Cory "a corporation made me eat excrement" Doctorow, as a wannabe champion of the geeks, should know better. Maybe he does by now."

I can only hope so.

BTW, the hostname of my powerbook is potmeetkettle.

Something that has struck a resonance is
(of all things) the history of barbed wire:

Glidden's Patent Application

"Fence cutting became a felony..."

The Fence-Cutter's War

Social Transformation

Fence Cutters


tom
-=W=-

John Gruber has a stirring read. It sums the arguments up nicely and provides a rather thoughtful conclusion

http://daringfireball.net/2003/06/looney_tunes.html

Enjoy

my final thoughts:
<br><br>Apple's one of the very few companies in the computer industry that consistently wins awards for innovation. Apple's also the most immitated company on earth... Apple has one of the strongest brands on the planet... Yet with all these things, they're still only in command of a tiny tiny fraction of the total market share. For as passionate as you and I are about Apple and it's products, it's still a company that needs to make money, and stay in business, and not get entangled in legal issues that could hurt or even destroy it. We both see the major labels as becoming less relavent, and less powerful. Distribution is the largest portion of service major labels provide, and when that's irrelavent, they're irrelavent. The RIAA is a dying entity. They're not dead yet, but they're on their way out.<br><br>I suggest you listen to Harry Allen's Interactive Super Highway Phone Call to Chuck D<i>, off Public Enemy's <i>"Muse Sick-n-Hour Mess Age" ... which is available off the iTunes Music Store...

"I paid $50 or so for downloadable iTunes tracks, with the understanding that Apple had sold me something that would stream over the Internet."

Not exactly up to speed on your reading skills, huh? Apple said that it was providing software that allowed users to purchase songs for 99 cents each. Users could then transfer those songs to a limited number of iPods and unlimited number of Macs; furthermore, they could be burned onto an unlimited number of CDs, albeit only 10 with the same playlist.

At no time did Apple promise that unlimited sharing of files between Macs could be accomplished with iTunes itself, though perhaps wishful thinkers overlooked that.

It surprises me that the users of the world's most liberal legal means of obtaining and sharing music files on the internet (yes, I mean iTunes 4.01) are complaining because they can't have something that was never in the agreement Apple made with the music industry.

If this is a problem, go back to using gnutella and take your chances with the law.

I am surprised Apple doesn't implement some kind of authorization network for internet streaming.

Everyone's main complaint (including mine) is that they can't stream from work to home and vice-versa.

What if iTunes had a VPN in it? Apple could set it up so that you could stream from any iTunes that was logged into your iTunes Music Store account to another iTunes that was logged in. The applications could share a "key" to authorize the stream. Apple could use the 3 machine limit here as well. Having 3 machines logged in is fine...and subnet streaming would be unlimited.

I think your being a little to extreme here, it's a fucking stream who the fuck cares, if you want your fuckin' music so bad burn it to a fucking disc and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! Apple is just trying to cover their ass from the fucking ass holes at the RIAA, common sense there.

Shoplifters don't widen the pockets on the coats to make them easier to pick, fool.