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!