Apple Updates, Cripples iTunes

squiggleslash writes "Apple has issued an update to iTunes 4, iTunes 4.0.1. It can be downloaded via Software Update. The big change seems to be that iTunes will now only stream music to other Macs on the same subnet. This is presumably a response to people publishing public lists of shared iTunes playlists, though it does mean that anyone wanting to stream music from home to work or vice versa is SOL. Oh well." You can't share between 4.0 and 4.0.1 iTunes, so be careful in updating. AppleScript access to shared playlist tracks is fixed, though. Woop woop.

VPNs

I don't have access to a Mac (let alone two) but couldn't you use a VPN if you wanted to stream from home to work or vice versa? You know, tunnel the traffic so it looks like one local network even though it isn't?

Re:VPNs

Certainly, or use SSH port forwarding.

SSH Tunnelling iTunes works just fine

Whatchutalkinboutwillis?

This worked just fine from both a local Linux and Solaris box:

ssh -g -L 3689:homemac:3689 me@homemac

Then point the workmac -> daap://worklinux

The trick is, you can't set up the SSH tunnel *from* the Mac itself, because iTunes doesn't like connecting to localhost or even 127.0.0.1 (or maybe it was ports other than 3689).

Re:SSH Tunnelling iTunes works just fine

This Apple thing is a great concept, lets charge people a buck a song and then restrict how they use it. This should make them loads of cash since they have a lock on the market

Oh, I feel so restricted.

Why, I can only:

1. Burn as many CDs as I could ever want.
2. Put the music on as many iPods as I could ever afford.
3. Stream mp3s to any/all Macs on my LAN.
4. Stream iTMS-bought ACCs to up to 3 other Macs on my LAN
5. Register and unregister Macs as I see fit.
6. Backup purchased ACCs to DVD or anywhere else, as I see fit.

Help. Help. I'm being oppressed.

Re:Tunneling iTunes is a solution to a problem cre

Look more closely. This is not a DRM means to "restrict rights to music you bought" from their store. This is a limitation of how you can use the iTunes app. You can't stream off the network with their application.

You can still play your AAC files purchaced from the iTunes Music Store, even if you Mac "died" (as you put it). For that matter, you can archive all of those files as either AAC or AIFF files on any media you chose, including the HD of your Linux PC (which should be able to support AAC "any day now")

You seem to have this crazy notion that AAC is another Windows Media Player file alternative, created solely to place ultra restrictions on files and force you to "rent" music rather than purchace it (as a new Microsoft music service is expected to do in a few months). Nothing could be further from the truth. AAC was invented at Dolby for the purpose of offering a better compression algorythm than MP3, and it succeeds briliantly. At a bit-rate of 128, it sounds as good or better than a 192 VBR MP3. Yes, it stores some information in the DRM layer... this is exactly why it will become the new standard. It permits fair use (archiving, copying to other sources, listening on other playback equipment, sharing it with close friends) without allowing you to freely rip off and distribute the files they sell you (and are trying to sell to others) to the entire world.

Kindly offer one example of "fair use" which is prevented by the DRM restrictions Apple places on the files they sell you (and only the files they sell you). Here's a little help: "Fair Use," according to US copyright law, includes the right to make back-ups, to make copies to other media, to extract samples for educational use. Fare Use does not include the right to make copies available to other people, although the files sold by Apple actually allow that on a limited basis.

Now, which Fair Use rights do you think we are being denied? We are all very anxious to hear this.

Re:Tunneling iTunes is a solution to a problem cre

Any DRM is always about restricting rights. Most often these restrictions also restrict fair use.
You don't seem to understand this kind of DRM is bad, even when it's covered with nice Apple PR, and announced by Steve Jobs.

Music purchased from the Apple Music Store can:
- be played on up to 3 Macs
- be burned on CD (10 times (-playlist thingy-))
- be played on any number of iPods.

It can however not:
- be played on windows(TM) / linux(TM)
- be played on any other portable MP3 player
- be used in all applications on the Mac

Even the US copyright laws consider streaming MY music from MY home to MY office to be legal.
So this really restricts my fair use rights, doesn't it?

(Yes, I know the solution is not to purchase music from the AMS.)

Re:VPNs

Certainly, or use SSH port forwarding.

For an application yes, but for vpn no (or atleast it's not a good idea). The concept of running ppp over ssh to create a simple vpn is not really as good as it may sound at first glance. The problem arises from two TCP:s being stacked. The TCP always presumes that it's being run on unreliable medium (which is not the case for the TCP that application uses on top the ssh/ppp stacking) where packets are lost incase of congestion.

All this results in the presense of normal net congestion into huge lags and even connection breakage on top level applications.

A lot of references can be found from the net about this issue, I'm not even going to bother quoting here.

Better approach is to place the vpn layer into a medium similar to the medium that IP packets usually experience. Thus approaches like cipe and OpenVPN, both of which use UDP as their transport for the encrypted ip packets and thus preserves the feel of the actual underlying medium. Ipsec, although somewhat different, performs equally well, because there the encryption is brought to the actual IP level, where thus in some sense the IP serves as the transport for the encrypted IP packets.

Bottom line is, ssh port forwarding for actual applications is a handy tool, but to mix vpn into that is not a wise decision. Any 2nd year cs student should understand why, but it's the problems with two tcps stacked is something that most even more experience cs engineers tend to miss.

Re:VPNs

For an application yes, but for vpn no (or atleast it's not a good idea). [blah blah blah overhead, blah blah blah performance, blah blah blah bad]

OK! For performance reasons, you should not try to tunnel anything over anything. You should use direct gigabit ethernet between all points that want to communicate with each other (at least)! And you should always use UDP!

But in reality, VPNs and tunnelling VPNs over TPC/IP and tunnelling TCP over SSH works really well. And it's secure. Are you going to get top performance? Nope. Is UDP a good idea when possible? Yup (see also vtun.sf.net). Is it always possible, or (gasp) convenient? Nope.

I run NFS over VTUN over SSH. Is it fast? nope (actually, if I'm local (airport), the performance is OK). Does it work? Yup. Is it convenient? Hell, yes.

Yeah, iTunes over VPN over ssh isn't going to be a great performer, but it will work just fine. Really, tunnelling directly over ssh is probably the way to go, but if you really want performance, sync your home library with work and play locally...

Rant off: Kynde makes a good point - you can improve performance of VPNs by using UDP. But remember:

1. Make it work.
   
2. Make it work well.
   
3. Make it work fast.
   

If you never even hit #2, you still have something that works.

Re:VPNs

Couldn't Apple have just added encryption to iTunes streaming?

what they should have done

Apple's Music Store allows you to authorize up to three Macs to play your purchased music. They could have allowed you to share music with any machine that has your key. This would satisfy the "want to listen to home music at work" request while still meeting their responsibility not to allow outright piracy.

Re:VPNs

Appologies for the plug, but my app Andromeda [turnstyle.com] will still work fine (you just need to turn on Apache and PHP).

I also just put up a doc with OS X tips [turnstyle.com] including info about configuring it to serve directly from your iTunes folder, as well as configuring it to serve M4A and M4P files, like those from the iTunes Music Store...

-Scott

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

I think a more accurate assessment would be: well, we tried to let you share your stuff between work and home, but then tens of thousands of dillweeds decided to share with random strangers instead, so now we have to fuck everybody.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Since when is apple in the business of law enforcement?

Since a failure to enforce copyright provisions or enabling consumers to share pirated music will cause lawsuits to rain down upon their heads a la kazaa, napster, etc, etc.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Nobody could sue apple for producing a _server_ which could potentially used for distributing mp3s.

As I discovered in the debate over the spymac.com story [slashdot.org] from May 11th, the law appears stacked against the firm that creates software and doesn't cooperate in the prevention of 'selective broadcasting', as can be found in 17 USC 114, paragraph (d), sub-paragraph (2), article (v):

the transmitting entity cooperates to prevent, to the extent feasible without imposing substantial costs or burdens, a transmission recipient or any other person or entity from automatically scanning the transmitting entity's transmissions alone or together with transmissions by other transmitting entities in order to select a particular sound recording to be transmitted to the transmission recipient, except that the requirement of this clause shall not apply to a satellite digital audio service that is in operation, or that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, on or before July 31, 1998;

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Has nothing to do with Law enforcement. Apple are (to my knowledge) still negotiating with the "Big 5" for the ability to use iTunesMusic store with Windows users. I'd lay good money it was done not to piss those guys off.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about it. I sneaker net all my crap to work via iPod anyway.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

the guy who figures it out over iTunes 4.0.1 is going to be pretty popular.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If somebody fucks up my rendezvous sharing, I'll punch him in the nose.

Seriously, there are so many ways to legally share your music... heck, just setup a live365 station if you want to share your music. Why insist on doing it illegally, and ruining it for everybody?

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Frankly, I'm not too worried about it. I sneaker net all my crap to work via iPod anyway.

If I had mod points to give, one would be yours, FRB.

When I first heard about the iTunes streaming service, I immidiately began speculating about the many ways I would use it. The thought of accessing all of my music from all over my house and even at work, while keeping it all stored on HD that's shared out to everywhere else I go... it seemed like a new Golden Age was dawning.

But then, for the sake of my CD-less car stereo and listening to music while jogging, I bought an iPod. Once I had the iPod, all these thoughts of streaming completely vanished. I've got my entire record collection in my hip pocket at all times now, and I can listen to it on any music device that I can extend a stereo mini-jack from (which, thanks to RCA-to-mini cables, FM transmitters, and those tape adapter thingies, means damned near everything that has speakers.) Screw streaming from a server... I would need another computer running iTunes to do that. The iPod is the music library now. Every time I get another album (or cave into the desire to download a song off iTMS,) I just rip to my main computer, and sync the iPod to it in a matter of seconds next time I plug in the Firewire cable (which won't be long, since that's how I recharge the iPod 90% of the time).

I had friends parrot the "iPod will change the way you listen to music," hype to me over the past year or so... and now that I have an iPod, I see the light. You can call us all "pod people" if you like, (or "iPod people"... hmm, "iPeople?") but this tiny little gadget actually was a bigger revolution than I really expected it to be before buying it. Those of you who haven't acquired an iPod yet probably think I'm crazy, but iTunes for Windows comes out at the end of this year and the rest of the world will catch up. I'll see you when you get here. I now value my cheap little iPod more than my car or my TV. The hype was not a lie.

Fuck streaming.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Indeed. With that kind of sharing(streaming songs to strangers, multiple people at a time), Apple stood a good chance of running afowl of the DMCA, which has some slightly sharp teeth. Apple had to fix this, or risk a major legal battle with the RIAA; and if you've seen the RIAA's ideas on file sharing numbers, they'd hit Apple up for millions upon millions of dollars. I don't know about you, but I prefer Apple solvent.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Apple Solvent: Dissolving your freedom, one bit at a time.

Let's see if I understand this. Apple is dissolving your freedom by covering their corporate ass, particularly with regards to software they give away for free? The very same software nobody forces you to use? Yeah, Apple is sure dissolving your rights. Grow the fuck up.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Your comment reminds me of an old SNL skit called "Ruining it for Everyone." In a talk show format the host interviews in turn the first hitchhiker to kill the guy that gave him a ride, the guy that defecated in restaurant restrooms, and so on. And now no one picks up hitchhikers, bathrooms are for patrons only, and internet streaming is one step further away.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

the guy that defecated in restaurant restrooms

Isn't that what the restrooms are there for?

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

I'd guess that apple is doing this not out of love for the big 5 record labels, but to keep their contracts intact that allow them to distribute tunes through the iTunes music store.

Basically, to satisfy the labels, apple must raise the bar on piracy enough such that the average joe, say 99% and more of the users of the store, cannot easily send the music to anyone.

iTunes made it too easy for total strangers to share music so Apple had to raise the bar of entry. Setting up SSH tunnelling is way too hard for most people. Burning a CD and re-ripping is too annoying for most people, and even such a simple task is beyond the reach of many many folks.

So basically apple has to make easy sharing just slightly out of reach of most people and the tiny minority like you and me who know about SSH and such will be able to share music as usual.

This is why kazaa is attacked and usenet file trading is never attacked. It's too hard for most people to trade files over usenet. Kazaa makes it blindingly easy. Only when piracy is accessible to the average joe does the industry start to take notice.

Nope, this update makes sense

They don't have iTunes for another platform yet so in order to stay completely legitimate in the eyes of the labels and public they had to do this. Once they have a Windows version there will be no reason for them to not expand that.

Until then I don't see the big deal. You can burn your downloads to a CD right? Just burn them to a CD and then rip the CD as oggs or mp3s if you really need to share.

This is all about propaganda. If Apple stays 110% on the right side of the law while still being liberal in its feature set then that's a major accomplishment. It will only further undermine the subscription models and similar schemes.

As long as you can burn to a CD and rip that CD, Apple is just doing stuff like this for show. It's so that they can more easily hit the labels right back in the face if they get taken to court for one of the typical bogus reasons.

Re:New bug fix, more restrictive?

Quazar, I normally would agree with you but your argument completely ignores the new surge of iTunes stream downloading, which *IS* stealing. While I would love to listen to my collection from home, the benefits do not outweight the costs...Apple has to act responsibily to everyone involved. You want to rail at someone - complain to the authors of iBug, iSlurp, iTunesdl and iLeech. It *is* unethical and illegal...They took innocent narrowcasting and converted it to a means of internet song distribution, a mini-p2p with one small change: it's *without* the music owner's permission. iTunes 4 becomes Kazaa with a soundtrack. Apple stuck its neck out to bring us the iTunes store, to give us ease AND choice and finally, to make it affordable. And it had to shove this model down the throats of an industry that had done everything it could in the past 10 years to get rid of the music single. It's a real 180-degree turn for music companies, and Apple deserves to be supported in this venture - they can't afford mistakes (or iLeeches).

fair use?

I can understand Apple's need to restrist internet streaming but there are those of us who like to stream our tunes from home to office and it seems like fair use to stream your own music to yourself no matter how far apart your computers are.

Try this instead

Netjuke...streaming, admin, etc. [sourceforge.net] Internet access galore....just the thing for home to office. I use it daily. Just between me and me.

Note Netjuke uses PHP, Apache & MySQL, and can be tricky setting up on OS X, but once it's done you are set for remote music access/admin.

Netjuke is not a 'player' ...client is on you

"Optimized for local MP3, OGG and WMA audio content, but also supports internet radio streams, other audio formats, and/or remote content by adding them manually."

Did you go to the site and check it out [sourceforge.net]? Netjuke simply provides mtu's (or streams, in conjunction with ShoutCast, QTTS, etc.)....the 'play' ability depends on the player on the client side. It is a web based interface, and if your OS and client support a given format you're good to go. We already know how to convert AAC files...

Re:fair use?

There is nothing preventing you from authorizing your work computer as one of your 3 machines. Then you can listen to your music in both places without having to worry about packet drops, etc. When you change jobs, you can just de-authorize your work computer.

I've tried this myself and it works great.

Re:Nil Impact on iPod Sales

And an iPod makes a handy firewire drive for moving music around. Or anything else. There's tons of stuff on versiontracker.com for accessing the iPod as a drive.

Re:fair use?

I can understand Apple's need to restrist internet streaming but there are those of us who like to stream our tunes from home to office and it seems like fair use to stream your own music to yourself no matter how far apart your computers are.

The trouble is that you're in a very small minority. Consider that not everyone uses a computer at work, or is in a position to listen to music. Even those that stream at home are a fraction of the total of iTunes users.

I have a strong suspicion that more people were using the feature for piracy than legit.

Downgrade Gnomes

Step 1: Update software with silly restrictions.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

Re:Downgrade Gnomes

Step 1: Update software with silly restrictions.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

Okay, I'll bite, how about:

Step 2: Keep multimillion-song digital catalog of downloadable, copyrighted music online for millions of Mac and, real-soon-now, Windows users to access at their convenience, and take a percentage of every purchase.

Since the choice for Apple is, quite obviously, either update/downgrade the misused software or get sued out of existence?

-renard

So, what ever happened to CD-Rs?

So, if you want to listen to music you have at home at work, why not just put the music on a CD-R and bring it in to work?

Re:So, what ever happened to CD-Rs?

Did you miss something really big? There was no term of use change. The documentation for iTunes has always stated that streaming outside of one's subnet was not possible, it isn't until now that this has been implemented. When I frist read about people being able to connect to iTunes outside of the system's subnet I thought it was total BS because it was contrary to the documentation.

Had a bunch of cheapskates not written any utilities to rip streams to MP3 files this would have likely never been an issue for Apple to fix. Unfortunately people turned a cool iTunes feature into a P2P stealing application. The only thing you CAN share via iTunes is music and unless you've got a large collection of music you've made all that music is copyrighted by somebody that isn't you.

The sharing crap has nothing to do with Apple's Music Service, you can burn all of those to CD your heart desires. You don't need an iPod to transport your iTMS music to work and back but it is a cool toy to own. You can use a CD-R, DVD-R, Zip, iDisk, e-mail, Freenet, or any other transport medium to move all that music as long as you authorize the target computer to play the files. De-authorize it when you quit, get fired, or switch workstations.

Re:Carry months of music?

Why do you feel the need to carry 100 half-days worth of music?

Because another "Type-R" with a bigger wing might pull up next to him in the 'hood, and he'll need to be able to play just the right smack-down tune for the situation.

Fun while it lasted

iTunes 4.0 shares on a local network appear grayed out and will not let you connect. The "connect to shared music (CMD+K) button" is removed as well meaning that only shares found by rendezvous are accessible. Clicking on daap:// links causes the current song to stop and itunes to sit idle.

Fortunatly you can run iTunes 4.0 and 4.0.1 on the same system without any trouble.

I used to share (stream) with a couple of neighbors but looks like those days are over. I don't believe that this was done to save iTMS from the wrath of labels: m4p files wouldn't play unless you had been authorized - and all files from iTMS were in the protected format. Standard MP3/M4A files would download and play without incident so the pirates will just move on to gnutella and not think twice.

Why not a file format that would stream but not download or require authorization from the streaming computer to play - that way you'd only have to download it once. If you ony let 1 user play at a time it would be like a library.

It was fun while it lasted.

100 better ways to steal music

I find it inane that Apple a) didn't simply say "the music execs, thinking stupidly, that this was a great way to steal music, so we downgraded, sorry". b) didn't point out to them that there are some 10 better, faster, simpler, more robust ways to steal music than iTunes 4 and Audio Hijack... ask them if they had ever heard of Gnutella, Kazza, Grokster, Limewire, yada yada yada.

this is stupid, it doesn't so anything to stop "stealing", and only hurts people who were using the functionality legitmately.

I had a bad tingling in my bones when Apple and the big 5 got together.. i hope this is where this kind of bullshit compromizing ends. What are they going to do next, shitcan iChat 2's teleconferenceing because someone can send files back and forth on it and some a-hole at Sony Music complains?

Come on, Apple - if this is what you have to do in order to sleep with the music companies, then to hell with them.

and speaking of which - where the hell are the indie artists' and their music on iTMS? Huh?

This ain't 1984's Apple, baby!

But then, that Apple never was either, was it?

Expect more of this.

It would be naive to think that more changes like this are not coming as Mac users figure out how to do what they actually want by working around the "soft" restrictions that has been placed on the music service so far.

Personally, I find the general acceptance of Apple's DRM system, especially here, very frightening. When you accept DRM, you accept giving up control over your own computer, and ALL power to use the data in the manner that you see fit. Then you are the subject of the DRM system, which may grant you ability to do things, when and if it feels fit. It doesn't matter if the DRM system has been your friend up until today: tomorrow you could wake up and find that due to new terms from the music industry you can no longer make any copies of the music what so ever. Or that you have to pay per play for your entire music catalogue. Or that the DRM system has been discontinued and all its your... sorry... its encrypted files are useless.

This is exactly the old frog boiling analogy. The music company services like Pressplay and co. made the DRM too annoying, so the users jumped right out. By making the DRM initially quite lenient, the Apple strategy is to get users to accept the the concept that their computers decide what they can and cannot do, because it seems the cauldron actually isn't such a bad place for a swim. Expect the limitations to get tighter and tighter as the general acceptance grows...

And I, who was so fond of my ipod :-(.

Re:Expect more of this.

tomorrow you could wake up and find that due to new terms from the music industry you can no longer make any copies of the music what so ever

First, iTunes streaming and limitations thereof have nothing to do with DRM. Second, while Apple could impose more restrictions on future music purchases, they can't retroactively add restrictions to music you've already bought. iTunes doesn't phone home when you play music, so you'll always be able to burn CDs or transcode to uncrippled formats to permanently eliminate the DRM. Unlike some of the subscription services, Apple does not have the capability to hold your files hostage. (And if a future "upgrade" does give them that capability, they won't see any more of my money.)

Re:Expect more of this.

Apple's DRM system has had acceptance because it's not a DRM system, it makes no effort to prevent the copying and redistribution of media.

What it does do is make a user go through some (minor, no special software required) hoops to do that copying and redistribution, hoops which usually do not have to be jumped through for the most common forms of "fair use". The intention is to keep people honest, not to prevent people from backing up or sharing with people they know.

It is a shame that the abuse of the streaming feature, which I always thought (given it was limited to five streams, or two for most people who do not have more than 256kbps of outgoing bandwidth) was restricted enough, has resulted in another "hoop" having to be jumped through. You want to stream your MP3 collection? Well, now you have to put those MP3s in your home directory's Sites folder and turn on Personal Web Sharing. So your playlists are not going to automatically be available and easily scanned remotely. And the stuff you buy from the iTunes store... well, you're going to have to burn those to a CD and then rescan them.

Apple's "DRM" is not Palladium. It's not a Palladium wannabe. It's an attempt to create a minimal set of hurdles that'll satisfy content producers and publishers who are, to some extent justifiably, concerned about people abusing their works. I don't think iTunes is evil. And while I'll be disappointed at any further restrictions, I will not see anything to criticise on a moral issue until the CD burning system is also compromised. Right now, I don't see that happening - it's in the contract that iTunes customers can burn CDs after all.

Re:Expect more of this.

As the "user hostile application" - the one that downloads the files, can create, out of your encrypted file, an unencrypted, unecumbered, file, I fail to see how this system "controls what the user can do with the data".

Until iTunes loses its CD burning feature, it is not DRM in the sense you describe - it does not prevent, in any way, the fair use of the data you buy. It doesn't even prevent the illegal use of the data you buy. It doesn't prevent you from putting the material up on Kazaa. All it does is force you to go through an extra step, preventing you from automating making your entire music library available for strangers to duplicate.

My car chimes at me when the seatbelt isn't plugged in the way it expects it to be. Like the non-DRM DRM in iTunes, it's an intrusive but easily and deliberately ignorable mechanism to keep me on the right side of the law. But I suppose you'd argue that's like a totalitarian government or having state surveillance cameras in our homes too?

Re:Expect more of this.

iTunes is user hostile, and attempts to make it difficult to convert the music into a transparent format that can be copied and accessed by any application.

If you call "select playlist, insert CDR or CDRW, click on big, easy to see, "Burn" button, click on OK" "difficult to convert the music into a transparent format that can be copied and accessed by any application", then, er, yeah, that's right.

Personally I think that's user friendly. Obviously our definitions of "user friendly" and "user hostile" differ quite radically.

Can I take it that you've never used iTunes?

Re:Expect more of this.

People are getting a bit friendly with the DRM term. This is not DRM, this would be like calling apache not serving .htaccess files by default to the world DRM. It's not keeping you from moving the file around, burning it, modifying it, playing it into a recorder, etc... It's keeping you from turning the legitimate service of iTunes into yet another way to steal music.

It's not managing your rights... nowhere in fair use does it say, you the user are allowed to setup anonymous file shares and spread the joy that is your licensed copy to all those who wish to connect. If anything Apple has implemented a CYA (cover your ass) system to keep their music library, remember, you can't piss off the keepers of the cheese too much. Or they will stop serving allowing you to serve it up.

And I can damn near bet that 90% of the people bitching have restrictions in their home internet connectivity agreements that would prevent such use of their connection. Not to mention what your boss would think if you went to bitch to him that damnit, my 128k stream from the house doesn't work anymore. It will be about that time that he tells you never to do it again as you are using up a 1/12th of the bandwidth they have for non business purposes(basing that on companies having a T1 or lower.)

I'm not up on the specifics...

...and I don't really care. I haven't read the posts here yet, but I hope there's not a lot of grousing about it. Apple is fully in the right on this, if their software is being used in a way they don't like, they can certainly change it. They've never been up for pirating, and shouldn't be.

Here We Go Again

It's yet another biased, sensationalist Slashdot story. Oh, Apple stopped supporting the abuse of a feature that was never intended to be used in the way that's now being restricted! They MUST be evil (this week)! Folks, this is not the crippling of iTunes; it's a bunch of fixes (like the volume levels problem) and the end of an opportunity for people to pirate music.

I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but that doesn't make piracy of their stuff acceptable. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the music. Apple worked very hard to get the RIAA to soften up as much as it has with DRM in the iTunes Music Store. To risk it all now just to let a few geeks listen to their home music at the office would be a stupid move and it's not as if this particular feature was the only way of doing so. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the beginning of an evil trend of Apple crushing its users in DRM or anything like that!

Unfortunately, a more objective article (as in, one that doesn't shout that Apple is crippling iTunes in the headline) seems to be too much to ask of Slashdot. Sorry guys, I'm as liberal as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that large corporations are necessarily evil demons trying to take over the world. I think I'm leaving this site for good, in case anyone cares (I am registered, but figured that I am alone in being reasonable and might as well be anonymous to you all.).

Re:Here We Go Again

Dude, the mp3-streaming thing was just about the only thing that separated Apple's DRM from the DRM schemes on previous pay-for-online-music services

Huh? Streaming is orthoganal to DRM. You can't stream protected files without authorizing the client machine, so it was never useful as a means of getting around the DRM.

Fine.

This is a fair move by Apple.

It keeps the RIAA happy. (An unfortunate necessity in order to main catalogue diversity).
It still allows for a modicum of fair use.

The way I see it (and so do Apple I assume) is that when you are on the move, or away from your mac, you listen to your iPod. When you are at home / work (wherever your mac is), you can listen to whatever the hell you like, and if you like it, you can buy it and burn it.

Apple are setting the benchmark for this market now - if other companies join in and add more draconian DRM, they will fail.

I, for one, welcome our new, fruity overlords. :)

The README of 4 already said same subnet only

All this time, I thought the subnet restriction was already in place because the README had already stated it. I guess 4.0.1 simply implements what the documentation said all along. (and to think that I could have streamed from my LAN to wireless at home all this time.. I should look into bridging..).

iTunes Music Store: Terms of Service

THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND APPLE COMPUTER, INC. (?APPLE?) STATING THE TERMS THAT GOVERN YOUR USE OF THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE SERVICE. [...] IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, DO NOT CLICK ?AGREE,? AND DO NOT USE THE SERVICE. [...] ... APPLE MAY REFUSE ACCESS TO THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY PART OF THIS AGREEMENT.

[...]

You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service ... include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (?Usage Rules?). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. ... You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form [...]

[...]

You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

[...]

Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.

[...]

You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case.

[...]

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability.

[...]

THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY PART OF THE SERVICE, EXCEPT FOR USE OF THE SERVICE AS PERMITTED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND INFRINGES ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE MONETARY DAMAGES, FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

If .. Apple suspects that you have failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement .... Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may: (i) terminate this Agreement ... and/or (ii) terminate the license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof).

[...]

You agree that Apple has the right ... to disclose any Registration Data [to] a third party, as Apple believes is reasonably necessary or appropriate to .. verify compliance with any part of this Agreement

[...]

Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update ... this Agreement and to impose new or additional rules, policies, terms, or conditions on your use of the Service. Such updates ... will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement. Your continued use of the iTunes Music Store foll

If the gun industry was like the computer industry

If the gun industry was like the computer industry all guns would come filled with concrete. Thus, there'd be no risk of you killing somebody and blaming it on the gun manufacturer.

Re:If the gun industry was like the computer indus

No, if the gun industry was like the computer industry guns would randomly explode, killing the user, or include backdoors (intended or not) that allowed strangers use the gun to kill passerby without the owners permission. This analogy is fairly true when talking about Microsoft software, which is why they don't have a large following among people experienced enought to know better (astroturfers don't count, btw).

Don?t Steal Music.

The license was simple, Don't Steal Music, but still some people did not manage to understand it. Streaming was nice and innocent until some really smart people started ripping [macupdate.com] the streams [macupdate.com] and do other funny things.

If you abuse it, they will shut it down - simple and easy.

In the end Apple ist just a company and has its responsibilites. You want to steal music? Fine, get Kaaza/Limewire/What ever, why abuse iTunes?

Thank you guys, just another neat feature disappears...

Weeeee

Internet Sharing isn't the only change...

iTunes 4.01 also fixes a HUGE volume fluctuation bug. Apparently some volume limiter was way too aggressive and caused a mushy sound unless you turned off all sound enhancements and lowered the pre-amp (and even then it was still a problem).

4.01 fixes this problem completely which should make it worth upgrading too if you care about the quality of your music.

Oh, please.

This is another one of Apple's weak attempts at controlling piracy by making the methods nonobvious. Given the Unixy nature of OSX, it's almost trivial to set up a tunnel in order to get streaming from home to work. In fact, I would bet that within 24 hours someone will be offering a free utility geared to exactly this kind of usage.

I suppose this is as good as it gets, as far as DRM is concerned. Circumventable when necessary, but just inconvenient enough that Joe 31337 won't bother trying anything funny.

Response to iLeech?

I wonder if this a response to iLeech [sourceforge.net], iTunesDL [macupdate.com], and the like. These let you connect to iTunes as if streaming and save the files as .mp3s ripe to insert into your own collection.

It just seems that streaming isn't really the problem...you can listen to streams any number of other ways, from countless other sources. To be able to (easily & painlessly) grab anyone's public iTunes shares as usable .mp3s strikes me as far, far more offensive to those in power. In fact it flies directly in the face of allowing iTunes to stream but not really share files...

-Ted

Same subnet, eh?

You mean like most College dorm which are on the same sub-net and now can't be accessed from outside the subnet (i.e. Other Sharers and/or the RIAA).

/Ronald Weasley

Bloody Brilliant!!!

/end RW

Also, please note it was said that "shares can be seen, but not accessed".

Don't forget that OS X has small things like: FTP/HTTP/AFP/SMB/SSH/SFTP....which I hear can be used to *gasp* share anything!!!

Uh-oh. (ssssshhhh!)

THIS IMPLEMENTS WHAT IS STATED IN 4.0!!

If you look at 4.0's help files, it states that sharing is only on local networks (you'll have to go through the package contents as Help will fetch the newer stuff off the net)

simple solution

ifconfig lan0 (ip) netmask 0.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255

Re:simple solution

Yeah...that is way wrong moderated - I was going for funny.

But based on your description of what would happen, it sounds like I just created a new peer-to-peer network instead :)

Re:GNU/Linux and Apple ...

Sounds like you really shouldn't be using a Mac if it feels like getting f'd up the ass... my experience has been more like getting a hand job... somtimes you get jerked around but for the most part it feels pretty good (Linux), leaves you satisfied (UNIX) and you don't end up with any STDs (Windows).

With that said, you'd have to be an absolute moron to pay $200 for a $50 part... do you always buy at the boutique? I get my car at the dealership but when the warranty runs out I go down the street to good ol' Clydes 'Good Enough' repair shop, bring the parts myself after buying them online from the same place he does but without the mark up.

ifconfig

ifconfig interface netmask 0xffffffff

Damn I just put the whole internet in my subnet... what a shame!

Workaround

This may have been posted already, but I didn't see it in a tertiary glance of the comments.

I have been sharing for over a year with previous versions of iTunes. Just set up your home mac for file sharing in system preferences and log into it from another computer using Appleshare over IP (apple-K from the finder). Then make an alias of your home iTunes folder and put it on your work machine in the music folder of your work's home directory. When you launch iTunes everything will be exactly like it is on your home machine, ratings and all. It is just that when you play the music it pulls it through appleshare.

It works great, but can get choppy with bigger mp3 files over my cable connection. It is also admittedly less graceful than iTunes sharing... : \

Do half of you have a clue what sharing is?

It's not SHARING if it's being downloaded.
Let's look at it this way. What do you define as sharing?

1) You've got your window open, blaring your radio the 5-person crowd on the street. THIS is iTunes sharing...

2) You've got your stereo on and are copying your music collection to cd, then placing them on the window sill for anyone to take. Or worse, people are reaching in, up to 5 at a time, and taking those cds without asking you. THIS is what Apple stopped.

I can't see why this is hard to understand - in the second scenario, you're either distributing or being stolen from, and that's all that's changed.

You can still tunnel to the Mac if you want, and you can still set up web sharing to give out your music if you want. But *you* have to do it - Apple won't do it for you!

And can you blame them? (Obviously, some can...maybe we need to start teaching civics and ethics again).

What do people expect?

Apple tries to make it convenient for us to have our music where and when we want it. For the few who have abused that privaledge, some freedom is taken away. When are people going to learn NOT to abuse the nice things in life? Apple has resisted the scum and villany at the RIAA, innovated better software than the Borg, and generally has a pretty happy and loyal customer base. Please, idiots, pirates, and unix heads, don't ruin anymore of this great program Apple has GIVEN us. If you keep finding ways to circumvent Apple's safeguards to protect the artists and music industry as well as give is userbase FREEDOM to with their music as they please, there won't be an Apple Music Store for long.

Stop messing around with iTunes, port numbers, SSH, etc...

Details from the original iTunes 4.0 Help file.

Okay, I went and dug out the help files from the iTunes 4.0 package. Here's EXACTLY what the help says about sharing:

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. You can also set your sharing preferences to look for shared music. Any shared music that's available on your network appears in your iTunes Source list. You can also see the shared music on a specific computer that isn't in the same subnet, if you know the computer's IP address. When you play a shared song, it's streamed over the network to your computer. You can listen to it but you can't add it to your library or playlists, transfer it to an iPod, or burn it on a CD. You can tell if a song is shared by selecting the song and choosing File > Get Info. If the Kind is "remote" (in the Summary pane), it's a shared file. You can't share Audible spoken word content or QuickTime sound files. Sharing is intended for personal use only.

Sounds pretty clear to me. (Except of course for that part about connecting to computers outside your subnet if you know their IP address!)

Damn people.

(sorry for the cross post at MaSlash, but I wanted both audiences to see this)

People always try to give me reasons why their music stealing is perfectly allright. They try to tell me it doesn't hurt anyone because the musician can make money some other way, damn RIAA, greedy labels, etc.

Well, I call bullsh*t, this feature was disabled because of all the A-holes who decided to post links to their iTunes for anyone to browse and to create Web sites dedicated to streaming music to anyone. Although I don't agree with it, this probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal, until some other A-hole started telling everyone how he has this great utility to rip those streams to mp3, which caused thousands of other A-holes to start stealing music.

Well thanks a f*ck'n lot. Because now a cool utility that let me stream my music from my machine at home to my machine at work is being taken away. (at some point I'll have to upgrade, I imagine)

This is the biggest problem with people who steal music. (and remember kids, no matter how you try to spin it - it's still just stealing). You cause the powers that be to take fair use rights away from me, and I hate you all for it.

Has Apple changed its Tune?

In the 'good old days' of 1997, Apple authored a list of "ten commandments" as a part of it's compatibility tech note [apple.com]. It is the seventh commandment which is particularly interesting: "VII. Thou shalt think twice about code designed strictly as copy protection." Note, that these are the the commandments that are "determined from extensive testing of our diverse software base."

Of course as soon as you choose to make allies in the music industry, you are going to have to negotiate, but one of the primary issues (mentioned so many times on slashdot that there is no point in providing links) is the question of whether we should have our liberty constrained in order to prevent us from breaking the law.

We would love to say 'No!', but then watch how many of us flaunt copyright law as a standard practice.

But also Apple was right - copyright protection is an unending waste of human resource, computer resource, comms resource, and slashdot posts!

Again and again we find that the music/video/text/etc. copyright and patent laws are incompatible with the Internet as a technology, and the Internet is not going to go away. Sorry, lawmakers, but one day soon you will have to wake up to the revolution that came from a direction you didn't expect, and then we will stop having to put kludges on top of kludges to deal with the cultural soup that we are in.

Creative minds will find a way of being able to provide a direct passage to it's audience. The huge publishing corporates are hanging onto a dying game. Monolithic software corporations are being replaced by interoperability standards.

Apple, Listen! Remember! Think different!

wow, apple could rake it in!

AustralianIT also covers this with their own article [news.com.au]. In this, it states that 3 Million songs have beeen paid for and downloaded so far. This is absolutly amazing. Apples market share is nothing compared to Windows. Imagine if it was even close to have a market share like windows, or imagine if instead each other market share was switched for a moment. Im guess there'd be a hell of a lot of Mp3s being sold. This could eventualy make up a very large part of Apples future. Well, they've said they've been wanting to go into this area for quite a while now, i never really though they'd pull it off though. Looks like they've jumped their first hurdle! :}

Re:And so it begins

> Face it, Apple is after your dollars just like everyone else.

Erm... of course
I mean... it's a company

What did you expect?

Apple never claimed they were going to make free illegal MP3's legal, they only claimed that it was possible to integrate the internet into a solid profitable business plan, showing to the music industry that music over the net can be used for "good" as well.

Of course, if you prefer Kazaa's "we don't think we should pay for what other people put money and effort into" approach, that's fine. Getting muic for free always sounds like a good idea to the people on the receiving end. Funny how many people have a "philosophy" that they should get things for free in life. Thank god Kazaa isn't after your dollars... (oh wait, it is)

Re:Had to happen...

I suppose it's not much help to point out that at least the description of the update makes the crippling pretty clear. Unfortunately, this is the cost of doing business with the RIAA. Until the copyright laws change or artists can start hitting the big time without signing to one of the major labels, no amount of pressure on online music stores - whether Apple's, the upcoming Napster (tm), or anything else with major content - will change this.

Re:And so it begins

And nary a complaint from the /. faithful.

Absolutely, damn Slashbots. I mean, if this was Microsoft, you'd expect someone to, within an hour or two of the update being available, submit a story to Slashdot like "Microsoft Updates, Cripples WMP", and Slashdot to post it to their front page in an instant, with loads of people criticising WMP for being proprietry and closed and having DRM and others posting workarounds to get around it and others blaming the RIAA.

But because this is Apple nothing of the kind has happened... uh, I'll get my coat.

Re:And so it begins

No, i'm complaining, and i'm sure others will as well.

Apple is rapidly approaching a point that their only saving grace is that there is nary a hint that Apple is actively maintaining rights to my Mac to disable any software that may do this, if iTunes 4 won't - such as in XP, w2k, etc.

If/when that happens, then yeah, i will remove X and install YDL on the whole damn hard drive.

Re:Had to happen...

a wakeup to you Apple people: your company will be just as willing to cater to the RIAA as ours, but it's better at letting you think you're getting your way. It's just a matter of time before iTunes becomes entirely music rental.

Don't be silly. There is no shortage of alternatives for an Apple customer, if Apple becomes just like everybody else. It's a good bet to assume that Apple understands that its survival depends on being better.

This is simply a case of a little secret that people should've just enjoyed quietly. As for the indignant protests from people who want to stream music from home to work: do you really think your IT department will not pay you a visit once more than a few people start continuously sucking 128 kbps each?