Free iTunes Over a Browser 287
Ade writes "One may now listen and search for Apple iTunes music via this front end or any webserver running the perl script called iTMS-4-ALL, which was written by Jason Rohrer, programmer of the secure filesharing system MUTE who hopes the script 'helps revive everyone's ITMS interfaces.' Music activists Downhill Battle, who organised the Grey Tuesday protests for disseminating censored music, run a copy of the script and say 'this is a cute tool, but it has the potential to become a powerful weapon to fight the major record label monopoly' in the ways they outline. Playing the music requires QuickTime for the ~600kb downloadable MP4 snippets to be heard." Update: 04/19 01:41 GMT by H : Thanks to Aaron at Punboy for sending us a link to a faster server.
Misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm the one who discovered the AES key, it took me about 4 hours. Now that I know where to look, even if they change it, it won't take long to get the new key.
So the question is, how often does Apple want to break older versions of iTunes and force everyone to upgrade? The other question is, why would Apple want to do that in the first place?
Re:Misleading. (Score:2, Informative)
It's the same code which is being used by the m4p2mp4 and playfair decryption tools.
Re:Misleading. (Score:2, Informative)
It's called DAAP, and it was hardly a secret.
Re:Misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
In a sense though, this isn't completely new. The search interface was hacked long ago, so Apple added some encryption stuff to lock out non-iTunes clients. All that's been hacked is the encryption key.
Re:Misleading. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats what you get for non-free (Score:3, Funny)
Linux is the only free OS. Yes the BSD lincenses may appear more free, but as they have no restrictions, they are actually less free than the GPL. You see, restricting the end user more actually makes them more free than not putting restrictions on them. You must be a dumb luser for not understanding this.
And you obviously dont have a real job. A real job involves being a student or profess
Re:Misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Title probably implies free as in speech (can be accessed from anywhere) rather than beer (you get free songs)
Re:Misleading. (Score:2)
The
Potentially all the parts are in place to get free, non-DRM'ed songs and not just from the US... but the effort involved (in ini
Also misleading summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Weapon to fight RIAA labels (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Misleading AND a press release? (Score:2)
Did that submission sound like a press release to anybody other than me?
Following the poster's link lead to this [groovetip.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
should have done this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:should have done this (Score:5, Informative)
Because they were going for seamless integration with iTunes the app and the iPod. What good would it be to use a browser interface be if you had to use iTunes to play the music anyway?
It may seem like a nice idea to use a web browser interface, but it would completely shatter the sense of integration that they were going for, and succeeded at.
Re:should have done this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:should have done this (Score:3, Interesting)
(Note: I still haven't used iTMS because I don't want any DRM'd tracks. But my iPod kicks ass.)
Re:should have done this (Score:3, Informative)
I run linux, but have kept a Windows ME , still installed on my PC, for certain Windows only applications. But I can't use itunes on it too.
WTF , how difficult is it to provide a linux or Windows 98/ME , application ?
Re:should have done this (Score:5, Interesting)
A straight Linux port would require:
Quicktime
Carbon/MacOS ToolKit
And Quicktime would require a working audio subsystem, a working video subsystem, as well as their networking, 2d, and maybe even 3d stack, if you do a full Quicktime port.
And if you ask "Why Quicktime?" the answer would have to be, "Why would Apple port iTunes without Quicktime?"
I don't know why Quicktime doesn't work on 98/ME, but I don't think they were omitted lightly.
Re:should have done this (Score:2)
keep in mind that macos is not an x11 gui...
albeit, it might have been not any more difficult than win port, though.
Re:should have done this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:should have done this (Score:2)
Re:should have done this (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple needs to interface with the iPod.
Apple has it's pride in design and usability.
Profit (tied tightly to the iPod of course)
You attribute to malice and stupidity when there is real, technical, reason. Apple's key to making money is ease of use, high design, and quality, and if it can't do that, why is it Apple? If it is none of those things, then you might as well have a third party reverse engineer and develop the software to browse, buy, manage, play, and synch music files... notably which has happened with regards to:
Quicktime
iTMS
iPod
AAC/iTunes
So whether they are right or wrong, I doubt it was a gut anti-Linux move so much as a simple return on investment calculation. Simply put, without lifting a finger Apple has accomplished all of the goals by relying on the characteristic DIY nature of the Linux and OSS movements.
Your bias works against you; unless you don't believe in thinking intelligently and instead suppose we should always turn first towards our biases and second to external evidence?
Re:should have done this (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple isn't a conscious being; someone has to make the plans and training and data to be transmitted all the way down to the sales people.
Which iPod to sell to Linux users?
Which software to use? Would it be bundled with the iPod? Would it include source? Would it include a linux distro on a disk?
What are the requirements? What libraries? What toolkits? What scripting languages? What interpreters? What hardware platforms?
Then there's iTunes! How about song management? File management? All the same questions as the above. And then there's support software. Rendezvous, for streaming and networking. Firewire for synching and powering.
Finally iTMS: How would authentication work out?
Apple has to have all of these things in place before it can sell the iPod and iTunes and iTMS to Linux users. They need the support center info, support structure, and training.
Will it pan out? I mean, this is exactly the reason why games have a hard time being ported to the Mac platform. Most companies don't have the resources to pull it off (much less for Linux).
Irrelavent (Score:2)
No? Then pray tell why Apple would spend the time, effort and money to make a browser front-end for those who by definition cannot spend money on their service.
As for why no iTMS for Linux or pre-2000 Windows, another poster mentioned having to port the libraries and such to Linux; and I'm sure Win98/ME not using the NT codebase from which 2000 and XP are derived was a factor as well.
Re:should have done this (Score:2)
Provide?
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard.
but Support?
Why would they bother supporting (i.e. installation help, inevitable "my system was operating perfectly before I installed your application! [except for those 37.5 spyware programs [bbc.co.uk] in the system tray]") operating systems that even Microsoft can't be arsed to support [nd.edu], or for a family of operating systems with no generally recognized base configuration (Linux) when they can cover 99% of shipping home systems by supporting XP and OS X?
Re:should have done this (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they can tightly control the itunes viewing experience. Trying to make everything web-browser accessible may be a proper goal in some areas, but in others it just doesn't make sense. With the way it is structured now, they can add tags at whim to redefine how items are presented on the screen, etc and be completely certain how it will look to the user without trying it out on u
Probably won't last long (Score:5, Insightful)
It's this zero-tolerance attitude that will cement hardware DRM's inevitability. Apple tried to meet customers halfway and they still get attacked.
Re:Probably won't last long (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I don't think Apple will do everything they can to shut this service down -- just out of principle.
Re:Probably won't last long (Score:3, Insightful)
that's funny, because most of the kids i know just steal the resources anyway--they click around iTMS looking for stuff they like, and then they download it for free using some other p2p software.
so what's the difference? it's just so fucking
Re:Probably won't last long (Score:3, Informative)
Attacked? It's an alternate frontend, not a decryption device. You still get the same content from Apple, using the same protocol. It's only the previews, not the songs. All that has changed is that the potential number of users has been increased because you no longer need to use MacOS or Windows to run the official iTunes client.
How in betsy's name is t
You have completely missed the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
All that has changed is that the potential number of users has been increased because you no longer need to[...]run the official iTunes client.
How in betsy's name is that an attack? This is free publicity for iTunes Music Store on more platforms than Apple can officially support. This guy is basically increasing the market for Apple.
First, consider that this script affords this so-called "increased market" you speak of no possibility of actually purchasing this music. Rather, it s
Re:Probably won't last long (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Theft of service? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a P2P service pulling album covers and other metadata from Apple's pay service is as likely to be considered stealing as pulling copyrighted music without paying for it. Even checking their database from a non-iTunes application may raise hackles. It's a cute hack, but why risk upsetting Apple when they're already providing the fairest online music store to date?
That magic juju (Score:5, Insightful)
I buy completely legit, DRM free, albums...any album you can name for $7 each, brand new (shipped to your door for that price). That comes out to about $.50 a song, and I can resell the CD's when I'm done.
CD's are only expensive for the impatient. The "oh, I can't wait 5 days, I must have that song NOW!" crowd. But if you can wait 5 days. FIVE days. Then you can get great deals.
Or there are used CD's.
But I don't get why Apple is "magic" but KMart offereing essentially the same thing is "evil".
Look. I'm typing this on a powerbook. I own 6 apple computers, I have 2 iPods. But I don't think iTMS is magic. its not special. I don't think Apple has done anything special except convince certain people that iTMS is something revolutionary.
Is isn't.
Paying $10/CD for 128kb DRM encrusted music may be your idea of fantastic. But I think I'll pass on that kind of generosity.
Re:That magic juju (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. And with DRM, you only have temporary access to the music at that-- I can guarantee you that most people who buy a song on iTunes will be buying that same piece of music in another format somewhere down the line (say, a computer or two later... Or is the hard drive you're downloading to going to be the one you use for the rest of your life?)
Re:That magic juju (Score:3, Informative)
Many (most?) CDs only have 1 or 2 worthwhile songs (Score:3, Insightful)
But I actually agree with most of what you say. I don't like Apple's DRM either. It may sound like they are very generous, but they are just trying to lock you in to their software and hardware players.
As much as it pains me to give Microsoft any credit, their WMA format is, in a way, more "open" than Apple AACs, since they license their DRM to other software and hardware vendors. Just look around a
I don't know (Score:2)
Admittedly, they're a little short with Jazz, and its not really for classical music lovers.
But for most mainstream pop I get my CD's well under $10. For $7, I just pay for really good quality.
apple metadata, is it wise (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it sane to think of basing any sort of client on apple's metadata, surely they will mess with any clients trying to do it. So while this software works, now, will it work for long? Maybe if someone builds a second compatible database of the metadata ...
The real solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Cost of Porting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost of Porting (Score:2)
I would imagine that there are even people who would be willing to do the port for them for free. If I knew enough about programming, I know I sure would.
Re:Cost of Porting (Score:2)
Re:Cost of Porting (Score:5, Insightful)
It ain't about spending the money.
They could publish enough of the protocols that someone could write software to handle payment and downloading tracks. Someone probably would do this.
Of course, they'd have to accept that an open source client would strip out any DRM using playfair. shrug People will do it anyways with iTunes-downloaded music so I'm not sure there's really any overall loss.
But that probably wouldn't sell many iPod's and Apple would lose it's coveted control over the iTunes process. So it ain't gonna happen.
c.
Re:The real solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The real solution (Score:2)
Re:The real solution (Score:2)
Actually Apple have a pretty bad record of contributing changes back .... KHTML received an enormous patch dump (at the first point that apple were legally obliged to provide it) that took many moons to integrate properly, gcc got one or two patches back but the version apple use in MacOS X is significantly different to upstream, etc. FreeBSD got some test suites and one or two trivial patches, AFAIR and I think so far XFree/X.org got nothing of value at all.
Ba
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why are they contributing to KDE via khtml which they use in safari? (and whatever other projects they are involved in)
Actually I think the more *nix/FOSS users there are the more that benefits Apple, because it means there are more *nix/FOSS developers to write cross platform code. Having darwin open source has sealed the fate of the core part of the OS. If Apple die ; the OS will live.
Apple is really a hardware company; Micros
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The real solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thing. Most people wouldn't switch to OSX from MS Windows, particularly not over iTunes alone, and the market for selling iPod's and songs from the store is pretty large. It makes sense to try and make what little money they can off these users.
On the other hand, OSX is gaining a pretty popular following among Linux users. I can think of a number of people I know who have switched to using Apple's on their primary machines for OSX. Porting iTunes to Linux would take away one more reason people
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real solution (Score:2)
It's pretty simple if you think about it. At the moment MS Windows is the desktop standard, and there is little that Apple can do about it. As you say yourself, people are not going to switch an OS just for iTunes. Hence, keeping iTunes on the Mac will not
Re:The real solution (Score:2)
'jfb
Re:The real solution (Score:2)
Though it doesn't make much sense from a business point of view. iTMS is a driver for the iPod, which is targeted at the consumer market. Obviously Apple support their own platform, and obviously they need to support Windows because it gives them access to a massive consumer market for iPod sales.
But the bulk of Linux's installed base exists in the business/technical markets. Its penetration in the consumer market is so small, I doubt it's even worth their bother. Maybe in the future that will change,
Re:The real solution (Score:5, Insightful)
would be to port iTunes to Linux. I can't think of any reason how that could hurt Apple.
This has been brought up before, and the ultimate problem is that iTunes relies very heavily on QuickTime, and since QuickTime does not exist on Linux, it would have to be ported as well. Now they could probably hack something like how mplayer does it, using the Windows DLLs and bolting the iTunes interface onto it, but that would not be very elegant... And that ties in with another reason Apple would probably not want to bother:
Some people will not like to acknowledge it, but Linux is a pain in the ass to support commercially with closed source. Yes, there are companies that do it, but it is difficult and for most it is not worth the bother. Apple has probably already looked at the situation, and seen that it would take a lot of money not only to port iTunes (and probably QuickTime), but also to support it. How much of a pain would it be to support say, just Mandrake and SuSE? Enough of one that they would likely not recoup their development and support costs through the handful of Linux users that actually care to buy music from the iTMS. They'd have to worry about building RPMs for versions X, Y, and Z of distros A, B, and C, and then worry about God knows what a given Linux user will do to customize (i.e. screw up) things on their system, thus potentially breaking iTunes.
Ultimately, I really don't think Apple would make enough money off of iTunes on Linux to make it worth the cost of porting it, supporting it, and keeping up with the rather chaotic placement of and frequently breaking changes to system libraries, GUI toolkits, etc.
Thanks, Downhillbattle.org! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, guys. Get off your high horse and work on finding a new way to do things rather than just trying to take the old system down. When you find a better way, the rest will work itself out.
Re:Thanks, Downhillbattle.org! (Score:3, Insightful)
Winamp Plays DRM'ed MP4s Just Fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Winamp Plays DRM'ed MP4s Just Fine (Score:2, Informative)
Bad Interface (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Interface (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad Interface (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean Gaim is compatible with AIM (Oscar and TOC protocols), ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo, IRC, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, and Zephyr networks. It is good, has more features than the *real* software and it is Free. This could be the start of something similar. Who cares how I interface to ITMS, either through their proprietary interface or a perl script, as long as I pay apple for the service?
Re:Bad Interface (Score:2)
like, er .. spyware ?
Sorry. however, what's interesting, here is of course not that somebody made a perl cgi (big news) but rather that the protocol was reverse engineered : now, you could have anyone making interesting uses of that. Of course, re-making itunes will not be a very popular project I think, because well itunes exists and a free version connecting to an apple service is quite moot. However, a common interface to (mod my cousin talking abo
Quicktime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why recomend quicktime? How about VLC, or MPlayer? Both play the files just fine. If you're going to go the closed-source route, just run iTunes in the first place.
Re:Quicktime? (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems slashdot readers "get" the idea of free software, why is it hard to understand that the same ideas exist in the music community?
Instead, I'd like to see some productive discussions of those artists that allow their music to be freely traded.
Linkage: (there just has to be some music you can enjoy at one of the following)
Live Music Archive [archive.org]
Furthurnet Band List [furthurnet.com]
Etree BitTorrent Downloads [etree.org]
DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DMCA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
In anycase it looks like apple are providing the tools to generate similar information anyway.
(itms link maker)
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSear c h.woa/wa
(itms rms feed)
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch
I cant see Apple being particularly pissed off about this since
a) it gives them more exposure
and
b)
Useful applications (Score:2, Interesting)
Another useful one, if possible, would be to divide the "just added" list by genre, so users could get a list with all the oldies taken out, or with all the audiobooks excluded, etc.
As it is, the list provided by iTMS just gets too long.
Puh-leeeeeze. (Score:5, Interesting)
Give me a fecking break. The people at Downhill Battle have a history of vastly overstating the importance and relevance of their "accomplishments", and this is no different. Being able to browse iTunes over the Internet (something that won't last long once Apple hears about this) will do nothing to defeat the record companies. The amount of self-delusion that must go into a thought like that is startling.
While I'm on a rant, let me talk about something else that's been bothering me. Just what is it that Downhill Battle hopes to accomplish? One of their projects is showcased here [downhillbattle.org]. So, you guys buy a digital camera from Wal-Mart and then document yourselves vandalizing CDs, in-store displays, and music preview hardware (which, incidentally, has led me on more than one occasion to purchase indie-label music that I would not have found without the machines), and then fraudulently returned the camera. And this accomplished.... what? Far as I can tell, nothing beyond proving just how immature these guys are. Does Downhill Battle do anything of value, or is it all just lame anti-RIAA posturing?
Parent is absolutely correct, NOT flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Puh-leeeeeze. (Score:4, Interesting)
-a
Re:Puh-leeeeeze. (Score:4, Informative)
Vandalizing? They put STICKERS [downhillbattle.org] on the CDs. Your vague wording makes it sound like they smashed the place up with baseball bats. This is more along the line of civil disobedience, and does no real harm to the product, as the cellophane is removed when you get the CD home anyway.
"the 30sec attention span generation" request (Score:5, Funny)
What? You still talking about that?
Why Not Embrace This? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were Apple, I'd be embracing this technology - make the iTunes Music Store a ubitquitous web service like Google search. Allow users to point links to iTunes content on any page, allow them to post sound snippets and then link to download with iTunes. After all, Amazon does much the same thing with their Associates program.
Rather than a threat, I see this as an excellent way for Apple to get the iTMS even more exposure, make it easier to use, and still drive sales through iTunes - after all, there are a lot of people who won't download a new application until they see what benefits it offers.
Re:Why Not Embrace This? (Score:3, Interesting)
this is great! (Score:3, Insightful)
amazon is good for this, and there used to be other websites, but amazon seems to have got them all now (cdnow, musicblvd, etc)
especially because itunes is very bloated. and its understandable for a webbrowser/mediaplayer/medialibrary/cdburning/mus
Apple offers a similar tool (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple offers a similar tool (Score:2, Interesting)
this new script retrieves pretty much all information, including the previews.
Wow. (Score:2)
so what? preview? buy? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what if you can browse the iTunes library thru a perl script? WHERE IS THE PURCHASE BUTTON NEXT TO EACH SONG. That's the whole point behind iTMS. And you know, actually listening to samples without having to fire-up a separate application.
*sigh*.
How about writing a useful interface to the Amazon API [amazon.com], which, by design, lets you search its large inventory, is all about metadata (descriptions, reviews and more), gives you direct convenient links to sample audio files for previews (unlike the iTMS links in that interface which my browser is having difficulty understanding), *AND* offers a convenient token-based interface to create a shopping cart of albums that can actually be bought. The Amazon API lays the ground work for a highly-interactive, open market place. Sure you can't buy songs individually, but you can't do that either thru the perl script.
There's absolutely no point in writing significant amounts of "client" code to reverse-engineered, non-standard server protocols, especially without the approval of the entity that runs the only current implementation of that protocol.
If anything, take what's useful from the little you've reverse-engineered, implement a better, open protocol based on that, and convince all major record labels to input their data into your system. Oh wait, that might be a bit of a challenge.
Either way, Apple gets increased mindshare.
Re:so what? preview? buy? (Score:4, Interesting)
i have karma to burn so i'm'a reply to myself with a mindless rant that'll get some Nerd Panties twisted in a bunch.
Why are people fighting against Apple and the iTMS? DRM and not enough Fair Use? for crying out loud. You wanna play music simultaneously on 98723487234 computers? You can't possibly cope with compressed music because your ears detect inferior quality to music purchased from a CD? BUY THE FUCKING CD from Amazon.com. iTMS was NOT BUILT FOR YOU. Apple is not asking you to slit your wrists, slay an unborn child, give-up your rights to free speech, or to do anything that goes against the U.S. constitution. Apple is not "luring" you into buying some songs from them only to "surprise" you with DRM restrictions. NO, all the rules are clearly stated UP-FRONT, everyone knows about them, and they are a condition of usage of their service. This service can't possibly fit the needs of every single music-connaisseur-wannabe Nerd on Slashdot. If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT.
You, as a consumer, have MANY alternatives to buy music from your favorite artists, on many media: live concerts on DVD and Video, Albums on audio CD and cassettes. Rip, mix and burn to your heart's content.
The fact of the matter is that RIAA owns most of the music industry. If you wanna fight somebody, fight the RIAA by NOT purchasing any music from them. Stick to indy artists. Apple's platform also happens to support independent artists.
Working so hard to reverse-engineer the iTMS protocol only does two things: mostly promote RIAA songs AND feeding more fuel to RIAA's lobbying fire as they can spin this type of news headlines as yet another reason why they are the poor, hapless victims fighting some Evil Army of Nerds, giving them more credibility in the eyes of clueless lawmakers to pass stupid laws and closing their eyes on CD price hikes.
THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.
Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This could be.... (Score:5, Informative)
Linux/BSD users already can listen to and download music shared over iTunes using TunesBrowser [crazney.net]. The project is rather young, so a do-it-yourself compile is necessary, but it does present a very nice, clean GUI interface to iTunes shares.
(Incidentally, if you'd RTFA, your would notice that this project actually allows you to browse samples from the iTMS store, and has nothing to do with network song sharing.)
Re:This could be.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's already been done. [deleet.de] Personally, I don't know how well it works, but it sounds promising. IIRC, the Rhythmbox (iTunes clone for GNOME) guys are planning on including it when it's "ready".
(The hack in this article is unrelated to iTunes' sharing.)
Re:Free (Score:5, Insightful)
You rate high on the "asshole" scale (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. People like you exist.
Okay.
1) Why do you think you need to "defend" apple against something that doesn't harm them?
2) What do you care if apple shuts this down? It must be tough for people to be around you with your misplace "I think I know what I'm talking about" attitude.
I mean, somebody writes a front-end to iTMS, doesn't hurt anything, its a cool hack. And you think apple should sue.
You're one of those people who
Re:RIAA "monopoly" = BULLSHIT (Score:4, Interesting)
The companies comprising RIAA form an oligopoly (and the RIAA itself can be considered to form a monopoly if it usually acts as a single body) simply by virtue of their dominance of the market. It doesn't matter if they provide a useful service. It doesn't matter if they charge, or don't charge, exorbirant rates. It doesn't matter if they have 10 million competitors (each with $0.12 in annual sales). As long as you have 5 firms dominating (>50%) a given market, that's oligopoly for you.
Now, is oligopoly good? Classical economics says it's not an efficient way to distribute goods. I.e. RIAA makes a killing, the consumers get ripped off, and the ripping off part actually outweighs the making a killing part. On the other hand, if I understand it right, under some circumstances oligopolies produce more research and development than a monopoly or a large number of small firms. If only that research was directed at something useful and not at turning a given random person off the street into a pop star...
Re:RIAA "monopoly" = BULLSHIT (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, cartels are illegal in the US, so they call themselves and "industry group" instead. Same deal more or less.
Re:This could be good for Apple (Score:4, Informative)
2. Click the "Music Store" link in the playlist area
3. Click the "eye" icon in the upper right of the window
4. Click "audiobooks" from the first column labeled "Genre"
5. Click a category from the middle column, then you can see all the "authors" in the third column
There is no (easy) way to see the list of all authors for all categories though, you have to go category by category.
Re:This could be good for Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Secondly, all of Apple's audiobooks are through audible.com
Re:This isn't interesting at all (Score:3, Interesting)
If only you had spent *6* minutes instead of just 5.. and then you may have noticed that after the serviceList, all iTMS traffic is AES encrypted.