Slashdot Log In
Apple Updates, Cripples iTunes
Posted by
pudge
on Tue May 27, 2003 05:05 PM
from the oops dept.
from the oops dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
VPNs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:VPNs (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly, or use SSH port forwarding.
Parent
Re:VPNs (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:VPNs (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
If you never even hit #2, you still have something that works.
Parent
SSH Tunnelling iTunes works just fine (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Parent
Re:Tunneling iTunes is a solution to a problem cre (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:VPNs (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
what they should have done (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:VPNs (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try this instead (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
I've tried this myself and it works great.
Parent
Re:Nil Impact on iPod Sales (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Downgrade Gnomes (Score:4, Funny)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Re:Downgrade Gnomes (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Okay, I'll bite, how about:
Since the choice for Apple is, quite obviously, either update/downgrade the misused software or get sued out of existence?-renard
Parent
So, what ever happened to CD-Rs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Carry months of music? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So, what ever happened to CD-Rs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Fun while it lasted (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Here We Go Again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.).
Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes Music Store: Terms of Service (Score:5, Informative)
[...]
You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service
[...]
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
[...]
You agree that Apple has the right
[...]
Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? Kinda like a microsoft EULA but in a nicer font!
If the gun industry was like the computer industry (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If the gun industry was like the computer indus (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Internet Sharing isn't the only change... (Score:5, Informative)
4.01 fixes this problem completely which should make it worth upgrading too if you care about the quality of your music.
Response to iLeech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
Workaround (Score:5, Informative)
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... : \
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what the restrooms are there for?
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm not too worried about it. I sneaker net all my crap to work via iPod anyway.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Nope, this update makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:New bug fix, more restrictive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Had to happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Expect more of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
Re:Expect more of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Expect more of this. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:Expect more of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent