Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Apple

Apple Updates, Cripples iTunes 653

Posted by pudge
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Apple Updates, Cripples iTunes

Comments Filter:
  • VPNs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:07PM (#6051925) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JoeBuck (7947) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:08PM (#6051939) Homepage

      Certainly, or use SSH port forwarding.

      • Re:VPNs (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Haven't tried setting up a VPN, but I have tried using a SSH tunnel and that does not work with iTunes.
        • by notyou (39419) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:31PM (#6052159) Homepage
          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:VPNs (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kynde (324134) <kyndeNO@SPAMiki.fi> on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:38PM (#6052221)
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kwerle (39371) <kurt@CircleW.org> on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @08:09PM (#6052916) Homepage Journal
          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.
      • For those who need a GUI.
        SSH Tunnel Manager [macupdate.com]
    • Re:VPNs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bigbluejerk (535787) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:13PM (#6051992)
      Couldn't Apple have just added encryption to iTunes streaming?
    • Re:VPNs (Score:5, Informative)

      by turnstyle (588788) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @10:58PM (#6053769) Homepage
      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:VPNs (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pigeon (909)
        Or you could use Zina, which is like Andromeda, but free, where andromeda costs money... (although andromeda may be more mature). Isn't open source great?
  • Is it just me, or do companies seem to do this too often... Oh, here's a new version that fixes the bugs that you've complained about, but we snuck in a few restrictions too... (think MS and XP SP1...)
    • by mosch (204) * on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:10PM (#6051958) Homepage
      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.
      • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:18PM (#6052029)
        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.
      • by sys49152 (100346) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:38PM (#6052222)
        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.
      • 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.

    • by ShatteredDream (636520) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:40PM (#6052236) Homepage
      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.
    • by jtrascap (526135) <bitbucket&mediaplaza,nl> on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @02:42AM (#6054760)
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esome (166227) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:08PM (#6051940) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by djupedal (584558) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:13PM (#6051991)
      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.
    • Re:fair use? (Score:5, Informative)

      by no_opinion (148098) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:25PM (#6052094)
      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:fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by diverman (55324)
        Great idea, unless the machine I use at work is my personal PowerBook trying to access my PowerMac at home. The point of putting the music on my PowerMac was that I wouldn't be taking up 1/3 of my PowerBook HDD space for music.

        And most of the music I have to share are MP3s from my own CDs. I actually don't have any pirated music in my collection (well, maybe 2-3 songs... but that's all). It has nothing to do with authorization, in my case, but rather sharing.

        I know that there are strong legal reasons, b
    • Re:fair use? (Score:3, Informative)

      by iotaborg (167569)
      So use something like MP3 Sushi Server [maliasoft.com], works quite well and easy to set up in OS X. Of course it isn't as integrated as iTunes.
    • Re:fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dr.badass (25287) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @01:35AM (#6054543) Homepage
      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.
  • from the oops dept.

    I wouldn't think there was much of an "oops" about it. I'm sure it's all carefully planned.

  • The truth is... (Score:2, Informative)

    by paranoidsim (239426)
    there are a million ways around this, though assumingly unbeknownst to most mac users.
  • by RPI Geek (640282) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:13PM (#6051990) Journal
    Step 1: Update software with silly restrictions.
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit!
    • by renard (94190) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:38PM (#6052217)
      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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:14PM (#6051994)
    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?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because i don't feel like carrying around 70 gig of cd-r's you fucking nimrod.
  • Fun while it lasted (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:17PM (#6052025)
    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.
  • by gsfprez (27403) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:19PM (#6052036)
    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?
    • and speaking of which - where the hell are the indie artists' and their music on iTMS? Huh?

      You know, you can suggest recording artists to the iTunes Music Store. Try doing that and also approaching the label; it may be more effective.

      It also takes time to encode a label's catalog and to negotiate digital distribution rights with artists whose contracts were written before digital distribution rights existed.

  • But then, that Apple never was either, was it?
  • by Hobbex (41473) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:29PM (#6052133)
    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 :-(.
    • by pudge (3605) *
      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.

      I think many people are "accepting" of it because they don't have to deal with it. I don't want DRM on my music, so I will not buy much from iTMS (also, I want higher quality music, and MP3s). And if I don't want the playlist sharing, I can use one of the many alternatives (including the daap client/server clones that are being worked on).

      It is OK because we are not for
    • by bnenning (58349) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:57PM (#6052370)
      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.)

      • First, iTunes streaming and limitations thereof have nothing to do with DRM.

        Hmm? The music is digital, normally you would be able to send it anywhere you liked, as many times as you liked. Clearly iTMS stops you doing that, so it's DRM.

        Second, while Apple could impose more restrictions on future music purchases, they can't retroactively add restrictions to music you've already bought.

        Ah, I think they can. Sure, they might have to upgrade iTunes in order to do it, but if the next version of MacOS X c

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:58PM (#6052382) Homepage Journal
      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.

    • by Knightmare (12112) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @07:11PM (#6052494) Homepage
      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.)
  • by SamTheButcher (574069) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:29PM (#6052140) Journal
    ...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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:31PM (#6052158)

    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcc (14761)
      this is not the crippling of iTunes

      I'm an iTunes user, and I say its music sharing is crippled. I don't care what apple's intentions are, if I can no longer use a tool for the purpose I keep it around for, then it's crippled, at least from a semantic standpoint.

      Apple worked very hard to get the RIAA to soften up as much as it has with DRM in the iTunes Music Store.

      "As much as it has"? Dude, the mp3-streaming thing was just about the only thing that separated Apple's DRM from the DRM schemes on previo
      • by bnenning (58349) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @07:17PM (#6052544)
        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.

      • I'm an iTunes user, and I say its music sharing is crippled. I don't care what apple's intentions are, if I can no longer use a tool for the purpose I keep it around for, then it's crippled, at least from a semantic standpoint.
        You should get your money back.

        Oh. Wait...

    • There's that from the obvious Apple fan-boy (or girl) who will defend Apple to the death - the type who still contends that their $2500 PowerBook is faster than their neighbours £1250 Dell.
      The other is from the DRM hater who believes all music should be free and was gunning for Apple from the moment they announced they'd be charging for music and you wouldn't automatically get mailed CD copies to hand out to strangers in the street.
      I'd like to position myself between these two camps. I'm not a great
  • Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobm17ch (643515) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:31PM (#6052160)

    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. :)

    • Re:Fine. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by antirename (556799)
      If moducum means minumum. The RIAA, of course, would prefer that you have NO fair use, so this is better than nothing. I don't download music, by the way... I like to keep my bandwidth free for other things, and I haven't heard much RIAA-sponsered music that I like lately. No, they piss me off because they want to use purchased congresscritters and corporations to turn back the clock. Fuck them. That's fair, considering that they want to take away my computers to use as I see fit when I'm not costing t
  • by catscan2000 (211521) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:34PM (#6052180)
    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..).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:46PM (#6052288)
    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 following will be deemed to constitute your acceptance of any and all such Additional Terms. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

    Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? Kinda like a microsoft EULA but in a nicer font!
  • by sterno (16320) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:48PM (#6052307) Homepage
    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.

    • by antirename (556799) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @07:33PM (#6052666)
      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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by weeeeed (675324) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @06:48PM (#6052308) Journal
    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
  • by zsmooth (12005) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @07:08PM (#6052461)
    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. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Millennium (2451) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @08:03PM (#6052868) Homepage
    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.
  • by tfoss (203340) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @09:46PM (#6053424)
    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

  • by A_Non_Moose (413034) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @09:49PM (#6053440) Homepage Journal
    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!)
  • by Sebby (238625) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @10:03PM (#6053511)
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sabalon (1684) on Tuesday May 27, 2003 @10:30PM (#6053611)
    ifconfig lan0 (ip) netmask 0.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255
    • Re:simple solution (Score:3, Informative)

      by phaze3000 (204500)

      Except that this will only work if your router supports proxy arp (most 'home' routers don't). Otherwise, your box just sends out an arp request for every IP you try to connect to, gets nothing back and gives up. Hardly the best Internet connectivity.

      +5 Insightful my arse.

      • Re:simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pclminion (145572)
        Otherwise, your box just sends out an arp request for every IP you try to connect to, gets nothing back and gives up.

        And about how fast do you think someone will whip up a software ARP proxy? I'm guessing oh... 12 hours?

      • Re:simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sabalon (1684) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @12:24PM (#6058026)
        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 :)
  • ifconfig (Score:3, Insightful)

    by compudroid (309974) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @12:57AM (#6054376) Homepage
    ifconfig interface netmask 0xffffffff

    Damn I just put the whole internet in my subnet... what a shame!
  • Workaround (Score:5, Informative)

    by benntop (449447) <craigo AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @05:10AM (#6055239) Homepage Journal
    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... : \
  • by jtrascap (526135) <bitbucket&mediaplaza,nl> on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @05:58AM (#6055371)
    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).
  • by alchemist68 (550641) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @08:05AM (#6055673)
    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...
  • by heff66 (561254) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @08:55AM (#6055932) Homepage
    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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alernon (91859) on Wednesday May 28, 2003 @09:50AM (#6056341) Homepage
    (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.

  • by mrthoughtful (466814) on Thursday May 29, 2003 @07:45AM (#6066343) Journal
    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!
  • by POds (241854) on Thursday May 29, 2003 @10:10AM (#6067215) Homepage Journal
    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! :}
    • Well, they are making a port of iTunes for Windows and are planning on opening up the music store to the rest of the world.

      This was definitely not something they slapped together. They know the market for this is really on the Windows side and are taking appropriate steps.

No user-servicable parts inside. Refer to qualified service personnel.

Working...