iPod users bypass iTunes with Winamp

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: iPod users bypass iTunes with Winamp (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050530174624)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[TrashCanDan]

Dissatisfaction with iTunes?...

This is a joke right?

[zap2]

that nice bt iTunes works so great with my iPod i see no reason to do that

[Capt Underpants]

There are plenty of reasons to switch to this. No, this isn't a joke.

Apple isn't always better :rolleyes:

[Loge]

Difficult to take this article seriously when it has incorrect statements like -

"Apple forbids tracks from being moved off the iPod -- songs can only be put onto the iPod"

Apple do not prevent copying from the iPod, they simply don't provide any tools to do it. There are plenty of tools available or you can just use the terminal.

[poundsmack]

iTunes is way more resource hungry than winamp is for me

[James Philp]

each iPod is associated with a single copy of iTunes. The association can be changed, but only if all songs on the iPod are erased.

Anyone willing to install a plugin for winamp (i never could get my head around winamp!) surely already knows about the "Manually Manage Songs and Playlists" setting for the iPod right?

"Everything is a breeze and the interface is even easier to use than iTunes,"

What a personal opinion. I found the opposite.

iPod+iTunes = v. easy.
Works on a 5 year (or more) old Mac.

[Orlando Furioso]

Winamp users: creatures of habit
.
.
.
.
iTunes users: creatures of habit

=)


"the most useful option -- the ability to copy songs from an iPod onto a hard drive."
I agree, this feature is useful. iPod in disk mode can easily be used to transfer music files though. But shouldn't there technically already be backups of the music on the hard drive? Maybe not for people "sharing" music files between more than one computer.


"I firmly believe you should have the right to transfer your music with any application you like and if this requires software which circumvents DRM (digital rights management), then I don't believe this is ethically wrong," Fisher said. "I trust our users to use this freedom responsibly and to not steal music."
Does this not make sense to anyone else? Although I agree people should be able to choose what software they use to organize their music (files in general), "circumvent[ting] DRM" defeats the purpose of protecting music. I would wager that the main allure of the program IS to steal music. And whoever this Fisher person is, is probably counting on that fact to circulate the plug-in.


For songs purchased at the iTunes Music Store, which are copy protected by Apple's FairPlay DRM scheme, ml_iPod users must download an application from the Hymn project, which unlocks the copy protection. Then the ml_iPod plug-in must be configured to run the hymn.exe file when it encounters protected files, Fisher explained.
Wasn’t this supposed to make the process, um.... easier? Maybe after initially setting it up, the multi-plug-in/faceted approach continues to work; but come on... I'm sure there are people who are motivated to do this to compile and organize their music across multiple computers. If the computer and music were already theirs however, these steps would be unnecessary. Again, the main motivation of most users must be to "liberate" from the computers of others (i.e. via ptp file-sharing programs), music that does not belong to them.

The liberation phenomenon goes for windows and Mac users alike. However, it is not surprising that the peecee world would continue to have this kind of software/plug-in developed

[ClarkeB]

For songs purchased at the iTunes Music Store, which are copy protected by Apple's FairPlay DRM scheme, ml_iPod users must download an application from the Hymn project, which unlocks the copy protection. Then the ml_iPod plug-in must be configured to run the hymn.exe file when it encounters protected files, Fisher explained.

Umm...this is illegal.

[Orlando Furioso]

Umm...this is illegal.


I think the article was getting at the ability to use iTMS purchased songs playable on an alternative digital jukebox. It would be nice to be able to play music you have purchased on any software of your choice. Unfortunately, current licensing does not allow this. Maybe <crosses hopeful fingers> in the future.

Is breaking the terms of a license illegal? I'm not clear on this, but if it is like breaking a contract, then it is not "illegal" as i understand it. Although, you can be taken to court and made to pay damages if you do. Stealing/acquiring property (intellectual property) is illegal however. These are two very different issues (music, in this case, being the common thread).

[Eidorian]

I suggested Winamp to a few people who are running Windows 98 or Me. They already have large collections of music and don't need to buy off of iTunes. They really wanted to buy an iPod and I gave them a solution.

[O and A]

i've always disliked winamp even back in the day. imo the UI was very counterintuitive but thats just me. I liked soundjam and audion and when itunes came out it was the obvious choice for me. I don't see what other see in winamp other than it doesn't take up as much resources but i strongly dislike its UI.

[outerspaceapple]

well whatever floats your boat...

PC Users:
You get even more options now, and if you do use windows 98 you can now use an iPod!

Prognosis? Excellent.

Mac Users:
Who gives a rip? Apple doesn't make a dime off of iTunes, they make their money from the iPod and ITMS. This still doesn't change the fact that the iPod can't play Windows Media files, so there's no worries about PPL buying subscriptions from Napster and putting it on their iPod.

Prognosis? Still Excellent.

I see no reason to piss and moan here, its just the 'ol "My son's team is better than your son's team" bit again.

[x86isslow]

had this come out a few years ago, i might not have ever switched :eek:

i downgraded from 98se to xp (instantly got 20 viruses within the first day of changing os's)

and soon after, got an eMac :D

now i own a stable of a half-dozen macs from various eras

[solvs]

I'm sure this is useful to some people and I like WinAmp. I still have version 2.91 on my Win2000 PC (still the best version IMO). But it's no iTunes. It may not be the greatest for playing single files (like .wavs), but it's a great jukebox. The main problem I have with the article is that it makes it seem like a lot of people aren't happy with iTunes. It may be a little slower on older PCs, especially with other stuff running and a large library, but it's still a good program that, unlike WMP, is the same on both platforms. I guess if you have Win9x it's a good compromise, but that doesn't make iTunes as bad as the article would suggest.

[brentonbrenton]

could this possibly be a weakness appearing in the halo?

i guess the article goes to show though that there is still a large user base stuck back in pre-xp years. why does ms bother with longhorn at all, who's going to buy it at this rate?

[winmacguy]

While the report knocks iTunes it actually knocks XP even more ;). Now how bad is that!?
My dad being one of those people who doesnt want to upgrade from Win98SE which he is perfectly happy with for doing his spreadsheets and other various complicated accounting functions (he is a retired accountant). Also the buisness where he works part time is also on Win98SE so he doesnt want to go through the hassel of upgrading just his home machine to XP and exposing himself to anymore viruses than absolutly necessary.

Kind of ironic that lots of people prefer a 7-8 year old version of an operating system to a 4 year old version :rolleyes:
On the good side though, I may be able to sort him out with an iPod with out getting him into XP.

[swheeler]

I find it hard to believe there's much demand for this. Everyone I know who has used iTunes loves it. I don't see why you would want to use WinAmp instead, especially when it apparently takes a lot of work to do it.

[Orlando Furioso]

I find it hard to believe there's much demand for this. Everyone I know who has used iTunes loves it. I don't see why you would want to use WinAmp instead, especially when it apparently takes a lot of work to do it.


iTMS protected songs = new niche for people pirating/"sharing" music. Right now WinAmp seems like the viable solution to do this. IMO, if iTunes had a similar hack, plug-ins (and articles) like this would not be popping up and winamp would be near the end of it's usefulness.

[Abstract]

Is this the same thing as circumventing DRM, because I think it does. :rolleyes:

iTunes is way more resource hungry than winamp is for me

Yeah, I wonder why, though. While iTunes works, I never really thought it was perfect, and I only use basic functions. Why does iTunes need to be so huge while Winamp only requires so little space AND have quite a few more capabilities? Winamp can replace iTunes and WMP 10 at a fraction of the size. :confused: Also, its quite snappy. I hate the layout (yeah, its awful and the font on the player is small and you can't see it when using certain skins, but once you take a week to get used to it, its easy. All I need is Winamp player and the playlist window open. Perfect. If I can do all these new things, then great. :)

Anyway, I think this is very cool, and I may use it, but its definitely not a legal product.

[Abstract]

I think the article was getting at the ability to use iTMS purchased songs playable on an alternative digital jukebox. It would be nice to be able to play music you have purchased on any software of your choice. Unfortunately, current licensing does not allow this. Maybe <crosses hopeful fingers> in the future.

Is breaking the terms of a license illegal? I'm not clear on this, but if it is like breaking a contract, then it is not "illegal" as i understand it. Although, you can be taken to court and made to pay damages if you do. Stealing/acquiring property (intellectual property) is illegal however. These are two very different issues (music, in this case, being the common thread).

think the article was getting at the ability to use iTMS purchased songs playable on an alternative digital jukebox.

But to play the DRM-ed music files, they needed to circ.umvent the DRM placed there by Apple. Knowingly bypassing this copyright protection security is illegal.

[Eidorian]

I've liked Winamp because of the plug-ins. I like to be able to play obscure audio formats and that's why I keep it around on my XP laptop. The last good version was 5.8 (Currently it's at 5.091) It loaded quickly, but now it's a slow loading program. They also improved the WMA playback since 5.8 but I want my load up speed. I believe that 5.091 improved the load up speed from 5.09. If I want to just play MP3, I'll use 1by1. It's a simple directory player that'll run on any Windows machine that's at least has Windows 98 and a Pentium 100 Mhz CPU.

http://www.mpesch3.de/

[nagromme]

Of COURSE the maker of this is hearing from users who dislike iTunes and prefer Winamp. That's the purpose of the program! Who else would use it?

The fact that some such people exist is no sign at all of any significant/worrisome number of people not liking iTunes.

Many apps out there serve a tiny niche of people. I'm glad those people are served :) Why not?

[shamino]

Is breaking the terms of a license illegal? I'm not clear on this, but if it is like breaking a contract, then it is not "illegal" as i understand it.
This varies from place to place. In the US, shrink-wrap and click-thru licenses are only legally binding in two states (MD and VA) where the UCITA (http://ucita.com/) was passed into law.

Breaking a copy-protection/DRM system, however, is illegal everywhere in the US. Once the DMCA (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/) was passed into law, breaking copy protection schemes became illegal, even if the unprotected files are not redistributed. (Although it is unlikely anybody will ever find out or prosecute you if you don't redistribute them.) Writing or distributing software that breaks DRM is similarly illegal. (Which is why programs like Hymn are only available from non-US sites.)
Although, you can be taken to court and made to pay damages if you do. Stealing/acquiring property (intellectual property) is illegal however. These are two very different issues (music, in this case, being the common thread).
Thanks to the DMCA and (where applicable) the UCITA, breaking DRM is illegal and can have severe penalties even if there are no damages.

Yes, this is completely brain-dead, but that's the way the laws are right now.

[shamino]

Is this the same thing as circumventing DRM, because I think it does. :rolleyes:
Copying unprotected songs from an iPod is not circumventing anything. It's just file-copying.

DRM-breaking (which is illegal) is only necessary if you want to play FairPlay-protected songs (like those purchased from iTMS) with non-Apple products. Depending on where you get your music from, this may or many not be a big deal. (Almost all of my 40G music collection is ripped from my CDs, and therefore has no DRM protection.)

[James Philp]

Copying unprotected songs from an iPod is not circumventing anything. It's just file-copying.
It is if they are being copied to someone who doesn't own them.
That's distributing licensed items.

[840quadra]

Not an iTunes diehard here, but I would never replace it with winamp. I know quite a few people that were slow to adopt itunes, but they started to like some of the audio file editing, and copy features. It is one of the easiest programs to convert AAC, MP3 or otherwise files into wav or more compressed MP3 files to put onto cell phones by Motorola.

there are many better, but iTunes is free.

[shamino]

It is if they are being copied to someone who doesn't own them.
That's distributing licensed items.
I didn't say otherwise. Why do you think copying songs off of an iPod can only be for the purpose of redistribution?

[G5Zealot]

You can always play your DRM CDs and use AudioHijack to record the audio and save it as an AIFF file. After it's saved convert to Mp3 with Audacity and Lamelib. ;)

[Mav451]

Anyone willing to install a plugin for winamp (i never could get my head around winamp!) surely already knows about the "Manually Manage Songs and Playlists" setting for the iPod right?

What a personal opinion. I found the opposite.

iPod+iTunes = v. easy.
Works on a 5 year (or more) old Mac.

You forgot "with lots of RAM" for that 5 year old Mac. Taking a look thru apple-history...it looks like you probably have an early PMac G4 then? 256MB RAM was about mainstream back then.

One thing I remember from using Winamp since 95/98SE days, is that it could load fast, VERY fast, and this was on machines with 128MB RAM, P1 233. On the other hand, my mother has a 800Mhz P3 with 256MB RAM...iTunes takes a very long time to load.

iTunes opens, conservatively, at 30-40MB. That's actual RAM usage, not including the whopping amount of swap needed. Winamp? Maybe 4-5MB. Maybe. I haven't even talked about foobar (which is even more efficient, and has things like MassTagger)...every lil piece of RAM is used efficiently. Now, I got 1GB so the memory issue hasn't been a big deal, but I can tell you for all the Joe Schmoes with Celerons out there, not many have more than either the 256 or 512MB configs. iTunes gobbles RAM here so it is a very big deal.

[jesuisme]

Everyone has their opinion as to whether Winamp is better than iTunes. Each program has its strengths and weaknesses. I've used both Winamp (since 98) and iTunes (since 03)

The real issue at hand is the copying of music files. In this respect, the use of this plugin is similar to the use of CloneCD -- a small percentage of people are using it to make legitimate backups of software they own, while the large majority of people who use this program are burning illegal software.

I see the same thing happening with this plugin. It's just another way for the majority of users to get illegal music from your friends, and, at the same time, allow Winamp to bash the 800 pound gorilla of digitial music, iTunes. For those using the plugin for its intended purpose, it may actually be useful. However, there are (in my opinion) easier solutions.

[shamino]

One thing I remember from using Winamp since 95/98SE days, is that it could load fast, VERY fast, and this was on machines with 128MB RAM, P1 233. On the other hand, my mother has a 800Mhz P3 with 256MB RAM...iTunes takes a very long time to load.
Depends on what version of WinAmp. Version 2 was small and fast. I often ran it on an old Pentium-150 system with 48M RAM and Win98. Version 3 couldn't run at all on this system. On another computer (P2-300, 128M RAM, NT4), version 3 would run, but would take forever to load.

Maybe the current version of WinAmp is better, but I'm not going to bother to find out. Version 2 works just fine for my older/slower systems.