PDA

View Full Version : The New iTunes Downgrade!


chibianh
May 27, 2003, 03:34 PM
Anyone check their software update? apparently, there's iTunes 4.0.1. How long has it been there? Is it new or am I just behind?

"iTunes is the only software you'll ever need to build & manage your music collection on your Mac.

iTunes 4 features superior sound quality including support for MPEG-4 AAC audio. iTunes 4.0.1 includes a number of performance and network access enhancements, and only allows music sharing between computers using iTunes 4.0.1 or later on a local network (in the same subnet). If you have an Apple SuperDrive, you can archive your song files to a DVD disc as well as burn playlists to standard audio CDs to play in your car or home stereo."

So much for streaming over the net. It just takes a few bad apples to ruin it for the rest. Oh well.

jpolk
May 27, 2003, 03:46 PM
You are correct, sir. There is a new (4.0.1) iTunes available. I don't think the only allows sharing bit is an anti-pirating thing... it is just that it is not backward-compatible.

dynamicd
May 27, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by jpolk
You are correct, sir. There is a new (4.0.1) iTunes available. I don't think the only allows sharing bit is an anti-pirating thing... it is just that it is not backward-compatible.

You're correct about the backward-compatible thing. I already did sharing with a friend of mine.

FelixDerKater
May 27, 2003, 04:18 PM
"Network access enhancements" ;)

Chad4Mac
May 27, 2003, 04:53 PM
Still didn't put my song titles back...still have blanks randomly throughout my Library :confused:

Chad4Mac

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 05:06 PM
Boo!

I'm really pissed, how why the hell did they take sharing out of iTunes 4.0.1, god damn, they could have stopped Downloading, instill they do this, god apple you are making me Really pissed!

Geez, its not hard for apple to add an anti-piracy feature and not stop sharing TOTALLY!

I reverted, apple, don't make this STUPID move!

for more info :( (http://www.macslash.org/articles/03/05/27/2127256.shtml)

God, Stay with 4.0 ! No more Shaft For me!

edit: even SLASHDOT has a story there (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/05/27/2114240.shtml?tid=176&tid=188)

zigi
May 27, 2003, 05:06 PM
The sound quality seems much higher, no more fading and volume fluctuations.

zigi
May 27, 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by dynamicd
You're correct about the backward-compatible thing. I already did sharing with a friend of mine.

As far as I can see there is no more 'Connect to Shared Music...' Apple-K. I'm not talking about a stream, I mean direct access to the playlists.

G4scott
May 27, 2003, 05:24 PM
I think Apple had a choice of either getting rid of the sharing and keeping the Music Store, or getting rid of the Music Store and getting rid of the sharing...

You can guess which one Apple did...

jayb2000
May 27, 2003, 05:52 PM
If you connect to your mac via VPN, wouldn't that be considered the same subnet?
So, assuming there is no firewall blocking VPN traffic, anyone with 2 macs should still be able to listen.

But, the not being able to share across the internet does stink. :(

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 05:53 PM
Okay, Mr. Wonderful mod, why, why-o-why did you attach my thread to this?

I saw this, I wanted to have a separate discussion, in the way I prefered it to be.

Next time, atleast edit my post so I can PM you.

arn
May 27, 2003, 05:55 PM
I see this is a necessary evil.

It'd be nice if things could be streamed across the web... but Apple has to keep the record companies happy. Especially if they want to expand this to Windows. As I understand it - it is NOT a given that the record companies are on board with an iTunes for Windows.

This should make them happier.

arn

psxndc
May 27, 2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by zigi
The sound quality seems much higher, no more fading and volume fluctuations.

Was this volume fluctuations between songs or during a single song? I hear it on mine but I thought I was crazy or it was a bad master (since the most notable was not a "Big 5" release, but was instead by a local band)

-p

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by arn
I see this is a necessary evil.

It'd be nice if things could be streamed across the web... but Apple has to keep the record companies happy. Especially if they want to expand this to Windows. As I understand it - it is NOT a given that the record companies are on board with an iTunes for Windows.

This should make them happier.

arn

Well, not the users, one bit.

If apple wanted to keep the damned record company's happy they could just join the suit against all of the 'evil' P2P users and groups.

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Its like a doctor saying they only need to cut a toe nail and the mother says it is just better to cut off the toe.

Gimme a break!

P-Worm
May 27, 2003, 06:07 PM
I went for it. iTunes 4 seemed to have some bugs in it with the window getting all screwed up and stuff. I'm hoping that this is cleared up. If not, that's ok too. Apple is trying to put an end to piracy and if that means backtracking so be it. After the iTunes Music Store came out, I have gone strictly legal and I feel great about it.

P-Worm

arn
May 27, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.


I disagree... there really isn't any legal reason for Apple to sue the developers.

I'd rather have record companies happy with Apple then not.

It's not like music sharing is now impossible. iTunes Music sharing will likely reappear as a 3rd party app. There is a distinct difference between Apple suppling the means and another developer supplying the means.

arn

Stelliform
May 27, 2003, 06:10 PM
This is another example of why Apple has been the test bed for this software. The streaming was being abused, now Apple will kill it.

Apple will be able to kill iTunes 4.0 quite effectively in a few months, but on the PC side it would be far more difficult. (i.e. gnutella) Apple can even add a manditory iTunes update in the next OS X release. You don't have that option in Windows.

The streaming over the internet has always bothered me though. It seemed like too much power after all of the record industries timidness. Could it be possible that it was put in deliberately so that the music industry could see how effectively features could be removed? I bet the Music Industry will be watching in fascination of how effectively Apple kills the internet streaming.

Just my two cents...

gelbin
May 27, 2003, 06:10 PM
it is really too bad.
the problem though is that people will find ways to copy music from other folks if you can share. i mean, without thinking twice, you could stream to your friend, who is using something like audiohijack and they coudl grab your music -
i mean, that is just too easy. This is purely to please the music companies, which is understandable given their necessary support for the success of apple's music venture.

however, the shortsightedness lies in the fact that people who are gonna use audio hijack or some other crack to get music (acquisition, etc) - so what is it really solving.

Personally, i am opposed to downloading music. But i really liked the sharing ability from itunes, cause i could share a new song or album with my brothers or vice versa and it may make me want to buy it or grab it from the music store. plus, technologically, it was just a cool thing to do.

It really is a shame that some of the cooler things of technology can't be used due to people being too durn cheap to pay for music. And, don't go on about how the music business gets all the money these days, that is crap. Music is so accessible now....people can record studio quality stuff in their living rooms (i am doing vocals tonight) and put cds out themselves and sell them on the web (www.gelbin.org/dodge.html) or find a smaller label with some distribution if they don't want the big corporate hoopla...

anyway...i digress...

Makosuke
May 27, 2003, 06:12 PM
Obviously, this is already making people angry, but it doesn't surprise me, and I'm not really upset about it, since I was surprised they allowed such loose sharing to begin with. Still works fine if you're sharing at home, after all.

I do agree that it'd have been nice had they only tried to plug the file copying hole, but the unfortunate fact is that just wouldnt've made the big, stupid record companies happy. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Internet radio (and half killed it with stupid licencing rules in the process), so letting Apple get away with this was highly unlikely.

Do you really think Steve said "Let's piss off thousands of users by changing something popular that works great." unless there was a nasty letter threatening multi-million dollar suits and killing the iTMS on his desk? I'd bet money not, and I'd bet even more money that it took the record companies about a minute and a half to get their lawyers cranking after they found out people could "broadcast" music to anyone. Don't blame Apple--blame the RIAA.

Just be thankful that the Great And Benevolent Recording Industry deigned to let you strem music to somebody else in your dorm or office.

Now for the good news: It looks like 4.0.1 fixed the funky volume/muffled music problems that everyone was complaining about. Now that's more like it.

The Ancients
May 27, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by jayb2000
If you connect to your mac via VPN, wouldn't that be considered the same subnet?
So, assuming there is no firewall blocking VPN traffic, anyone with 2 macs should still be able to listen.

But, the not being able to share across the internet does stink. :(

Correct. You can also use SSH port forwarding, or a more absolute way is to use Apache to serve them up via http.

Mr.Hey
May 27, 2003, 06:17 PM
Mp3 Shushi (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/18200)

Product Description: MP3 Sushi is a set of two applications: MP3 Sushi Server and MP3 Buddies

MP3 Sushi Server allows you to turn your Mac into a Jukebox or a Radio broadcast station in a few clicks. It's a cool way to share and stream and share your music among a local network or the Internet.
Thanks to the Rendezvous technology (aka ZeroConf), MP3 Buddies makes it easy to find every Jukebox and Radio servers on your local network. Once MP3 Buddies is launched on a user computer, a list of servers is displayed and in just one click the user can browse the Jukebox songs in his favorite navigator or listen to the Radio in iTunes.

zigi
May 27, 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by psxndc
Was this volume fluctuations between songs or during a single song? I hear it on mine but I thought I was crazy or it was a bad master (since the most notable was not a "Big 5" release, but was instead by a local band)

-p

Nah, I'm listening to AAC's that I've ripped from my CD's. A noticable song was Cochise by Audioslave, after the intro when the guitar kicks in, the volume used to be pulled back by iTunes but it doesn't anymore.

reyesmac
May 27, 2003, 06:40 PM
If Apple changes features like this to please the record companies now, imagine what will happen when iTunes comes out for Windows and people start hacking it. They are already going to be pretty busy getting people to stop copying the look of iTunes, now they have to make sure they don't make sharing easy. I doubt the Windows version will have all the features the Mac version has. It might just be quicktime with a playlist and built in browser.

Mosco
May 27, 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Because we all know how well that went for the record companies...

There are other apps out there if you want to broadcast your tunes. Apple had to do this, atleast they still allow sharing on the same subnet.

smada
May 27, 2003, 06:43 PM
It's really too bad that Apple couldn't just come up with a more secure protocol for streaming.

One time at school I was streaming my library from home on to the school's (only) mac during my study hall. You couldn't believe how impressed everybody was that I could have all 1242 of my songs instantly. If Apple takes all the cool features out, why would anybody want to switch?

jimthorn
May 27, 2003, 06:53 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. They basically took away the ability to do something they never intended iTunes to be used for in the first place. As far as I can tell, the Rendezvous sharing feature was always supposed to be for locally sharing your music with all the Macs (or other Rendezvous devices) in your house.

gelbin
May 27, 2003, 06:56 PM
because of the improvement in core audio - allowing all audio to pipe through (allowing theoretical use of audio units for any audio playing program) it is not readily possible to restrict what can record what your computer plays - so programs like audio hijack allow you to record what itunes (or any other program) is saying or singing or whatever. This is great...and has many benefits. HOwever, it limits the ability to restrict what can be recorded and recaptured by the user.

mnkeybsness
May 27, 2003, 07:01 PM
i have a feeling that apple just took out the internet sharing and replaced it with private networks only as a way to bide time while they are making a more secure streaming service to build in to itunes. i wouldn't be surprised if internet streaming came back in the next update, with better security, preventing any downloading through the protocol.

foniks2020
May 27, 2003, 07:13 PM
I downloaded 4.0.1 but I'm gonna keep using 4.0 because I don't actually have any music on my work machine and i like it that way. I stream it form my home Mac to my work Mac... and my girlfriend streams from my home mac to her laptop at home and vice versa...

My big problem with this is that they are assuming that everyone is abusing their fair use rights. A few bad apples... I tried connecting to some of the publlicly shared iTunes people put out... couldn't even find one that was available.

How many people even have a connection fast enough to abuse via streaming? I have cable and if I connect more than 5 machines I'm fairly certain it would kill the connection speed so bad that none of them would be able to play the music... of course I suppose it doesn't matter how good the stream is if you are just downloading it to play later.

Why not require a password? Maybe the same one that you use to buy stuff with? how many people are going to put out their Apple Store password for anyone to use? or restrict the number of connections to say 10 computers? or even 25 or even 100, anything less than a thousand would put a serious damper on the value of a publicly accessible iTunes server link.... coders would probably find a way to circumvent it though, create a queue of some sort, like for other P2P.

in any case, there has got to be a way to keep the feature without leaving the door open for abuse, at least not so blatantly open.

pEZ
May 27, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
i have a feeling that apple just took out the internet sharing and replaced it with private networks only as a way to bide time while they are making a more secure streaming service to build in to itunes. i wouldn't be surprised if internet streaming came back in the next update, with better security, preventing any downloading through the protocol.

I totally agree with this one. Apple must have known that the sharing feature would be hacked, but they probably didn't think it would be hacked in only a week after iTunes 4 was released.

I'm glad that Apple decided to release this update, and I'm sorry that there are people who had to take advantage of an excellent feature, create something highly illegal, and ruin it for the rest of us.

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Mosco
Because we all know how well that went for the record companies...

There are other apps out there if you want to broadcast your tunes. Apple had to do this, atleast they still allow sharing on the same subnet.

Really, no one shares my subnet. No one in my block, area, 20 block radius uses a mac.

It Wouldn't be so hard for apple just to SIMPLY stop downloading? I mean it is way easier than what they just did.

Originally posted by arn
I disagree... there really isn't any legal reason for Apple to sue the developers.

I'd rather have record companies happy with Apple then not.

It's not like music sharing is now impossible. iTunes Music sharing will likely reappear as a 3rd party app. There is a distinct difference between Apple suppling the means and another developer supplying the means.

arn
There isn't? There program made a perfectally legal product into an 'illegal' downloading monster. Why did the record companys push for sharing to stop? They probably didn't say sharing songs is bad, they would say (as they always have) stealing, or downloading songs are bad.

iTunes music sharing will appear, maybe, but then apple could charge them breaking whatever license you hit OK to.

Apple never supplyed the means to do anything illegal, the dev did. Now someone will have to make a feature that apple just erased.

Wonderful, the wait is on.

Originally posted by pEZ
I totally agree with this one. Apple must have known that the sharing feature would be hacked, but they probably didn't think it would be hacked in only a week after iTunes 4 was released.

I'm glad that Apple decided to release this update, and I'm sorry that there are people who had to take advantage of an excellent feature, create something highly illegal, and ruin it for the rest of us.
Apple based the sharing on an un-secure protocol, which was broken very, very quickly.

What apple could have done was made their own (innovation, *gasp*) and made sure you couldn't access using these evil tools.

Its not as hard as this was!

Doctor Q
May 27, 2003, 07:32 PM
Those who stick with 4.0 instead of moving to 4.0.1 will not be able to stay there for long. Versions 4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.1, etc. are sure to add features you'll want. Therefore, eventually, sharing outside your subnet will become unavailable. Personally, I don't mind. I only share within the house.

It probably wasn't a big programming change, but if this is a reaction to all the news stories about sharing gone wild (most of them written as if Apple had no idea this was possible), then I'm impressed how fast Apple reacted. I doubt those same news sources will report this development as fervently.

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Well, not the users, one bit.

If apple wanted to keep the damned record company's happy they could just join the suit against all of the 'evil' P2P users and groups.

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Its like a doctor saying they only need to cut a toe nail and the mother says it is just better to cut off the toe.

Gimme a break!

Okay, "Stopped the downloading" ... that's what they did! My word, have you no reason? What exactly, besides the ability to hijack an iTunes stream and save it to your desktop, have you lost here?

They can't go after the developers as (with Kazaa et al) the developers are not violating laws. Suing developers is bad business in any case.

IMHO, the "problem" was vanishingly small in any case, not necessary to address, but I also don't see any harm in it. The "valid" uses for streaming all entail a single subnet (except at work where the guy in the office next to me is on a different subnet ...)

arn
May 27, 2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

There isn't? There program made a perfectally legal product into an 'illegal' downloading monster.

[/i]

Apple had no specific legal recourse against those people who got around the iTunes sharing. Yes, it's "illegal" - but Apple is not the defender of all that is illegal. The RIAA could have since it's their copyrights those individuals were getting around... but a this is all a silly argument.

I'm not sure why you are so upset about this. The solutions you propose would take far more effort from Apple. Bottom line - the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.


It Wouldn't be so hard for apple just to SIMPLY stop downloading? I mean it is way easier than what they just did.


You think individually seeking out legal action would be easier than just removing the feature?

arn

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by gelbin
it is really too bad.
the problem though is that people will find ways to copy music from other folks if you can share. i mean, without thinking twice, you could stream to your friend, who is using something like audiohijack and they coudl grab your music -
i mean, that is just too easy.


Yeah, almost as easy as turning on file sharing and just copying the files over ... The friend-to-friend transfer was never an issue; the issue is perfect strangers browsing each others' music libraries and copying files at will.

This is purely to please the music companies, which is understandable given their necessary support for the success of apple's music venture.

however, the shortsightedness lies in the fact that people who are gonna use audio hijack or some other crack to get music (acquisition, etc) - so what is it really solving.


As someone else already said: there is a difference between Apple supplying the means to pirate and some other developer supplying those means. If Apple supplies the means then it appears sanctioned (both by Apple and to a lesser extent by the labels), which is of course not what anybody wants.


Personally, i am opposed to downloading music. But i really liked the sharing ability from itunes, cause i could share a new song or album with my brothers or vice versa and it may make me want to buy it or grab it from the music store. plus, technologically, it was just a cool thing to do.


Well, you gotta go back to the plain old FTP or file sharing then ...

Not as "cool", but actually a much more efficient and "clean" way to transfer files of any kind across a network. To me, that's "cool".

NOTE: iTMS tunes (protected AAC) never could be shared in this manner (that I'm aware of). They also can not be shared via FTP et al without removing their protection at some stage.

seamuskrat
May 27, 2003, 07:45 PM
I do not hijak songs, no DL from the net.
However, I do listen to my songs, all legally owned in the background on my work machine.
Since I am not allowed to store personal files on my work Mac, and since I do not have the luxury of a FW drive dedicated to music, I was excited to learn I could PW protect my home machine and stream to my work machine.
This is a feature I have lost. I had/have no intention of sharing my music with others yet I have lost the sole reason I use iTunes 4. I hope it can return SOON in a more secure format.

QCassidy352
May 27, 2003, 07:50 PM
I don't understand why people bothered to hack itunes in the first place. It's not like the music isn't still readily available on many other p2p file sharing networks. So why even bother to abuse itunes? What's the gain?

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by gelbin
because of the improvement in core audio - allowing all audio to pipe through (allowing theoretical use of audio units for any audio playing program) it is not readily possible to restrict what can record what your computer plays - so programs like audio hijack allow you to record what itunes (or any other program) is saying or singing or whatever. This is great...and has many benefits. HOwever, it limits the ability to restrict what can be recorded and recaptured by the user.

Yeah, but you can always do the same A/D conversion off the headphones jack too. Unless Core Audio is handling the MPG/layer3 and AAC conversion, which I don't believe is true but this isn't my area of expertise ...

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by arn
You aren't making sense here.

Apple had no specific legal recourse against those people who got around the iTunes sharing. Yes, it's "illegal" - but Apple is not the defender of all that is illegal. The RIAA could have since it's their copyrights those individuals were getting around... but a this is all a silly argument.

I'm not sure why you are so upset about this. The solutions you propose would take far more effort from Apple. Bottom line - the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.



You think individually seeking out legal action would be easier than just removing the feature?

arn

Did I say apple should take legal action first?

No! I didn't, I SAID that they could have made a secure protocol, so that this would have never happened. Never in my words did I say legal action should be first. The solutions I said would take effeort, yes, maybe it would make people work, but blocking downloading is EASY. Too easy! iTunes set up a totally loose system, apple can easily make sure the apple they are using to connecto to other usere was in fact, iTunes not 'I steal music.app'

You don't think RIAA is behind this? I do, apple was the maker of the app, Apple sided with the RIAA and totally removed the stuff I like to hear.

I have a friend across town who has an almost un-limited song database, now I can't access it, do I want him to illegally burn those songs to give to me?
No!
I was sharing, listeing to them, not downloading them, why should I be punished?

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Really, no one shares my subnet. No one in my block, area, 20 block radius uses a mac.


And, please tell, what were you legitimately using the internet sharing for? You do realize that you can download tools to continue sharing your tunes for your (isolated, border) case, right?


It Wouldn't be so hard for apple just to SIMPLY stop downloading? I mean it is way easier than what they just did.

[ ... ]

What apple could have done was made their own (innovation, *gasp*) and made sure you couldn't access using these evil tools.

Its not as hard as this was!

Huh? This was very easy: remove one menu item, and one keyboard shortcut (not even two separate things to the developer).

Contrast that with developing, testing, and debugging a secure protocol for music streaming ... Yeah, that would be so much easier!

mactastic
May 27, 2003, 08:01 PM
Aw man! This sucks, blows and bites all at the same time. I guess it had to happen though, another case of the few ruining it for the rest of us. I was hoping to get a 970 tower at home and not have to have any music files at all on my laptop. Just carry a few tunes for when I can't get to the internet. Thats fair use as far as I'm concerned. Man, and did I ever brag about this feature too. :p I'm gonna be eatin some crow at work/school now. Everyone thought that was so damn cool. Mostly cus none of them could do it when I told them you needed a mac. I think it was the first time alot of them had ever felt software envy.:D

arn
May 27, 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

No! I didn't, I SAID that they could have made a secure protocol, so that this would have never happened. Never in my words did I say legal action should be first. The solutions I said would take effeort, yes, maybe it would make people work, but blocking downloading is EASY. Too easy!
.....
You don't think RIAA is behind this?


1. Yes.... i do think the RIAA/Record Companies are why Apple did so.

2. I don't think blocking downloading is easy. If you are streaming it, you are effectively downloading it. These apps were simply writing to disc, the stream you were listening to. There are potential ways around it... but I don't believe it to be as easy as you think... it would involve some on-the-fly encryption/decryption built into iTunes. I still feel that the easiest way was to remove the feature.

arn

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I have a friend across town who has an almost un-limited song database, now I can't access it, do I want him to illegally burn those songs to give to me?
No!
I was sharing, listeing to them, not downloading them, why should I be punished?

Well, I'm willing to bet that your case was in the "shouldn't be allowed" column in the Apple/RIAA discussions.

It's not your music. Your friend does not have a broadcasting license. You are not listening to these tunes while he/she is present.

Apple specifically allowed for subnet-based sharing to make it easy for multiple machines within a home to share music (ie, only have one copy of the music, stream it to whichever machine(s) are in use). This is sharing at a single location, amongst people who have full and legal access to the original music.

In other words, be thankful for the month that Apple gave you to share with your "friend". But it's over.

punter
May 27, 2003, 08:07 PM
we need a poll:

who's staying with 4.0 and who's upgrading?

I think I'll stay for now. I don't even use the streaming (none of my friends are broadband let alone mac users), but it doesn't sound like I'll gain much from the upgrade.

e-coli
May 27, 2003, 08:09 PM
This is a feature that will probably return in some incarnation or another. But it had to be fixed extremely fast, and removing the feature is infinitely easier than coming up with a new protocol.

I'm sure it will be back. It's such a great way to find out about new music. I think it actually will drive music sales as opposed to hurting them.

Merf3
May 27, 2003, 08:09 PM
I'm wondering why they didn't simply enhance the iTunes Music Store
activation concept to the streaming/sharing idea - i.e., you can "authorize"
streaming to any 5 (or 3 for that matter) Macs at a time, but you need
to de-authorize them from the Mac. Seems to me that would protect
the legitimate uses (streaming from home to work or while traveling with
an iBook), while eliminating the mini-Napster movement - after all, no
one would hand out their streaming passwords any more than they
do their iTunes Music Store ones. Seems everyone would be happier

Merf3

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Merf3
I'm wondering why they didn't simply enhance the iTunes Music Store
activation concept to the streaming/sharing idea - i.e., you can "authorize"
streaming to any 5 (or 3 for that matter) Macs at a time, but you need
to de-authorize them from the Mac. Seems to me that would protect
the legitimate uses (streaming from home to work or while traveling with
an iBook), while eliminating the mini-Napster movement - after all, no
one would hand out their streaming passwords any more than they
do their iTunes Music Store ones. Seems everyone would be happier

Merf3

I would guess that they are working on such a protocol, but that will take time to implement. First, you have to have a secure and authenticated protocol ...

Protocol engineers cost money. And no matter how much you spend, they need time to do their work.

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 08:15 PM
You know what, none of you are listening, not even you arn, I'm sorry.

I'm removing myself from this discussion, please continue blasting apple for providing this feature!

Please say that thousands of people would have used this for illegal purposes.

Please say that it was in apple's users best interests to kill this feature.

Geez, I share songs with my friends, people use it wrongly and now the whole thing is gone.

Bye.

--MrMacMan

nickgold
May 27, 2003, 08:27 PM
I hate to break it to some of you people, but even "sharing" music is illegal in most circumstances people were using iTunes 4.0 internet sharing for. It essentially amounts to copying the CD for your friends, and giving them a copy.

Think about it in these terms -- if the internet didn't exist, how would you "share" a CD with a friend? Legally? You would have to let them borrow it, which would mean that you could no longer play it yourself, while it was being borrowed.

iTunes 4.0 internet music sharing obviously allowed users to get around this "real-world" limitation, and that ticked the record companies off, for obvious reasons, IMO.

It was only a matter of time for the feature to be stripped out - I can't BELIEVE it made it into the final release at all, and in fact, I think it may have been more of an oversight than an intentional move.

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by nickgold
It was only a matter of time for the feature to be stripped out - I can't BELIEVE it made it into the final release at all, and in fact, I think it may have been more of an oversight than an intentional move.

Seems to me Jobs used the feature in his iTMS grand opening presentation ...

That doesn't mean it wasn't an oversight, but at least at the time iTunes4 debuted, Jobs didn't see it as a threat.

Tequila Grandma
May 27, 2003, 08:31 PM
IMO this is all about one thing: the ****ing iTunes Music Store. I seriously think that the one and only reason that Apple opted to eliminate the feature so quickly was because of pressure from the record companies, and Apple must currently be extra-nice to them because they're helping apple make craploads of money with their iTMS.

Personally, I don't care at all about the stupid music store. If I'm paying for music, I sure as heck had better get an insert and disc art. The sharing feature was a FAAAR more useful idea than the iTMS. I could share some of my music with other people without having to spend the time sending them mp3s through AIM. That was nice, and I really wanted to make more use of the feature. I drastically hope that the sharing feature returns with some tighter security, but for the time being, I'm sticking with 4.0

Arigato,
Brook

Spart
May 27, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by zigi
Nah, I'm listening to AAC's that I've ripped from my CD's. A noticable song was Cochise by Audioslave, after the intro when the guitar kicks in, the volume used to be pulled back by iTunes but it doesn't anymore.

Indeed, I'm loving this update. iTunes absolutely mangled Comfortable Liar by Chevelle among other songs. At first, I thought the sub was sucking power from the satelites (midranges.) Turned it down, though, and the midrange/highs were still getting slaughtered when the base hit...I guess I didn't notice the base dying because my system automatically amplifies the base. For a while there, the Finder was playing MP3's at a better quality than iTunes!

gelbin
May 27, 2003, 08:45 PM
like you can record songs off the radio...
i think the issue is having it all contained on the computer, at some point, music is 'free' (radio etc.) it is the quality and format that is not free..

Originally posted by jettredmont
Yeah, but you can always do the same A/D conversion off the headphones jack too. Unless Core Audio is handling the MPG/layer3 and AAC conversion, which I don't believe is true but this isn't my area of expertise ...

gelbin
May 27, 2003, 08:50 PM
this is not really true.
there is such thing as 'fair use' exceptions in copyright law...

just like you can play cds at a party at your house, which if you had a large bar or dance hall you woul dhave to pay royalties, there are uses that constitute sharing that ARE legal.


Originally posted by nickgold
I hate to break it to some of you people, but even "sharing" music is illegal in most circumstances people were using iTunes 4.0 internet sharing for. It essentially amounts to copying the CD for your friends, and giving them a copy.

Think about it in these terms -- if the internet didn't exist, how would you "share" a CD with a friend? Legally? You would have to let them borrow it, which would mean that you could no longer play it yourself, while it was being borrowed.

iTunes 4.0 internet music sharing obviously allowed users to get around this "real-world" limitation, and that ticked the record companies off, for obvious reasons, IMO.

It was only a matter of time for the feature to be stripped out - I can't BELIEVE it made it into the final release at all, and in fact, I think it may have been more of an oversight than an intentional move.

alset
May 27, 2003, 08:54 PM
Well, we all saw this one coming, right?

Special thanks to those who ruined it for the rest of us. I took advantage iTunes sharing to access my entire music library (on my home machine) from any high speed access point using my iBook (like my college).

Maybe they're right when they say Apple gives it's customers too much credit.

Dan

Rower_CPU
May 27, 2003, 09:00 PM
I'm bumming. I have iTunes running (password protected to keep the moochers away) on a server at work, sharing over a week's worth of tunes that I listen to at work and at home. So, if I upgrade iTunes I won't be able to use my own music from home. :(

AidenShaw
May 27, 2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I have iTunes running on a server at work

It would only be a matter of time before the IT departments would have noticed this traffic and blocked it.

Unfortunately, "work" has to pay a lot of money for the network bandwidth that they put in place to support the business.

Misappropriating that bandwidth for pleasure falls under the "misuse of company resources" clause at many companies.

elo
May 27, 2003, 09:09 PM
Yes, the sort of public streaming that people were engaging in is illegal (whether people harvest the music or not), so Apple had no choice but to act. And as someone else pointed out, Apple has not yet secured agreements from all of the "big five" record companies to allow use of their libraries in iTunes for Windows. Given the huge race for this market, this decision is a no-brainer for Apple.

Besides, once we all saw those sites listing hundreds of iTunes music libraries, did anyone seriously think that *could* last for long?

elo

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
It would only be a matter of time before the IT departments would have noticed this traffic and blocked it.

Unfortunately, "work" has to pay a lot of money for the network bandwidth that they put in place to support the business.

Misappropriating that bandwidth for pleasure falls under the "misuse of company resources" clause at many companies.

He is the 'IT' department.
Don't blast a person before you know, well everything.

And the 'company' you say he works for is, um... I'll let him take over.

edit: gosh, I forgot that i was going to stay out of this, rower if I am wrong I give you (and other mods) permission to delete this post.

Rower_CPU
May 27, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
It would only be a matter of time before the IT departments would have noticed this traffic and blocked it.

Unfortunately, "work" has to pay a lot of money for the network bandwidth that they put in place to support the business.

Misappropriating that bandwidth for pleasure falls under the "misuse of company resources" clause at many companies.

Considering I am the IT department in my department, I seriously doubt it.:rolleyes:

It's a campus network, as well, and is in place regardless of whether it's used or not.

You simply don't know enough of the facts of my case to be accusing me of misappropriating anything.

[edit: Jinx, MrMacman. :p]

zarathustra
May 27, 2003, 09:26 PM
I don't know why some people have their panties in a wad - so you can't share over the internet. Big deal. itunes sharing was never meant to be over the internet - like others pointed out.

If you want to take your music with you, buy an MP3 player (maybe the iPod ;) ). Even in a closed network, specifically at work, I get tired of sharing music with my cowerkers, because most of their music sucks. I find bands on allmusic.com. If I they are in the iTMS, I listen to sample, if I like that I buy song. If they are not in the store, I put on some pants and mozy over to Good records or CD source and buy the damn CD. Used, for 7.99 or less.

<generalization>

People foaming at the mouth about this update were:

A) doing something illegal to begin with
B) too cheap to do it legally
C) teenagers with cracking voices who need to impress their friends for social status.

</generalization>

I installed it, and it's just fine.

h'biki
May 27, 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Boo!

I'm really pissed, how why the hell did they take sharing out of iTunes 4.0.1, god damn, they could have stopped Downloading, instill they do this, god apple you are making me Really pissed!


As others have alluded to, its very probable Apple got leant on regarding music sharing.

Whatsmore, there is plenty of debate regarding the legality of 'stream sharing' (whether or not it allows you to download). Its not a clear case of it being legal. Its quasi-legal at best, although, as I understand it, the DMCA has regulations regarding streaming in it.

So Apple has probably felt some pressure and has decided to go for the safe side rather than face possible future legal action.

AidenShaw
May 27, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
He is the 'IT' department.


Note that I used the plural, the IT departmentS....


In larger companies, the traffic through the firewall is a big expense - and the IT department has to justify upgrades when performance is suffering.

A little bit of use won't be noticed, but it only takes 8 of these streams to fill a 1Mbps pipe... A small office, with a DSL line - oops. Guess you can upgrade to T-1 - for about $500 per month - to support iTunes.

Big company, a few hundred iTunes listeners. That'll need a T-3 line at $10K to $20K per month. I'm sure the CIO and CEO will quickly approve that for music sharing as a morale-booster.


Don't blast a person before you know, well everything.

Don't blast off a reply without carefully reading the post first.

I did not make any specific accusations, witness the deliberate plural use of the word "departments".

All this talk of people "listening to their home music from work" is something that just won't fly in the long run - at least not until bandwidth is much cheaper than it is today.


(Prices from http://www.bandwidthsaving.com/T1prices.cfm )

Wonder Boy
May 27, 2003, 09:59 PM
I am too lazy (and sick) to search through the posts, so I'll ask my question blindly-

If I have iTunes open on my iBook, can I still access my music on my iMac's opened iTunes library?

Hey, thanks a lot.

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
Note that I used the plural, the IT departmentS....


In larger companies, the traffic through the firewall is a big expense - and the IT department has to justify upgrades when performance is suffering.

A little bit of use won't be noticed, but it only takes 8 of these streams to fill a 1Mbps pipe... A small office, with a DSL line - oops. Guess you can upgrade to T-1 - for about $500 per month - to support iTunes.

Big company, a few hundred iTunes listeners. That'll need a T-3 line at $10K to $20K per month. I'm sure the CIO and CEO will quickly approve that for music sharing as a morale-booster.




Don't blast off a reply without carefully reading the post first.

I did not make any specific accusations, witness the deliberate plural use of the word "departments".

All this talk of people "listening to their home music from work" is something that just won't fly in the long run - at least not until bandwidth is much cheaper than it is today.


(Prices from http://www.bandwidthsaving.com/T1prices.cfm )

Again you are supposing that I have a fully connected network, that I have max users on all the time with like 320 KB music...

I wasn't trying to blast you, but you refered to Rower, Directly, quoting him, you you wish to speak generally, don't quote.

Tell me how many people are going to access your private iTunes sharing network?

How many people know? I doubt anyone besides you unless you want people to know. Anyway who's bandwitch are you using if you are hosting the files from your house?

Your house -- upload
Company -- download

Unless you want to max out connected users then you don't have a problem what so ever.

(what encoding do you use? Something higher than 320? :eek: )

eric_n_dfw
May 27, 2003, 10:07 PM
I work for a VERY big company and they would stomp on us in a second if we started streaming music between machines - even between machines on one of the internal networks - but especially through the firewall. In fact, if I found out that my X Window sessions were being slowed down by some idiots streaming MP3's (or AAC's) between themselves, I'd have have NOC plug that port up imediately. Many of you would be amazed at how fast a couple hundred users can eat a full duplex, 100base-t network up. (Our shop is heavily X Window dependant and uses Samba-ClearCase shares and NFS mounts a lot)

Another thing I have to wonder about - how many people who are just sharing files from their home have the upload speeds to handle it? My DSL provider caps me at 128kbit/sec unless I pay the big $$$ for more. (I so miss Sprint ION and my 1Mega-bit uplaod speeds!)

nickgold
May 27, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Tequila Grandma
IMO this is all about one thing: the ****ing iTunes Music Store. I seriously think that the one and only reason that Apple opted to eliminate the feature so quickly was because of pressure from the record companies, and Apple must currently be extra-nice to them because they're helping apple make craploads of money with their iTMS.

Personally, I don't care at all about the stupid music store. If I'm paying for music, I sure as heck had better get an insert and disc art. The sharing feature was a FAAAR more useful idea than the iTMS. I could share some of my music with other people without having to spend the time sending them mp3s through AIM. That was nice, and I really wanted to make more use of the feature. I drastically hope that the sharing feature returns with some tighter security, but for the time being, I'm sticking with 4.0

Arigato,
Brook

Waaaaaaah waaaah waaaaah I'm a whiny little high-schooler whose daddy bought him a Mac, and I'm too cheap to actually buy anything because it's always been given to me in place of genuine love, and if I wanna break the law and copy MP3s for my friends, I should be able to, and Apple should actively help me do it. Waaaaah.

Do the whiners realize just how lame they really sound? Does the above person realize sharing MP3s over AIM with friends is blatantly illegal? Do the people crying about fair use actually even know what fair use means, or did they just hear the phrase on the internet somewhere?

Maybe a requirement for posting on here should be you have to be above 15 years old, or, you have to have bought your own Mac? Seems like it would weed out most of the more obnoxious people -- Oh wait, that's 80 percent of the board, that would never fly...

Sorry Arn, no offense -- the site is great, the average readers/posters are -- lame.

jettredmont
May 27, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
I am too lazy (and sick) to search through the posts, so I'll ask my question blindly-

If I have iTunes open on my iBook, can I still access my music on my iMac's opened iTunes library?

Hey, thanks a lot.

If your iMac and iBook are on a home network, I'd say you are 99.99% likely able to access them (unless you have set up multiple subnets in your own home, which would only be done if you are an IT geek who needs to do testing across domains from the comfort of home ...)

If your iMac is at home and you are hooking in to the 'net from Starbucks' access point on your iBook, then the answer is no.

Monkeypoo
May 27, 2003, 10:24 PM
If I take my powerbook home where my mom has an imac, will we need a wireless network for this sharing to occur (not talking about the streaming that apparently I never really noticed before listening to the complaints here)? Or will we need some sort of home network set up either wireless or wired. The demo when the new ipod was announced made it sound so simple that all that was required for sharing was for two rendezvous enabled computers to be in the same relative area (any max on the distance between two computers?).

where do i find out if our computers have the rendezvous capability? My world consists of only my powerbook so I never really bothered to look into this even though more and more of my classmates are getting ibooks or powerbooks (every year an apple rep comes to the med school to promote them)

Rower_CPU
May 27, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
Note that I used the plural, the IT departmentS....

In larger companies, the traffic through the firewall is a big expense - and the IT department has to justify upgrades when performance is suffering.

A little bit of use won't be noticed, but it only takes 8 of these streams to fill a 1Mbps pipe... A small office, with a DSL line - oops. Guess you can upgrade to T-1 - for about $500 per month - to support iTunes.

Big company, a few hundred iTunes listeners. That'll need a T-3 line at $10K to $20K per month. I'm sure the CIO and CEO will quickly approve that for music sharing as a morale-booster.

[...]

I did not make any specific accusations, witness the deliberate plural use of the word "departments".

All this talk of people "listening to their home music from work" is something that just won't fly in the long run - at least not until bandwidth is much cheaper than it is today.


(Prices from http://www.bandwidthsaving.com/T1prices.cfm )

Yes, you said departments. What's your point? I, as the head of one of these departments, am responsible for the traffic in my department. If something's up, the campus network group lets me know.

You overlooked my post, for some reason, which explicitly said this is not a "business" but a campus. The network is self-supported in terms of equipment and personnel. There are no "costs", as you describe them.

You also overlook the fact that iTunes only supports 5 listeners at a time. That leaves the bandwidth used at well under 1Mbps of our 100Mbps line - if all the connections are being used. With the password protection I rarely saw more than two people on at a time, anyway.

You did make specific accusations. "Misappropriating bandwidth for pleasure" was a direct accusation (an inaccurate one under the circumstances) since you were referring to my scenario.

Let's not pursue this further.

usersince86
May 27, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman


If apple wanted to keep the damned record company's happy they could just join the suit against all of the 'evil' P2P users and groups.

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Its like a doctor saying they only need to cut a toe nail and the mother says it is just better to cut off the toe.

Gimme a break!

What is your real gripe? What were you using the network sharing for? Sounds like someone's mad for some, uh, interesting reasons. Maybe you have legitimate complaints, but it doesn't appear that you have expressed them clearly (at least in my opinion).

I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF PIRACY...

but to those who do it and see no problem, to me this is like getting mad because a music store puts a security device on a CD so it's harder for people to shoplift. Piracy is no different than walking into a store, sticking a CD (music or software, for that matter) in your coat, and walking out without paying.

Don't pretend it's something else.

AidenShaw
May 27, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You also overlook the fact that iTunes only supports 5 listeners at a time. That leaves the bandwidth used at well under 1Mbps of our 100Mbps line - if all the connections are being used.


And more sharers, and more listeners, and pretty soon that big 100Mbps pipe's gonna seem pretty slow. No problem if everyone on campus starts up a server, right?

Sure, one server on a 100Mbps LAN doesn't amount to much. Do you really have a 100Mbps feed to the Internet? That's pretty expensive at market rates. (My home office is all GigE, but only 1.5Mbps DSL to the net.)

It's "home" and "work" that's really going to cause problems - not "dorm room" and "computer center".... Re-read "eric-n-dfw's" comment - that's the more common business situation that I'm talking about. Your small "self-supporting" campus network isn't the point of my arguments - look outside your own situation and learn, your post triggered a more general response from me.

MrMacMan
May 27, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by usersince86
What is your real gripe? What were you using the network sharing for? Sounds like someone's mad for some, uh, interesting reasons. Maybe you have legitimate complaints, but it doesn't appear that you have expressed them clearly (at least in my opinion).

I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF PIRACY...

but to those who do it and see no problem, to me this is like getting mad because a music store puts a security device on a CD so it's harder for people to shoplift. Piracy is no different than walking into a store, sticking a CD (music or software, for that matter) in your coat, and walking out without paying.

Don't pretend it's something else.
Originally posted by MrMacman (page 2)
I have a friend across town who has an almost un-limited song database, now I can't access it, do I want him to illegally burn those songs to give to me?
No!
I was sharing, listeing to them, not downloading them, why should I be punished?
Maybe someone didn't... you know what, I don't care.

I had people accessing my music and I was accessing my friends, no foul play.

Originally posted by AidenShaw
And more sharers, and more listeners, and pretty soon that big 100Mbps pipe's gonna seem pretty slow. No problem if everyone on campus starts up a server, right?

Sure, one server on a 100Mbps LAN doesn't amount to much. Do you really have a 100Mbps feed to the Internet? That's pretty expensive at market rates. (My home office is all GigE, but only 1.5Mbps DSL to the net.)

It's "home" and "work" that's really going to cause problems - not "dorm room" and "computer center".... Re-read "eric-n-dfw's" comment - that's the more common business situation that I'm talking about. Your small "self-supporting" campus network isn't the point of my arguments - look outside your own situation and learn, your post triggered a more general response from me.
Yes, Rower look, it can DESTROY the people who want to open their computers so others can share the music, IT WILL CRIPPLE THEM! :confused:

Its simple as not sharing, or not accessing.
If you don't want either, then it will not hard you.

How many people are your giving access to your work server? the max? 5?
Okay so even with simple cable you can probably support this... even I could.

GeeYouEye
May 27, 2003, 11:26 PM
They'd have to come up with a danged better feature to get me to go past 4.0, especially given my particular situation... I'll spare the details of it (it involves a badly but necessarily placed AirPort Base Station, and a small Ethernet network that I don't quite know how I got set up), but suffice to say I can't stream the music from my iBook (which has all the music) to my iMac (which is connected to the stereo) without using the Connect To... dialog.

This is one update I won't be getting.

Or actually... I wonder... *goes off to look at InterfaceBuilder*

nickgold
May 27, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
They'd have to come up with a danged better feature to get me to go past 4.0, especially given my particular situation... I'll spare the details of it (it involves a badly but necessarily placed AirPort Base Station, and a small Ethernet network that I don't quite know how I got set up), but suffice to say I can't stream the music from my iBook (which has all the music) to my iMac (which is connected to the stereo) without using the Connect To... dialog.

This is one update I won't be getting.

Or actually... I wonder... *goes off to look at InterfaceBuilder*

You know what Interface Builder is, but can't set up a home network? What is this, another failure of the American educational system or what?

rockman2023
May 27, 2003, 11:35 PM
I'm sure that what I have to say isn't much different than what others have already mentioned. I myself am not complaining though.
The playlist sharing was (yes, "was", b/c it's no more as of now) only in 1 version of iTunes. It's not like we had sharing in iTunes 3, then all of a sudden, Apple decided to pull the plug. So, I really don't see the big deal.
I still have 4.0. Will I upgrade? Not yet.
I just happen to have a copy of iTunes 3, and I still have iTunes 2 in OS9 as well (which I rarely use). There's always a way around something.....:rolleyes:

For those who listen to their own streaming music from elsewhere, either:
1) DO NOT UPDATE iTUNES
or
2) Use either the SLIMP3 server software (http://SLIMP3.com/su_downloads.html) or MP3 Sushi (http://www.maliasoft.com/mp3sushi/index.html)
Using SLIMP3, I'm able to stream my own music to myself offline (sounds retarded, but i still have 56k, waiting for than dang cable modem to arrive any day now) :D

GPTurismo
May 27, 2003, 11:57 PM
Sheesh people. You need to listen to Arn and some of the others on the board. Apple got pressured because people were illegally sharing music over the net. It was intended for personal use only, ie sharing music with friends in your house network etc. not sharing with everyone at your work or all your friends over the net.

If something gets abused, it goes away as we know it. end of story

GeeYouEye
May 27, 2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by nickgold
You know what Interface Builder is, but can't set up a home network?
I am very well aware of both, perhaps I should have said: I don't know exactly why it works... from all I can tell, it shouldn't; AppleTalk is on AirPort for both computers, they are both connected to the internet via AirPort, but they share songs over a cat-5 crossover cable, after using the Connect to Shared Music dialog, and typing in the IP (10.0.1.x).

What is this, another failure of the American educational system or what?
No more so than you. And given that I can at least use correct grammar... :rolleyes: If you want to b*tch about the education system, go to the Politics forum.


And dang it, there's no .nib files to edit in iTunes, at least not visible ones anyway, so no upgrade for me. I'm staying at 4.0 thanks.

GeeYouEye
May 28, 2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by rockman2023
I'm sure that what I have to say isn't much different than what others have already mentioned. I myself am not complaining though.
The playlist sharing was (yes, "was", b/c it's no more as of now) only in 1 version of iTunes. It's not like we had sharing in iTunes 3, then all of a sudden, Apple decided to pull the plug. So, I really don't see the big deal.
I still have 4.0. Will I upgrade? Not yet.
I just happen to have a copy of iTunes 3, and I still have iTunes 2 in OS9 as well (which I rarely use). There's always a way around something.....:rolleyes:

For those who listen to their own streaming music from elsewhere, either:
1) DO NOT UPDATE iTUNES
or
2) Use either the SLIMP3 server software (http://SLIMP3.com/su_downloads.html) or MP3 Sushi (http://www.maliasoft.com/mp3sushi/index.html)
Using SLIMP3, I'm able to stream my own music to myself offline (sounds retarded, but i still have 56k, waiting for than dang cable modem to arrive any day now) :D

Thanks for those links. If I do need to upgrade, hopefully one of those programs can do the trick (emphasis on hopefully).

Oh, and just as a nitpick, back in iTunes 3, we did have iCommune (for a few days anyway, and I still have a copy) for sharing. It wasn't Rendezvous, but it worked.

Rower_CPU
May 28, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
And more sharers, and more listeners, and pretty soon that big 100Mbps pipe's gonna seem pretty slow. No problem if everyone on campus starts up a server, right?

Sure, one server on a 100Mbps LAN doesn't amount to much. Do you really have a 100Mbps feed to the Internet? That's pretty expensive at market rates. (My home office is all GigE, but only 1.5Mbps DSL to the net.)

It's "home" and "work" that's really going to cause problems - not "dorm room" and "computer center".... Re-read "eric-n-dfw's" comment - that's the more common business situation that I'm talking about. Your small "self-supporting" campus network isn't the point of my arguments - look outside your own situation and learn, your post triggered a more general response from me.

For the last time, stop the assumptions.

We have 100Mbps wired, but the campus is on the CSU backbone. It's not a "small" campus network.

Of course I see how this would be problematic for other situations. I've never argued otherwise. I took exception to your original assertion of my wrongdoing, which you yourself have backed off from.

The next time you wish to make a general point, don't quote someone.

nickgold
May 28, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
I am very well aware of both, perhaps I should have said: I don't know exactly why it works... from all I can tell, it shouldn't; AppleTalk is on AirPort for both computers, they are both connected to the internet via AirPort, but they share songs over a cat-5 crossover cable, after using the Connect to Shared Music dialog, and typing in the IP (10.0.1.x).

Make sure both computers have different rendezvous names in your Sharing system preference -- maybe they are both "John-Does-Computer.local" when for rendezvous to work properly, they would obviously need different names, or much confusion would ensue.

As for "poor grammar" -- bah, language and grammar are constantly evolving, as any educated _and_ wise person could tell you. Especially these days -- ever notice how non-computer types get all dizzy-looking when you spout computerese at them? My critique of your education had more to do with the gaps in it, than your overall presentation! ;)

GeeYouEye
May 28, 2003, 12:48 AM
Oh Rendezvous works, it just only works over AirPort, which (because of a bad but necessary placement) doesn't stream smoothly even 112kbps MP3's.

Edit: I saw this over at /. anyone know exactly what this does:

ifconfig lan0 (ip) netmask 0.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255

rjwill246
May 28, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Well, not the users, one bit.

If apple wanted to keep the damned record company's happy they could just join the suit against all of the 'evil' P2P users and groups.

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Its like a doctor saying they only need to cut a toe nail and the mother says it is just better to cut off the toe.

Gimme a break!

Methinks thu dost protest WAYYYY tooo bloody much, mate! (Sorry W.S.)
But, the internet sharing of libraries should represent only a TINY fraction of what thou doest in a given day/week/month. Thus, thy rants are disproportionate given the wondrous utility of this beast: unless thou.... mmmm...? "sharest" thy files with other hearties on a more, shall we say, permanent basis? Noooo! thou sayest? not thee, hearty, but then again, methinks thou DOST protest just a wee bit too loudly! Tell me, hearty, that it ain't so. Be a good lad and fess up. No one will bite thee... I suspect that thou be more than just a touch indigestible.
Aye, and just for all to see, mate, hoist that Jolly Roger. The colour suits thee to a "T"!

Glossybear
May 28, 2003, 02:15 AM
Not sure if I should stick my head in here. It is getting a little hot.

But, I thought I would mention that Corey Doctorow posted a pretty scathing critique of Apple's move: http://boingboing.net/2003_05_01_archive.html#200349509

His arguments make it tough to side with Apple on this one...

ibookin'
May 28, 2003, 02:24 AM
Personally, I will NOT be upgrading. I happen to like the ability to connect to my home computer from school to stream my music. Since my iBook has a 30GB Hard Drive compared to the 140GB of disk space in my server, I like to keep my music on the server and just stream it. My iPod won't hold all of my music, so sharing over the internet is a really nice feature for me.

tribalogical
May 28, 2003, 03:08 AM
at the risk of sounding obscene... :)

I see a tad bit of line-blurring between "pirating", "sharing", "broadcasting" and "distribution" of music going on here... (and I think the RIAA/Music Industry is itself partially responsible for this blurring...)

These are each distinct and specific categories, and at the end of the day, it's all about Distribution...

But we have to get one thing straight... "Sharing" is NOT "Piracy". The term Piracy is (was?) specifically reserved for those who duplicate, resell, redistribute, or broadcast illegitimate copies of 'Prior Art', for a FEE, without paying license or performance royalties to the copyright/patent holder.

So, a Chinese merchant who makes 1,000 copies of a music CD, and sells them in a street bazaar for $5 a disc, and puts the proceeds in his pocket without paying the artist/publisher a royalty is a Pirate.

"Pirate Radio" is not any old broadcast stream, but those that have ad revenue, or other sources of income derived from the broadcasting of music, AND they are not paying royalties...


Sharing: the person who plays a CD at a party (or "broadcasts" private streams over the Internet) is NOT a Pirate. Unless that person is charging a FEE related to that 'broadcast' (either to the listener, or to advertisers, etc.).

When "for profit" radio stations broadcast, for YOU the listener it's "free" (you pay by listening to the advertising), but the station pays performance royalties for every song it plays. Thus the reason for advertising revenue.

But there are stations that don't pay such royalties (certain college stations that are "non-profit", etc.), and these can broadcast freely... this IS technically equivalent to the average "streamer" who sets up a portal, and privately 'broadcasts' music over the Internet. Non-profit, right?

The problems come when you make a COPY of a CD and give it to your friend. That falls into the category of Distribution (yep!). And here is where the whole industry turns rabid.

It isn't like a book that you share after reading it (since generally only one person uses it at a time... making a photocopy to "share" IS illegal -- it isn't sharing, it's DISTRIBUTING)...

Of course, there would be no issue if you handed over the original CD for them to listen to for awhile... "private" small-scale 'distribution' has always been tolerated, cos it's really pointless trying to enforce it.


So, in summary....
- Pirating is clearly wrong (and clearly defined!).
- Sharing by itself is not a crime.
- Broadcasting isn't really criminal either, unless you do it for profit, and don't pay royalties.

However, *Distribution* is the big one, and that IS the reason things keep getting so sticky.

It's always been a grey area, and particularly with the advent of the Internet (the courts are wrangling over it, Kazaa is dancing around it, and it always comes down to this ONE thing. Distro...).


There are two primary ways of disseminating recorded music: Broadcast and Distribution.

The rules are pretty clear about Broadcasting -- or were, until the CDMA where all lines blur. Even the grey areas introduced by the Internet have been fairly manageable... The fact is, iTunes Sharing was possible at the outset because it provided a means of Broadcasting, but didn't technically equal Distribution.

The moment that audio stream becomes a "distributed copy" (a FILE on a second hard drive), the trouble begins... and that's the main issue the industry has with P2P, Napster, Kazaa, and the like... Those aren't "Broadcasting" music, they are Distributing it...

The issue of "recording a broadcast" has always been an "thorn" for the industry, but they regard it as a necessary evil... because as noted before, broadcasting has actually been GOOD for sales. And how many recorded radio broadcasts form the core of your listening library? Not many I'd bet... instead, they invariably lead to further purchasing.

Internet broadcasts (in the form of 'private streams') aren't really at issue, and fundamentally I don't believe it's the reason Apple has just pulled the plug on it...

It's when that stream becomes the functional equivalent of Napster or Kazaa, a *distribution* mechanism, that we see the hackles raise...

So, they need to turn it off, until it can be fairly well assured that it isn't just another Kazaa in Apple clothing...

And that's MY 2 cents on the topic, obscene as it is :D

tribalogical

foniks2020
May 28, 2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye

Edit: I saw this over at /. anyone know exactly what this does:

ifconfig lan0 (ip) netmask 0.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255 [/B]

hmmmm I'd like to say that it tricks your computer into thinking that all connections being broadcast are coming from the same subnet... which would make iTunes work for everyone else, or for your work computer for instance if you are connecting to that home mac... or maybe the opposite, ie: it makes all incoming connections look like they are on your subnet.

A more understandable method would be to port forward 3689 from your home machine to your work machine.... sorry, can't detail it, /. had some examples.

There are other methods that will also work, wherein you make the broadcasting machine trick itself into thinking it's on everyones subnet... that may be what happens with the quoted example... maybe not.

In any case, with a little due diligence you will find a way to allow streaming via internet ip address once again... though for most the work required will be too much.

Raiwong
May 28, 2003, 05:05 AM
yeah itunes store my ass, how am I suppose to legally listen to music now before I could listen to my friends music. It will be ages before the itunes store come to asia (where I live). This is just forcing me to either buy CDs or download off p2p, and guess what I will choose.

In addition they keep saying illegal, stealing and stuff, because we are not paying them (itunes sharing), they just wants us to empty our pockets. Anything people do that will potentially listen to music without paying them is a sin.

I also want to mention that these people charge alot for music. These music people earns way more then a PHD degree guy for screaming at the microphone. I don't tihnk its justified that they get so much money anyway. Ever seen linkin park's studio? fxxking richasses.

Just my 2 cents

maradong
May 28, 2003, 06:15 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrMacman
[B]Boo!

I'm really pissed, how why the hell did they take sharing out of iTunes 4.0.1, god damn, they could have stopped Downloading, instill they do this, god apple you are making me Really pissed!

Geez, its not hard for apple to add an anti-piracy feature and not stop sharing TOTALLY!

I reverted, apple, don't make this STUPID move!

for more info :( (http://www.macslash.org/articles/03/05/27/2127256.shtml)

God, Stay with 4.0 ! No more Shaft For me!

edit: even SLASHDOT has a story there (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/05/27/2114240.shtml?tid=176&tid=188)

it is still possible to share.
the only problem is that everybody who wants to access your files, has to have 4.1 also.

MrMacMan
May 28, 2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by rjwill246
Methinks thu dost protest WAYYYY tooo bloody much, mate! (Sorry W.S.)
But, the internet sharing of libraries should represent only a TINY fraction of what thou doest in a given day/week/month. Thus, thy rants are disproportionate given the wondrous utility of this beast: unless thou.... mmmm...? "sharest" thy files with other hearties on a more, shall we say, permanent basis? Noooo! thou sayest? not thee, hearty, but then again, methinks thou DOST protest just a wee bit too loudly! Tell me, hearty, that it ain't so. Be a good lad and fess up. No one will bite thee... I suspect that thou be more than just a touch indigestible.
Aye, and just for all to see, mate, hoist that Jolly Roger. The colour suits thee to a "T"!

I think you need to speak english or speak better Shakespearean english.

patman_Z
May 28, 2003, 06:44 AM
Perhaps using iTunes to share isn't a good idea anyway, I haven't bought anything from the store yet, although it looks pretty cool. If you can morph the DRM codec stuff to mp3 somehow then you can use a dedicated cheapy intel linux or bsd machine to stream whatever you want. I wonder if there is anything free out there that is has a lot of cool features and would support playlists?

patman_Z
May 28, 2003, 07:01 AM
remember when there were really cool streaming internet radio broadcast? I miss those, Blue Mars especially. All of the fuss over this stuff is really starting to make me shy away from new technology in favor of older, not as restrictive software. I don't even download music from p2p, but I don't like the restrictions that are placed on paying consumers. Also Id like to add that the RIAA is in fact putting viruses on the networks. I think that is the most childish, unprofessional thing I have ever seen from a group that is supposed to have authority. Maybe they are just mad because of all this technology, they are no longer needed, and completely neutered of all real value.....

Wonder Boy
May 28, 2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by jettredmont
If your iMac and iBook are on a home network, I'd say you are 99.99% likely able to access them

Well thats good news, atleast. Thanks.

AidenShaw
May 28, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
...the campus is on the CSU backbone. It's not a "small" campus network.

Hmmmm. So when you said:

The network is self-supported in terms of equipment and personnel. There are no "costs", as you describe them.

You really mean "the taxpayers who support the state university system pick up the bill". LOL!!!

All your equipment is free, the backbone is free, the carriers give you free bandwidth, there are no costs.... ROTFLOL!!!

Backtothemac
May 28, 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Well, not the users, one bit.

If apple wanted to keep the damned record company's happy they could just join the suit against all of the 'evil' P2P users and groups.

This is utter BS.
They could have stoped the downloading, they could have sued the devolpers for making the apps, but no, apple pulls the whole plug.

Its like a doctor saying they only need to cut a toe nail and the mother says it is just better to cut off the toe.

Gimme a break!

No, sorry, but you are wrong. Why bitch about a FEATURE, that was removed by Apple. You did not have this feature about a month ago, and now you don't have it again. Why. Because the good have to suffer for the bad. Always have. Always will. No matter what you think about Apple, and their decision to kick some features out, Apple has to do what Apple has to do to keep the music store open, and to get the record companies on board for the iTunes for Windows Music store. Period. If you don't like that buy an iPod. Seriously, it was a small feature that isn't a big deal. If you want to get your music from work on your home system, I have one thing to say. VPN.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Really, no one shares my subnet. No one in my block, area, 20 block radius uses a mac.



Um, what does using a Mac have to do with a subnet? Nothing, so I don't see what your point is here.

Falleron
May 28, 2003, 10:39 AM
The new iTunes version has fixed my problems with sound fading etc. For me, it was not necessary to stream music outside my house.

h'biki
May 28, 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by tribalogical
at the risk of sounding obscene... :)


But we have to get one thing straight... "Sharing" is NOT "Piracy". The term Piracy is (was?) specifically reserved for those who duplicate, resell, redistribute, or broadcast illegitimate copies of 'Prior Art', for a FEE, without paying license or performance royalties to the copyright/patent holder.

So, a Chinese merchant who makes 1,000 copies of a music CD, and sells them in a street bazaar for $5 a disc, and puts the proceeds in his pocket without paying the artist/publisher a royalty is a Pirate.
[snip]
Sharing: the person who plays a CD at a party (or "broadcasts" private streams over the Internet) is NOT a Pirate. Unless that person is charging a FEE related to that 'broadcast' (either to the listener, or to advertisers, etc.).
[snip]
So, in summary....
- Pirating is clearly wrong (and clearly defined!).
- Sharing by itself is not a crime.
- Broadcasting isn't really criminal either, unless you do it for profit, and don't pay royalties.


Following your logic, it isn't wrong for me to distribute 1,000 CDR copies of Office vX as long as I give them away for free?

Hmm. Don't sound solid to me.

jettredmont
May 28, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Monkeypoo
If I take my powerbook home where my mom has an imac, will we need a wireless network for this sharing to occur (not talking about the streaming that apparently I never really noticed before listening to the complaints here)? Or will we need some sort of home network set up either wireless or wired. The demo when the new ipod was announced made it sound so simple that all that was required for sharing was for two rendezvous enabled computers to be in the same relative area (any max on the distance between two computers?).


Yes, you will need "some kind" of network. This can be as simple as both computers having Airport (and/or Airport Extreme) turned on (known as an "ad hoc" 802.11b/g network, or as a "Computer-to-Computer network" ... not sure the OS X wireless setup uses here), or connecting them through their Ethernet ports using a "crossover" cable (ask at your local computer shop ... it's not quite the same as a "normal" ethernet cable!) or both connected to a switch/hub or one connected to a switch/hub connected to an Airport base station and the other with Airport turned on ...

You just need the two computers connected through wired or wireless networking in some way.


where do i find out if our computers have the rendezvous capability? My world consists of only my powerbook so I never really bothered to look into this even though more and more of my classmates are getting ibooks or powerbooks (every year an apple rep comes to the med school to promote them)

Every Jaguar system has Rendezvous capability (just make sure your OS X version is 10.2 or newer).

Airport? It would have been an option when you bought the powerbook, or others might be able to tell you how to look to see if your specific book has the Airport card installed. You can order the card to upgrade your powerbook if you don't have it already ($99 last I remember ...)

Ethernet? Yes, you have it. It's more "hassle" than Airport because you have to carry a cable and make a physical connection, but all recent Powerbooks support Gigabit ethernet networking (which is approximately 80-90x as fast as Airport Extreme's sustainable throughput, and lower latencies ... so if you can use wired ethernet then it is the "better" option!). You just need to go to your local computer store and buy a crossover cable to connect directly to your friends' computer or a normal ethernet patch cable to connect to a hub/switch/wall Ethernet port.

jettredmont
May 28, 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You overlooked my post, for some reason, which explicitly said this is not a "business" but a campus. The network is self-supported in terms of equipment and personnel. There are no "costs", as you describe them.


Well, as an uninvolved observer on the sidelines, I think both of you are making a bit much of this.

An academic network (generally incurring no bandwidth-to-backbone costs ...) will not suffer too much from this "work-to-home" streaming, especially if "work" and "home" are both within the bounds of the on-campus network.

Most of us are more used to dealing with limited-bandwidth situations as are seen in businesses across the country.


You also overlook the fact that iTunes only supports 5 listeners at a time. That leaves the bandwidth used at well under 1Mbps of our 100Mbps line - if all the connections are being used. With the password protection I rarely saw more than two people on at a time, anyway.


True, but it would be hypocritical for you (as the IT head) to use iTunes sharing and forbid others to use it (or similar streaming services). Does your network really have the bandwidth (internal and external) to handle a majority of your users doing the same?

Seems to me, as someone who doesn't know the "whole story", that it would be odd for any network to be so oversized, a product of good planning for the future and fortunate timing.

But, as you have pointed out, you are the head of IT, and so you are the one who has to pay for the precedent you set up and the one who has to justify the cost of additional equipment if it comes to that.

Note I'm not accusing you or saying you are doing something wrong here (as I said, if anyone is hurt by it, it's yourself). But do recognize that you are in a quite special circumstance and that for the vast majority of people out there, streaming music between work and home would be a Very Bad Thing.

Warren
May 28, 2003, 11:31 AM
The only way to get around this other than not downloading the update is to move 4.0 out of your applications folder before running SU. 4.0.1 goes ino the applications folder and 4.0 stays untouched. This lets you run 4.0 with its streaming abilities but givess you 4.0.1 with the sound improvments.
I cant give up listening to my entire collection from work each day.

jettredmont
May 28, 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
How many people are your giving access to your work server? the max? 5?
Okay so even with simple cable you can probably support this... even I could.

The problem is that (outside of a self-contained network as appears to be Rower's case) bandwidth is shared, and, on average, each user has significantly less than a cable modem's bandwidth to play with. This works because, generally speaking, only a small percentage of users are actively downloading something from the Internet at once. If all users were downloading files (or streaming tunes) at my business (and, for that matter, at any of the locations I've worked at in the past five years) we'd all get about 50-60kbps, ie, about one dial-up modem each, bandwith going external (ie, to the Internet or through the VPN ... VPN overhead being as it is that would get about cut in half). That's not even enough bandwidth for one half of a 128kbps MP3 or AAC file stream, even neglecting streaming overhead! It's nowhere near able to support even 10% of all users having 5 streams outgoing or incoming plus their "normal" traffic (which itself requires the full 50-60kbps). If 1% of our users had 5 streams going external (incoming or outgoing, it doesn't matter) then our bandwidth is cut by 10%. Which means that the folks that are doing real work with the net connection get it done 10% slower.

Locally, I have a dozen computers attached to two 100Mbit switches in my office. Between them, i've got bandwidth to spare and it affects no one (but music streaming is pretty much useless). Within our LAN we have enough bandwidth to allow for extravagences like iTunes streaming (which is far better than internet Radio streaming which uses external bandwidth!)

The point is this: it adds up, and quickly. Yes, one person streaming is fairly small beans in a large company. But multiple people streaming causes problems, and the whole company streaming can shut down a network.

Note that this is not addressed to Rower's specific (and highly special) circumstances, but to the general idea that streaming between work and home is okay because you're only using one cable modem's bandwidth ...

Rower_CPU
May 28, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
You really mean "the taxpayers who support the state university system pick up the bill". LOL!!!

All your equipment is free, the backbone is free, the carriers give you free bandwidth, there are no costs.... ROTFLOL!!!

Yes. The equipment is in place, the bandwidth is allocated, the tech staff are paid REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE NETWORK IS USED.(Gee, color is fun)

I, as a taxpayer and student of the university, have contributed more than enough to warrant the use of the network. Laugh if you wish, but your accusations don't apply to me.

Rower_CPU
May 28, 2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Well, as an uninvolved observer on the sidelines, I think both of you are making a bit much of this.

An academic network (generally incurring no bandwidth-to-backbone costs ...) will not suffer too much from this "work-to-home" streaming, especially if "work" and "home" are both within the bounds of the on-campus network.

Most of us are more used to dealing with limited-bandwidth situations as are seen in businesses across the country.

True, but it would be hypocritical for you (as the IT head) to use iTunes sharing and forbid others to use it (or similar streaming services). Does your network really have the bandwidth (internal and external) to handle a majority of your users doing the same?

Seems to me, as someone who doesn't know the "whole story", that it would be odd for any network to be so oversized, a product of good planning for the future and fortunate timing.

But, as you have pointed out, you are the head of IT, and so you are the one who has to pay for the precedent you set up and the one who has to justify the cost of additional equipment if it comes to that.

Note I'm not accusing you or saying you are doing something wrong here (as I said, if anyone is hurt by it, it's yourself). But do recognize that you are in a quite special circumstance and that for the vast majority of people out there, streaming music between work and home would be a Very Bad Thing.

I do not forbid others to do anything on our network. We are a small department of about 10 staff, and 10 part-timers, with only 6 people on Macs. Again, the numbers don't apply to my situation.

As I've said in my previous response to AidenShaw, I understand how for other situations it would be a VBT. I was simply speaking up for my own situation.

Digidesign
May 28, 2003, 01:09 PM
Anyone know where I can download iTunes 4.0? I need to revert...

P-Worm
May 28, 2003, 04:07 PM
I think you are out of luck dude. I believe that Apple is the only one that let's people download iTunes and they're not going to let you have 4.0.

P-Worm

AppleMatt
May 28, 2003, 05:22 PM
On the plus side...

- iTunes definately starts up faster (1 bounce instead of 2 and less waiting between bounces end and window shows)

- The sound issues have all gone! (As far as I can tell)

- No dropouts as-yet (touch wood)

AppleMatt

vanmonkey
May 28, 2003, 05:57 PM
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here. I'm still running iTunes4, but how the heck do you stream music to another computer on the net??

Does this also make me a "bad guy"?

edit: oh and digi, do a system wide search for iTunes, and the original install packet will be hidden someplace deep in the bowels of your hard drive. also delete everything else with iTunes in it except the plist and your iTunes music library.

The Ancients
May 28, 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Digidesign
Anyone know where I can download iTunes 4.0? I need to revert...

Sure - I posted the link

Here (http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?13@@.3bc3441c/56)

(It wouldn't resolve properly from here)

vixapphire
May 28, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by punter
we need a poll:

who's staying with 4.0 and who's upgrading?

I think I'll stay for now. I don't even use the streaming (none of my friends are broadband let alone mac users), but it doesn't sound like I'll gain much from the upgrade.

dude, join the revolution: i'm still proudly using itunes 3 on my os9 blue and white powermac upgraded w/ G4 ZIF. streaming? i'll take philosomatika or cliqhop anyday of the week. besides, with someone else doing the ripping/broadcasting/sequencing, of just about every song you've never heard, and several you have and wish you hadn't (there the "those awful 70's" station...), if you need a break from it all, you can always shut off the computer, turn around and put on some vinyl. works for me, every time.

seriously, though, i was completely unaware of this sharing feature in itunes. i imagine what they are aiming to do ultimately is set up a system whereby your tunes on your home computer will be able to "xm" or whatever to your car, workplace, etc. via internet/satellite/etc., so it'll always be your preferred selections (ie your own library), your paid-for music (no fair use issues there), and really add value in a way not previously possible. with systems like cadillac onstar (which allows telephone calls etc. w/o using a car cell phone), etc., i'd be surprised if this feature isn't a big selling point in auto radios during the next 3 years.

if someone here has already made the points i've mentioned, please accept my apologies for the redundancy; after reading about 4 pages of everything from intelligent thought to whiny rambling, i figured i'd just take my shot and get back to work! always a pleasure to read the fine minds here, though.

vixapphire

stucker43
May 28, 2003, 07:26 PM
I would also like to know how to stream music over the internet just from my office computer to my home computer or vice versa. I have DSL at both places that I personally pay for. I see under the Advanced tab that you can open a stream but I am not sure how to do this. Do i put only the IP address? I also claim ignorance on authorizing and deauthorizing . If I download music on one computer that I have purchased how do I get it to another of my 3 computers permanently. I can easily share the files on my home network but I cannot get the second or third computer to authorize it and be a permanent part of my music library. Any help would be appreciated.

Recent PC to Mac convert.

MacBoy88
May 29, 2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Seems to me Jobs used the feature in his iTMS grand opening presentation ...

That doesn't mean it wasn't an oversight, but at least at the time iTunes4 debuted, Jobs didn't see it as a threat.

I don't believe Steve EVER used this feature in his Keynoye. He is the network streaming feature.(Over Airport Extreme, on the same subnet)

JJTiger1
May 29, 2003, 11:20 AM
Does iTunes 4.0.1 fix the Sound Quality issues?


Sharing issues: Frankly my dear, I don't give a ...

-
JJ

jettredmont
May 29, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by MacBoy88
I don't believe Steve EVER used this feature in his Keynoye. He is the network streaming feature.(Over Airport Extreme, on the same subnet)

certainly could be wrong. Just thought he brought up the "Connect to Music" panel and noted that you can connect to your music from anywhere as a side note.

A bit off topic, well sorta not really, but iTunes still has "Open Stream" under Advanced ... so does that not open an iTunes stream (I believe it always opened radio streams)? Has anyone tried it?

scem0
May 30, 2003, 02:56 AM
just more proof that apple isn't perfect.... :o

rockman2023
May 31, 2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by patman_Z
Also Id like to add that the RIAA is in fact putting viruses on the networks. I think that is the most childish, unprofessional thing I have ever seen from a group that is supposed to have authority. Maybe they are just mad because of all this technology, they are no longer needed, and completely neutered of all real value.....

I had heard about something like that, but I also heard that they're not allowed to do that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

pic9809
Jun 1, 2003, 01:38 AM
i downloaded and installed 4.0.1 last night, and haven't been able to get it to recognize my 30gb ipod. anybody else having similar problems?

ouketii
Jun 1, 2003, 10:49 PM
steve jobs: "theres always a way to hack anything" think hes hinting something?

rockman2023
Jun 2, 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by ouketii
steve jobs: "theres always a way to hack anything" think hes hinting something?
you never know, WWDC is only 3 weeks away.....
Maybe a more secure OSX(10.3)

MrMacMan
Jun 2, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by rockman2023
I had heard about something like that, but I also heard that they're not allowed to do that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, what they are doing is just as ILLEGAL as whatever the users themselves are doing.

Anyone hear that they spammed all the users on KaZaA at the same time, that breached the software contract they agreed to, hence dis-allowing them from connecting to the network.

j763
Jun 3, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Really, no one shares my subnet. No one in my block, area, 20 block radius uses a mac.

It Wouldn't be so hard for apple just to SIMPLY stop downloading? I mean it is way easier than what they just did.

Apple based the sharing on an un-secure protocol, which was broken very, very quickly.

What apple could have done was made their own (innovation, *gasp*) and made sure you couldn't access using these evil tools.

Its not as hard as this was!

Do you seriously think that replacing DAPP with RTSP or something similar would be less work than removing the feature alltogether?

Fact is, they can't just "Stop the downloading". They'd have to come up with a much more secure protocol, write all of the iTunes support for it and yeah... think nightmare.

jiker
Jun 5, 2003, 09:56 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28682

ouketii
Jul 1, 2003, 11:43 AM
starting to sound like windows, people refusing to upgrade

JJTiger1
Jul 2, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by JJTiger1

Does iTunes 4.0.1 fix the Sound Quality issues?


Sharing issues: Frankly my dear, I don't give a ...

-
JJ
========================
YES. iTUNES 4.0.1 DID FIX THE SOUND QUALITY ISSUES.

... and I still don't give a rat's ~ about sharing.
-
JJ