PDA

View Full Version : Sharing iTunes on company network




paulmcmanus
May 1, 2008, 08:38 AM
Please forgive me if this is an absurd question. We work in a large creative agency and our IT manager is able to see what we're doing on our macs. If we have music sharing on, he says we have to turn it off because it uses too much bandwidth. Is this true?



tersono
May 1, 2008, 08:47 AM
Please forgive me if this is an absurd question. We work in a large creative agency and our IT manager is able to see what we're doing on our macs. If we have music sharing on, he says we have to turn it off because it uses too much bandwidth. Is this true?

If several folks are streaming music (especially if ripped at high bitrates) across the network, then yes, it can use a LOT of bandwidth - which is often scarce on corporate networks.

Certainly I wouldn't permit it here (I'm IT Manager for a Charity).

(sorry to rain on your parade - I can certainly understand wanting to have access to tunes while working).

paulmcmanus
May 1, 2008, 08:53 AM
thank you very much, Tersono

Sayer
May 1, 2008, 09:08 AM
Thats so funny. One would think the IT department would serve the needs of the users, not tell the users what their needs will or will not be. Especially in a creative environment I find it odd that the iron hammer of IT slams down so hard.

I visited the Needham DDB/Dallas ad agency office (after hours) with a friend who was the Mac support admin and that place went out of its way to make its employees comfortable to foster creativity.

If nothing else, turn on AirPort and make computer-computer ad hoc networks and share that way.

Le Big Mac
May 1, 2008, 09:36 AM
Thats so funny. One would think the IT department would serve the needs of the users, not tell the users what their needs will or will not be.

It's the rare corporate network in which music sharing is a legitimate "need" of its users.

tersono
May 1, 2008, 03:04 PM
Thats so funny. One would think the IT department would serve the needs of the users, not tell the users what their needs will or will not be. Especially in a creative environment I find it odd that the iron hammer of IT slams down so hard.

Nope. The purpose of the IT department is to serve the needs of the business. If streaming music slows down the network to a significant degree (and I've seen it happen), then the ONLY sensible approach is to disallow it.

I'm glad you're amused, but would suggest that a grip on reality and an understanding of the difficulties involved keeping a corporate network running smoothly might serve you better.... :rolleyes:

dantethescrub
May 2, 2008, 06:03 PM
I guess our office network has plenty of capacity, because our IT Manager has no problem with streaming iTunes. There's usually 10 to 20 people sharing libraries. And our network runs great.

But it's a big bummer that Corporate frowns on (doesn't understand value of?) Macs -- only the graphic designers get to have them.....

decksnap
May 2, 2008, 08:26 PM
Tell the IT manager to fix your network. Our agency streams iTunes constantly.

tdhurst
May 3, 2008, 01:25 AM
I do understand the need for corporate networks to be clear of non-essential traffic for legitimate business needs, but there's no way turning on iTunes sharing is doing to bring down a proper network.

If iTunes is the problem, the IT guys need to do some adjusting.

Now if you're streaming from the INTERNET, I get that.

It's a tough call either way.

tersono
May 3, 2008, 03:59 AM
I do understand the need for corporate networks to be clear of non-essential traffic for legitimate business needs, but there's no way turning on iTunes sharing is doing to bring down a proper network.

Uh. WRONG. Do the math. There are are a lot of factors going on here - not least the current network usage (i.e. are there network applications being run directly from one or more servers or other serious bandwidth hogs? It's not uncommon for databases to be run that way and there's also digital telephony to think about), the speed of the network (100 base T is still commonplace - not every company can afford to upgrade their infrastructure to GigE just to accommodate stuff like streamed music), the number of users likely to connect to the stream, and the size of the files being streamed (high bitrates consume bandwidth big time).

It always amuses me when folks who don't actually have to manage a corporate network for a living turn round and assume that just because their piddy little LAN at home can handle it, the big network at work MUST be able to handle it with ease - it's just the network admins being 'difficult' or 'incompetent' :rolleyes: . It's not until you actually try to manage a corporate domain yourself that you are forced to start looking at the numbers and work out where all the bandwidth has disappeared to. When I first took over I.T. at my current place of work, we had just such an issue - one office down at the far end of the building was having a hell of a time using our corporate database, which runs centrally from an installation on the database server. It was a bandwidth issue and the solution was very complex - it included re-wiring part of the building with fibre, upgrading a couple of network switches and reducing some of the really bandwidth-hogging traffic. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was a two-month project which took an awful lot of planning. Even now, there are limits to the bandwidth available as the bottleneck is always going to be at the central point of the network - it wouldn't be hard to clog that up with traffic again.

Most network admins would love to be able to say yes to these kinda requests (hell, we'd like to stream music too!), but it ain't always practical - it depends on a bunch of complex factors which are going to be different for each company. Wanting it to be otherwise don't make it so, sorry.

tdhurst
May 3, 2008, 04:13 AM
Uh. WRONG. Do the math. There are are a lot of factors going on here - not least the current network usage (i.e. are there network applications being run directly from one or more servers or other serious bandwidth hogs? It's not uncommon for databases to be run that way and there's also digital telephony to think about), the speed of the network (100 base T is still commonplace - not every company can afford to upgrade their infrastructure to GigE just to accommodate stuff like streamed music), the number of users likely to connect to the stream, and the size of the files being streamed (high bitrates consume bandwidth big time).

It always amuses me when folks who don't actually have to manage a corporate network for a living turn round and assume that just because their piddy little LAN at home can handle it, the big network at work MUST be able to handle it with ease - it's just the network admins being 'difficult' or 'incompetent' :rolleyes: . It's not until you actually try to manage a corporate domain yourself that you are forced to start looking at the numbers and work out where all the bandwidth has disappeared to. When I first took over I.T. at my current place of work, we had just such an issue - one office down at the far end of the building was having a hell of a time using our corporate database, which runs centrally from an installation on the database server. It was a bandwidth issue and the solution was very complex - it included re-wiring part of the building with fibre, upgrading a couple of network switches and reducing some of the really bandwidth-hogging traffic. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was a two-month project which took an awful lot of planning. Even now, there are limits to the bandwidth available as the bottleneck is always going to be at the central point of the network - it wouldn't be hard to clog that up with traffic again.

Most network admins would love to be able to say yes to these kinda requests (hell, we'd like to stream music too!), but it ain't always practical - it depends on a bunch of complex factors which are going to be different for each company. Wanting it to be otherwise don't make it so, sorry.

Wow, that was pretty damn arrogant. I'm glad you speak for all IT people.

Attitudes like yours are why people dislike most IT staff. The know it all attitude coupled with the obvious disdain for anyone not as involved as them makes working together a painful chore.

Hope your colleagues like you, at least.

Oh, and feel free to show me the math you speak of.

decksnap
May 3, 2008, 10:22 AM
Uh. WRONG. Do the math. There are are a lot of factors going on here - not least the current network usage (i.e. are there network applications being run directly from one or more servers or other serious bandwidth hogs? It's not uncommon for databases to be run that way and there's also digital telephony to think about), the speed of the network (100 base T is still commonplace - not every company can afford to upgrade their infrastructure to GigE just to accommodate stuff like streamed music), the number of users likely to connect to the stream, and the size of the files being streamed (high bitrates consume bandwidth big time).

It always amuses me when folks who don't actually have to manage a corporate network for a living turn round and assume that just because their piddy little LAN at home can handle it, the big network at work MUST be able to handle it with ease - it's just the network admins being 'difficult' or 'incompetent' :rolleyes: . It's not until you actually try to manage a corporate domain yourself that you are forced to start looking at the numbers and work out where all the bandwidth has disappeared to. When I first took over I.T. at my current place of work, we had just such an issue - one office down at the far end of the building was having a hell of a time using our corporate database, which runs centrally from an installation on the database server. It was a bandwidth issue and the solution was very complex - it included re-wiring part of the building with fibre, upgrading a couple of network switches and reducing some of the really bandwidth-hogging traffic. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was a two-month project which took an awful lot of planning. Even now, there are limits to the bandwidth available as the bottleneck is always going to be at the central point of the network - it wouldn't be hard to clog that up with traffic again.

Most network admins would love to be able to say yes to these kinda requests (hell, we'd like to stream music too!), but it ain't always practical - it depends on a bunch of complex factors which are going to be different for each company. Wanting it to be otherwise don't make it so, sorry.

It's not that complex. AND at a creative agency, the network is costing your business money if you are still on 100.

Cromulent
May 3, 2008, 10:34 AM
Wow, that was pretty damn arrogant. I'm glad you speak for all IT people.

Attitudes like yours are why people dislike most IT staff. The know it all attitude coupled with the obvious disdain for anyone not as involved as them makes working together a painful chore.

Hope your colleagues like you, at least.

Oh, and feel free to show me the math you speak of.

Actually it was pretty factual post.

The maths that you want to see is simple. Take the bandwidth available minus the bandwidth used and if the bandwidth used is greater or equal to the bandwidth available your in trouble. I would imagine most corporate IT managers would like to have a 10% safety net incase of increased usage although I doubt many get it.

Now imagine you have have 5 people streaming lossless music across a network at an average bit rate of 600kbps over a 100baseT network. 600 x 5 = 3,000 kbps. 100 baseT is 100mbps so that leaves you with 97mbps. Now take into account the network overhead that is always a factor and your looking at 95 - 96mbps and you haven't actually used the network for anything useful at all. That is 5% of your network capacity gone just so 5 people can share music.

tdhurst
May 3, 2008, 01:48 PM
Actually it was pretty factual post.

The maths that you want to see is simple. Take the bandwidth available minus the bandwidth used and if the bandwidth used is greater or equal to the bandwidth available your in trouble. I would imagine most corporate IT managers would like to have a 10% safety net incase of increased usage although I doubt many get it.

Now imagine you have have 5 people streaming lossless music across a network at an average bit rate of 600kbps over a 100baseT network. 600 x 5 = 3,000 kbps. 100 baseT is 100mbps so that leaves you with 97mbps. Now take into account the network overhead that is always a factor and your looking at 95 - 96mbps and you haven't actually used the network for anything useful at all. That is 5% of your network capacity gone just so 5 people can share music.

Now THAT'S a good argument that everyone can understand. Thanks for the clarification.

newtonuk
May 4, 2008, 02:41 AM
Isn't there also a question of the legality of a "corporate" broadcasting music to its staff?

The individuals may "own" the music, but as soon as it hits the corporate environment it's not individuals anymore, it becomes the business that is providing the broadcast.

I know if you were to do something similar on your telephone system for Music On Hold you would need to pay the appropriate licensing fees.

Cromulent
May 4, 2008, 05:14 AM
Isn't there also a question of the legality of a "corporate" broadcasting music to its staff?

The individuals may "own" the music, but as soon as it hits the corporate environment it's not individuals anymore, it becomes the business that is providing the broadcast.

I know if you were to do something similar on your telephone system for Music On Hold you would need to pay the appropriate licensing fees.

Yep that's also a good point. Not sure on that one.

decksnap
May 4, 2008, 11:16 AM
Isn't there also a question of the legality of a "corporate" broadcasting music to its staff?

The individuals may "own" the music, but as soon as it hits the corporate environment it's not individuals anymore, it becomes the business that is providing the broadcast.

I know if you were to do something similar on your telephone system for Music On Hold you would need to pay the appropriate licensing fees.

I don't know about anyone else, but I was talking about individuals streaming to individuals, not one broadcast across the company.

Sky Blue
May 4, 2008, 11:30 AM
If several folks are streaming music (especially if ripped at high bitrates) across the network, then yes, it can use a LOT of bandwidth - which is often scarce on corporate networks.

Certainly I wouldn't permit it here (I'm IT Manager for a Charity).

(sorry to rain on your parade - I can certainly understand wanting to have access to tunes while working).

Congrats on your promotion! You were a Systems Admin yesterday!

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 03:18 PM
Hi.

I too worked in a Creative/Branding Agency that allowed their users to share/stream itunes contect + use limewire on their workstations.

The philosophy of the company was not to limit their employees creative outlets. Unfortunatly as much as I tried to warn the people in charge it was a violation of music laws, stability issues in a pre-production environment, they threw caution to the wind and ignored my advice, amoungst others.

I soon left the company in disgust due to most of the "policies"

Cromulent
May 5, 2008, 03:36 PM
The philosophy of the company was not to limit their employees creative outlets.

Not being allowed to download illegal music is a limit to your creative outlets now is it? I'd like to see stand up in court. I'm not surprised you left.

decksnap
May 5, 2008, 03:58 PM
Using Limewire at work and sharing music with iTunes built-in sharing feature are completely different things.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 03:59 PM
Hi.

I too worked in a Creative/Branding Agency that allowed their users to share/stream itunes contect + use limewire on their workstations.

The philosophy of the company was not to limit their employees creative outlets. Unfortunatly as much as I tried to warn the people in charge it was a violation of music laws, stability issues in a pre-production environment, they threw caution to the wind and ignored my advice, amoungst others.

I soon left the company in disgust due to most of the "policies"

Show me where it violates music law to listen to someone else's music.

Seriously, I'd like to know.

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 05:13 PM
Show me where it violates music law to listen to someone else's music.

Seriously, I'd like to know.

When I was able to map all of the downloads in the limewire folder to the songs that they were sharing/streaming. That violates music law.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 05:18 PM
When I was able to map all of the downloads in the limewire folder to the songs that they were sharing/streaming. That violates music law.

First of all, there's really no such thing as music law. It's a copyright violation.

And streaming music is a shady area, as the songs aren't actually transferred to someone else's computer.

But good for you, you music crusader!

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 05:20 PM
First of all, there's really no such thing as music law. It's a copyright violation.

And streaming music is a shady area, as the songs aren't actually transferred to someone else's computer.

But good for you, you music crusader!

Music Law ~ Copyright Law,
Tomatoe ~ Tomatoe

:p:)

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 05:28 PM
Music Law ~ Copyright Law,
Tomatoe ~ Tomatoe

:p:)

Yeah, not so much.

Is it illegal for me to load you a CD?

If I turn up my speakers and you listen to my music, is that illegal? What about if we share headphones?

What if I have a party with a keg and I charge for admission (let's say $5 for keg cups) and have music playing in the background. Am I making money off of musical performance?

Music Law ~ Copyright Law,
Tomatoe ~ Tomatoe

:p:)

Is it okay for me to stream songs from iTunes over the corporate network?

Let's assume bandwidth isn't an issue.

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 05:38 PM
Yeah, not so much.

Is it illegal for me to load you a CD?

If I turn up my speakers and you listen to my music, is that illegal? What about if we share headphones?

What if I have a party with a keg and I charge for admission (let's say $5 for keg cups) and have music playing in the background. Am I making money off of musical performance?

Well let me clarify.

1) I live in Canada
2) No we don't live in igloos
3) Our beer is better than the US

In canada the copy right system is specific and states that copying a copy-protected cd is illegal. But in the home vs a business, the use of P2P software is legal. Where this statute comes in to play is that Hard Drives have not been reviewed under the act. For a business to attempt to use this argument to "allow" their employees freedom to have you load or access the content locally or even over a network, would consitute a violation of copyright infrigement and point into providing a unsafe work environment so far as the direction that a user using a machine unknowingly storing files could be help personally liable in a companies eyes.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 05:42 PM
Well let me clarify.

1) I live in Canada
2) No we don't live in igloos
3) Our beer is better than the US

In canada the copy right system is specific and states that copying a copy-protected cd is illegal. But in the home vs a business, the use of P2P software is legal. Where this statute comes in to play is that Hard Drives have not been reviewed under the act. For a business to attempt to use this argument to "allow" their employees freedom to have you load or access the content locally or even over a network, would consitute a violation of copyright infrigement and point into providing a unsafe work environment so far as the direction that a user using a machine unknowingly storing files could be help personally liable in a companies eyes.

1. Cold there, eh?
2. Duh, that's Alaska.
3. Yes, but...****. I've often visited Vancouver, so I can't even attempt to argue this point. Dogfish Head is making some waves though.

Streaming is not copying. That makes a BIG difference.

decksnap
May 5, 2008, 05:51 PM
Well let me clarify.

1) I live in Canada
2) No we don't live in igloos
3) Our beer is better than the US


Your beer=our beer. Thank you for being our hat.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 05:53 PM
Your beer=our beer. Thank you for being our hat.

There's always one guy...

Way to be that guy.

decksnap
May 5, 2008, 05:56 PM
There's always one guy...

Way to be that guy.

What? We lose a lot of heat up that way. They keep us warm. For that I am grateful.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 06:01 PM
What? We lose a lot of heat up that way. They keep us warm. For that I am grateful.

Well, it's definitely not working. Notice how 95% of the population lives right on the border...

DoFoT9
May 5, 2008, 06:13 PM
Actually it was pretty factual post.

The maths that you want to see is simple. Take the bandwidth available minus the bandwidth used and if the bandwidth used is greater or equal to the bandwidth available your in trouble. I would imagine most corporate IT managers would like to have a 10% safety net incase of increased usage although I doubt many get it.

Now imagine you have have 5 people streaming lossless music across a network at an average bit rate of 600kbps over a 100baseT network. 600 x 5 = 3,000 kbps. 100 baseT is 100mbps so that leaves you with 97mbps. Now take into account the network overhead that is always a factor and your looking at 95 - 96mbps and you haven't actually used the network for anything useful at all. That is 5% of your network capacity gone just so 5 people can share music.

and if you add to the fact that people are actually DOING WORK aswell as streaming music. the music would probably be to keep the people on task, so if someone is constantly changing things on the servers there is also a hell of a lot more data that is streaming along the network , so that bandwidth would fill up pretty quickly, especially on 100 T-base.

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 06:20 PM
Well, it's definitely not working. Notice how 95% of the population lives right on the border...

Because the whole plan is that we are sneaking up on you. Out of any country in the world, Canada would be the least expected to take over another country.

We are the perfect sleeper.

tdhurst
May 5, 2008, 06:24 PM
Because the whole plan is that we are sneaking up on you. Out of any country in the world, Canada would be the least expected to take over another country.

We are the perfect sleeper.

hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha....

Oh, come on now.

What are you going to attack with, an army of Mounties and 25 planes?

That's not even funny.

DoFoT9
May 5, 2008, 06:30 PM
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha....

Oh, come on now.

What are you going to attack with, an army of Mounties and 25 planes?

That's not even funny.

i reckon australia would attack. i know i would.

get ready for spears and dingoes!!!

pismobrat
May 5, 2008, 06:42 PM
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha....

Oh, come on now.

What are you going to attack with, an army of Mounties and 25 planes?

That's not even funny.

Screw the Monties and the 25 Planes.

We have millions of moose with head mounted Air to Ground combat weaponry. And don't even get me started about our all season snow forts.

beatsme
May 5, 2008, 06:46 PM
What if I have a party with a keg and I charge for admission (let's say $5 for keg cups) and have music playing in the background. Am I making money off of musical performance?

Technically, yes.

there are exceptions, but generally if you're playing pre-recorded music in an environment where money is changing hands, then you owe the record companies via ASCAP their cut. Go to any bar or any club that plays pre-recorded music over their sound system (or books live bands that play covers) and ask. Most of them pay an annual fee to ASCAP to rent the catalog (BMI does not charge for theirs) and if you don't pay, believe me, the ASCAP lawyers will make damn sure you do. I have seen this happen.

check it out:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

granted, ASCAP would never bother with a one-time kegger. But if you have one every weekend, sooner or later they'll find you...

re: iTunes streaming
I deal with it at work. I don't care so much about liability as long as everything's been bought legally, but I've seen the way it hogs bandwidth. I'd like to stop it, but I don't have the clout and I also don't wanna be a jerk about it. Eh...

DoFoT9
May 5, 2008, 06:57 PM
Technically, yes.

there are exceptions, but generally if you're playing pre-recorded music in an environment where money is changing hands, then you owe the record companies via ASCAP their cut. Go to any bar or any club that plays pre-recorded music over their sound system (or books live bands that play covers) and ask. Most of them pay an annual fee to ASCAP to rent the catalog (BMI does not charge for theirs) and if you don't pay, believe me, the ASCAP lawyers will make damn sure you do. I have seen this happen.

check it out:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

granted, ASCAP would never bother with a one-time kegger. But if you have one every weekend, sooner or later they'll find you...

re: iTunes streaming
I deal with it at work. I don't care so much about liability as long as everything's been bought legally, but I've seen the way it hogs bandwidth. I'd like to stop it, but I don't have the clout and I also don't wanna be a jerk about it. Eh...

what would be really awsome is if you could reserve an amount of bandwidth that could be used for music playing (or anything else for that matter). what would also be good would be if the song would download onto the computer in cache, then play, then just b4 the next song starts it cache's the next song... eh

gnasher729
May 6, 2008, 05:27 AM
Yeah, not so much.

Is it illegal for me to load you a CD?

If I turn up my speakers and you listen to my music, is that illegal? What about if we share headphones?

What if I have a party with a keg and I charge for admission (let's say $5 for keg cups) and have music playing in the background. Am I making money off of musical performance?

If you are at work, the question would be: Could it be possible that the company gets sued over it? (Whether they would win or lose a case doesn't matter, getting sued is expensive anyway). If it isn't self-evident that they cannot get sued, is it a good use of their lawyers' time to check out the situation?

logandzwon
May 8, 2008, 11:16 AM
Actually it was pretty factual post.

The maths that you want to see is simple. Take the bandwidth available minus the bandwidth used and if the bandwidth used is greater or equal to the bandwidth available your in trouble. I would imagine most corporate IT managers would like to have a 10% safety net incase of increased usage although I doubt many get it.

Now imagine you have have 5 people streaming lossless music across a network at an average bit rate of 600kbps over a 100baseT network. 600 x 5 = 3,000 kbps. 100 baseT is 100mbps so that leaves you with 97mbps. Now take into account the network overhead that is always a factor and your looking at 95 - 96mbps and you haven't actually used the network for anything useful at all. That is 5% of your network capacity gone just so 5 people can share music.

You know, actually you pretty much sum up why it DOESN'T make sense to limit that feature. Who streams lossless? 600kbps? iTunes downloaded stuff is 128, modern mp3s average around 160abr. Even if we assume 192cbr that is still 3 users for each one you figured for, so ya, that is 15 users on your 100mbps using 5% of your bandwidth. That is also assuming your using hubs and not switches. If you were switched, and had the proper backplane you would not see any impact even if every person in your company was sharing.

Now, the fact of the matter is that most business I have been in link a couple cheap or old 10/100 switches together with no regard to proper switch design. In this case, yes sharing music could be a problem. As could sharing files, browsing network shares, etc... If more then a couple people do it at the same time.

This reminds me of another company that I was working for. They had all very cheap equipment, three 24 port 10/100 unmanaged switches we paid about $80 each for each uplinked to the other. Then we had a linksys for wifi access for notebooks. Then they started making money and bought a bigger office and went from 50 to 150 people. The problem was they highered someone who didn't understand network design and at one point they had about 75 clients sharing one cisco wifi point. He also had 4 or 5 10/00 switches with GB uplink ports. No one could understand why the wifi was dirt slow so they bought more bandwidth. They upgraded from one to two data Ts. Of course that didn't help the 75 people sharing a single 54 meg network... The VPs ended up getting a "backup" dsl line and attaching a linksys to that. After that they didn't seem to notice the network slow, or if it went down. Look the point here is that many places don't have proper network design. It is usually just kind of cobbled together by who ever with whatever equipment he can get VPs to sign-off on.

logandzwon
May 8, 2008, 11:23 AM
Yeah, not so much.

Is it illegal for me to load you a CD?

If I turn up my speakers and you listen to my music, is that illegal? What about if we share headphones?

What if I have a party with a keg and I charge for admission (let's say $5 for keg cups) and have music playing in the background. Am I making money off of musical performance?

The funny thing about your post, is;
No, but MAFIAA has tried to hard to make it this way.

I could be. If we are in a private setting, no your fine. If you are in the car next to me and I can hear your music, (like, maybe, at a tail gate party,) yes. They consider that public performance and you can be fined heavily for it.

Yes, clearly illegal, although usually unenforced unless like your a running a business like a club or something.

logandzwon
May 8, 2008, 11:26 AM
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha....

Oh, come on now.

What are you going to attack with, an army of Mounties and 25 planes?

That's not even funny.

Usually the term army in the sense you used it implies there are many of them, rather then a few.

FoxyKaye
May 9, 2008, 11:52 PM
OK - I'm getting in to this fray.

I run a network at a nonprofit, and you know what, sharing iTunes libraries is expressly forbidden on it, as is any form of P2P (easily handled by port blocking), and I frown on Internet radio.

It's all well and good to say IT folks are a pain in the ass when you can't play your friends' music across the LAN, but you know what? When I watch traffic over a network map blow up and suddenly I get a dozen emails asking why folks can't connect properly to our server or have ridiculously slow load times on outside Web pages, I'm darn well going to investigate and put an end to it.

Our T1 manages VoIP and data, and I'm going to cut out every extraneous use of it's bandwidth to the outside world that I can. Likewise, our LAN has anywhere from 10-30 simultaneous users, and I want to be sure they can get their work done and properly connect to our fileserver. And if you're at a nonprofit like I am, it also usually means getting all this done on a shoestring budget, so forget putting in that 6.0/1.5 pipeline or installing fancy new gigabit switches for all.

It's not about being a hardass or arrogant, it's about making sure people have the tools and resources to do their job properly. I review our network policies with staff on a regular basis, give an orientation to new users, and politely but firmly enforce the rules that help *everyone* have the best experience with the equipment and software under my charge.

Edit: I will say that I welcome folks ripping as much as they want into iTunes from their own CDs, the caveat being that unlike their actual work data, their music libraries are not included in the overnight backups. This seems to go down well with folks, who then are still able to have a soundtrack they want to accompany their work.

I too worked in a Creative/Branding Agency that allowed their users to share/stream itunes contect + use limewire on their workstations.
Ayup - you were smart to go. Sooner or later someone is going to download something illegally from the likes of Adobe, HBO, Paramount, or any given large record label and their ISP will need to get involved. A couple slaps on the wrist later, and the ISP can pull the plug because of copyright violations. And, if it happens in a corporate environment, it's usually the company that gets in trouble for it, not the individual, if some large media company wants to take a settlement.

DoFoT9
May 9, 2008, 11:59 PM
.......

Edit: I will say that I welcome folks ripping as much as they want into iTunes from their own CDs, the caveat being that unlike their actual work data, their music libraries are not included in the overnight backups. This seems to go down well with folks, who then are still able to have a soundtrack they want to accompany their work.

i think thats a very good outlook on it, give them limits, but at least allow them to do it is SOME way so that they can be happy campers and work efficently.

what speed is T1???

Nermal
May 10, 2008, 12:04 AM
what speed is T1???

1.5 Mb/s.