The New iTunes Downgrade!

[jimthorn]

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]

the problem with another protocol is:

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]

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]

keeping 4.0 around for streaming

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: that stinks - but cheapos won't pay for muzak

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]

what I have lost

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]

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]

Re: the problem with another protocol is:

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]

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]

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]

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. 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.

 

[arn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.