bubbajim
Mac-Junkie
Looks like Apple doesn't like iCommune anymore..
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-981147.html?tag=fd_top
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-981147.html?tag=fd_top
iCommune removed
- Thread starter bubbajim
- Start date
- Status
jeb1138
Carioca
Well, I guess Apple's gotta do what they gotta do, but did they really have to do that? Couldn't they have just asked the guy to disable the download capability? I downloaded iCommune after hearing the cease-and-desist news just because I was intrigued (I don't think there is anything that would have given iCommune more publicity than what Apple did!) and it doesn't seem like it would be a particularly efficient way to steal music. Just a good way to listen to your friends' music, which can be perfectly legit. I mean, you had to know and enter by hand the person's IP address, didn't you? Maybe they were afraid it would turn into something else?
I guess he still would have been violating the developer agreement. I'm not a real developer or a lawyer, so could someone please explain to me 1. Why did Apple built such a clause into their contract? Isn't a "good thing" for third parties to add on to your program? Don't your users get more functionality while you get no additional responsibility? 2. Could Apple get in trouble from the RIAA for a third party plug-in?
I guess he still would have been violating the developer agreement. I'm not a real developer or a lawyer, so could someone please explain to me 1. Why did Apple built such a clause into their contract? Isn't a "good thing" for third parties to add on to your program? Don't your users get more functionality while you get no additional responsibility? 2. Could Apple get in trouble from the RIAA for a third party plug-in?
bolindilly
John Galt Member
does anyone know where i can get icommune for educational purposes? i really don't understand how it works...
cfleck
tired
to jeb - listening to your friends music is one thing. but "taking" his/her music and putting it on your computer is NOT legal. and i'm pretty sure thats how it works isn't it? i could be wrong.
to bolindilly - i doubt this is what you mean, but when i read your post, the first thought that crossed my mind was, "wow, what a big fat liar." its just the way it is displayed i guess. i would think that most people would 'ask' how it works, but idunno.
ok, i'm sorry if i seem cross, but i guess i'm just having a moment. sorry if i stepped on some toes...
to bolindilly - i doubt this is what you mean, but when i read your post, the first thought that crossed my mind was, "wow, what a big fat liar." its just the way it is displayed i guess. i would think that most people would 'ask' how it works, but idunno.
ok, i'm sorry if i seem cross, but i guess i'm just having a moment. sorry if i stepped on some toes...
bubbajim
Mac-Junkie
Could Apple being so concerned about this because of their Rendezvous technology that is supposed to be added to iTunes3 to allow you to see other iTune libraries on your local network? iCommune looked like a temp fix until Apple brought out their own version. I never looked at iCommune as a sharing app outside of the local network. I just want a way to allow my wife to check out my library without having her sit in front of my computer all day. There are a lot of songs in there and I would never get to play on it.
edX
mac shaman
when i hear bubbajim's explanation of how he would like to use something like this, it makes sense. unfortunately if it goes beyond the local network, then it obviously has a lot of chance for abuse.
obviously just the ability to stream and listen shouldn't be any different than the internet radio stations that itunes already plays. sounds like a greaat idea if the file swapping part is removed from it.
obviously just the ability to stream and listen shouldn't be any different than the internet radio stations that itunes already plays. sounds like a greaat idea if the file swapping part is removed from it.
jeb1138
Carioca
I'm attaching a screenshot of how it basically works for anybody that's interested. Notice the new "Network" choice in the playlist area and the new network options icon in the lower right-hand corner. The screen on the right is the screen that comes up when you click the options icon. If you want to steal music from someone and know their IP address FTP should be faster if they've got OS X (which you must to use iCommune, I believe).
What it would be really good for is listening to or previewing some music by streaming it from a friend (which could be copyrighted or uncopyrighted music) or others on your local network, both of which could be perfectly legal. cf25 -- the default when you click on the song is to stream the song, but you can also download it by dragging the song to a folder instead of double-clicking it.
Apparently Apple shut him down because "the license for the iTunes plugin API does not allow for software-based plugins (only hardware: MP3 players, etc)" (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/01/16/1555250.shtml?tid=107). So why would Apple put that requirement in their license? Why stop people from enhancing your program? Would they really be liable?
Here's and interesting comment I found on Slashdot as well:
"All this plugin does is create an Apache directive that enables the webdav module and sets an alias to the local iTunes Folder.
Then a python script indexes the iTunes Music folder and creates a file called songinfo.pls which iTunes can read and whola it streams the songs.
This can be made into a little standalone AppleScript application and they would not have to worry about violating Apple's iTunes sdk license."
What it would be really good for is listening to or previewing some music by streaming it from a friend (which could be copyrighted or uncopyrighted music) or others on your local network, both of which could be perfectly legal. cf25 -- the default when you click on the song is to stream the song, but you can also download it by dragging the song to a folder instead of double-clicking it.
Apparently Apple shut him down because "the license for the iTunes plugin API does not allow for software-based plugins (only hardware: MP3 players, etc)" (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/01/16/1555250.shtml?tid=107). So why would Apple put that requirement in their license? Why stop people from enhancing your program? Would they really be liable?
Here's and interesting comment I found on Slashdot as well:
"All this plugin does is create an Apache directive that enables the webdav module and sets an alias to the local iTunes Folder.
Then a python script indexes the iTunes Music folder and creates a file called songinfo.pls which iTunes can read and whola it streams the songs.
This can be made into a little standalone AppleScript application and they would not have to worry about violating Apple's iTunes sdk license."
TommyWillB
Registered
Not likely based on this:
Andy_Potvin
Registered
iCommune is really fantastic and it served the exact purpose for me that I believe was intended. To that end I have been investigating mod_mp3 as a "jukebox" solution for apache. Has any one tried this out ?
Best Regards
Andy
Best Regards
Andy
[rant] I wonder why all the mp3 concerns are mainly about trash.. ehm, top 40 musics. I can own a radio, free, pay no licence, listen to it FREE and hear the same stuff there. In the 1980s it was common for kids who had no money, to record music from radio. For your own listening - legal. If RIAA started to make the same noise, they would not have produced any cassette recorders with radio. If i can listen to that kind of music anyway free in radio, why would i buy or get that music on mp3s? I like the music that i DON'T hear on radio.
Then enters an other aspect... if no one knows an artist, nobody will buy that music. If none of you knew who were e.g. Ana Carolina, Litto Nebbia or Almamegretta, you would never buy their cds, would you? If there is something that i like particularly and make some of my friends listen to it, they could like it. If they would like it, they could probably even buy music. But not if the artist was still unknown, only a name for them.
And as RIAA complains how much it's "losing" money (they have to suppose people buy always more and more cds that cost more and more.) ... can somebody explain me that the people that i know that do listen to mp3s, BUY music (cds), and those who don't listen to them, generally don't?
In the 1980s, cds cost a lot more than lps or cassettes. The cassettes and lps are not sold any more. The prices of cds have never come down, instead only up. If a blank cd for a customer costs lets say 10-50 cents, how can a new cd cost up to 30 $ ? If the artist gets far under 1 $ for a cd sold, I think there is something wrong. I think something [i know some places which do that, if i remember even amazon] as an alternative system will work better. Listen to some music samples.. like the music? Get music, click here, and pay the artist e.g. 0,50 - 1,00 $ for a piece of music that you like. RIAA is evil. [/rant]
Then enters an other aspect... if no one knows an artist, nobody will buy that music. If none of you knew who were e.g. Ana Carolina, Litto Nebbia or Almamegretta, you would never buy their cds, would you? If there is something that i like particularly and make some of my friends listen to it, they could like it. If they would like it, they could probably even buy music. But not if the artist was still unknown, only a name for them.
And as RIAA complains how much it's "losing" money (they have to suppose people buy always more and more cds that cost more and more.) ... can somebody explain me that the people that i know that do listen to mp3s, BUY music (cds), and those who don't listen to them, generally don't?
In the 1980s, cds cost a lot more than lps or cassettes. The cassettes and lps are not sold any more. The prices of cds have never come down, instead only up. If a blank cd for a customer costs lets say 10-50 cents, how can a new cd cost up to 30 $ ? If the artist gets far under 1 $ for a cd sold, I think there is something wrong. I think something [i know some places which do that, if i remember even amazon] as an alternative system will work better. Listen to some music samples.. like the music? Get music, click here, and pay the artist e.g. 0,50 - 1,00 $ for a piece of music that you like. RIAA is evil. [/rant]
TommyWillB
Registered
The music industry never really cared about analog tape copies because they sounded bad and each susessive copy suffered "generational loss".
DAT (Digital Autio Tape) was supposed to be the replacement for the analog casette, but it was killed off as a consumer format simply because it WAS digital. Digital recordings are significantly different from analog cassettes in that they do NOT suffer from generational loss. Instead each copy is an exact digital "clone". (Although being a magnetic tape based media DAT has other issues like tape damage and digital dropouts)
So the fact is that the first accepted/successful digital audio format was the CD for a reason... It was not recordable and making copies of it to casettes still suffered the same old casette issues. (Sony brought us the digital Mini disc, which was a digital recorder, but it was inferior in that it has a very low sample rate so it suffers in sound quality the same way a low res MP3 does...)
Digital really is different... especially now that it is 20 years later and those same CD's can be so easily cloned on computers.
- Status