Beware iTunes update!!!!! Pulease read.
Your going to say this is in the wrong forum, but if you never go into any forum but this one. (like me) You could make an unwanted software update without knowing it.
ITUNES 4.0.1 DISABLES INTERNET RENDEZVOUS PLAYLIST SHARING.
READ THIS LINK!!!
ITUNES 4.0.1 DISABLES INTERNET RENDEZVOUS PLAYLIST SHARING.
READ THIS LINK!!!
Comments
Moving to Digital Hub.
BTW, This is the first time I've used the feature. I think it's awesome!
If there isn't any advantage of using 4.0.1, i'm going to stick with 4.0.
I am very disappointed to hear about the crippling of iTunes 4 in the latest update. Not everyone's family lives in the same subnet. I have family across the US, and I loved being able to listen to eachother's music via iTunes. Here I'd convinced my parents to switch to a Mac in large part to the open policies, and the concept that not every customer is automatically a criminal.
While this is certainly the prevelent mindset at Apple, it's sad to see such a huge leap backwards in your products funtionality.
I hope you can find a better solution to the legitimate piracy concerns other than the assumption that no one can be trusted.
what i sent them. not sure it matters, but oh well. should at least tell them how i feel about their new policy.
Originally posted by alcimedes
what i sent them. not sure it matters, but oh well. should at least tell them how i feel about their new policy.
It sounds like you're still using it in violation of their policy. I read "personal use" to mean that I can listen to MY music library from wherever I am, not that I can listen to the library of everyone I've met in person.
Not that I care, just might not have been the most productive thing to send Apple.
I'm sure some people used it in a work/home way, though, which would be broken now.
I feel that this must have been due to pressure from their new music industry connections. Oh well. I'm happy with 9 of my 10 songs from iTMS, and never really used it to listen to other people's music.
Alex
If I can't do it through iTunes, I'll rip the damn things to MP3s and point them to my Apache server.
The great thing about library sharing was that it was a way to share music with your friends completely legally - as Steve Jobs also is fond of pointing out. The music is never copied, it's streamed; it goes away when you quit iTunes or turn sharing off. Removing the feature is a slap in the face to consumers and a pretty low kow-tow to the unfsckingbelievable music industry.
and you are missing the point...
Although iTunes possesses no innate way for users to download one another's music files directly using this method, iTunes' music sharing capability was seen as a possible means to facilitate piracy, as users could, through the use of third-party software, record the remote stream and thus download illicit copies of the music themselves.
and
However, Rendezvous music sharing, another new feature in iTunes 4, has been used by some in ways that have surprised and disappointed us. We designed it to allow friends and family to easily stream (not copy) their music between computers at home or in a small group setting, and it does this well. But some people are taking advantage of it to stream music over the Internet to people they do not even know. This was never the intent. While Rendezvous music sharing does not compromise music purchased from the iTunes Music Store, which will only play on three authorized Macs, it does allow the sharing of music imported from CDs, for example.
the latter is Apple's comments to MacCentral about the update...
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/05/27/itunes/
Originally posted by wyntir
Whatever. You can share your music with anyone you please. Is lending CDs a crime? Is burning mixes for your friends a crime? No.
If by burning mixes for your friends means your friend comes over to your house and says he likes these twelve songs from these twelve artists and you burn them to a CD so he can play them in his car/house then you have commited copyright infringment. So, yes "burning mixes" is a crime.
Now, burning mixes of your favorite twelve songs because you don't want to carry your entire CD collection to the lake, or wherever you maybe going, for your own personal use is not copyright infringment.
Originally posted by fahlman
If by burning mixes for your friends means your friend comes over to your house and says he likes these twelve songs from these twelve artists and you burn them to a CD so he can play them in his car/house then you have commited copyright infringment. So, yes "burning mixes" is a crime.
Now, burning mixes of your favorite twelve songs because you don't want to carry your entire CD collection to the lake, or wherever you maybe going, for your own personal use is not copyright infringment.
oh dear! all the librarians of the world should be locked up then, eh?
And lame.
Originally posted by fahlman
If by burning mixes for your friends means your friend comes over to your house and says he likes these twelve songs from these twelve artists and you burn them to a CD so he can play them in his car/house then you have commited copyright infringment. So, yes "burning mixes" is a crime.
This has not always been true. The 1976 Copyright Act recognized a de minimus copyright violation - one that was technically unauthorized duplication, but so small in size as to be harmless and unenforceable. The examples offered are a grandmother photocopying a newspaper article about her grandson to send to relatives, and (in the Congressional sessions that hammered out the law, which are considered by the courts as well) a person taping songs for a friend.
The publishing industry has been trying, with increasing success, to close that loophole ever since. Did you know that, for example, if you have more than eight people over to watch a movie, it's considered a public showing and you owe royalties?
Personally, I think the 1976 Act had it right. It's pointless and oppressive to go after individuals making tiny amounts of copies for friends and relatives. This only constitutes unauthorized publication (i.e., piracy) in the most absurdly literal-minded sense, and prohibiting it only criminalizes a natural and wholesome human instinct.
The complete gutting of copyright law over the last 20 years (I don't believe they've gotten stricter, only that they've gotten perverted) reflect exactly the fears that Jefferson had about adding the Copyright Clause to the Constitution. That should be enough, in absolute terms, to throw the laws and their backers out without further discussion. But money talks, and the Constitution is just a noble piece of paper.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
oh dear! all the librarians of the world should be locked up then, eh?
The "library principal" can be used for music too. You go to the library to borrow the book Mac OS X Unleased because you want to know how to download photos from my FTP server using the terminal. When you get there it's gone. You remember that the last time we were drinkin' a beer together I said I might go buy that book. So you call me up and ask if you can borrow the book. I say that I need it but I'll photo copy the pages about FTPing with the terminal. I have commited copyright infringement. The Library has not because they loaned me the book. If I would have loaned you the book I wouldn't be a criminal either.
We're drinking a beer and I have six CDs on random play. You hear a song you really like and you ask me to borrow the CD and I say no 'cause it brand new and it's my favorite song. So, we go over to my Dual 1.25 w/SuperDrive and burn you a copy of my CD. That's copyright infringement. But, on second thought I've had too much to drink and I'm not concerned about the CD and I let you borrow it. That, just like the library loaning me the book, is not against the law. You are a smart guy, i assume, you see the difference, right?
Originally posted by fahlman
Amorph, you're a programmer, so you make my company a little program that keeps tracks of all my account rep's commitions on the advertising that they sell. My friend who also owns a small newspaper publishing company sees your useful program (that you sold me at the price of $1,000.00 for use on one computer, additional computers are $100.00.) and says he want's to use it to. So i give it to him. You receive no payment. Is this copyright infringment?
First, I'd probably have sold you a license, so your violation would be a breach of contract, not copyright (this is actually where the newer "copyright" laws get muddy - they conflate the two).
Second, where is the analogy between giving a $1000 program to a business for use in a business, and taping an album for a friend? Remember, the standard here is de minimus - small enough to be essentially inconsequential. If you don't understand the difference between my sending a tape of an album to my brother for his own listening and sending a tape of an album to a radio station to play on the air then you don't understand the problem.
Now, of course, if you'd given the program to your friend to try out at home to see if he could make it work with his business, that would be somewhat different. If he liked it, and he wanted support, one hopes that he'd pay for it.
Remember that student who won a rendering contest sponsored by Alias|Wavefront, and it came out later that he'd used a cracked copy? A|W honored his victory anyway, and gave him a free license besides. If Maya couldn't be cracked, everyone - including A|W - would be poorer for it. If the publishers get what they want - and what you apparently want - and libraries are eliminated, and the used market is eliminated, and copying is prohibited programmatically, then the immediate result will be a drastic hurt to students, and in particular poor students like the kid who won the Maya contest. For this reason alone programmatic license/copyright enforcement is unjustified.
The original goal of the US copyright law was to provide an incentive to authors with the goal of enriching the public domain. It's not about property, fundamentally, or absolute control (in fact, longstanding doctrine holds that the copyright owner's control ends at the first sale, which is why software licenses are so common). The logic you're trying to argue for is based on fear, and that invariably leads to impoverishment and tyranny.
Originally posted by fahlman
The "library principal" can be used for music too. You go to the library to borrow the book Mac OS X Unleased because you want to know how to download photos from my FTP server using the terminal. When you get there it's gone. You remember that the last time we were drinkin' a beer together I said I might go buy that book. So you call me up and ask if you can borrow the book. I say that I need it but I'll photo copy the pages about FTPing with the terminal. I have commited copyright infringement. The Library has not because they loaned me the book. If I would have loaned you the book I wouldn't be a criminal either.
We're drinking a beer and I have six CDs on random play. You hear a song you really like and you ask me to borrow the CD and I say no 'cause it brand new and it's my favorite song. So, we go over to my Dual 1.25 w/SuperDrive and burn you a copy of my CD. That's copyright infringement. But, on second thought I've had too much to drink and I'm not concerned about the CD and I let you borrow it. That, just like the library loaning me the book, is not against the law. You are a smart guy, i assume, you see the difference, right?
well how about all those blockbuster people, they CHARGE MONEY so you can borrow it, then i take it home and show it to my wife her mom and dad and sister her two children and my three children (that's nine right?) certainly someone in this instance can be fined or better yet locked away for a suitable period of time.