Bollocks! Internet sharing was super-elite. I was just using it this morning. It is exactly what I thought Apple meant with their brand of DRM - if you have a friend, they should be able to share music with you, whether they're next door to you or across the country.
I was actually hoping they would improve the feature so that I could stream AAC files from the iTMS to people with computers I had not authorized (becuase it is, after all, streaming, not copying). Grrrrrr.
This is the way the world (ie, america) works people. This was always going to happen, Apple can't take on the RIAA all by themselves. Well, maybe if they bought UMG...
But anyway, I agree with Amorph. It's (probably) not Apple who is going to restore personal freedom.
Didn't Micro$oft release a monstrosity of an application that allowed up to 10 friends to stream songs? The files are not copied to a hard drive, just streamed. Wouldn't this be Apple's version of the same thing? If MS can do it, why not Apple?
Didn't Micro$oft release a monstrosity of an application that allowed up to 10 friends to stream songs? The files are not copied to a hard drive, just streamed. Wouldn't this be Apple's version of the same thing? If MS can do it, why not Apple?
because even the janitors at redmond earn six figures. this would be commonly referred to as a "sh!tload" of money, which is dramatically more than apple's cash storage, which si referred to by the smaller denomination of "buttload."
um, i used it, but i don't consider myself a moron. i listened to murbot's collection a little bit, a few others, and then listened to my own collection after that. that's it. hardly qualifies me as a moron.
i was referring to iSuck and/or iTunesDL... it let people COPY the music that was being streamed, bit for bit DIGITALLY... THATS why the feature was pulled...
i used the streaming feature as well, but I don't think I am a moron
So, the people that upgraded to 4.01 can no longer connect to people still running 4.0? And 4.01 can only stream on local networks? I'm really tired of this entitlement attitude all those P2P whores have. Do they really think that turning iTunes sharing into stealing is sticking it to the RIAA? Whatever, I'm still running 4.0-my Library is still shared. If the reason Apple disabled sharing is because of a few retards-then BOOOO retards.
Another iTunes burning question: All CDs I burned under 4.0 had inconsistent/uneven volume that I never noticed in previous releases of iTunes. Does 4.01 update fix this problem when burning CDs? Did anyone else have this problem?
So, the people that upgraded to 4.01 can no longer connect to people still running 4.0? And 4.01 can only stream on local networks? I'm really tired of this entitlement attitude all those P2P whores have. Do they really think that turning iTunes sharing into stealing is sticking it to the RIAA? Whatever, I'm still running 4.0-my Library is still shared. If the reason Apple disabled sharing is because of a few retards-then BOOOO retards.
You seem to have a cranial misalignment. Let me help you fix it. Thwack!
Apple is not shutting down internet sharing because people are saving songs, not just playing them. Apple is shutting down internet sharing because they don't want to be sued, and they want to stay friends with the record companies. It is not P2P users that have taken away your personal freedoms and forced Apple to do this because a few users are upsetting a few corporations with lawyers and a buttload of cash.
Maybe one day we'll get our freedoms back, and it will be no thanks to people like you insisting that people who don't do exactly as they are told to by a few out of control corporations are the problem.
I have a question for the mods: How many visits, posters and posts are from inside MPAA/RIAA/BSA subnets?
You seem to have a cranial misalignment. Let me help you fix it. Thwack!
Apple is not shutting down internet sharing because people are saving songs, not just playing them. Apple is shutting down internet sharing because they don't want to be sued, and they want to stay friends with the record companies. It is not P2P users that have taken away your personal freedoms and forced Apple to do this because a few users are upsetting a few corporations with lawyers and a buttload of cash.
Maybe one day we'll get our freedoms back, and it will be no thanks to people like you insisting that people who don't do exactly as they are told to by a few out of control corporations are the problem.
I have a question for the mods: How many visits, posters and posts are from inside MPAA/RIAA/BSA subnets?
Barto
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why. My reference to P2P was assuming that the same people that use acquisition and the like were the same people that thought iLeech/iTunesdl were real nifty ways to get music without paying.
And Yes, I work for the RIAA. My sole responsibilty is to post on Apple rumours forums to convince people that strealing music is wrong. The pay is crap but the job is just so damn rewarding.
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why. My reference to P2P was assuming that the same people that use acquisition and the like were the same people that thought iLeech/iTunesdl were real nifty ways to get music without paying.
And Yes, I work for the RIAA. My sole responsibilty is to post on Apple rumours forums to convince people that strealing music is wrong. The pay is crap but the job is just so damn rewarding.
apple shut it down (from my reading of the maccentral story) is because they never wanted to make internet sharing, just local network sharing. apparently internet sharing was a fluke. they wanted it to be shared only with people you know.
anyone else notice this guy admits working for the riaa? let's flog him.
I see, I don't think he intended fluke as in they accidently coded internet streaming into iTunes, they just didn't remove it before they released iTunes 4. Perhaps they were all too giddy with anticipation over iTMS. If this is the case-I got all worked up over a feature we should never had and then I got pissy when they took it away. Atleast I can remain a tad pissy until Apple releases iTMS in Canada. After that I'll have no reason to complain.
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why.
Sharing your iTunes library over the internet looks a whole lot like broadcasting, because you are indiscriminately streaming to whoever connects to your machine. Broadcasting, as a form of publication (that is, making something available to the public) brings in rights and royalties and so on and so forth. Make no mistake, this is a touchy area for Apple to be bungling in to.
I'm not in the least bit surprised that the feature got nerfed. I'm sorry that it did, but there's only so much Apple can do here.
would it have still been considered "broadcasting" at any enforceable level if they'd capped it at 3 users at a time?
to me the internet sharing feature was the first thing since napster that was really exposing me to new music. then it was taken away. that's not going to sell any records. morons.
would it have still been considered "broadcasting" at any enforceable level if they'd capped it at 3 users at a time?
I have no idea. We are talking about the same music industry that tried its very best to keep listening kiosks out of music stores, though, and the same industry that's comfortable with making people pay for music they can't even keep.
Quote:
to me the internet sharing feature was the first thing since napster that was really exposing me to new music. then it was taken away. that's not going to sell any records. morons.
That's never stopped them. This is about control, after all.
Comments
Ah well...
I was actually hoping they would improve the feature so that I could stream AAC files from the iTMS to people with computers I had not authorized (becuase it is, after all, streaming, not copying). Grrrrrr.
This is the way the world (ie, america) works people. This was always going to happen, Apple can't take on the RIAA all by themselves. Well, maybe if they bought UMG...
But anyway, I agree with Amorph. It's (probably) not Apple who is going to restore personal freedom.
Barto
<ignore>
<message>ignore me</message>
<reason>checked and it's not the installer</reason>
<notes>so where's that dmg located
</ignore>
Originally posted by Ebby
Didn't Micro$oft release a monstrosity of an application that allowed up to 10 friends to stream songs? The files are not copied to a hard drive, just streamed. Wouldn't this be Apple's version of the same thing? If MS can do it, why not Apple?
because even the janitors at redmond earn six figures. this would be commonly referred to as a "sh!tload" of money, which is dramatically more than apple's cash storage, which si referred to by the smaller denomination of "buttload."
Originally posted by rok
um, i used it, but i don't consider myself a moron. i listened to murbot's collection a little bit, a few others, and then listened to my own collection after that. that's it. hardly qualifies me as a moron.
i was referring to iSuck and/or iTunesDL... it let people COPY the music that was being streamed, bit for bit DIGITALLY... THATS why the feature was pulled...
i used the streaming feature as well, but I don't think I am a moron
Originally posted by rampancy
just a quick question: has anyone had any success burning CD's on the newest version of iTunes with 3rd party FireWire CD burners?
newest as in 4.0.1, or 4 in general? I've burned a few CDs on an external SmartDisk VST FW burner since I got 4, but I don't know about 4.0.1
P.S. iTunes 4.0 (I have 3 too, if for some reason anyone wants that.)
P.P.S. As soon as I hunt down the how to on sharing behind AirPort, my library will be available again via the link in my sig
Originally posted by InactionMan
So, the people that upgraded to 4.01 can no longer connect to people still running 4.0? And 4.01 can only stream on local networks? I'm really tired of this entitlement attitude all those P2P whores have. Do they really think that turning iTunes sharing into stealing is sticking it to the RIAA? Whatever, I'm still running 4.0-my Library is still shared. If the reason Apple disabled sharing is because of a few retards-then BOOOO retards.
You seem to have a cranial misalignment. Let me help you fix it. Thwack!
Apple is not shutting down internet sharing because people are saving songs, not just playing them. Apple is shutting down internet sharing because they don't want to be sued, and they want to stay friends with the record companies. It is not P2P users that have taken away your personal freedoms and forced Apple to do this because a few users are upsetting a few corporations with lawyers and a buttload of cash.
Maybe one day we'll get our freedoms back, and it will be no thanks to people like you insisting that people who don't do exactly as they are told to by a few out of control corporations are the problem.
I have a question for the mods: How many visits, posters and posts are from inside MPAA/RIAA/BSA subnets?
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
You seem to have a cranial misalignment. Let me help you fix it. Thwack!
Apple is not shutting down internet sharing because people are saving songs, not just playing them. Apple is shutting down internet sharing because they don't want to be sued, and they want to stay friends with the record companies. It is not P2P users that have taken away your personal freedoms and forced Apple to do this because a few users are upsetting a few corporations with lawyers and a buttload of cash.
Maybe one day we'll get our freedoms back, and it will be no thanks to people like you insisting that people who don't do exactly as they are told to by a few out of control corporations are the problem.
I have a question for the mods: How many visits, posters and posts are from inside MPAA/RIAA/BSA subnets?
Barto
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why. My reference to P2P was assuming that the same people that use acquisition and the like were the same people that thought iLeech/iTunesdl were real nifty ways to get music without paying.
And Yes, I work for the RIAA. My sole responsibilty is to post on Apple rumours forums to convince people that strealing music is wrong. The pay is crap but the job is just so damn rewarding.
Originally posted by InactionMan
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why. My reference to P2P was assuming that the same people that use acquisition and the like were the same people that thought iLeech/iTunesdl were real nifty ways to get music without paying.
And Yes, I work for the RIAA. My sole responsibilty is to post on Apple rumours forums to convince people that strealing music is wrong. The pay is crap but the job is just so damn rewarding.
apple shut it down (from my reading of the maccentral story) is because they never wanted to make internet sharing, just local network sharing. apparently internet sharing was a fluke. they wanted it to be shared only with people you know.
anyone else notice this guy admits working for the riaa? let's flog him.
Whatevuh.
Originally posted by InactionMan
So would RIAA/Record Labels have asked Apple to get rid of internet streaming regradless of whether or not people had written apps that let people save the streams? You say Apple shut it down for fear of lawsuits but your first sentance doesn't make it clear as to why.
Sharing your iTunes library over the internet looks a whole lot like broadcasting, because you are indiscriminately streaming to whoever connects to your machine. Broadcasting, as a form of publication (that is, making something available to the public) brings in rights and royalties and so on and so forth. Make no mistake, this is a touchy area for Apple to be bungling in to.
I'm not in the least bit surprised that the feature got nerfed. I'm sorry that it did, but there's only so much Apple can do here.
to me the internet sharing feature was the first thing since napster that was really exposing me to new music. then it was taken away. that's not going to sell any records. morons.
Originally posted by alcimedes
would it have still been considered "broadcasting" at any enforceable level if they'd capped it at 3 users at a time?
I have no idea. We are talking about the same music industry that tried its very best to keep listening kiosks out of music stores, though, and the same industry that's comfortable with making people pay for music they can't even keep.
to me the internet sharing feature was the first thing since napster that was really exposing me to new music. then it was taken away. that's not going to sell any records. morons.
That's never stopped them. This is about control, after all.