Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Smacks Down iCommune

pudge posted more than 11 years ago | from the suuuuuck dept.

Apple 567

flipsidejones writes "Looks like Apple has killed iCommune. iCommune, as mentioned previously, allows users to share music libraries across a network from within iTunes. It seems the license for the iTunes plugin API does not allow for software-based plugins (only hardware: MP3 players, etc). Apple issued a 'Notice of Breach and Termination of License' to iCommune, who have since pulled the download. Something tells me that they won't be putting it back up anytime soon. Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me." Well, in fairness, this could happen even if Mac OS X itself weren't proprietary, as iTunes still could be. For that matter, iCommune still is, too. Hm, none of that makes me feel any better ...

cancel ×

567 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

once again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095356)

jobs owns your lame mac lovin' asses. Bend over please, Clarus wants to hump your ass.

Re:once again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095399)

The sad part of this is (at least for slashdot) if someone had rightly made this same joke about Microsoft it would have been modded up as "+5, funny". Just another example of the fact that slashdot is now 0wn3d by mac zealots rather than linux zealots.

wtf (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095361)

fuck this iDICK company hohhooohho

FP NIGGERS

um.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095371)

so.. this is news.. because.. you cant directly pirate mp3's from itunes?

yay proprietary!

they're protecting themselves from lawsuits. you cant export mp3's from ipods with apple software, and you cant share mp3's.

use nfs of afs, lazy fucks!

eat my ass (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095372)

Apple sucks as much as this assbag site. Who are the morons that actually pay to use this piss hole site?

Also, Mac fans, keep giving up the ass to Jobs. Maybe he'll give you a reach around one day.

Yeah (-1, Troll)

valkraider (611225) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095375)

FP?

The Problems of the Apple License (-1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095376)

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html [gnu.org] for the problems of the apple license. The GNU guys already told you long ago that you shouldn't use it. Your fault.

Re:The Problems of the Apple License (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095424)

Completely irrelevant - this is to do with the terms the iCommute guys agreed to when they used the iTunes SDK.

You may not like the APSL for political reasons, but it's got nothing to do with this.

Re:The Problems of the Apple License (1)

Nevermore-Spoon (610798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095642)

not really irrevelvant considering the original poster is the one who brought apple licensing into the story in the first place....

Bzzt! Wrong! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095446)

You dirty GNU hippy!

Problems with APSL don't apply (5, Informative)

cjhuitt (466651) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095466)

So far as I can tell, the APSL doesn't even apply here. The violation they are talking about has to do with the license that people agree to when they use the SDK (Software Development Kit) that Apple provides for making iTunes plugins. I haven't determined exactly what was violated in that agreement, but it wasn't the APSL, so far as I can tell.

Re:The Problems of the Apple License: Try Reading (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095512)

Hey, it's the apple iTunes API license, not the apple public source license. Let's see, agree to one license to start developing a plugin for a proprietary App. Then, violate that license. Get caught... Oh yeah, don't forget to complain about an entirely different license just because it furthers your own philosophy... Complete disregard for facts...

iCommunista (-1, Flamebait)

crumbz (41803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095379)

I think Apple has been concerned with their image as an anti-intellectual property, pro-hippie fruity computer company is hurting sales. I expect to see:

iShop
iSUV
iSpendMoney
iRaqandiRan

and other pro-capitalist, conservative leaning services offered soon.

Re:iCommunista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095429)

The only think worse than the 'i' naming convention, is the 'i' joke.

Please, everyone, move on already.

Re:iCommunista (1, Funny)

MouseR (3264) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095456)

I Agree.

Re:iCommunista (-1, Offtopic)

MasterofVoid (608568) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095430)

What about iSue?

Re:iCommunista (0, Offtopic)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095596)

iCarramba!

Wow (4, Insightful)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095383)

Well, in fairness, this could happen even if [...]

I'd like to see this type of editorial byline in the next Borg article, please.

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095484)

It's because they're the underdog. If there were suddenly a huge shift in power putting Apple on top of the heap, they would be the next "Evil Empire" that the Slashdot masses would want to overthrow.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

alakazam (529128) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095606)

> because they're the underdog

When I first read that, I agreed, but when I actually tried the thought on for size I found it didn't fit.

If Microsoft was the "wanna-be" there's no way I'd be championing them. Most people who "prefer Microsoft" seem to do so for reasons other than "quality of product" or "innovation" or "great cool factor."

If Microsoft was the underdog I don't think there would be all that many people rooting for them.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095485)

Really. The next time you go bitching about how wonderful Apple is compared to Microsft, remember that they're guilty of *exactly* the same kind of

- vendor intimidation
- semi-legal, prohibitive licensing practices
- price gouging
- market control
- FUD
- product tying
- hiding software features
and
- employee abuse

that our friends in Redmond are famous for. The only difference is that Apple tried to cater to a niche market while Microsoft decided to go for the lowest common denominator and won. The only reason Apple is seen as good is because they are not Microsoft.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

pi radians (170660) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095593)

Hey, you may be right but the big difference between the two is that Apple hasn't broken the law.

Sure they are a corporation and they have the same intentions of profit like every other corporation, but their path to it, while not always favorable, has always been legal. They follow the same rules everyone else does. Thats why I think people will still try to defend Apple.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

IRNI (5906) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095624)

Or it may be that they make an OS that works and every product they make is pleasing to the eye as well as fun to use. Couldn't be that could it though? So they don't want their product to be turned into a new kazaa via a plugin to their product. It is their right.

Re:Wow (1, Flamebait)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095625)

I'm not saying Apple is better than Microsoft, or more or less evil than Microsoft. That's not my point.

My point is, every time Apple does something corporation-ish that is Evil and Stupid (as we understand that sort of thing) everyone just sorta ignores it. It's like "yeah, they're starting to be like [insert corporation name here] BUT hey, they have Darwin and iPod rocks, yipeee!".

I think OS X is incredible although I haven't used it that much - but it's still a closed OS running most closed software produced by a company that is in the business of competing and being profitable.

Re:Wow (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095527)

They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

You are *so* right! I mean, all companies sell something, so they're all the same. Microsoft gets the Borg icon, but AMD and Apple don't. What's the sense in that? I mean, it's not like Microsoft has done anything to differentiate themselves from every other company in the computer market. It's not like they're an aknowledged monopoly that is constantly being sued for anti-competitive practices. Nah, they're just like everyone else

And Apple. Those fuckers have never given anything back to the *NIX community (oops, just ignore their contributions to KHTML, and that Darwin business...).

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

k_187 (61692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095561)

So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff? Or they're evil because they're enforcing a licence that the developers agreed to go by? Would Linus be evil if someone was violating the GPL using linux and he sued?

Re:Wow (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095587)

Yeah, how evil of me to correct an incorrect implication in the submitter's post, that this has anything to do with the license of Mac OS X. For shame. Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.

If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

lysurgon (126252) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095628)

I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.

Well, in comparison to M$, they've remained relatively benign and tend to produce products of a higher quality. Microsoft has a long history of using underhanded business tactics (e.g. punative lawsuits, abuse of monopoly power) to pursue their ends, while Apple has maintained its edge primarily through innovation.

In reality, this is a move made by Apple to protect itself from exposure to legal liability. It has more to do with the litigious nature of the US business environment than any desire by Apple to "smack down" anything.

The Scene At Apple (4, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095393)

Open at Apple boardroom :

Jobs : Well, our hardware advantage has gone, our OS is lukewarm Unix, all we have left is our fanatically loyal customer basis. Now, how can we piss them off?

Senior exec : Why not deny them music file sharing, possibly the single biggest growing sector of internet use in the last 5 years...

Jobs : Excellent! We'll be filing chapter 11 in no time...

Re:The Scene At Apple (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095626)

Hey, I thought this was a funny one. What zealot modded this?

irape iyour icommunity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095400)

Apple is a fucking theif! Stealing our source code and fucking innovation. Please install gnu/hurd, its totaly useless, but its FREEdom at last!

In Soviet Russia... (0, Offtopic)

domninus.DDR (582538) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095403)

The music shares the computer...

quit bitching (3, Funny)

NerdSlayer (300907) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095409)

"Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me."

I took a nice new car that I saw at the dealership down the block, and the bastards called the police on me.

Everytime I forget that certain goods and services cost money, Lexus does something to remind me. Isn't this America? Can't I have everything for free?! The terrorists have already won.

Re:quit bitching (5, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095504)

Can't I have everything for free?!

To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.

Re:quit bitching (1)

NerdSlayer (300907) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095635)

To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.

You're correct, and my position was a little overstated. I guess I'm venting my frustration about the "Slashdot Attitude" against sucessful companies/non-GPL software that's constantly shown. I think the story was worth posting, but the smug attitude at the end was annoying.

Let's see... what would make everyone on slashdot love apple:

1. Setup RMS as the CEO/President/Company Savior
2. Release all software completely open source
3. Port OSX to the PC
4. Become a huge, massive corporation that uses it's installed base of now open source software in some sort of monopolistic shutout of Microsoft, putting M$ as we like to call it, out of business
5. Put all movies and music online to download for free
6. Send in Steve Jobs with a machete to hack all RIAA/MPAA/Record Co Execs to pieces.
7. Immediately go out business, since we hate big companies.

Would that fix everything? I hope so. If it doesn't work, we can have Apple shoot some sort of Natalie Portman porn and see how that works out.

Bummer. (1)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095411)

Wonder if this means they're recalling the Flower Power iMacs [ipixmedia.com] .

Get it posted on KaZaA (1, Interesting)

icrooks (227741) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095413)

So we can spread it around, like DeCSS.

Re:Get it posted on KaZaA (4, Insightful)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095480)

That would be nicer if you get actually get to Kazaa networks with a Mac. **grumble** At least give us the code, so we can make it ourselves. The Neo app works, but it's only one way + requires basically wardailing for hosts. I mean, I get that maybe FastTrack doesn't want to put the resources into supporting the Mac, but at least give us the opportunity to do it ourselves by opening the code. Kindof ironic, really--you would think that a someone in the biz of "free sharing" would make their code as open as possible.

Future Apple product? (5, Insightful)

EricWright (16803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095416)

Sounds like they're putting the kibosh on this project because they plan to do something like this in the near future. They may even have plans to make this a paid upgrade to the free iTunes download. Who knows?

I actually thought they'd go after iCommune for trademark dilution...

Re:Future Apple product? (1)

tstoneman (589372) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095511)

Trademark dilution?

You mean the "i" in front of the word?!?! I highly doubt that that is considered to be trademark dilution.

Think about e-mail, e-business, e-whatever. It's the same thing.

Considering there are other things such as iplanet that currently exist, I don't think you can consider the use of i-whatever trademark dilution.

Re:Future Apple product? (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095586)

iMac is trademarked. After reading Apple's trademark page, I presume they're more worried about the Mac part than the i- prefix. Pay no attention to me... :)

Re:Future Apple product? (2, Offtopic)

jakobk (553240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095622)

Here in Germany, the color magenta is a registered trademark of this company [telekom.de]

Fine Line (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095421)

So, Apple doesn't want to get sued because their systems rip and burn music easily. Plus, iCommune is a rip-off of the "i" moniker.

Re:Fine Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095553)

Never mind that Apple ripped off the "i" moniker from about a dozen different .com days companies...

iCommune as a possible competitor? (5, Insightful)

markv242 (622209) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095427)

Wouldn't one of the reasons that iCommune got pulled is because Apple is probably building in Rendezvous support for iTunes into iTunes 4? They don't want to be beaten to the punch, and a third party offering "Rendezvous-like" functionality goes against Apple's plan.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor? (1)

jaysones (138378) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095488)

That's right, mod parent up. Apple is coming out with a Rendezvous-capable version of iTunes that will let you stream your playlists to available computers on your network. Steve demonstrated it during the keynote at MWNY 2002 in July.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095554)

The ULA wording certainly sounds like it's trying to prevent competition and circumvention of Apple's control over the product....though the fact that they're giving it away for free (and probably will for quite some time, now) makes this kinda moot.

Actually, I think the main reason they did this was to prop up their "Don't steal music" line. I'm not totally familiar with iCommune, but it sounds like a great lead-in for a Napster wanna-be. If Apple didn't act, they'd wreck any hope of having a relationship with the music and movie industries (the former hurting already due to accusations), and they may need this if their current hardware/software efforts tank. All IMHO of course.

Re:iCommune as a possible competitor? (5, Insightful)

mjpaci (33725) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095600)

The Apple sharing functionality won't let you copy the songs down from the host -- just stream them. iCommune let users copy the songs as well as stream them. Remember, according to Jobs, Music Piracy is a Social Problem. I'm sure the contract violation had something to do with the copying of music. Apple doesn't want the RIAA attacking them for the transgressions of their licensed devlopers. Therefore, Apple has language in its license that somehow prohibits what iCommune was doing.

--Mike

I may be missing the point but... (5, Interesting)

Funksaw (636954) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095431)

I may be missing the point, but what is it about iCommune that was so different from sharing the files over a network via network protocols, anyway?

Since iTunes is a proprietary work, I'm not too upset by this - luckily, all iCommune needs to do to counter this is to produce an MP3 player better than iTunes, open source it, and they can very well do what they please. Just because iTunes is a proprietary MP3 player doesn't mean that it's the only possible one that'll work on the MacOSX platform.

This is more molehill than mountain.

FIRST POST THAT SAYS FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095432)

wow man, i am on top of things today, this is my fifth first post that says "FIRST POST THAT SAYS FIRST POST"

who can bring me down????

NOT YOU NERDS

There was a reason they did that... (5, Insightful)

japhar81 (640163) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095435)

The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).

As much as I hate to see projects killed, in this case, its not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). In windows-land, I've got a plethora of networks to hound for one file, depending on who has it. With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.

Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.

Re:There was a reason they did that... (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095463)

That single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network of yours is also a single target for the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:There was a reason they did that... (2, Interesting)

japhar81 (640163) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095563)

Yeah, youre right. Heaven forbid they take away our right to do something illegal.

What if this network has DRM? Or forces you to prove you own the CD? Or reads your mind to see if you own it? Or whatever the hell else Apple comes up with?

And what if it is a target for RIAA? Once the software its out, its out. Corporations know this as well as we do. They'll ship it, go to bat with RIAA (Lose), but the p2p plugin will already be out and floating on every newsgroup across the globe. So great, Apple stops shipping it (and presumably keeps competition down like it did here), the plugin is still out, and its still that single, united network, the one that would be so nice.

I'm sure redhat desktops are important to you, but get your head out of your ass, stop being a typical troll, and think a few steps ahead.

Re:There was a reason they did that... (1)

Bisifiniti (635115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095570)

While it's not Microsoft, Apple is a big company with it's own interests. If they want to develop a p2p network of their own, then they have the capacity to fight the RIAA/MPAA. They have money. They have good lawyers.

Re:There was a reason they did that... (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095613)

Would you be as elated if the single, united, supported P2P network was a MicroSoft product?

Naw.. Of course you wouldnt. It's cute when Apple preemptively crushes OSS competition, because they're run by care bears.

It's the license (5, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095443)

Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me.
This has nothing to do with OSX being proprietary, and everything to do with violating the license for the Device Plug-in API. Sorry, but the rules were there in writing before iCommune ever started.

I doubt this would stand up legaly. (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095447)

RIAA, on the other hand, might have a case against 'em.

I'm not really familiar with the Apple license agreement for the iTune's API, is it something you need to download separately and sign a contract for? Or is it just something that's 'there' and you just need the right header files (or whatever) like the Windows Media API?

Lots of software companies seem to love proclaiming legal rights they don't have and sending out C&D's based on them, but that doesn't mean they actually have a case.

If it's true that the guy had an actual contract with apple, then they might have a case, but there's no legal way to stop someone from reverse engineering so way of interoperating with iTunes and creating a sharing system.

File still availible via other channels... (2, Informative)

guido1 (108876) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095448)

So, future development is likely killed, unless he somehow "sort things out with Apple."

However, the old download is availible elsewhere, including:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/10486
http ://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macos/1 7772

Re:File still availible via other channels... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095499)

Well, good job checking both those links as they redirect to the icommune site. Neither of them work because icommune has removed their download.

I guess we'll just have to look other places for it.

BEN

Re:File still availible via other channels... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095562)

MIT loves you:

http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Arc hi ve/gst/snd/icommune-10b1.hqx

Also:

freenet:CHK@FJ5tFcLpVyVVJH6494g17ITH0S4RAwI,pHZO 9Z rZciZJNsxNA05-vw

ABOVE LINKS INVALID. SEE OTHER A/C IN THIS THREAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095616)

n/t

This makes me sick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095450)

I'm outraged at this blatant capitalistic move by Apple. Apple should remember that their most valuable resource are their extremely loyal users. Mac zealots usually go out of their way to support Apple by purchasing over-priced under-performing equipment that looks good next to their IKEA book-cases.

I forgot what my point was ...

Next iTunes Version (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095454)

Considering that according to last July's MWNY keynote, the next version of iTunes will be coming soon with this exact same feature, I'm surprised Apple didn't just wait until they ship iTunes 4 or whatever and just kill off iCommune the same way they killed WindowShade (incorporated into System 7), Watson (incorporated into OS X 10.2), etc.

Unless there's some reason they think we would prefer iCommune to their Rendezvous iTunes...?

Re:Next iTunes Version (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095533)

Watson is a very different product from the new version of Sherlock in MacOS X. THere's similarities, but the functionality and serivces are very different.

covering their backs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095455)

To be honest I bet they are just wanting to cover their backs with regard to RIAA and MPA/MPAA. This technically makes iTunes into a file sharing program (albeit on a local network) and they could get hammered for it.

Litigation protection? (1)

buzzsport (558426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095457)


In this day of suprious litigation by the record companies, etc. doesn't it make sense for Apple to cover their ass and make sure they don't become part of a lawsuit by enforcing their license? It's just one hassle they don't need to deal with right now IMO.

Re:Litigation protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095569)

Now now, don't start thinking that way! The next thing you know, you'll be talking about Apple as if they're a company that has to make money somehow...

Nothing to see here, move along. (1)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095458)

Ok, a company with a proprietary product creates a license agreement that governs its interfaces with other products. Some guy comes along and uses that interface in a way that violates what he agreed upon, and said company says to take his toys and go home. Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Thank you, drive through.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along. (1)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095547)

Not that I like talking to myself, but another thought occured. This doesn't end up being just a simple violation of Apple's license agreement, but a potential liability for them. Allowing someone to share music over a network (sound familiar?) with their blessing - i.e. NOT revoking the person's rights - could land them in trouble with a certain influential and evil organization who shall remain na(RIAA)meless, and leave them wide open to be sued.

Double Plus Ungood.

good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095460)

you GNU dicks get your cock out of my ass and start sucking

Apple has a legal right to do this (5, Funny)

Sanity (1431) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095462)

Apple has every legal right to do this, as it is a provision of the license which iCommune signed when they clicked through the iTunes license agreement, and really it is for our own benefit - since Apple (unlike, say, Microsoft) has its users best interests at heart - you can tell by the warm fuzzy widgets on the OSX user interface.

Now if Microsoft had done this, with their cold unfriendly pointy user interfaces, that would be a sin worthy of no less than torture and death for Gates and all his ilk.

Those who complain that the Slashdot editors and much of the readership have a double standard where Apple and Microsoft are concerned are clearly missing one extremely important fact:

Apple: Warm and fuzzy

Microsoft: Cold and pointy
Need I say more?

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095530)

I can't wait to read all the praise lauded on the inevitable iDRM technology that should creep into iTunes and iMovie over the next few years.

And it will happen, Apple just needs time to catch up. When there's no content on the 'net in QuickTime, they'll get to work on it.

Re:Apple has a legal right to do this (1)

frunch (513023) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095638)

...the inevitable iDRM technology that should creep into iTunes and iMovie over the next few years.

And it will happen, Apple just needs time to catch up. When there's no content on the 'net in QuickTime, they'll get to work on it.


Really?? I fail to see how that's being built into their current strategy. Let's see... they created iTunes, which allows anyone to rip music to the widely-shared MP3 format, and store it in easily share-able directories. Oh, and then there's the one-click-my-computer-is-now-an-mp3-sharing-FTP-se rver button. Really, when Apple's entire DRM strategy is writing "Do not steal music" in the iTunes license, it's hard to argue that they're on the sides of the RIAA and MPAA, and not consumers.

Apple doesn't want to be forced to make iTunes use something other than the MP3 standard. But if lawyers see that iTunes' use of MP3, along with iCommune, is allowing users to quickly and easily illegally distribute copyrighted works, then iTunes is going to come under attack, and THEN they'll be forced to include some sort of DRM. Really, in the long term, I think Apple's attack on iCommune will be good for the average consumer in the long run, as they'll still have non-DRM iTunes.

Just what I don't need (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095618)

Someone else deciding for me what's good for me.

hmm (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095469)

Just to take the opposing view for the sake of argument, lets assume apple ISN'T in bed with Big Media. Maybe, just maybe, they simply don't want to get sued for blatantly supporting what appears to be and usually is piracy (a p2p app). C'mon, its not like you can't just use any mac p2p app like you're doing already, they just don't want you writing a program using their API for the explicit purpose of piracy. Why? Because they are a monster big corporation in an oligopoly with the RIAA? Or maybe they just don't want to be named in the lawsuit. I know what most slashdotters think, but I don't think its the truth.

Can you blame them? (3, Interesting)

elbowdonkey (516197) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095475)

Seems to me that the RIAA is starting to sue the hell out of anyone doing anything special with music or media in general.

It's good business sense for Apple to cover their asses by squashing something they fear might get the RIAA crawling up their innards.

And with earnings in the red, Apple is sure to be sensitive to the desires of shareholders, who might not be savvy enough to understand that a 3rd party tool should really not be of Apple's concern.

What? (0, Troll)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095482)

Well, in fairness, this could happen even if Mac OS X itself weren't proprietary, as iTunes still could be. For that matter, iCommune still is, too. Hm, none of that makes me feel any better ...

So we have a proprietary product on a proprietary OS using a proprietary service.

Why exactly did you post this article? What's it got to do with anything?

Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby (5, Interesting)

kahei (466208) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095483)


So, Apple decided not to take on the considerable risk of being seen to sponsor music piracy.

Sounds reasonable.

Now, this is a more interesting question: why do some people believe that Apple had a responsibility to risk it's neck so you can download tunez more easily? Why do some people believe that just because Apple sold a certain product, they must have a responsibility to provide other things, such as use of their software for music distribution, too?

I'm not sure about the answer... I expect it's something depressing.

Taking it one step too far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095489)

Really, I can't complain about this. Apple's not trying to fight DRM, at least not for the idealistic reasons.


This is a plug-in that is, unfortunately, a serious enabler for snagging music. There's so much of an attitude of not paying for music (because you feel it's overpriced, or low-quality, or whatever) is it any wonder that the various concerned organizations are lashing out?


Let's look at things honestly. The RIAA and most record labels deserve to go downhill a bit. They've pretty much lost sight of the goal of making money by promoting artists, so they're near worthless. The process of correctingt his seems to be happening... Artists are forming labels seperate from the mainstream publishers, and standing up for their rights to make buckets of cash.


So don't try to hide bootleg copies behind a sham of making a moral stand, but actually adopt a policy of supporting those companies that have earned it, and telling the rest to stuff it.
made it so easy,

Where's the iTunes SDK license? (2, Informative)

rjung2k (576317) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095491)

What a lot of folks are overlooking is the fact that Apple smacked iCommune not because it was allowing P2P sharing, but because (supposedly) the development of iCommune violated the license agreement for the iTunes SDK -- which, apparently, has some sort of "you cannot use this SDK to develop apps" clause.

Seems to me the easy solution would be to check the terms of the agreement. If there is such a clause that the iCommune folks broke, then there's nothing to see here. If, however, Apple doesn't have such a clause in the agreement, then we can bring out the packs of rabid Mac-bashers.

Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license? (3, Interesting)

BlackHat (67036) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095577)

Only public SDK is the visual-plugin. The device plug SDK is by request. So only those who have it can answer that question.

The solution of course is to rewrite it using visual API and leaching the audio. As the Visual SDK has no restrictions mentioned about hardware.

Restricting uses (2, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095493)

It's a shame apple is actually restricting uses of their software like this. Isn't one of the best signs of good-designed software when people do things with it that you never imagined?

This is not allowed (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095495)

Well in the UK if not Europe, interoperability is protected.
So I can reverse engineer ITunes (protocol or whatever) so that I can put a hook into a function to operate with ITunes.

Though I'm not sure why anyone would bother with ITunes given Apples record of friendliness.

iTunes (1)

effer (155937) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095503)

Wow! iTunes is proprietory! Apple reserves rights regarding it? So th efrick what!! Grow up and enjoy it. Free has several meaniungs. Get used to it (pissed off mode gone).

If you want something, make it, dobn't steal it. Share it if you wish. Heck, even place restrictions on the sharing part. It's your right.

I don't suppose it is as simple as... (1)

Excarnate (453613) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095508)

...adding a hardware component to the plug-in? "iCommune, a plug-in to make the CapsLock key on your keyboard flash in time to the music"?

Or am I being evil but naive again? :-)

So What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095509)

I feel bad for the guy, but am otherwise unconcerned.

For Apple, this is a token action, meant to appease the music industry, etc. Basically, it keeps them safe.

For the mac-using consumer, there are much better alternatives for music trading/sharing, in terms of volume of shared files available.

For the author of iCommune, it kind of sucks. But, if he did violate the agreement, then really I can't see it eliciting more than an "oops, guess I got busted" response on his part.

A neat idea that got killed. Nothing to sweat about or lose sleep over.

Alternate software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095518)

You can serve up your iTunes database with apache and mod_mp3 or with ampache [ampache.org] which has a spiffy web interface.

I guess that's not the point though...Apple->bad. Why they would care about a plug-in for a free player is beyond me.

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095520)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Apple said they couldn't make P2P, even a plug-in to an mp3 player (there is more than one :P), just that they couldn't do it with the iTunes SDK. It does sound more to me like Apple doesn't want the guy coming out with this before they release iTunes 4. Which is still annoying, but on the flip side maybe they'll hire him. :P

Shame on Apple! (1)

privacyt (632473) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095534)

Make no mistake, the only difference between Apple and Microsoft is size. If Apple had the wealth and power of Gates's empire, it would be just as ruthless.

Re:Shame on Apple! (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095605)

If Apple had the wealth and power of Gates's empire, it would be just as ruthless.

I don't think that choosing specific licensing terms violates anti-trust laws.

-Brent

The Letter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095540)

From: "James G. Speth"

Well, for what it's worth, here's the letter that Apple sent me:

---
Subject: Notice of Breach and Termination of License

Dear Mr. Speth,

It has come to our attention that you are distributing a software program
called iCommune that violates the terms of the Apple Computer, Inc. iTunes
Device Plug-In SDK Agreement you executed. The iTunes SDK materials are
licensed only for the purpose of enabling the Licensee's hardware device
identified in the agreement to interoperate with iTunes. The iTunes SDK is
not licensed for use in a software program for sharing of music over a
network. Your distribution of this program is a violation of the license
agreement and of Apple's intellectual property rights.

Due to your breach of the agreement, Apple hereby gives notice of
termination of your license agreement pursuant to Section 7.2 of the
agreement and demands that you cease distribution of the iCommune program
immediately and return the iTunes SDK materials to Apple.

Please contact me as soon as you receive this notice to confirm that you are
taking immediate action to cease violating the agreement, and in particular,
to cease distributing your iCommune software.

Sincerely,

[deleted]
Sr. Director, Products Law
Apple Computer, Inc.

---

and here's some pertinent info from the agreement we entered:

1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.

7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):

component system mp3 player console

---

Now, my description of the device might be a little vague, but it does describe an application for which I use iCommune. I have a Mac G4 Cube set up as the media center of my living room. It's hooked into my stereo and television. I use iTunes and iCommune on the Cube to turn it into the mp3 player console I was envisioning when I started work on it. I use iCommune on my laptop to control that system. Unlike your typical device which is directly connected to the computer running iTunes, these systems talk over the network to each other.

I think I'm in compliance with the agreement, but they don't. Hopefully we'll be able to work something out. Otherwise, I'm thinking of ways to do this without the Device Plug-in API, so the project might survive.

Jim

Too bad... (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095541)

iCommune wasn't open source
Too bad I can't find out more about the iTunes API; all I can find is the iTunes Visual Plugins sdk
Too bad this wasn't implemented as a Quicktime/Broadcaster kind of thing
Too bad Apple didn't like this; For legal reasons? I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.

Remember their eMacs+SuperDrive upgrade fiasco? They squashed someone else who had done that because just a month later they released a similar product. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes 3.1 was released with iLife that had Renedevous enabled broadcasting!

http://icommune.150m.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095542)

http://icommune.150m.com/ [150m.com]

POSTED BY
_|:] maik [:|_

before we all go overboard with ... (5, Insightful)

feldsteins (313201) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095568)

...ranting about how evil Apple is because they make proprietary software and how this is inherently casts them as The Man who is trying to crush our every freedom...consider that back in October they were herealded as pretty much the only company standing up for our rights [siliconvalley.com] . (I can't seem to raise the page but here [google.com] is the Google cache.)

It occurs to me that Apple may have less-than-evil reasons for terminating the contract, not the least of which is to retain their credibility by not becoming associated with some half-assed Napster clone.

Or, they could just be evil. I guess.

Apple is stealing from open source community! (-1, Flamebait)

rxed (634882) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095572)

Apple has proprietary hardware AND software. They've been taking/diverting/stealing from OSS community and its developers. Apple even used the OSS name/reputation to sell OS X! Apple is bad. The only advantage that Apple has are all the 'religious' followers and fans...that I hope soon will get back to their senses and realize how much Apple sucks.

Stop making excuses for foolish behavior! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095581)

Holy Shit! Do articles like this bring out the apologists or what?

My favorite was the attempt to analogize apple's enforcement of its click-thru license to a dealership protecting its cars from theft. Hmm, bucko, might need to rethink that one -- a better analogy would be a dealership suing you because you repainted your car -- see, right there on the back of your purchase order, it says "purchaser will not repaint car". Probably also prohibits sheepskin seatcovers, too :)

And for those of you who are a little slow in the morning, not enforcing a draconian click-through license against icommune does not equate to encouraging piracy.

Hum ... (1)

Kourino (206616) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095612)

Anyone else think that an SDK API that only provides for hardware plugins is a bit silly? I can understand it, I guess just wouldn't do it to my software.

See? This is why people need to read liscenses for software or libraries they use. From the webpage, it looks like he had no clue there was anything like that in the liscense ... sigh

Stupid Computers. (2, Informative)

CleverNickName (129189) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095629)

I gotta agree with Cory Doctorow, who said [boingboing.net] "Thanks, Apple, for making my computer less functional."

Bad apples.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5095630)

So Apple thinks iCommune is a bunch of bad apples? Hah!

Who's Evil (1, Flamebait)

asscroft (610290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5095644)

In this case Apple is evil because they are stifling innovation. Someone took the itunes software, wrote a plug in that a) worked, and b) did something cool, and Apple sweeps in and tells them they can't do this.

Can't - they did, it worked, it was cool and now it's gone.

Which means the next thing to happen in this chain of innovation never will.

If Gallelio had been like this we'd never have moved past those shitty ass helicopters he designed. Imagine a world without airplanes, rockets, spaceships, sattelites, helicopters and everything else we've built extending his IP.

selling stuff is fine, holding all of mankind back because you have a law that says you can is evil.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>