Crossplatform iTunes Sharing and Trading 338
An anonymous reader writes "As reported on Cnet
and others, an open source java iTunes client named ourTunes has been released under the GPL by a group of anonymous hackers. Unlike the Apple iTunes for Windows and Mac, ourTunes allows a user to queue up and save to disk the music shared by other users. Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products.'"
Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:4, Funny)
The dam is just about to break.
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes it easy to share the music and the RIAA isn't going to get their mafia-like 90%. When the mafia doesn't get their money what do they do?
The burn it down.
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:2)
The burn it down.
Which means, of course, that you should be a good obedient boy and pay your protection money, right?
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, no matter how you slice it, you can't really call it theft or stealing. The best you can get is (as pointed out by another respondant) copywrite infringement, which isn't nearly as catchy or loaded a phrase.
The question people should be asking is "when a business model breaks, do you blame your customers, or your business strategy?"
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous, that is almost the only thing that does matter.
Stealing violates criminal law. Copyright infringement violates civil law. There's a world of difference between the two.
Re:Captin, she cant take much more of this (Score:2)
Steve Jobs angry at P2Pers [khaaan.com]
For a second... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember when the internet was full of freedom?
Re:For a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. But I remember when the Internet wasn't full of people who thought they where entitled to the works of others without compensation or permission. When you could release a program as shareware and actualy have people register rather then crack it.
Re:For a second... (Score:2, Funny)
when was that?
Re:For a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pfff! As if that ever existed! I remember friends swapping floppies of registered shareware back before PCs even had modems! Of course, I was pretty naive. I would ask, "Isn't that wrong?" and get the response, "It's no biggie, we're just sharing with friends!"
With that firmly ingrained in our heads, this proved even back then that any business model that involved easily reproduced goods should be careful to take their reproduction into account. i.e. Make it easier for people to pay for stuff than steal it, and try to target markets that actually have money to spend!
The RIAA failed when they tried to stop MP3s instead of being the originators of an online MP3 service. Now iTunes is saving their butts by picking up the remaining pieces of what would have been complete destruction for the music industry.
Re:For a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
#1) The RIAA is an enforcement agency. That is what they do. They do not distibute works.
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
Re:For a second... (Score:2)
Fine. The music industry as a whole. I referred to the RIAA because they supposedly represent the recording industry. (Thus "Recording Industry Association of America")
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
Simple. Make it easier to buy than to steal. Remember how hard it was to get MP3s before Napster came along? That would have been a perfect opportunity for an iTu
Re:For a second... (Score:4, Informative)
Convenience and legality. That's why many people do actually use iTunes Music Store. People who consider their time is worth something. People who value a consistent and legally bought item above an inconsistent and stolen item.
Competing with free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oxygen bars, bottled water, tanning salons, parking stations...
Quality, convenience, features, gimmicks,
Re:For a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
In the US, drinkable water is essentially free for the taking.
In the US, bottled water is a billion-dollar industry
MjM
Re:For a second... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ripping off artists directly instead of indirectly ain't any fairer.
Re:For a second... (Score:2)
Its not anyones business what i share or who i share it with... As long as I'm not depriving anyone of income.. ( and if neither of us were going to purchase, then no income was deprived )
That may not be valid 'legally', but i really dont care. I will do as i feel. I'm only guided by the first 10 amendments, and the constitution proper.
Re:For a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. Would that be the same Constitution that authorizes the congress and the states to enact laws?
Wrapping yourself in the Bill of Rights may look clever to your libertine friends, but it's a piss-poor and disingenuous way to rationalize your unauthorized use of other people's work.
If you have to pick a document to bolster your self-centered worldview, may I suggest something by LaVey or Crowley?
Re:For a second... (Score:2)
And i dont need to 'rationalize' anything. I do what i wish as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. That is where my line is, its pretty simple and concrete.
Or to use your suggestion 'do what one will shall be the extent of the law' ( or something like that )...
Re:For a second... (Score:2)
Its not anyones business what i share or who i share it with... As long as I'm not depriving anyone of income.. ( and if neither of us were going to purchase, then no income was deprived )
---
This is such a fallacious argument it's not even funny. Shall we try it with other things?
No one lost income when I took that rental car for a joyride because I wasn't planning on renting it anyway.
No income was lost when I sat in the bookstore for five hours reading a really good novel off their shelf and then put
Re:Moron? (Score:3, Insightful)
When the music was released, it was on CD's that you had to PAY for. Just because you are getting it from another person who is breaking the law does not mean its ok for you. Every time I build a windows PC for a friend, I make them buy a licence of xp. I have a corp license here for my work. I have a MSDN licence as well. I could use those. But you know what, that is stealing. I am depriving a company of money they
Re:For a second... (Score:2)
Shareware was one of those things that silly kids with DOS machines on BBSs did. Real S/W developers dropped their contributions in comp.sources free for anyone in the world to download and use.
Re:For a second... (Score:3, Informative)
And you obviously knew yet another Internet.
Shareware's been demonized on the Wintel platform, and Open Source dominated the Unix space. But the Mac platform actually was able to maintain a healthy and viable shareware market until the rise of OS X. While companies like Ambrosia Software and Freeverse are still around, it just hasn't been the same since the politics of the other two major platforms started to overshadow th
DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
AFAICT, ourTunes doesn't circumvent any copy-protection mechanisms, so as long as it isn't decrypting the DRMed AAC files and allowing people to play them who haven't actually purchased that music, it should be OK, especially in light of this recent court decision.
p
Re:DMCA (Score:2)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
The two issues are unrelated. If Apple is asking Sourceforge to take down software that circumvents access control, that's a DMCA thing.
This ruling, on the other hand, says that P2P vendors cannot be generally held accountable for how some (most) may use their software. This ruling does not permit circumvention of access control, as added by DMCA
Re:DMCA (Score:2)
Re:DMCA (Score:2)
"Interpol?"
No, I definitely don't think they'd host it for SourceForge.
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
Make it ugly (Score:5, Funny)
Making IT more readable (Score:2)
Also check out Jesse's other bookmarklets [squarefree.com] if you like that one. Or try this page [squarefree.com] if you're into that sort of thing.
Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated in any way with the aforementioned sites. I'm just a huge fan.
To be gramatically consistent... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:To be gramatically consistent... (Score:4, Funny)
If you want to be pedantic, the i in iTunes isn't a pronoun, but an abbreviation of "internet". Additionally, since the development team is trying to convey a specific agenda, the name is appropriate.
You lose at linguistics.
Re:To be gramatically consistent... (Score:2)
Re:To be gramatically consistent... (Score:4, Funny)
Quote from the RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Quote from the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Afterall the RIAA is nothing more than a mafia-like music control group. They use their money and muscle to get what they want. They buy out government officials and bully around whoever they want.
These are criminals extorting the artists and pushing the common people around for meddling in their business affairs.
Re:Quote from the RIAA (Score:2)
"It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal the food from artists' tables. ..taking our jobs. " - RIAA
Re:Quote from the RIAA (Score:2)
``It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal our food from artists' tables.'' - RIAA
Re:Quote from the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Would they like to name one 'artist' who can't afford to eat?
Milli Vanilli?
There are at least 5 of these. (Score:5, Informative)
One2ohmygod: http://one2ohmygod.sourceforge.net/
jtunes4: http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtunes4/
AppleRe
and yet another called "Get It Together"
http://www.deleet.de/projekte/daap/
They all look the same but have varying degrees of functionality.
Re:There are at least 5 of these. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There are at least 5 of these. (Score:2)
I completely agree, there probably isn't need for 5 similar clients.
Re:There are at least 5 of these. (Score:3, Informative)
--dabe
Name won't last... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people have to come up with so uncreative names? Apple has the nTunes thing going, take a couple of minutes and make up your own naming scheme.
Re:Name won't last... (Score:2)
When my father had to create a holding company for legal liablity purposes, he wanted to name it Sosumi and Sashimi Holdings.
Needless to say, the lawyer was less than amused. Instead, he named it after the family dog.
Re:Name won't last... (Score:3, Funny)
So that's the Indiana Holding Company?
Re:Name won't last... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because those names properly confer the meaning that (1) it is related to iTunes, but (2) it is different from iTunes. And that's exactly why Apple doesn't like it: they don't like the competition, and they are going to try to kill it any way they can, even if that means asserting trademark rights they don't actually have.
The name is lawyerfood, and rightfully so. Xtunes felt the wrath of Apple lawyers
Neither "xtunes" nor "ourTunes" are confusabl
Re:Name won't last... (Score:2)
Not a huge stretch (Score:5, Insightful)
Rendevous not needed! Re:Not a huge stretch (Score:4, Informative)
FAQ -- P2P (Score:5, Funny)
That's hilarious. Although I'm opposed to all Satan programs that take away our Christmas, I might learn to like this one.
Re:FAQ -- P2P (Score:3, Informative)
Holy Crap, What a Biased Story! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Talk about demonising the wrong entity here. The DMCA isn't Apple's fault. Apple just did what they had to in order to keep the labels from shutting down the iTMS entirely. If you hate the DMCA, say so, but don't blame Apple for it. Apple != Congress.
This article has pretty much convinced me that the folks running p2pnet are only concerned about piracy -- as in committing it -- rather than having an intelligent discussion about the real issues here.
p
Re:Holy Crap, What a Biased Story! (Score:5, Informative)
+1 Mindnumbing hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:+1 Mindnumbing hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
The DMCA can go to hell.
Until it does, however, I'm not going to blame any companies for the actions they take under the fucked-up "law" known as the DMCA. ANY companies. Not Apple, not M$, not Real, not anybody. They're working within the constraints of a severely broken system. Apple broke out the DMCA on the PlayFair folks because 1) PlayFair was
Re:+1 Mindnumbing hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
The position I see you taking here is that any use whatsoever of a "bad" law is immoral, and I'm not sure how the heck that's defensible. But I'd love to hear it, if that's indeed what you're saying.
(Side note: do you ever see the same
Re:Holy Crap, What a Biased Story! (Score:2)
And someone didn't read the court ruling. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for free music and everything... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cry if you want to share or download your tunes in a different way. You can complain about the evil DRM software Apple uses in its proprietary format. You can moan about lack of options and the iTMS/iPod lock-down.
I just don't understand why everyone clicks the "Yes" on the user agreement. If you want it to work a different way, don't support it.
Seems like all these 'benevolent' iTMS hacks, reverse engineers and DRM stripping apps are getting held up in some sort of martyr-like light.
Aren't these things a violation of the agreement they made when they decided to use the software and download songs?
??
Re:I'm all for free music and everything... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm all for free music and everything... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm all for free music and everything... (Score:2)
no free market (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are you going to get music? You can buy the CDs, you can download them from a Windows-based service, or you can download them with iTunes. That is, in reality, you don't have the kind of choice of contracts that you might get in a free market.
So, why are people rebelling and breaking their agreements? Because they feel that those agreements have been forced upon them and therefore feel they are not ethically bound by them (even if there is a small legal risk in doing so).
Re:no free market (Score:3, Insightful)
Right?
Cluebats, ready (Score:4, Informative)
1) What is ourTunes?
ourTunes is the continuation of several open source projects designed to allow you to browse and download from other people's iTunes Music Shares?
2) Is this a Peer to Peer (P2P) program? Aren't those things created by Satan to steal Christmas from Baby Jesus?
It's not "really" a peer-to-peer program, because it doesn't allow you the opportunity to share any files or music.
3) Why am I not seeing any hosts? Is the whole internet dead?
There probably aren't any people on your network sharing iTunes music. ourTunes only allows you to view connections within your networks "subnet" (often the building you are currently in, maybe a little bit more). If you are running ourTunes from home, I'm sorry to say but you'll probably be pretty disappointed. It's really only a viable program where there are lots of people living on a fast network with good taste in music (*cough* college campus *cough*).
It allows you to share with other people on the same network! OMG. nothing to see here.
Come on, please don't moderate me to oblivion.
pretty neat (Score:3, Interesting)
I just tried out the program at work, here and transfered some songs from our PC music server. works nice. Although, it doesn't resolve a local iTunes server properly. Oh well, it's not like you wanna download from yourself, per se....
Re:pretty neat (Score:4, Funny)
This is news? (Score:2, Interesting)
Uhhh.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uhhh.... (Score:2, Informative)
iTunes allows sharing no downloading.
You use ourTunes to connect to someones shared iTunes collection and copy the music you want to your local machine.
Hey Apple! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have my music on an old G3 in the basement, and want to play it over the network from my powerbook.
As it stands, I can listen to what ever I click on, or in the default order - but no custom playlist or random order.
Again, DRM and 'copy-protection' annoys the casual user, without providing any return.
Download free music without getting in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
But there's a way you can enjoy free music downloads without getting into trouble. Listen to the legal music that many unsigned and independent artists provide as a way to promote themselves. Find out how in my article:
-
Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [goingware.com]
If you downloaded such music instead of infringing copyright on the p2p networks, we'd make short work of the RIAA. You'd start listening to bands that aren't signed with RIAA labels, and the RIAA would have no cause to complain because no one's copyright is being infringed. The RIAA labels would wither away because no one is buying their music anymore, and a lot of deserving artists would get the exposure they deserve.Here's a page that I found out about just a couple days ago and haven't added to the article yet. etree offers a page of Bit Torrent Downloads [etree.org], all of them TradeFriendly [etree.org].
If you feel as I do that more people need to read my article, you can help by linking to it from your own website, your web log, or from message boards. Be sure to email the link to all your friends who use P2P!
Re:Download free music without getting in trouble (Score:2)
I wish people would support independent musiscans. But it's not about the music or musicians to these people, nor is it about 'freedom' or whatever other tripe they use to justify downloading/distributing music they have no rights over. It's always been about getting what they
well almost. (Score:5, Informative)
a) if their software did not have significant non-infringing uses, OR,
b) if the software developers are in a position of power or control over the specific infringing activity and have a right and ability to stop the infringing activity AND had knowledge of the specific infringing activity OR
c) the software developers provide material aid (such as providing computer servers) in commiting the software infringement and had knowledge of the specific infringing activity.
The 9th Circuit did not want to expand copyright law to include parties which merely produced technology with significant non-infringing uses, who had no way of preventing the piracy that did take place, and did not provide any material aid to any piracy once the piracy become known to them.
The decision (as a few others pointed out) did not give blanket immunity.
some P2P sharing is OK (Score:3, Insightful)
The decision backed decentralized P2P, power to the people, as a legitimate forum, even when illegitimate communication uses it. Now that people make broad, selfserving interpretations of that decision public, to protect their illegitimate systems, we'll see another lawsuit and decision showing that centralized systems like Napster are not protected. We can flirt with disaster by abusing the grey area, producing an overly broad decision the next time in a court not quite so committed to justice as in the Grokster decision.
anonymous hackers? what about.... (Score:2, Informative)
lead developer.
For the dunces like myself out there (Score:3, Informative)
$ java -jar (name of
Of course, if you don't want to run in the terminal, you can create a launcher that does just that from the menu.
No big deal to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody has cracked the encryption to date. They have found ways to unencapsulate the file from being encrypted but unless your machine is authorized for the songs they are worthless. Copy the songs till your heart is content, you can't use the files. I believe this model will still enable iTunes sharing to continue the way it is.
I am actually very upset that the original way iTunes shared music was changed. You used to be able to give your friends your IP address and they could connect to your iTunes music (by default out of the box).. but then a TON of sites went up where you could register your IP address of your iTunes library and it would pull down your list of songs and have it searchable to use much like Napster. This obviously lasted long enough till the next incremental iTunes release came out and "fixed it" so sharing worked only on the local network.
This only works on the local network (Score:2)
Music has absolutely no value (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the birth of the recording industry, what did it cost to listen to a song? Nothing. It may cost something to go to an event, a concert or opera, but to hear a song being sung cost nothing. The singer sang, you listened, and it cost you nothing.
So the recording technology shows up, and the recording industry is built up. The recording industry exists solely for the purpose of transporting the song from the studio to my speakers. So all the trucks and equipment and so on incur costs, and that's what I pay for. But not for the songs themselves.
What's a metallica song worth? Nothing, I've already heard them all. Going to a Metallica concert might be worth 50 bucks. Maybe buying the bobblehead dolls and Metallica Pop Tarts is worth a few bucks. I can see a 5" plasic disc in a case with liner notes and photos having value. The music recorded on that disc, however does not.
To download off the internet, it's reasonable to expect to be compensated for bandwidth. But I can't see the songs themselves having any intrinsic value. A Van Gogh painting has value because there's only one of them. A photograph of one has nothing. Similarly, watching the artist perform has some value, but a snapshot of their performance (a song recording) doesn't.
I must be missing something, but I can't think of what. Music is worth nothing. Artists don't profit from "music", they profit from performances and mercahndizing. The only ones who profit selling "music" are middlemen and distributors who are increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, the service they provide may or may not have value, but the "music" itself does not.
A friend I chat with online is in a band, and they've been moderately successful, and opened for some fairly big artists and are completing their first album. He'll DCC the songs to anyone who'll listen to them. Why would he do this? Because they themselves have no value.
If you say that music has value, it makes no sense. Because according to the industry, all music has the same value. A song according to Apple is worth 99 cents. But music is subjective. I wouldnt pay 5 cents for a band I don't like, I might even pay more for one that I do - heck, I already have by spending 20 bucks for a disc with 10 songs on it.
Music is a personal expression, just like a thought or opinion. Thoughts have no monetary value.
Music has no monetary value, and just look at all the handwaving and idiocy that's occuring because of societies need to attach a price tag to everything.
Limewire does it too, sort of (Score:2, Interesting)
Limewire's DAAP implementation is actually working - you can share your downloaded files with other
people's iTunes on the local network.
I couldn't get ourTunes to even try and open the multicast socket, lets hope they get their act together sooner.
Freedom and Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like the terms (be it CD, DRMed file, carved stone tablet), fine, don't buy it. I guarantee that if you choose to look around, there's talented musicians who aren't associated with any major music lable who would love you to listen to their recordings. Musicians' freedom includes choosing what terms they want to distribute their creations under, or selling that right to someone else. If you want to fight the system, respect them and seek out the alternatives, don't gloat about the gigabytes of commercial stuff that the latest product lets you aquire.
Why do we need software for this? (Score:3, Insightful)
In iTunes, you can change the default location that iTunes stores your music library. Set it to be ~/Sites/mymusic/ (or whatever you want to call it) as your music library folder in iTunes. Make sure iTunes preferences is set to copy new mp3s into your library. Then, turn on music streaming in iTunes. Finally, turn on Apache (one click in the sharing preferences.)
There you go. iTunes automatically copies and organizes new music on your machine into your Sites folder to make what basically amounts to a web site available to others on your network. People on your network can stream your music if they want via iTunes, and if they like it, they fire up their browser, go to your machine (http://1.2.3.4, by default it shows you the available folders as links) and dig down to find their download.
Easy. Why install software to do this kind of thing when the tool are already sitting there waiting to be used?
How I would like to pay for music... (Score:4, Interesting)
This would also be my perferred way to pay for games.
Quite frankly, I am *pretty* sure that I, or my roommate, have paid for every game I have played that wasn't free.
Can I make the same assertion about music? Only kind of. Back in the day I did some napsterizing, but all of that was experimental. That is, I never napsterized anything that I wanted to "own" but I did do a lot of pick a song, check out the playlist of the user that had that song, download things that looked interesting. Can't say that I listened to much, if any of that more than once.
My roomate is into audio production and I am into writing. We naturally have these conversations about theme and content. So somewhere I think I *still* have nine versions of "little bunny foo foo." They are all *quite* terrible.
In its heyday Napster was very much the Star Trek experience of "computer, find me citations on (x)" querying, even if it was just music.
And honestly, I don't know that I have scrubbed out every reference to every song that was so fetched. I also think that several other people had access to the one computer as it was a house resource for brief period of extremity.
I say all this because if there had been a way to take the song tracks that I had already fetched and use them as a key to a payment system. I'd have done that on several occasions.
The way iTunes etc work, you pay your money and then you take your chance.
Given god like powers, or the money and title to make things different I'd do the following.
1) offer a large catalog of music (in fact every title I could, no exceptions) for free download at "good quality" (at least 128bit mp3, possibly more).
2) provide an app with a big drag-and-drop target (etc)(sort of a Big Red Button). When you take the free title and apply it to the app, it sends of a dime or two to The People Who Deserve Money(tm).
2a) the app would then let that computer download "really high bitrate" versions of that same song. Yes, it is only the one computer that is so authorized, and no, the good copies are not DRMed to be frozen to that box or anything like that. I wouldn't even bother to brand the high bitrate songs as comming from that computer.
2b) even the high-bitrate titles from 2a could be dropped onto the Big Red Button (on a different computer) to send money to those who deserve to be paid.
2c) using the Big Red Button will also get you money off credits for songs containing that version of that title on full CD purchases from the attached online store.
3) provide the old napster structure of search and share, and wire it up to automatically carry the free-quality songs freely.
4) treat the persions who pay for the very-high quality tracks not to spread them around, as the "good quality" tracks are available to everyone.
5) generally treat the customers as nominally honest and dignified humans.
5a) the very-high quality tracks are suitable for burning of CDs and the people are encouraged not to share these, and the napster-like applicaiton would be "resistent" to sharing these version, but they are not blocked from doing so by DRM or "playlist burn counts" etc.
So the p2p system removes my cost to distribute. The people who are "Causal Copiers" will be given all the music they want (a-la radio) and those who want more are going to get more by paying money. Marketing is automatic and quite rich, the whole "persons who have this song also have these" is implicit. Money is to be made at the low and high end. The "illicit feeling" is removed from the transaction. And most importantly, you know exactly what you are getting with every purchase, so quality must be good and there will be no "the rest of the album sucked" or "this wasn't what I thought it was" problems because there is no risk to the purchaser.
It could be done cheaply and it would work.
(Consider... Napster is the only reason that I ever bought Green Day... 8-)
Re:This just in! Innovative software solves proble (Score:2)
Re:This just in! Innovative software solves proble (Score:2, Insightful)
They may or may not exist, but they don't get front page attention on Slashdot. Instead we get something that if it catches on will
Re:Beautiful! You can't beat freedom in the end (Score:2)
Free as in Beer, not Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Then iTunes comes out, providing EXACTLY that. But were the complainers happy? Nope, instead they stab Apple in the back and devise ways to get Apple's product without paying for it.
Way to show your appreciation folks!! Is it really any wonder why the likes of the RIAA wants to hunt you
Wrong. Free, period (Score:2)
You got it backwards, chupacabra. We are hunting the RIAA down. And We won't let up. If you can't put chains on it, or put a fence around it or defend it with a police state, I got news for you: Like the air that we breathe, once you relase it, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
If you don't believe me, go ask the kid on the sidewalk in Hanoi or Rio who's selling MS Office right now for less than five bucks a copy. Go ask the milli
Re:Wrong. Free, period (Score:3, Informative)
It is a given that some people work harder than others. Redistribution of wealth, the fundamental tenet of socialism, is inherantly unjust when those who produce goods and services are forced, through taxation, to subsidize those who will not.
Now I'm not going to say that Capitalism is flawless; w
Re:smell the lawsuit (Score:2)
Lashback of realplayer proportions? What are you tal buffering...
Re:I hate java applications (Score:3, Funny)
Stop being such a fucktard, it's like saying that computers don't work because you can't find the power button
In defense of java... (Score:2, Informative)
As someone already said the command you want is:
"java -jar OT41.jar"
I have seen various settings for linux desktops to do the same thing.
The nice thing is this single 300k app works on any platform and has the full source inside of it. Rename the file to