Actually, that's not really what I meant by "keeping my big mouth shut"... It was more a question of did I step over any ehmacian rules (I hadn't intended to).
Basically, if someone is looking for a slightly older version of a free software download, even if that free download has been usurped by a version upgrade, I didn't realize it could be 'against' policy.
Although there is certainly reason for Apple to want to yank a certain feature because it *could* be exploited to "break the rules" so to speak, it does not mean it WILL be if the feature is offered to specific individuals.
I realize that by offering such a slightly downgraded version of iTunes, it could be used... "For Evil, instead of Good!!!" I am willing to believe the ones asking for it intend to use it responsibly.
Originally, I was going to offer it to any who needed it (some people simply legitamitely require the features that was once there) and I wasn't going to 'exclude' other ehMacians from being able to do so, but since I was quickly edited for content (something that I understand why it was done, but caught me totally off guard at the time, as I never really thought what I offered was necessarily 'wrong' to offer) I changed my tact.
I think it stems to the idea that, as a community, we all appreciate help and offer it when we can, and sometimes, I have noticed I offer to help and not think first (or second, or third) about the consequences.
What I offered was, *technically* viewable as illegal in one light, and *technically* viewable as legal in another. A real grey area (or maybe one with a 50% dropshadow?)
It boils down to the fact that Apple's iTunes 4.0 offers users "Internet Streaming of Music for the Enjoyment of Others, or Yourself in a Remote Location From the Source Machine." which is not in and of itself illegal use of the software.
The upgrade, which has been designed to improve iTunes and remove this feature because of reports it was being abused and could be conceivably seen as a way of recording music illegally and thus creating an avenue for people to "steal music".
Light and Dark. Good and Evil. Right and Left... err... Wrong
You get the idea.
I didn't perceive my offer as being worng, evil or falling to the "dark side".
Although I understand the path paved with good intentions... make Homer go something... something... (I know, I am forgetting a large chunk of the confucious-like comment)
Hmmm... I took way to long to formulate my thoughts on that last post and my one-track mind skipped a few tracks... To sum up, I appreciate the Mayor stepping up, covering the microphone with one hand and whispering in my ear that saying what I had said was gonna make me look like a dumbass.
Err... or something to that approximation.
But my dazed and confused expression afterwards would basically be interpretted as I still don't see what was so wrong with it, but i trust his advice and judgement.
Okay. well, I don't want this to get out of hand. It makes sense that, for all intent and purpose, JG4 is right.
Apple is the sole individual organisation that is allowed to distribute the software. The idea that iTunes is free shouldn't matter as much as the idea that this particular version has been "pulled" in order to introduce the slightly tweaked version.
However, if someone asks if they can get a Copy of "iTunes 4" (note: not asking by exact version number) and you ONLY have version 4.0 to give them (maybe they can't reach the Apple site today or are getting corrupt downloads. Some legitimate reason to send them a copy) then it sounds to me like this is not going against the "copyright" rules.
In general, the idea of "Freeware" is that it is freely distributable by anyone, unmodified. It costs nothing to own a copy and giving it away is encouraged rather than restricted.
However, this specific instance is a rather tricky situation. iTunes is free. It is (and has been classified by Apple as "freeware") but since they have pulled the 4.0 version, it is technically no longer "available". The fact that copies exist means it will still be out there. It has been replaced by a slightly tweaked version (4.0.1) which is now the "freeware" copy.
The up side is that anyone who runs 4.0 will be quickly asked to upgrade to 4.0.1 This will eliminate the "is it legal" question by making the problem moot. The down side is that the upgrade can be "avoided" by refusing to install the upgrade. However, the user risks not being able to upgrade the software properly if he/she skips an upgrade choice.
But this entire thread is not really worth fighting over. Either I have basically been halted in doing something that could be seen as an "illegal" act, or I have secretly already met rollee in the underground garage and did an exchange, the evidence of which has been buried away with the truth about the Roswell crash and the JFK assassination and the secret 11-herbs and spices for the Colonel's secret recipe. All of which are documented on microfilm and secreted away in a pew leg in a small church in a rural location outside Flin-Flon.
In other words. Lets just get on to more interesting topics, shall we?
i want itunes 4 not b/c i want to set up anything to distribute them over the net to strangers or make money etc.
i just want to be able to swap my music around my 7 macs (8 in the coming) either by airport or internet or ethernet or firewire into my 2 ipods.
i am setting up my house and office with multiple macs as jukeboxes. i think the new itunes 4.0.1 have restriction on not more than 3 or something, but i get VERY frustrated if in the middle of this configuring (usually at 2-4am) something says i am blocked for whatever reason etc. i'll be so pissed.
i need itune 4.
You mean if i rip/convert from CDs to AAC and mp3 files i can stream them across the internet to my office from home without problems using itunes 4.0.1? to all my macs in various locations?
If i buy from itunes music store
using a US$ credit card (US address) those AAC files will not work for streaming right? That will be bad, very bad.