That's not the issue I'm talking about. Right or wrong, there are dishonest people. How will Apple deal with that in this system? There are also people who need to be kept honest, not to mention a whole debate on the ethics of the music industry to begin with.
Whatever the case, the system needs to work in a way the deals with piracy, or it won't work as planned. I'm sure it's been thought through, but I'm baffled as to how this can work, unless piracy is an accepted part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
For example, instead of trading high quality FLACs or even higher bit rate MP3s, pirates could simply post 64kbps files, allowing iTunes to then upconvert via matching to 256kbps AAC.
re: piracy: Due to cheaper & more convenient downloads, and the labels' legal attacks on those who serve & those who download illegal files, it's a lot more work for the average user to get pirated tracks than it used to be. Maybe Apple has just subsidized the labels' (diminishing) risk of loss from piracy, paying them cash in exchange for what would be a user experience that Apple's competition cannot match.
Apple would get what it wants, a superior product.
The labels would continue to litigate downloaders & servers.
(Although I could see Match not offering _total_ amnesty, i.e. if 83,000 people had a copy of a song with the exact same file creation date, an "are you kidding me?" dialog pops up when you try to match it, lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
By offering a matching model, it's quite likely the largest pirates will be attracted to it. And once they have been using it a few years, offer access to the whole library regardless of whether you have a copy, i.e. a subscription music service like cable tv. Then even the 60kbps versions would stop being swapped.
US only? I hope that's only because they haven't reached deals with the labels in other countries. If not, this is of no use to anyone in the rest of the world.
I think (hope) that only the beta is US only. The release version will be available to anywhere where there's an iTunes store.
No, it's a backup and sync service, not streaming service
It seems to be a bit of both. It's only songs you already own, so it's not a pure streaming service. But It is a safe bet that it will be "mostly" streaming to your other devices, probably with a lot of local caching. This will make it hard (although perhaps not impossible) to use the service to mirror illicit copies across your devices and then discontinue. Discontinue and you lose access to those songs on all devices except those on which they originally reside
To store songs I already own? When the rest of the iCloud / iTunes features are free (i.e., anything I've purchased on iTunes is there for free forever)? Seems kinda stingy to me.
It seems to be a bit of both. It's only songs you already own, so it's not a pure streaming service. But It is a safe bet that it will be "mostly" streaming to your other devices, probably with a lot of local caching. This will make it hard (although perhaps not impossible) to use the service to mirror illicit copies across your devices and then discontinue. Discontinue and you lose access to those songs on all devices except those on which they originally reside
Not streaming - downloading. You can browse all your music in the iCloud then download anything to any iDevice. I'm trying it now with my iPad and after I selected a song it doesn't start playing, it begins downloading. That's not a streaming service.
Apple will try to match each song you have to their database. ... File names, track length, metadata can all be changed or manipulated by the user and are in no way reliable.
Songs Apple cannot match will be uploaded to their servers.
I think what's not clear (yet) to many people is what this means in practice. Say I've ripped "Sierrajeff's song" off a legit CD, and then (i) changed the stop time (to get rid of seconds of applause at the end) and (ii) changed the composer info (so that it's the same format as the composer's name in other records).
Will the version in the cloud be the studio cut of "Sierrajeff's song", applause and all, and with idiosyncratic composer info? Or will it be the studio cut but with some add-on notes in the cloud that says "when you download to Sierrajeff, stop the audio at 4:05 and change the composer to S. Jeff not Jeff, S."? Or will the cloud say "gosh, seems different than the studio cut in these non-material ways - guess I'll upload the whole thing since this version isn't in the iTunes library"?
I think what's not clear (yet) to many people is what this means in practice. Say I've ripped "Sierrajeff's song" off a legit CD, and then (i) changed the stop time (to get rid of seconds of applause at the end) and (ii) changed the composer info (so that it's the same format as the composer's name in other records).
Will the version in the cloud be the studio cut of "Sierrajeff's song", applause and all, and with idiosyncratic composer info? Or will it be the studio cut but with some add-on notes in the cloud that says "when you download to Sierrajeff, stop the audio at 4:05 and change the composer to S. Jeff not Jeff, S."? Or will the cloud say "gosh, seems different than the studio cut in these non-material ways - guess I'll upload the whole thing since this version isn't in the iTunes library"?
They are matching to what they have - the common version of that track. If you want yo keep the modified version you can sync that in another way from iTunes over wifi.
So presumably, it was unnecessary for me to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading my previous iTunes purchases over the past 2 years. Now, for 25 bucks a year, I can upload any 128 kbps iTunes store purchase, and if it's matched, re-download it at 256 kbps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
That is a fundamental problem, how do you lower the price (or up the quality) without infuriating all those who paid the higher price in past?
It's the price of being an early adopter - nothing new or unique here; it's no different than having paid $15 for a CD in 1988 that cost $5 in 1998. "Sorry Charlie" but I'm not going to cry over it.
I don't see the real benefit of this. I actually like to keep all my data in my own device and not a cloud that anyone will have access to it, by everyone I mean the government and of course, hackers who may also work for the government.
Tinfoil hats work for that, too.
Anyone 'could possibly' have access to... not 'will'.
and 'anyone' is not equal to 'everyone'
and 'what g[G]overnment?' I'm less concerned about 'my' Government, then 'their government,' and the hackers under employ.
grammar aside, you don't trust anyone outside of your physical security. That's fair. Do you Bank? Do you drive? Do you file taxes? Do you use wireless? Do you use SSL. Do you work for an employer? Do you have cable TV? and ISP? or do you do all your surfing from the public library? Heck you're even posting to this non-encrypted site. You're pouring data into the system, and now your worried about your music library being used against you?
I dare say you're getting all worked up over a contractual agreement for securing your data with a services vendor that, unless you live under a rock and consider the first perimeter of your physical security the business end of your locked/loaded/safety off AK-47, you're already providing more than enough information into Carnivore to make this little extra seem superfluous.
To store songs I already own? When the rest of the iCloud / iTunes features are free (i.e., anything I've purchased on iTunes is there for free forever)? Seems kinda stingy to me.
The storage needs for up to 25,000 songs are larger than the rest.
grammar aside, you don't trust anyone outside of your physical security. That's fair. Do you Bank? Do you drive? Do you file taxes? Do you use wireless? Do you use SSL. Do you work for an employer? Do you have cable TV? and ISP? or do you do all your surfing from the public library? Heck you're even posting to this non-encrypted site. You're pouring data into the system, and now your worried about your music library being used against you?
I dare say you're getting all worked up over a contractual agreement for securing your data with a services vendor that, unless you live under a rock and consider the first perimeter of your physical security the business end of your locked/loaded/safety off AK-47, you're already providing more than enough information into Carnivore to make this little extra seem superfluous.
You should really check your own posts before you start correcting grammar.
I've ripped a lot of CDs to 320 kbps. Does this mean my music will be downgraded to 256 AAC in the iCloud? Should there be a checkmark and box for that on AI's informative box? Because with Amazon and Google, my higher-quality rips won't be downgraded. Also, I'd bet money that google's service will allow the FLAC format, which will never exist in the iCloud.
And shouldn't the informative box also tell us that if iTunes doesn't find an exact match to your CD rip for whatever reason, it will also be uploaded, just like Google and Amazon, and therefore your collection might also take "weeks" to upload?
I agree but I am so tired of companies not making Hi-Res downloads/streams ,whatever, available. At least as an option with higher cost. BTW i also play my music through a DAC (Naim).
Reason: 99.9% of the world doesn't give a hoot to have FLAC, Apple Lossless Audio as an option to download for music they buy, especially when the Telcos are putting caps on monthly downloading.
So if, for example, each song is 10 MB, then Apple's catalog will take roughly 171TB. That's pretty small comparing to data center. No wonder they can afford to scale it up so much and upload other tracks which don't match.
It's the price of being an early adopter - nothing new or unique here; it's no different than having paid $15 for a CD in 1988 that cost $5 in 1998. "Sorry Charlie" but I'm not going to cry over it.
True, but the upgrade price was a joke to begin with. I guess I'm at fault for wanting songs that were not tied down with DRM and not expecting the record labels to ever be supportive of an idea like iTunes Match.
And I don't quite think that digital files lose their value the same way a physical product does. The labels don't seem to think that.
That's not the issue I'm talking about. Right or wrong, there are dishonest people. How will Apple deal with that in this system? There are also people who need to be kept honest, not to mention a whole debate on the ethics of the music industry to begin with.
Whatever the case, the system needs to work in a way the deals with piracy, or it won't work as planned. I'm sure it's been thought through, but I'm baffled as to how this can work, unless piracy is an accepted part of it.
Piracy IS an accepted part of it. Because they have no other choice.
When the iTunes store first opened, people thought it was insane because anyone could just pirate music, so why buy it? And yet they've sold billions of songs - people are simply willing to pay for things.
Sure, you can probably hack the system and get iTunes copies of songs. But the people who would do that are already pirating everything anyway (not to mention it's likely easier to do that then to try and hack this new iTunes system). Pretty much anything is available for free right now, why should the labels be that concerned about potential abuse of this system, especially if someone switches from paying nothing and pirating everything to at least paying $25 per year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
"Now you can download music you?ve purchased to all your devices. When you buy music from iTunes, iCloud stores your purchase history. So you can see the music you?ve bought ? no matter which device you bought it on. You can access your purchase history from the iTunes Store on your Mac, PC, iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. And since you already own that music, you can tap to download your songs or albums to any of your devices.1"
Comments
That's not the issue I'm talking about. Right or wrong, there are dishonest people. How will Apple deal with that in this system? There are also people who need to be kept honest, not to mention a whole debate on the ethics of the music industry to begin with.
Whatever the case, the system needs to work in a way the deals with piracy, or it won't work as planned. I'm sure it's been thought through, but I'm baffled as to how this can work, unless piracy is an accepted part of it.
For example, instead of trading high quality FLACs or even higher bit rate MP3s, pirates could simply post 64kbps files, allowing iTunes to then upconvert via matching to 256kbps AAC.
re: piracy: Due to cheaper & more convenient downloads, and the labels' legal attacks on those who serve & those who download illegal files, it's a lot more work for the average user to get pirated tracks than it used to be. Maybe Apple has just subsidized the labels' (diminishing) risk of loss from piracy, paying them cash in exchange for what would be a user experience that Apple's competition cannot match.
Apple would get what it wants, a superior product.
The labels would continue to litigate downloaders & servers.
(Although I could see Match not offering _total_ amnesty, i.e. if 83,000 people had a copy of a song with the exact same file creation date, an "are you kidding me?" dialog pops up when you try to match it, lol)
By offering a matching model, it's quite likely the largest pirates will be attracted to it. And once they have been using it a few years, offer access to the whole library regardless of whether you have a copy, i.e. a subscription music service like cable tv. Then even the 60kbps versions would stop being swapped.
very interesting idea
US only? I hope that's only because they haven't reached deals with the labels in other countries. If not, this is of no use to anyone in the rest of the world.
I think (hope) that only the beta is US only. The release version will be available to anywhere where there's an iTunes store.
No, it's a backup and sync service, not streaming service
It seems to be a bit of both. It's only songs you already own, so it's not a pure streaming service. But It is a safe bet that it will be "mostly" streaming to your other devices, probably with a lot of local caching. This will make it hard (although perhaps not impossible) to use the service to mirror illicit copies across your devices and then discontinue. Discontinue and you lose access to those songs on all devices except those on which they originally reside
New T&C in iTunes say that I can only switch accounts on my devices once every 90 days.
The T&C also state that I cannot access an iTunes account outside of the country it is registered in.
I travel between the US and Canada several times each month. For this reason, I have two accounts, one on the US store, and one on the Canadian store.
Now what am I supposed to do? Only access iTunes stores when I'm in one country or the other?
What about my cloud syncing? how will that work? No access when I'm outside of Canada/US?
24.99 not a bad deal at all.
To store songs I already own? When the rest of the iCloud / iTunes features are free (i.e., anything I've purchased on iTunes is there for free forever)? Seems kinda stingy to me.
It seems to be a bit of both. It's only songs you already own, so it's not a pure streaming service. But It is a safe bet that it will be "mostly" streaming to your other devices, probably with a lot of local caching. This will make it hard (although perhaps not impossible) to use the service to mirror illicit copies across your devices and then discontinue. Discontinue and you lose access to those songs on all devices except those on which they originally reside
Not streaming - downloading. You can browse all your music in the iCloud then download anything to any iDevice. I'm trying it now with my iPad and after I selected a song it doesn't start playing, it begins downloading. That's not a streaming service.
Apple will try to match each song you have to their database. ... File names, track length, metadata can all be changed or manipulated by the user and are in no way reliable.
Songs Apple cannot match will be uploaded to their servers.
I think what's not clear (yet) to many people is what this means in practice. Say I've ripped "Sierrajeff's song" off a legit CD, and then (i) changed the stop time (to get rid of seconds of applause at the end) and (ii) changed the composer info (so that it's the same format as the composer's name in other records).
Will the version in the cloud be the studio cut of "Sierrajeff's song", applause and all, and with idiosyncratic composer info? Or will it be the studio cut but with some add-on notes in the cloud that says "when you download to Sierrajeff, stop the audio at 4:05 and change the composer to S. Jeff not Jeff, S."? Or will the cloud say "gosh, seems different than the studio cut in these non-material ways - guess I'll upload the whole thing since this version isn't in the iTunes library"?
So it's basically a remote sync to Apples's servers as opposed to your local iTunes?
I think what's not clear (yet) to many people is what this means in practice. Say I've ripped "Sierrajeff's song" off a legit CD, and then (i) changed the stop time (to get rid of seconds of applause at the end) and (ii) changed the composer info (so that it's the same format as the composer's name in other records).
Will the version in the cloud be the studio cut of "Sierrajeff's song", applause and all, and with idiosyncratic composer info? Or will it be the studio cut but with some add-on notes in the cloud that says "when you download to Sierrajeff, stop the audio at 4:05 and change the composer to S. Jeff not Jeff, S."? Or will the cloud say "gosh, seems different than the studio cut in these non-material ways - guess I'll upload the whole thing since this version isn't in the iTunes library"?
They are matching to what they have - the common version of that track. If you want yo keep the modified version you can sync that in another way from iTunes over wifi.
So presumably, it was unnecessary for me to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading my previous iTunes purchases over the past 2 years. Now, for 25 bucks a year, I can upload any 128 kbps iTunes store purchase, and if it's matched, re-download it at 256 kbps.
That is a fundamental problem, how do you lower the price (or up the quality) without infuriating all those who paid the higher price in past?
It's the price of being an early adopter - nothing new or unique here; it's no different than having paid $15 for a CD in 1988 that cost $5 in 1998. "Sorry Charlie" but I'm not going to cry over it.
I don't see the real benefit of this. I actually like to keep all my data in my own device and not a cloud that anyone will have access to it, by everyone I mean the government and of course, hackers who may also work for the government.
Tinfoil hats work for that, too.
Anyone 'could possibly' have access to... not 'will'.
and 'anyone' is not equal to 'everyone'
and 'what g[G]overnment?' I'm less concerned about 'my' Government, then 'their government,' and the hackers under employ.
grammar aside, you don't trust anyone outside of your physical security. That's fair. Do you Bank? Do you drive? Do you file taxes? Do you use wireless? Do you use SSL. Do you work for an employer? Do you have cable TV? and ISP? or do you do all your surfing from the public library? Heck you're even posting to this non-encrypted site. You're pouring data into the system, and now your worried about your music library being used against you?
I dare say you're getting all worked up over a contractual agreement for securing your data with a services vendor that, unless you live under a rock and consider the first perimeter of your physical security the business end of your locked/loaded/safety off AK-47, you're already providing more than enough information into Carnivore to make this little extra seem superfluous.
To store songs I already own? When the rest of the iCloud / iTunes features are free (i.e., anything I've purchased on iTunes is there for free forever)? Seems kinda stingy to me.
The storage needs for up to 25,000 songs are larger than the rest.
grammar aside, you don't trust anyone outside of your physical security. That's fair. Do you Bank? Do you drive? Do you file taxes? Do you use wireless? Do you use SSL. Do you work for an employer? Do you have cable TV? and ISP? or do you do all your surfing from the public library? Heck you're even posting to this non-encrypted site. You're pouring data into the system, and now your worried about your music library being used against you?
I dare say you're getting all worked up over a contractual agreement for securing your data with a services vendor that, unless you live under a rock and consider the first perimeter of your physical security the business end of your locked/loaded/safety off AK-47, you're already providing more than enough information into Carnivore to make this little extra seem superfluous.
You should really check your own posts before you start correcting grammar.
And shouldn't the informative box also tell us that if iTunes doesn't find an exact match to your CD rip for whatever reason, it will also be uploaded, just like Google and Amazon, and therefore your collection might also take "weeks" to upload?
I agree but I am so tired of companies not making Hi-Res downloads/streams ,whatever, available. At least as an option with higher cost. BTW i also play my music through a DAC (Naim).
Reason: 99.9% of the world doesn't give a hoot to have FLAC, Apple Lossless Audio as an option to download for music they buy, especially when the Telcos are putting caps on monthly downloading.
It's the price of being an early adopter - nothing new or unique here; it's no different than having paid $15 for a CD in 1988 that cost $5 in 1998. "Sorry Charlie" but I'm not going to cry over it.
True, but the upgrade price was a joke to begin with. I guess I'm at fault for wanting songs that were not tied down with DRM and not expecting the record labels to ever be supportive of an idea like iTunes Match.
And I don't quite think that digital files lose their value the same way a physical product does. The labels don't seem to think that.
That's not the issue I'm talking about. Right or wrong, there are dishonest people. How will Apple deal with that in this system? There are also people who need to be kept honest, not to mention a whole debate on the ethics of the music industry to begin with.
Whatever the case, the system needs to work in a way the deals with piracy, or it won't work as planned. I'm sure it's been thought through, but I'm baffled as to how this can work, unless piracy is an accepted part of it.
Piracy IS an accepted part of it. Because they have no other choice.
When the iTunes store first opened, people thought it was insane because anyone could just pirate music, so why buy it? And yet they've sold billions of songs - people are simply willing to pay for things.
Sure, you can probably hack the system and get iTunes copies of songs. But the people who would do that are already pirating everything anyway (not to mention it's likely easier to do that then to try and hack this new iTunes system). Pretty much anything is available for free right now, why should the labels be that concerned about potential abuse of this system, especially if someone switches from paying nothing and pirating everything to at least paying $25 per year?
"Now you can download music you?ve purchased to all your devices. When you buy music from iTunes, iCloud stores your purchase history. So you can see the music you?ve bought ? no matter which device you bought it on. You can access your purchase history from the iTunes Store on your Mac, PC, iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. And since you already own that music, you can tap to download your songs or albums to any of your devices.1"
No, it's no streaming
http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/
There's no mention of streaming in that quote - "tap to DOWNLOAD" sure makes it sound like it's, you know, a download.
The iOS app update is available, and it sure sounds like it is downloading songs and not streaming them.
Anything where iTunes was able to automatically fill in the song titles during ripping should be fine.
I ripped my cd's back years before iTunes ever came out...
Unless they actually scan the audio file I don't have confidence that iTunes Match will work very well at all.