Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes Match: $24.99/Year, Matches Ripped Tunes, Offers Them In The Cloud
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are probably using the same fingerprint service the record labels use today to identify pirated copies of songs on file sharing services and sue you..
On the other hand, if they are using the same identifier that they use today to get album artwork, it will be interesting... I noticed that if it can't get the album art (happened a LOT for my Glee tracks that I bought on Napster and imported into iTunes), then I have to go into the song and edit the properties and make sure the artist, song, and album title match EXACTLY how they have it listed in the iTunes store...
Whatever the case, this is going to be really REALLY interesting..
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because paying for something that you take ownership of in a legal transaction is considered a legal sale. For the $25 you are paying Apple (who then pays the music industry) you are getting to download a bunch of iTunes songs (if this is as others believe). It is an endorsed "sale" of "upgraded" music for $25.
I think there's still some room for the music industry to ask to see the original sourced (legally obtained) media. But if Apple collects the $25 and then gives the music industry their cut, they were then paid something for what the $25 purchased.
Certainly I'm not a legal expert on this topic. I think we need some genuine lawyers to chime in to get an expert take to the question.
Frankly, I'm still shocked about the Time Capsule rumor not showing up today. That's how I thought Apple would cover the legal risk issue: all of the non-iTunes-purchased content streaming from your (optional) own local piece of iCloud and the rest streaming from the NC iCloud. Without that, I think the legal questions make this pretty messy or Apple really worked an incredible deal with the music industry if iTunes Match will actually involve downloading permanent (local) replacements for files. The more I think about it now, the more confident I am that when the facts come out, iTunes match must be about streaming all non-iTunes-purchased content. We'll all see soon enough.
Last edited:
From what money are the artists being paid ? The $25/year? That's nothing. And there's nothing yet indicating that any of that money is actually being transfered to any record companies, it's more likely paying for Apple's expenses.
If you stop paying the fee you stop getting the matching service. If it's a real download then your devices would still contain whatever you downloaded to that point but new devices would only get iTunes-purchased music. If it's a streaming service on the other hand (and that point seems to be in dispute), you would lose all your non-iTunes-purchased music on all devices.
Music you didn't pay for?
I have lots of music that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of audiobooks that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of software that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated.
It might seem like nothing, but when you consider these same record companies are selling access to almost their entire catalogs for $50 and $96/year, it's actually a pretty good deal for them.
We don't actually know that's the case. Right now if you use iTunes existing home sharing setup on an iOS device, it simply creates the library in your "iPod" application. Nothing is stored on the device itself aside from some minimal caching.
I have a 16GB iPad 2 and stream from my 80GB iTunes library quite frequently. I don't see why this wouldn't work the same way, simply adding a library to your device with the option to download from the cloud. The Keynote wasn't specific on this, but it would make no sense to go to some web interface when Apple's already got the formula put together.
It seems that the more tech-savvy media has the same message - this is not a streaming service. The biggest value of the matching service sounds like:
1) easy syncing of all music (purchased and non-purchased) to all devices
2) upgrading non-iTunes purchased lower quality music to 256kbps (if it is in the iTunes database)
1) easy syncing of all music (purchased and non-purchased) to all devices
2) upgrading non-iTunes purchased lower quality music to 256kbps (if it is in the iTunes database)
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Would love to know too. I'd love a bunch of free, legal media but I'm not holding my breath that the answer doesn't = piracy.
Let's say I have 500 mb of purchased songs and 20 gb of non-purchased song.
If I pay $25/yr, then Apple upgrade my songs to 256 kbps AAC version.
What does it mean? I have to re-download the entire 20 gb of my library? And what about the original non-purchased songs? They got replaced? Or I'll end up having on my hdd 2 copies of the same songs (so 20+20=40gb).
I don't think so. Well this has to be a streaming service (or something like that).
If I pay $25/yr, then Apple upgrade my songs to 256 kbps AAC version.
What does it mean? I have to re-download the entire 20 gb of my library? And what about the original non-purchased songs? They got replaced? Or I'll end up having on my hdd 2 copies of the same songs (so 20+20=40gb).
I don't think so. Well this has to be a streaming service (or something like that).
I don't like the sound of this...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=3284311&pagtype=allchandate
http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=3284311&pagtype=allchandate
I wonder how it will handle my huge collection of Apple Lossless vinyl rips
Hope it comes to the UK at a similar price
The difference being that if you pay for a streaming service, when you stop paying you can't listen anymore and you don't get to keep any music.
With Apple, you pay $25, and then you can convert your illegally downloaded music to files that are, to my knowledge, indistinguishable from what others have bought from the iTunes Store. Then after a year you can stop paying and keep the songs.
I'm happy with the 5,000 songs in my pocket. That's enough for me.
True but really the people who spend a lot of time looking for pirated music are too cheap to spend $25.
True but really the people who spend a lot of time looking for pirated music are too cheap to spend $25.
AppleTV and Network Integration?
When the rumors first started about iCloud, I was really excited. I had just been given an AppleTV as a gift, and my first iPhone will be soon to follow.
Moving forward, the rumored iCloud seemed to be the perfect idea: I could get a small hd on the iphone and just use cloud technology to stream my media, the same way i do on my AppleTV. Not only this, but I would no longer have to leave my laptop on, open, and in iTunes to use my library on my AppleTV.
Perfect, right? Wrong. I'm hoping I don't understand apple because, to me, they seem to have taken a step back. Instead of moving to the cloud where I could more easily integrate my media while reducing the memory space that it takes up, Apple is now pushing technology that pushes EXTRA downloads of files on local memory in the name of faster, automatic syncing.
To top this off, with iTunes Match basically required to use the service for most people (let's be honest, a lot of music on iTunes accounts isn't from iTunes store), it's also unclear as to what happens to the original "matched" files. To me, it sounds like they get replaced, which further complicates the file storage issues. If I would want to move away from the current file systems, why would I use iCloud when I can more easily, more cheaply, and more effectively setup my own network drive and then *gasp*, just plug in my iPod to sync?
I hope I'm wrong, but this just seems like a huge disappointment.
When the rumors first started about iCloud, I was really excited. I had just been given an AppleTV as a gift, and my first iPhone will be soon to follow.
Moving forward, the rumored iCloud seemed to be the perfect idea: I could get a small hd on the iphone and just use cloud technology to stream my media, the same way i do on my AppleTV. Not only this, but I would no longer have to leave my laptop on, open, and in iTunes to use my library on my AppleTV.
Perfect, right? Wrong. I'm hoping I don't understand apple because, to me, they seem to have taken a step back. Instead of moving to the cloud where I could more easily integrate my media while reducing the memory space that it takes up, Apple is now pushing technology that pushes EXTRA downloads of files on local memory in the name of faster, automatic syncing.
To top this off, with iTunes Match basically required to use the service for most people (let's be honest, a lot of music on iTunes accounts isn't from iTunes store), it's also unclear as to what happens to the original "matched" files. To me, it sounds like they get replaced, which further complicates the file storage issues. If I would want to move away from the current file systems, why would I use iCloud when I can more easily, more cheaply, and more effectively setup my own network drive and then *gasp*, just plug in my iPod to sync?
I hope I'm wrong, but this just seems like a huge disappointment.
And when you stop paying to Apple for their service - you keep exactly what you had in the first place. So how is it better? Add to this the fact that Apple will not even stream this music to you.
It's going to scan the audio data. That's how apps like Shazam work. It's technology that's several years old at this point and will be far more accurate than reading metadata. Even a lot of purchased CD's (especially from independent artists) don't have metadata embedded in the files. A lot of that music is available on iTunes though, it'll have to scan the audio.
I recall reading something about a patent for scanning the first few seconds of audio files for some kind of streaming service, my guess is that's the automated scanning process Apple is using on the backend.
