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.
Apple Releases iTunes 10.5.1 Beta 3 for More iTunes Match Testing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for the replies!
--------
Another question:
Does one get a chance to select which songs/playlists are to be matched or does it go through the whole Music library automatically? For example, I wouldn't want to upload all the Voice Memos I have...
Is this vaporware or what? LOL
better to get it right than have to deal with backlash if it doesn't work perfectly. They should just promise January and get it over with.
better to get it right than have to deal with backlash if it doesn't work perfectly. They should just promise January and get it over with.
So far, from what I've seen anyway, once you turn iTunes Match on, it scans your whole iTunes Library and hasn't given any option to select anything different.
Found this reply on google when someone asked the question of if it's illegal to copy music from YouTube:
"Content that is obtained from a legal source and used for personal, non-commercial use is legal. This was decided in the Betamax case,
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/betamaxcase/betamaxcase.htm
which had to do with the rights of home recordists taping TV programs for personal use. Such copying qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. The same principles would apply to content taken from the Internet, provided the content is legal to begin with.
You'll get differing opinions on this. If you listen to the MPAA, the RIAA, and probably the AAA, they'll tell you that it's illegal to copy anything, even if you're a cloistered monk working on an illuminated manuscript. However, this is their opinion, which thus far has been unsupported by the case law. If, however, you know that the content you're downloading is pirated from someone who would object to its use - e.g., a bootleg copy of a film currently being shown in theaters, you could be complicit in the crime, even though it's unlikely you'd ever be prosecuted for it."
So it sounds like it's kind of in the gray zone. Not illegal, but labels probably wish it was.
edit: What about DVR recording, and when people used to record movies on VCR? I'm pretty sure that's all legal, so it seems like the same would apply here to, as long as you aren't distributing anything.
All i can say is ******* the cloud!
What better way to exert complete control over the population than by having them store all their personal stuff on some server! Of course, there will be assurances that everything is very very safe. Safe until the next hacking scandal comes about that is. Plus all government agencies in the US already have unfettered access to major providers like facebook and google. They do not even have to go through a judge or anythng and we lemmings just merrily go along with all this BS...
What better way to exert complete control over the population than by having them store all their personal stuff on some server! Of course, there will be assurances that everything is very very safe. Safe until the next hacking scandal comes about that is. Plus all government agencies in the US already have unfettered access to major providers like facebook and google. They do not even have to go through a judge or anythng and we lemmings just merrily go along with all this BS...
They'd have paid 25 bucks per year.
If that's above the ARPU regarding music-purchases overall, they've made a profit.
Once you stop paying for Match, you lose access to those songs anyway.
Copying them away would be abuse of service, though.
Question about ID tags...
I'm constantly renaming and organizing almost every song I get. Over the last several years, I've become very OCD in ID tagging... even to the smallest details like using 'and' instead of '&' (unless its a group or duo), putting featured artist after the name of the track, putting the remixer or version of the song in parenthesis after the name of the track, to using 'feat.' instead of 'featuring'.
Is all this work I've done going to disappear after iTunes Match scans my library?
I'm constantly renaming and organizing almost every song I get. Over the last several years, I've become very OCD in ID tagging... even to the smallest details like using 'and' instead of '&' (unless its a group or duo), putting featured artist after the name of the track, putting the remixer or version of the song in parenthesis after the name of the track, to using 'feat.' instead of 'featuring'.
Is all this work I've done going to disappear after iTunes Match scans my library?
I'd be interested to hear if one of those downloaded "matched" files can be copied to a jump drive, then to a completely independent PC and played in 3rd party software like Windows Media Player, even copied to and played on a competitor's MP3 player. Can the file be opened in Quicktime and exported into WAV or AIFF or "pass through" M4A?
Sure feels as if Apple could "expire" those matched files if you don't up your $25 each year, and this would be a completely legitimate model. However if they can be played perfectly well outside the iEcosystem, or even lossless copied within it, I guess not.
The curious inconsistency of the iTunes Store still offering to upgrade 1899 of my "old" iTunes tracks to 256kbps iTunes Plus for the low low price of $510.27 still makes me very skeptical that in a few weeks I can do the same with all these tracks (and thousands and more) for a one-time no-commitment $25 fee.
ETA: Are those files definitely the full m4a files, or perhaps disguised m3u files that simply "link" to the song in the iTunes Store? I recall some reports in the original beta that iTunes was reporting matched songs as "Streaming" like an internet radio station. Does the file size in the Finder or the Get Info box in iTunes seem to match with an actual full song file?
Last edited:
They'd have paid 25 bucks per year.
If that's above the ARPU regarding music-purchases overall, they've made a profit.
Once you stop paying for Match, you lose access to those songs anyway.
Copying them away would be abuse of service, though.
It was my understanding that once you pay for the service, you can keep the songs that were matched forever, but the yearly fee is for if you want to continue matching new songs.
Yep, this works. Tracks are DRM-free but do have your iTunes account stamped on the tracks "just in case" you wanted to let those float around the internet.
I was curious if the tracks could expire after a year too. But with Apple billing this as a way to REPLACE your locally stored files with higher bitrate files, that would be a d!ck move to expire them and leave you with nothing.
Matthew,
I don't know if you are trying to be snarky. But you really ought to have a clue before assuming this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Why don't you do a google search for Music digital watermark ?
Now if you manually ripped your neighbor's music, it's not going to know. But if you downloaded music that was purchased from Apple (DRM free), Apple will know.
The other part of this question is, will apple share any information it gathers during the process with any outside organization? The other concern is even if Apple doesn't turn this information over to others voluntarily, it is possible the RIAA could sue Apple seeking that information.
In that case, even if Apple didn't want to hand over the information, they'd have no choice.
Again, still no problem for folks ripping CDs. But anyone with downloaded music should think hard before signing up for the service (at least without knowing the answers to these questions).
Wow. I've always followed the adages "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is" and "There's no such thing as a free lunch" but I'm slowly being convinced that there's no fine print or catch here to this $25 lunch.
I have those 1899 "old" 128kbps iTunes tracks that Apple could get >$500 for if I chose to upgrade to iTunes Plus. Now covered by $25.
I've got thousands of legitimate CD rips at 128kbps AAC from the late 1990s and early 2000s that I now wish I'd done at 256kbps but know I never will. Apple could potentially take advantage of my lack of time and energy and get $9.99 per album from me (yes, I do just repurchase some of my favorites, especially when they've been remastered). Now covered by $25.
Finally, I have thousands more tracks purchased at 128kbps from allofmp3.com (don't judge
) that again, I could theoretically repurchase from iTunes at $1.29 per song. Now covered by $25.Sure sounds too good to be true. I continue to ask, not only why did the record companies agree to this, but why did Apple even agree to this? Seems to create a fair amount of lost revenue all the way around...but I suppose smarter people than me have worked the numbers.
It is an interesting suggestion that this would be a 'honeypot' of sorts since you would be able identify users super easy. I'm sure it's possible. I just would expect that would tarnish one of Apple's greatest assets- their brand image. And it would have a major cooling effect on people's willingness to put any personal data in the cloud. Maybe Apple would only go along with it from a court order. But still a great majority of their customers have at least ONE questionably obtained track in their library, and would open all sorts of closing wounds from the past that it seems the RIAA has finally backed off from their lawsuit rampages.
Actually, its a Visa. The poster asked if you could use a gift card to pay, which you can. But yes, I imagine it let me do this because there is a credit card attached to my account. Having a credit card attached to my account doesn't take away from the fact that you can use a gift card to pay.
----------
Did u have credit in your iTunes account? Did it take the $24.99 from there?
Interested as I am a dev, but in the uk. I do have $30 credit in my US iTunes account though
I can confirm to UK users that iTunes credit on a US account does not work, unless you have a US credit card attached to the account, then it will take the store credit to pay for it, assuming it thinks the next years payment will come from the credit card. You can however delete the attached credit card after the "Match" is made.
Yes, I had a US credit card attached to my account. This doesn't really help anyone in another country, but it is good for someone such as myself with three $10 gift cards sitting around and nothing I really wanted to use them on.
Wow. I've always followed the adages "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is" and "There's no such thing as a free lunch" but I'm slowly being convinced that there's no fine print or catch here to this $25 lunch.
I have those 1899 "old" 128kbps iTunes tracks that Apple could get >$500 for if I chose to upgrade to iTunes Plus. Now covered by $25.
I've got thousands of legitimate CD rips at 128kbps AAC from the late 1990s and early 2000s that I now wish I'd done at 256kbps but know I never will. Apple could potentially take advantage of my lack of time and energy and get $9.99 per album from me (yes, I do just repurchase some of my favorites, especially when they've been remastered). Now covered by $25.
Finally, I have thousands more tracks purchased at 128kbps from allofmp3.com (don't judge
Sure sounds too good to be true. I continue to ask, not only why did the record companies agree to this, but why did Apple even agree to this? Seems to create a fair amount of lost revenue all the way around...but I suppose smarter people than me have worked the numbers.
I was skeptical myself. But I have been giving the increasingly-better betas a spin and the service has matched thousands of tracks for me (like you, some from lower quality rips and some from various online sources a decade ago). I have backed up those tracks to an external now for safe-keeping and to test the DRM I moved a few to a Windows computer, an Android phone, and even Google's Music beta service. All work without a problem. I really doubt these tracks have a time bomb that self destructs in a year either.
I really hope this is Apple and the RIAA's efforts to cleanup the sordid past and move forward and if so I applaud them. I may buy more music now that I have legitimized my black sheep. Streaming services are taking off, this seems to be Apple's first steps toward that and bridge the gap.
If it helps any, I matched all the music on my iMac and then downloaded it to my MacBook Air, then turned off iTunes Match (per the email sent out) and my music is still stored locally on my Air. I think this kind of points to the music being yours to keep even if you only subscribe for one year.
Another good thing is that it upgrades your old 128k music that you purchased from iTunes to 256k. I head read something saying that this wasn't the case, but can confirm that all of the music I downloaded to my Air is 256k, including my old 128k music that I purchased from iTunes.
iTunes match a honeypot?
Anyone interested in the question of whether this service may allow the record labels to track down pirates should read the article below:
http://betweenthenumbers.net/2011/06/is-apples-icloud-music-match-a-possible-honeypot/
Anyone interested in the question of whether this service may allow the record labels to track down pirates should read the article below:
http://betweenthenumbers.net/2011/06/is-apples-icloud-music-match-a-possible-honeypot/
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
10.5.1 B2 actually auto updated any iCloud Match changes when I used it, so it does auto update.
D.T. said:
I'd assume it runs as a service monitoring your library and any imports/adds fire off a match for the new content.
[edit]
Oops! Got answered just before I posted
***
Is there an option for "copy local" to iOS devices? i.e., not streaming from the cloud, but storing the content locally?
10.5.1 B2 actually auto updated any iCloud Match changes when I used it, so it does auto update.
my whole library is 320kbps but i know some of the songs are not true 320kbps they are more like 128..would match make them all the 256?