madmod20061
macrumors newbie
Just FYI, if anyone else had this problem, I just went into my itunes folder and deleted my genius result files. Now it's working.
Apple Releases iTunes 10.5.1 Beta 3 for More iTunes Match Testing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just FYI, if anyone else had this problem, I just went into my itunes folder and deleted my genius result files. Now it's working.
Tinmania
macrumors 68040
Thanks!
Actually I think it took about 5 minutes after iTunes plus came out.
Michael
----------
Thanks... as an fyi it is still doing that. I forgot I had two iTunes IDs so tried it too.
Oh, and they never say matched they all say "purchased by." I think this is a case of using an existing field, in database terms. It is kind of funny to see AC/DC listed as purchased by as that field has traditionally been used only for music you purchased through iTunes music store.
Michael
madmod20061
macrumors newbie
Thanks!
Actually I think it took about 5 minutes after iTunes plus came out.
Michael
----------
Thanks... as an fyi it is still doing that. I forgot I had two iTunes IDs so tried it too.
Oh, and they never say matched they all say "purchased by." I think this is a case of using an existing field, in database terms. It is kind of funny to see AC/DC listed as purchased by as that field has traditionally been used only for music you purchased through iTunes music store.
Michael
Weird, because most of mine say matched. There were a few that redownloaded as purchased, bust most matched.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
But this is x.5.1, not x.0 !
Are there any betting pools around? (One, when it will release - Two, how many more times they'll erase the database.)
Last edited:
Tinmania
macrumors 68040
I am talking about in the metadata when you right-click and choose show info. Not talking about the iCloud status field.
Michael
Tinmania
macrumors 68040
I noticed another issue that I don't recall seeing before:
I was in a place with rather slow Internet access. When playing cloud songs on my air if the music caught up to the download buffer it stopped and moved to the next song.
I watched it skip 8 songs in a row before it came to one where it was able to stay ahead of the buffer.
I do not think I like this behavior. It is like it has a "no pause policy" instead of doing a better job of adjusting the buffer to internet connection speed. I would be pissed off if, say, Netflix did the same thing.
Michael
I was in a place with rather slow Internet access. When playing cloud songs on my air if the music caught up to the download buffer it stopped and moved to the next song.
I watched it skip 8 songs in a row before it came to one where it was able to stay ahead of the buffer.
I do not think I like this behavior. It is like it has a "no pause policy" instead of doing a better job of adjusting the buffer to internet connection speed. I would be pissed off if, say, Netflix did the same thing.
Michael
mactmaster
macrumors 6502
This has been the behavior since early on. I noticed it because for a while I was trying to stream at work but the net connection is snail slow. One of the reasons I ended up getting an iPhone 4S so I could have some music playback at work.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Windlasher
macrumors 6502
so my question is...
whats to stop me from syncing my library with ITM, and then putting my library on an external HD and taking it over a friends house so they can log in using my music, sync with ITM, and me grabbing a copy of theirs and syncing it with mine when I get home.
seems like there could be a whole lotta swain goin on.
whats to stop me from syncing my library with ITM, and then putting my library on an external HD and taking it over a friends house so they can log in using my music, sync with ITM, and me grabbing a copy of theirs and syncing it with mine when I get home.
seems like there could be a whole lotta swain goin on.
Every proper MP4-muxer/tagger already can do that. There's no need for an app for that.
gnasher729
Suspended
Apply logical thinking to the following facts: 1. Apple has very little interest in stopping music piracy, or helping the RIAA to catch pirates. 2. Apple has a huge interest in making money by making you buy Macs, iPods, iPhones and iPads. 3. Apple has signed contracts with the music industry that say exactly what Apple can and cannot do; contracts checked by Apple's lawyers who are not complete morons. 4. Apple knows that people will use iTunes Match to replace pirated songs. 5. Apple knows that if they give information about this to the RIAA, the whole service will be stone dead, and Apple's reputation destroyed, at enormous cost to the shareholders.
Conclusion: Apple will _not_ give any information about which songs you matched to the RIAA or anyone. On the other hand, the RIAA reads MacRumors, and since you are obviously a pirate, they will subpoena your identity from MacRumors and send ninjas to your home who will beat you up. Or worse, send lawyers that take your money, your soul, and your children (or your parents, depending on your age) away.
bpaluzzi
macrumors 6502a
Believe it or not, a subpoena can force a company to act ... *gasp* ... against their best interest.
Apple won't have a say in the matter.
KeithJenner
macrumors 65816
See point 3 in the post above. I think that we can assume that Apple have considered these possibilities.
Nothing. And the reason they don't care is because you can already get copies of all music your friends have (and vice versa), this doesn't change anything (other than now getting 25 from one or both of you).
As said above, that assumes Apple either didn't think of that idea already, or did but doesn't care if they are forced into playing Music Cop. Both of which seem extremely unlikely. Plus, the record companies are going to get a cut of this money, unlike the other cloud services - I don't think they're dumb enough to come up with a new revenue source then turn around and risk losing it.
Frankly I'd be shocked if the contract between Apple and the labels didn't specifically talk about potential lawsuits and agree not to sue users. If I were Apple I wouldn't launch this service without that worked out ahead of time.
Guess it depends on how they match and what information can be gleaned from that. If they just match the music based on the similarity of a sample of your music to what is in the iTunes database, there's not a lot of conclusions the RIAA can draw from that. They're not uploading your matched music for forensic analysis (I hope). However if they capture stuff like file hashes of your music then it'll get a bit suspicious when there's 1 million identical rips of an album that only sold 100 thousand copies. A discrepancy like that would be enough to get a subpoena but that's still a lot of work to prove you didn't buy the album then throw it away after you ripped it.
hakr100
macrumors 6502a
Maybe I don't, but I wonder about it and what it is really for. I have selections of my iTunes songs on my iMac and on my Macbook Pro, and I keep a smaller selection on my iPhone 4S. I also have a backup of all my tunes on an eight terabyte Synology server, and the server keeps a backup of that, too. The server is accessible over the internet if I want it to be.
So, perhaps the challenge is to offer up a better explanation than Apple has of what this new service is. I can't even figure out a real use for iCloud, since the amount of "space" it offers for free is miniscule.
KeithJenner
macrumors 65816
I'd agree that it needs better explanation, but it really isn't hard to see what iTunes Match is for.
A lot of people (probably the majority) have a bigger iTunes library than they have free space on their iPhone (or at least they ideally don't want to fill their phone with music and have no room for video etc).
These people currently have to sync selected files to their iPhone. Many are happy to do this, and iTunes Match is probably not worth it for them. However, a lot of people will be quite happy to pay $25 a year to not have to worry about selecting songs to sync and have their entire library available anywhere they have an internet connection.
It probably isn't for you, but not everyone has the same requirements as you.
hakr100
macrumors 6502a
That's sort of what i thought it was about, but your explanation is superior to what I was muddling through on my own. Unless you are syncing via WiFi while away from your main computer, you're going to be using a lot of network data. Fine if you are on an unlimited plan, not so fine if you are not.
I guess I am an iPhone Luddite. I banished Siri...I have enough women in my life telling me what to do and where to go.
gnasher729
Suspended
I think you missed the little bit in my post where I said that Apple signed contracts, which have been checked by Apple's lawyers, which are not complete idiots. So you can be quite sure that if Apple should ever got such a subpoena from the RIAA, they will send it straight back with a comment "please read the contracts that we both signed before you bother us with that kind of nonsense again".
You should also know a story about Steve Jobs that isn't widely know. Everybody knows that from time to time in discussions with the music industry he had to bang their heads together to make them think straight (we wouldn't have any iTunes Music Store otherwise). He told Tim Cook that he left him two bricks in his will. So obviously Tim Cook asked him, why two bricks? So Steve Jobs said: When you discuss things with the music industry when I'm not there, you always take these two bricks with you. And when you can't make them see any sense any other ways, you take the two bricks and bang their balls between them. Then they'll listen.
So no, there will be no subpoenas.
Last edited:
KeithJenner
macrumors 65816
I'm sure that some people will get caught out with this, if they go out without any music on their phone and listen for a few hours then they could knock up dome quite serious usage.
However, I'm sure that most people will have their regularly listened songs on their phone anyway, and will use Wifi where possible so it shouldn't be a major problem.
Here's a practical use of iTunes Match.
I am just going to leave the office to drive somewhere that will take a couple of hours to get there. I really fancy listening to a specific album which isn't on my phone. At present I would have to either not listen to it, or nip home to sync (I have done that in the past).
With iTunes match, I would use the Wifi at work to download the albums that I want and off I go.
It may not happen every day, but enough to make $25 (or equivalent) well worth it.
Another example is when you are talking to friends and want to play them a track. I'm sure lots of us have done the searching around YouTube for a version of the song by the correct band etc. With Match you can just play it even if the file wasn't on your phone. That is worth the 10mb of data that it would use.
TheIntruder
macrumors 68000
Naw, my original question was whether this beta has corrected a regression I had found in the 10.5.0 release.
kavika411
macrumors 6502a
Hi. I hope I'm not being repetitive with these questions, but I'd appreciate comments from any of you who have been working with the betas.
Scenario 1 - I have a CD I ripped into iTunes. I have (1) altered the genre for each song, (2) rated each individual song, and (3) added a comment to each song. When my library is scanned (I guess that's the word), do those three items go into iCloud such that when I pull those songs onto a different device (such as another computer or my iPhone), they appear there as well?
Scenario 2 - I have dozens of CD singles that I have ripped through the years. For example, I have most of Radiohead's CD singles. I have spent a great deal of time reconfiguring the metadata and such on these singles so that there is a single Radiohead "album" called "Singles And B-Sides." (I did this because I am a bit neurotic, and would prefer to have one "album" with 40 songs than 40 albums with one song.) When my library is scanned, will iCloud break that "album" back apart into its original pieces, or will it remain intact as I made it?
Scenario 3 - I know this seems like I'm splitting hairs, but the album year and album art are very important to me. For example, I may have one song by the Beatles. I am concerned that when iCloud scans my library, it may match that one Beatles song with a greatest hits Beatles collection, and that the iCloud version of my song will show the album art of the greatest hits version and, worse still, the iCloud version will show the year that the greatest hits album came out instead of the original. Does anyone have experience with this?
I realize these aren't Earth shattering issues by any stretch of the imagination, but I appreciate anyone's comments. Thanks.
EDIT: It looks like Nunyabinez answered much of this in Post No. 139. Thanks.
Scenario 1 - I have a CD I ripped into iTunes. I have (1) altered the genre for each song, (2) rated each individual song, and (3) added a comment to each song. When my library is scanned (I guess that's the word), do those three items go into iCloud such that when I pull those songs onto a different device (such as another computer or my iPhone), they appear there as well?
Scenario 2 - I have dozens of CD singles that I have ripped through the years. For example, I have most of Radiohead's CD singles. I have spent a great deal of time reconfiguring the metadata and such on these singles so that there is a single Radiohead "album" called "Singles And B-Sides." (I did this because I am a bit neurotic, and would prefer to have one "album" with 40 songs than 40 albums with one song.) When my library is scanned, will iCloud break that "album" back apart into its original pieces, or will it remain intact as I made it?
Scenario 3 - I know this seems like I'm splitting hairs, but the album year and album art are very important to me. For example, I may have one song by the Beatles. I am concerned that when iCloud scans my library, it may match that one Beatles song with a greatest hits Beatles collection, and that the iCloud version of my song will show the album art of the greatest hits version and, worse still, the iCloud version will show the year that the greatest hits album came out instead of the original. Does anyone have experience with this?
I realize these aren't Earth shattering issues by any stretch of the imagination, but I appreciate anyone's comments. Thanks.
EDIT: It looks like Nunyabinez answered much of this in Post No. 139. Thanks.
Last edited:
D.T.
macrumors G4
Thanks for the follow up!
Thanks. Simple, clear answer.
Outstanding. Should be a sticky somewhere
spokenblurb
macrumors member
Question
I have music that i took of my brothers computer ...basically i dragged the albums i wanted into my ipod touch then using a third party program put them into itunes also i have music i bought under a apple id i dont use any more, will itunes match scan these files and convert them(98% of my music is bought on itunes just my bro had a couple of albums i wanted and money was tight at the time)
I have music that i took of my brothers computer ...basically i dragged the albums i wanted into my ipod touch then using a third party program put them into itunes also i have music i bought under a apple id i dont use any more, will itunes match scan these files and convert them(98% of my music is bought on itunes just my bro had a couple of albums i wanted and money was tight at the time)
KeithJenner
macrumors 65816
I think we're starting to run out of ways to ask the same question, but the answer is yes it will.