iTunes Match: $24.99/Year, Matches Ripped Tunes, Offers Them In The Cloud

[rWally]

something that came to my mind. let's say there's a new song of "Pitbull" on iTunes but u dont actually have the song. What stops u from tagging a completely different Pitbull song as the one and u get it for free? ^^

That won't work. I can almost guarantee apple won't simply be checking your tags to verify the song. I'm guessing there will be some spectral analysis of some sort to make sure it matches up.

 

[marksman]

How long before someone figures out how to create 25,000 random files with the proper metadata to trick iTunes into providing up to 10 devices with 256 kbps AAC DRM-free tracks?

Not how they match songs. It is not just based on metadata.

I don't really see this as all that great of deal. I mean for a little more money you can subscribe to Napster and get 6 MILLION songs and you don't have to match anything. I guess if the only music you like is the stuff you already got then it is alright.

I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

 

[milo]

What about cases where you have more than 25k files? Would they charge you more or will you have the option to choose which ones are included in the cloud? I'm sure I'm over the limit but I have many that are only for reference that I wouldn't even want in the cloud. Along those same lines, are there ways to exclude files or playlists from sync/upload whether you're under the limit or not?

I definitely hope the match service works better than the one for album covers, that one works horribly for me.

It does NOT download music so you don't need the storage. Read it closer

Are you sure about that? The info makes it sound like it pushes the file to your machine, which would be a download. Doesn't sound like streaming at all, more like syncing over a network (including wireless).

Was anyone able to download the 10.3 beta yet and try it out? There's a huge difference between downloading authorized files on the fly and streaming and losing those copies if you cancel the service.

 

[jprocha]

Can someone answer these questions?

1. If I sign up and it matches my ripped music, does it then let me download the matched version from iCloud to keep forever?

2. What happens when I stop paying for this service? Do I keep the downloaded music from iCloud or does it revert to my old copies of music?

Thanks!

 

[AaronEdwards]

Not how they match songs. It is not just based on metadata.





I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

Getting 6 million or 13 million songs is a bit expensive and hard for that matter. Unless you're a pirate.

 

[Cagle]

Piracy Laundry.... right there.

 

[bushido]

Was anyone able to download the 10.3 beta yet and try it out? There's a huge difference between downloading authorized files on the fly and streaming and losing those copies if you cancel the service.

u can test it on your iPhone already, it let me redownload all the songs i had ever downloaded on iTunes for free

 

[Sparced]

25,000 songs is not enough.

$49 unlimited maybe added in the future for the rest of us.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The thing is both Google and Amazon are using a loop hole that the record company can not do anything about. It is all the users own song uploaded to the respective cloud. Biggest given proof of this is the fact that there has not been any law suit filed against either one of them.

Patience. The big awards from copyright infringement lawsuits come from giving the infringers time to really rack up the numbers. For example, this Lodsys patent infringement move didn't come as soon as in app updates was announced or in the very first perceived infringement because there would hardly be any money to win from that. Instead, they stand by, let lots of players (potentially) infringe then bring the case.

Vs. Amazon & Google, the potential for infringe volume will be huge and thus the lawsuit settlement numbers can also be huge. Just stand by. The lawsuits will probably arrive in a year or two... when the potential prize is juicy enough to make multiple rounds of lawyer wars (and fees therein) still offer the potential for a net payoff.

 

[The Norman]

ALAC on my home server. AAC in iCloud for everywhere else. This still hasn't weaned me off CDs, though. When Apple starts selling Apple Lossless, CD's will finally die.

 

[essinger]

I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

In terms of cost per song it is about 240 times cheaper. I'm just saying at $25 you are already paying over a quarter of the cost and getting no new music whatsoever. For 4 times the cost you get better than 1000 times the music.

 

[Eric S.]

I'll stick with keeping my music on my own computer and syncing it myself, thank you very much.

I hope newer versions of iTunes will at least allow users to continue to do that. If not, I guess I freeze my iTunes version right where it is.

 

[Blu-Ray]

1. If I sign up and it matches my ripped music, does it then let me download the matched version from iCloud to keep forever?

2. What happens when I stop paying for this service? Do I keep the downloaded music from iCloud or does it revert to my old copies of music?

Thanks!

1) You HAVE TO download it and it is DRM-free, so I assume the logical answer is "YES".
2) You will be cancelling the matching service but already have a copy of the DRM-free file, so the logical answer is "YES, you get to keep the "upgraded version".

Disclaimer: I'm just answering based on how it sounds like it will work...

 

[maroontiger2k9]

i wonder how "iTunes Match" will manage scenarios where albums are partially recognized... but i think this is a sweet deal to be able to upload ANY and EVERY piece of music that you have as long as you dont exceed the storage capacity

 

[milo]

u can test it on your iPhone already, it let me redownload all the songs i had ever downloaded on iTunes for free

And they are downloaded to the phone, not streamed, correct?

Seems like people are mistakenly thinking it is streaming based on the rumors and not paying attention to what was actually announced.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Aren't iOS users more willing to pay than Android users?

This thread is filled with iOS users jubilant that they now think they can covert their illegally downloaded files.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As long as Google doesn't store a "proxy" version of your songs, there is nothing the record companies can do about it.

I don't think so. If Google servers are hosting pirated media- even with some kind of "terms of service" that tries to distance it from user choices of what may be stored there, it is still potentially something the media owners could litigate via some interpretation of facilitating the use and/or distribution of pirated media.

Right now, if you upload a pirated copy of some movie or song and upload it to Google servers, you're a pirate in the eyes of the law. However, Google is like your ship where your loot is stored and used. The media owners can sue you but there won't be that much money in that. However, suing Google for all such copyright violations is probably going to add up to a big settlement dollar target.

This is why I was so sure that the Time Capsule rumor was going to be a piece of some kind of hybrid iCloud. The piece in NC would only work for legally verifiable iTunes store purchases while the home (TC) piece could store the rest of your media. Then, Apple servers are not potentially hosting pirated content for some users of iCloud. This would position their services as literally "arms length" from questionable media while Amazon & Googles digital locker approach would be much less defendable. I'm still pretty surprised that the TC piece wasn't a part of what was talked about today given just this single issue.

 

[AaronEdwards]

25,000 songs is not enough.

Image

$49 unlimited maybe added in the future for the rest of us.

The number of people who got 25,000 digital songs stored that are either bought digitally or ripped, that's a rather small number.

To get up to 25,000 songs, generally, but not in all cases, there's piracy involved.

 

[jprocha]

1) You HAVE TO download it and it is DRM-free, so I assume the logical answer is "YES".
2) You will be cancelling the matching service but already have a copy of the DRM-free file, so the logical answer is "YES, you get to keep the "upgraded version".

Disclaimer: I'm just answering based on how it sounds like it will work...

Thanks! I'll probably wait for other people to try it first. I don't see a point in paying for it yearly because I purchase all my new music through iTunes. I just need this for my old stuff from CDs and Amazon.

 

[rWally]

Aren't iOS users more willing to pay than Android users?

This thread is filled with iOS users jubilant that they now think they can covert their illegally downloaded files.

The problem is that most people who torrent music get files that are 256 kbps or better anyway so why bother converting?

 

[bobob]

I hope though that it will allow streaming for songs that either aren't synced yet, or that you simply can't fit, as my computer has way more music than even a high-end iPad could hold, so what would happen then? I'd hope I could set aside 10gb for music on my iPad, and iTunes would only locally store the ones I listen to most, and stream any others that don't fit, or something like that anyway.

This is a question that I would also like to hear the answer to.

 

[jmw1480]

And they are downloaded to the phone, not streamed, correct?

Seems like people are mistakenly thinking it is streaming based on the rumors and not paying attention to what was actually announced.

Question #2: SJ made a point to mention that it took minutes, not hours, to "upload" your library with iTunes Match, since it was esentially LOOKING at your library and not physically taking your files to the cloud (unless they aren't one of the 18 million Apple already owns).

HOWEVER, if you then have to physically DOWNLOAD those files - in the old-fasioned sense - won't that take a loooog time??

Especially over 3G... 25K songs? WHEW!

 

[Cybbe]

This is the definition of piracy. Are you messing with us? How do YOU define pirated? Pirated music is music distributed in violation of copyright laws. That includes downloaded music that wasn't paid for and which the distribution wasn't authorized by the content owner as well as copying a friend's CD.

Maybe in your jurisdiction. Out in the free world, we aren't slaves to the whims of corporate giants, and sharing cultural information among friends is legal. Anything else would be utterly disgusting and take us back to the dark ages.

Oh. I forgot. ..you wouldn't download a car..

 

[codymac]

I exclusively stream all of my music through Rhapsody. It has it's flaws but being able to "add" dozens of albums for $10/mo can't be beat IMO.

I have over 1000 songs in my library that I set to shuffle and listen to at home, on the way to and from work, and at work. I absolutely love it.

However, I also have a ton of music in iTunes that can't be found on Rhapsody like mashups, nerdcore, remixes, etc.

I was really hoping that I could dump Rhapsody, upload all of my one-offs to the cloud, and abuse iTunes like I do with Rhapsody now.

Looks like I'll have to stick with what I've got...

Me too... Fortunately, pulptunes works a treat for just this situation.

Streamed my library at a friend's dinner party last week.

 

[circusbass]

So this isn't more than one big hd in the sky? If it doesn't stream then whats the point? Audiogalaxy FTW! That streams all my music from my computer free.