If you've ripped the CDs obviously nothing in this topic is directed towards you.
On a side note, I don't think high download counts of free music don't correlate to implied sales.
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.
Little and Big Music Disagree On 'iTunes Match'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On a side note, I don't think high download counts of free music don't correlate to implied sales.
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?
Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.
If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.
Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.
If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.
Did you just make all of that up? Because I don't see anything that backs up what you're saying. The fine print says that what can't be matched will upload. Up to 25,000 songs. It doesn't say anything about the 5GB storage being affected by iTunes in the cloud.
Jobs also said that you would get all of the benefits of purchased music from matched content. That seems to imply re-downloading, not streaming.
If iTunes Match actually allows you to DOWNLOAD a 256kbps AAC rather than STREAMING, then...
Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.
- Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.
- What happens to someone who downloads all the upgraded versions, then stops their iTunes Match subscription? Do the files explode? Is Apple going back to a DRM scheme with some sort of lockdown for cancelled subscriptions? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed. Stop subscription, stop streaming access.
- Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.
"18 million songs for matching. iCloud scans and matches your music with the 18 million songs in iTunes. So chances are your music is already in iCloud."
Implies to me your matched music will be played from the iCloud, just like the 90-second previews in the iTunes store, but the whole song. Imagine the current iCloud icon next to your song in a playlist with a little play button instead of the little download arrow."And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality."
Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.
Last edited:
How about they just pull their content from iTunes and see if that boost their CD sales? How simple is the logic $0 vs a little $?
Very little detail has been released about how iTunes Match will work. But what has been stated backs up what I am saying just as well as or better than the assumption that these songs will be downloaded.
The 25,000 song limit is the most that iTunes Match with scan from any one iTunes Library. They are not going to allow the upload of 25,000 songs without charging you for more than the baseline "free" 5GB.
The reason unmatched songs will have to be uploaded is that there is not a copy already in the iTunes Store to stream to you. This will undoubtedly count against your 5GB iCloud. It's precisely why Jobs dug at Amazon and Google because they require you to upload ALL your songs to play from their clouds. Apple only requires you upload what doesn't match, because they will stream you the rest for $24.99/yr.
This is why Apple has a deal with the labels and the others don't. They will pay the labels a few pennies every time a song is streamed. Amazon and Google are just storage lockers. The table at the bottom of
http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/
is very clever as well, implying the annual price for 20,000 songs is $24.99. What that means is 20,000 songs that are already on Apple's servers. No way you are going to be able to store 20,000 unmatched songs for "free" in your 5GB of iCloud. That's the problem with the Amazon/Google model, you'll pay for storage ($???) to have access to your music in their clouds.
I'll have to go back and look but i think they said they would upload unmatched music free, still I think they'll have a cap on that.
It don't think it will be streaming. Music from the itunes ios app already shows past purchases as being icloud but they are downloaded.
But yes, this will be a service to launder "dirty" music.
I love Apple and Jobs and drink the Kool-Aid heavily.
He sold the iTunes Match masterfully with plenty of sleight of hand. Talked at length about all the stuff that doesn't count against your 5GB (Mail, Calendar, purchased iTunes, etc).
Segued into the iTunes Match and takes dig at Amazon cloud player for requiring upload of your entire library from scratch, while iTunes Match would virtually instantaneously match the song and give you access! Then while everyone is in an iTunes orgasmic frenzy, he slips it in that the only thing you have to upload to iCloud is your unmatched music. WE LOVE YOU STEVE!!!
He never said this part was unlimited or free storage.
Lots of people heard what they wanted to hear and are making a lot of assumptions as gospel that were never explicitly stated. There is no current business model I know of that can sustain free storage of up to 25,000 songs and unlimited free downloads of unsecured items that otherwise cost $1.29 to purchase.
The only way this works, makes money, and pleases the record industry is that iTunes Match streams you the 256kbps version of your song sitting in the iTunes Store. If it's not in the store, you will pay to keep a version in the iCloud with your 5GB or with extra $$$. Why is this so hard to believe?
Last edited:
Past (iTunes) purchases will be and are already re-downloadable with iCloud beta.
iTunes Match is a different service to be launched in September that will behave differently for those who pay for it. Will show your matched songs in the iCloud and let you play them back from the iCloud. Apple will undoubtedly make this seamless so that a playlist can go from a local song on your iPod to a cloud song with out a hiccup...
Last edited:
Mad Mac Maniac
macrumors 601
You are thinking into it too much. there is NO streaming music. none. zilch. itunes in the cloud is in no way a streaming service. Apple doesn't lose money by allowing you to redownload music you already bought. They have always done that for apps, not it just applies to music.
and the unmatched songs that are uploaded to iCloud can just be downloaded to any device you want. no streaming. I'm not sure if it was identified if that counts against your 5gb. I'm thinking it doesn't... but it might
Perhaps if they made music that was good enough to actually sell to large amounts of people, this wouldn't be an issue to them.
But if it's just steaming, then it's useless for people who don't have an iPhone or iPod Touch because you can't stream to a Nano or a Classic or a Shuffle.
And you can only stream to an iPhone or an iPod Touch when you're connected to a WiFi network or a cellular network.
And if you're connected to a cellular network, you're eating into your monthly bandwidth allotment to stream.
So what real benefit is it to people? Better to just manually sync the actual data to your device like we do now.
Lemme get this straight. The example of a record company that is being hurt by Match is... Numero Group? A bunch of guys that make money off re-releasing dead artists' material?
Sorry, no sale. I don't care if file sharing is cutting into your profit margins. And I definitely don't care that a useful, long-overdue service from Apple is maybe going to cut into them even more. Like a previous poster said, if you don't like it, pull your crap off the iTunes Store.
The automotive assembly line killed the buggy-whip manufacturing business. Guess what, that's what happens. Adapt or die. There's no right or wrong about it; it's JUST THE WAY IT IS.
Sorry, no sale. I don't care if file sharing is cutting into your profit margins. And I definitely don't care that a useful, long-overdue service from Apple is maybe going to cut into them even more. Like a previous poster said, if you don't like it, pull your crap off the iTunes Store.
The automotive assembly line killed the buggy-whip manufacturing business. Guess what, that's what happens. Adapt or die. There's no right or wrong about it; it's JUST THE WAY IT IS.
That wouldn't even begin to encompass the some 10 years we've had with P2P like Napster and Limewire and then the torrents. Nor does it cover private torrent trackers. Plus, if they're going to mess around like that, it's much more economical to just put in white noise or just ruin it in general to frustrate the pirates rather than try to catch them if/when they try to use iTunes Match (how many pirates do you think would sign up for that service?).
Correct!
INCORRECT! iTunes Match gives you the EXACT SAME benefits as (1) but for music obtained elsewhere. Whether you got it from Amazon, ripped a CD or pirated it, it gives you a 256Kbps AAC copy from iTunes (if that's better than the copy you have) AND lets you download to all your devices, exactly the same as if you purchased it from iTunes. There is NO streaming. No dent in your 5GB storage, because it's just giving you access to iTunes tracks for free.
Correct.
Absolutely nothing.
This will never happen.
Yes, it will! A bunch of friends won't "cobble together" anything. It's $25 bucks and it only works on a certain number of devices. $25 is not a lot of money. THERE IS NO STREAMING. Only downloading.
Again, no streaming. You keep all the files that you have downloaded, and stop getting access to iCloud backup of your songs until you pay $25 again. The files don't have DRM. They are 100% identical to the tracks you get from iTunes.
Good question. It seems pretty silly. Gotta be an oversight.
You're wrong. It's a "download" service. No streaming. At all. None.
If you're right, I'll pay for your first year of iTunes Match. There is no streaming.
All iTunes Match does is add your existing music to iCloud, and treats it the same as any music you have purchased from iTunes.
Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.
Excellent! I offer you the same!
I'm not watching the keynote again just to appease you. Jobs said it. Watch it yourself. Stop making crap up.
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music. It's essentially worthless with out streaming, IMO.
Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.
Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.
Isn't this exactly what you are doing? Like I said in an earlier post this is the only way for the labels to make recoup the loss of stolen music. Download or streaming (even though I doubt it will be streaming). If match never came around then the labels would recoup $0 for pirated music, with match (even download match) they will at least recoup some of that money.
Numero is an interesting label. They do some really, really cool stuff--and it's mostly focused on audiophile vinyl. They dig up old, obscure releases and give them new life, which is awesome in my opinion.
That said, I think this guys numbers are a bit off. Many of the records they release are old, obscure recordings that haven't been available commercially for many years. Of course they're going to be all over file sharing networks--it was the only way to get them!
He's also missing the point of iTunes match, and maybe doesn't understand how it pays him. I own an independent record label myself, and while I won't go into exact details, I will say that this is a great deal for us.
All labels and artists, big and small suffer from music piracy. People who are going to steal music are going to do it no matter what. They still usually put it on their iPods or iPhones though. Now, with this service, people will start paying something for the music they acquired illegally. I see it as free money. It's not a huge amount, but something's better than nothing.
The other side of it is that I'll be getting paid twice in many situations. If a customer buys a CD from an artist at their show and then uploads it to iTunes Match--My label gets paid a second time. If they buy it from Amazon, then upload it to iTunes--My label gets paid again. If they bought it from iTunes on an old account, then transferred it to a new account and upload it--once again, we're paid a second time. Like I said, it's kind of like free money. This service didn't exist two weeks ago, and now it does.
Anyone who owns a label of any size, or is an independent artist who doesn't understand that this benefits them simply isn't paying attention.
That said, I think this guys numbers are a bit off. Many of the records they release are old, obscure recordings that haven't been available commercially for many years. Of course they're going to be all over file sharing networks--it was the only way to get them!
He's also missing the point of iTunes match, and maybe doesn't understand how it pays him. I own an independent record label myself, and while I won't go into exact details, I will say that this is a great deal for us.
All labels and artists, big and small suffer from music piracy. People who are going to steal music are going to do it no matter what. They still usually put it on their iPods or iPhones though. Now, with this service, people will start paying something for the music they acquired illegally. I see it as free money. It's not a huge amount, but something's better than nothing.
The other side of it is that I'll be getting paid twice in many situations. If a customer buys a CD from an artist at their show and then uploads it to iTunes Match--My label gets paid a second time. If they buy it from Amazon, then upload it to iTunes--My label gets paid again. If they bought it from iTunes on an old account, then transferred it to a new account and upload it--once again, we're paid a second time. Like I said, it's kind of like free money. This service didn't exist two weeks ago, and now it does.
Anyone who owns a label of any size, or is an independent artist who doesn't understand that this benefits them simply isn't paying attention.
The point is wireless setup and re-downloading. My iPhone has about 1/8 ofnmy library. It would be awesome if I could go grab a song off my iTunes in the cloud and download it to my phone if I decide I want it. Or if I buy a new device, or want my library on multiple computers. That's a lot of manual work if you want to do it today.