Skip to main content

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Topic: iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream? (Read 19821 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

According to Apple, iTunes Match will allow you to store music you've purchased elsewhere in the iCloud. From there you can download it or stream it to other devices.

From their website: "Here’s how it works: iTunes determines which songs in your collection are available in the iTunes Store. Any music with a match is automatically added to your iCloud library for you to listen to anytime, on any device. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud."

Note that iTunes Match doesn't upload your music -- it matches what you've got with what's in iCloud, and gives you that in 256 kbps AAC format.

I wonder how it knows if your music is legitimate -- purchased from Amazon MP3, or ripped from your own CD, for example. It seems to me that this could be a dream for a pirate -- it basically gives an avenue for legitimitizing pirated music. Once it's in iCloud, it's as good as legal.

I wonder how iTunes Match does its matching -- with all the varieties of encoders, formats, bitrates, etc it seems an insurmountable task. It can't do it off metadata alone, as then one could just attach metadata to any random file and get a song. Some kind of waveform analysis?

This is going to be an interesting product...

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #1
...and while "iTunes in the Cloud" - storing/syncing iTunes-purchased music to multiple devices - is free, iTunes Match isn't, even though none of your music stored in iCloud counts against your 5 GB storage limit...

...and Apple secured "licensing agreements" with all four of the major record labels before announcing this...

...hmm...
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #2
I wonder how it knows if your music is legitimate -- purchased from Amazon MP3, or ripped from your own CD, for example. It seems to me that this could be a dream for a pirate -- it basically gives an avenue for legitimitizing pirated music. Once it's in iCloud, it's as good as legal.


Its legal . . . provided you keep paying.  If you cancel your subscription, you lose access to your matched tracks. 

Why should they care if the tracks were originally pirated as long as you eventually pay for them?

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #3
What a Pirate's Dream! Instead of enjoying a large collection of free songs for free pay Apple for live for inflated AAC versions.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #4
Some kind of waveform analysis?

There's actually one or even a few services that have been doing that sort of scanning already. I know some old Sony Ericsson phones had that ability built in. You'd just playback some song and it would recognize it based on the [sound of the] waveform.


What a Pirate's Dream! Instead of enjoying a large collection of free songs for free pay Apple for live for inflated AAC versions.

Yeah, I don't really see why a pirate would bother "legalizing" songs through Apple. What would he gain by that? Some artificial peace of mind? AFAIK they catch pirates when they upload songs via p2p, not by just randomly investigating the origins of songs people have on their devices.

But of course, considering the big labels'/RIAA's take on piracy, there had to be some convincing going on. Supposedly, Apple paid $150 million to the big labels to make this happen (plus a cut of the $25 fees).

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #5
Yeah, paying changes everything to the polar opposite of what you suggest (the OP). Apple is getting people to pay for UN-DRM'ed music that they already own and that they can already put in their iDevices™. Eff that.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #6
icloud=waste of time

why bother...bring mp3 player with you...cloud=bah  something else to waste $ on

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #7
There was an article referenced above that used the term "launder", and that's just what iTunes Match can do. Let's say you've got 100,000 pirated songs. For $25 you can iTunes Match them to iCloud, and then re-download them. Voila, you now have 100,000 legitimate songs. Right?

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #8
No.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #9
Its legal . . . provided you keep paying.  If you cancel your subscription, you lose access to your matched tracks.

Are you sure about this? The legality might be a murky area (maybe if you keep the copies it might not be illegal if the tracks weren't illegal in the first place?), but apparently you get iTunes plus un-DRMed AACs downloaded, so you won't lose access. icloud probably will hide the songs in the convoluted iThing directory tree, or try to block reading from the iThing with anything other than itunes.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/...ns-answered.ars

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #10
Well to me, this piracy angle is a bit of a misdirection from the real service purpose, which is to be a competition with Amazon's could service. But the difference is that Amazon will let you download your own mp3s from any device, including any PC. Apple as always is keeping a very closed system.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #11
Well, this MIGHT be a sign that the *IAAs are beginning to see sense, and instead of taking a flamethrower to a butterfly in pursuing small scale pirates, they're prepared to accept 70% of USD $25 a year. That might be good VFM, what with saving on lawyers and private eyes, especially as I suspect a lot of pirated stuff goes into stamp collections rather than being actually listened to. It probably doesn't make the pirated stuff exactly legal, but if the big companies take the money, they would be in a poor position to pursue individuals.

As to whether $25 per year is worth it for backup and cloud availability for people who've ripped their own CDs, I guess that's a choice the individual is free to make.

But of course, I may be totally naive and optimistic, and this is the latest plan by Zombie Steve to come back and eat our brains and put DRM on our private parts.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #12
http://music.google.com/about/

This is the way to go.
You can upload up to 20000 tracks for free and stream them anywhere.


iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #13
You are missing a key phrase there: for now.  Google Music is free for now but Google has stated that they will eventually start charging an unknown price for the service.  It looks like the first 6-12 months are going to be free but, after that, I wouldn't be surprised if they charge something close to what Apple is asking for.  Google Music would also be a nice choice for Android users but iOS consumers, while being able to stream their music content through Safari, would be SOL when it comes to actually downloading content.

Right now I have been pretty satisfied with Amazon's service as I get 5GB of free cloud storage and I can easily access those files on my Droid X.  I don't think I will ever buy into Apple's iTunes on the Cloud service as none of my iDevices have anything beyond wi-fi connectivity.  I could see its potential if I had an iPhone (of course, not on at&t as the 2GB per month limit wouldn't go far) or an iPad 3G but I don't.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #14
You are missing a key phrase there: for now.  Google Music is free for now but Google has stated that they will eventually start charging an unknown price for the service.  It looks like the first 6-12 months are going to be free but, after that, I wouldn't be surprised if they charge something close to what Apple is asking for.

To me this seems like you are talking about MPEG LA. Why do you think that? Did something similar ever happened?
I would be shocked if Google would charge more than Apple or even, for any kind of service! But I would not be shocked by regular Apple nonsense, like: http://www.cringely.com/2011/06/iclouds-re...o-kill-windows/

AFAIK, Google and Amazon both struggled with major labels to make purchasing through their clouds possible and avoid manual user upload, while Amazon offers direct access (without uploading) for tracks purchased from Amazon (after their cloud service started).

Where Apple succeeded, Google failed apparently because "search results in Google and YouTube often point to pirated music".




iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #18
Who said he did?

What's the point in your unarticulated questions anyway?

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #19
You are missing a key phrase there: for now.  Google Music is free for now but Google has stated that they will eventually start charging an unknown price for the service.


This is all about deduplication. During the beta Google is able to create a dataset about how much data in real world collections is redundant. This datapoint is of massive significance. Apple can store (cache, etc.) one file per song. For a completely open service the same song can add up to thousands of different versions (different encoders, metadata, embedded album art, etc.) with the associated costs of retention. A smart approach would be separating gap-normalized audio content from metadata on a  deduplicated storage system, but even then you are left with different encoders and bitrates. An extensive beta phase is more important for Google Music than almost any other product launch in the recent years.

Personally I use Wuala. There are iPhone and Android apps and I share about 1TB of storage in a group of virtual machines. I don't pay a cent to have my whole collection anywhere anytime.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #20
Who said he did?

What's the point in your unarticulated questions anyway?


My point is it appears to me kornchild is not talking about MPEG LA in any way, shape, or form, yet you think he is.  I'm curious why you believe he is because I just don't see it.

Creature of habit.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #21
You misunderstood me, so let me explain: I'm alluding that such behavior reminds me on MPEG-LA, and can't in any way associate scenario with something Google might do

Personally I use Wuala. There are iPhone and Android apps and I share about 1TB of storage in a group of virtual machines. I don't pay a cent to have my whole collection anywhere anytime.

Are you trading 10 (virtual) machines, 100 GB on each and 100% online time, as Wuala says they offer 1GB for free?

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #22
Correct 10 x 100GB. I don't leave the computer on for the sole purpose of Wuala trading so my actual, available online space is about 380 GB. From that I currently use about 180 GB. The sync feature is great, everything has worked flawlessly from day 1.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #23
To me this seems like you are talking about MPEG LA. Why do you think that? Did something similar ever happened?
I would be shocked if Google would charge more than Apple or even, for any kind of service!


I am not sure where you get MPEG LA out of that.  As I said, Google already stated that Google Music will only be temporarily free.  Sorry but it is a cold, hard fact that they will eventually start charging for Google Music.  So get ready to act surprised when the beta program ends and they start asking you for $XX (and hopefully not $XXX) just to use their cloud music service.  I also wouldn't put much thought into websites posting articles claiming that Apple's cloud service has a goal of killing off Windows.  I also have a picture showing Bigfoot eating pancakes with Hitler with Tu-Pac in Paris if you like, I am sure it is about as authentic as the "facts" pulled for those "nonsense" articles.

iCloud + iTunes Match = Pirate's Dream?

Reply #24
No problem if you can't see h264 licensing terms scenario in what you wrote
You claim that Google will start charging "just to use their cloud music service" and you even put some $ figures. Where did you get that?

AFAIK Google Music does not offer more that bare storage for now, which I understand it's free (for now) as 5GB Amazon free. What would Google offer when out of beta is unknown. But I sure don't see any reason they'll charge you for basic service.
Google never did such thing anyway. Can you use Amazon EC2 for free? -No. Can you use Google appengine for free?
This things just don't fall from Moon you know?

I also wouldn't put much thought into websites posting articles claiming that Apple's cloud service has a goal of killing off Windows.

Yeah wild apples, just google that title

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021