6 ms·

Is this perpetual? For example, could I pay my yearly subscription fee, torrent anything I want, upload it and get a legit version? If so, this is $25 a year fo

Is this perpetual? For example, could I pay my yearly subscription fee, torrent anything I want, upload it and get a legit version? If so, this is $25 a year for all the music I want. Which, if the labels have agreed to that, it's very surprising. It's sort of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy: they start getting a cut of this fee from every participating pirate, which is a lot more than they used to get ($0), but a lot less than they wish they could get ($15 per album).

weaksauce 15y ago
Piracy is still going to happen; this way the record labels get a cut. If they make it easier than pirating it will be popular. I switched to amazon downloads because it was much easier than buying a CD and ripping it and I cannot live with DRM. Not to mention faster than waiting for the package to arrive.
joebadmo 15y ago
I'm not sure I understand the annual subscription. If I don't renew my subscription, does all my ripped/uploaded music go away? Or do I just lose access to more ripping/uploading?
- irahul 15y ago
  Most likely your converted music goes away(music you didn't buy from iTunes) from the cloud storage. The music on your harddisk isn't going anywhere.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I guess the question is: When I upload something to iCloud, does that actually get synced to all of my devices or do all these things just have streaming access to iCloud? If it actually syncs all of the files, do they go away from all but the original computer after the service is terminated? I.e. if you use this to convert pirated files to legal AAC, do all of the synced AAC files disappear, leaving you only with the original pirated MP3s when you stop paying Apple?
- hopeless 15y ago
  I'm wondering this too although it's a moot point since iTunes Match will be (yet another) U.S.-only music service
- count 15y ago
  It appears to be the ability to 'upload' or match new songs and then have them wirelessly sync over the internet to all of your devices would disappear. AAC doesn't have the ability to 'expire' content, as far as I know?
  - ugh 15y ago
    Apple’s DRM container files used AAC encoded audio. (This service seems to be without DRM, though.)
    - pyre 15y ago
      Yes, but the iTunes music store has been rid of those for a while, and like you said, they've specifically stated that these will be DRM-free.
mdasen 15y ago
It doesn't seem to be a license. It seems to be an agreement between Apple and the labels that basically allows for fair-use treatment. Basically, if you already own the songs, you have the license and you're just having Apple provide a convenience service for you - syncing your music to all your devices as high-quality 256k AAC files. You aren't getting a new license for them. You'll perpetually have the files, but it isn't something that will change your legal status. I'm guessing one of the reasons the labels agreed to this is that it provides them with ammunition that what Apple is doing isn't fair-use. If it was fair-use, Apple wouldn't be paying the labels. Therefore, Amazon, et. al. need to pay the labels for such services too. It sets a precedent that the labels like.
- pyre 15y ago
  The fact that someone paid for something shouldn't hold any legal water. Just because you suckered someone into paying you money that they didn't need to, shouldn't be able to influence how a court interprets the law. Especially the way that huge corporate interests like that will pay large sums of money to err on the side of caution and avoid a legal battle.
drewcrawford 15y ago
Here's what I don't understand about your (and a lot of people's, I don't mean to pick on you) comments, please help me understand this: Pirated files are not necessarily identifiable as such, not in the digital world. If I download some albums from what.cd, you can't tell they're pirated, maybe I ripped them with the exact same version of LAME. What I'm trying to say is that today, having a pirated file isn't a property of the file, it's a property of how you got ahold of that file. I don't understand what you mean when you say the service "legitimizes" (paraphrase) existing music. All it does is exchange one set of bits for another set of bits, and this set of bits or that set of bits don't make an audio file legitimate or illegitimate. I mean it's a bit like transcoding, isn't it? Except instead of doing it yourself, you're paying Apple to do it. The fact that a third party is providing the service doesn't necessarily mean that the process as a whole is legit, in the same way that taking a PDF of a book to FedEx Kinko's to print doesn't make the copy legit, in the same way that buying a Windows upgrade to upgrade your old pirated Windows doesn't make the resulting license legit. I realize we're in kind of a special circumstance here because Apple has paid the music labels a lot of money, but we're just speculating about what the contents of their license enables them to do, which is probably only to be indemnified in the event that people use the service with pirated music (but not to indemnify the actual users). Or am I missing something?
- billybob 15y ago
  No, I see your point. I guess it's an open question for me whether this is a transcoding service or a music license. Arguably, if I have a crappy MP3, and I pay Apple money, and they give me a version with a higher encoding rate, they have sold me the new bits for that song. Maybe the terms don't say that, but I think one could argue that I've paid for a copy of the song. In fact, I think that the labels, in an effort to make us repurchase our records as tapes and our tapes as CDs and our CDs as files, have tried to tie the license to the format. So that seems to back the idea that this deal gives me a license for the AAC-formatted file. Whether I had one for the MP3 is irrelevant, right? And would it be so bad if that's how the law sees it? This could actually be a boon for the recording industry. It could be win-win if pirates decide to do this: they start paying for music, they still get all the music they want, and they shift the distribution burden to BitTorrent and iTunes.
Shenglong 15y ago
I don't know what the demographic spread here is, but I'm 99.99% sure that none of the 800 people on my phone/facebook pay for every CD they want. More frequently, I find people buy CDs to support certain artists, and not just to have a legal copy. If this is the case, Apple's move is actually ingenious. I daresay a lot of pirates (who currently contribute $0) will pay $25/year for their music to be legal... for legal or moral reasons. The potential loss of revenue will lie on the people who buy 1-2 CDs/year. However, $25/year is likely more than the average amount these people pay, so it's still a plus, even if they stop buying the original CDs. I bet though, they won't. I see this as a huge gain in revenue.
ugh 15y ago
Torrenting those files will still be illegal and that doesn’t change after you sign up for this service and pay. It’s not an amnesty. (Also: Pirates are usually not caught by looking at the files they have on their HDD. Whether you have the original torrented files or Apple’s music files around doesn’t make a difference.) You can get those pirated files in slightly better quality and you won’t have to upload them to Apple if you want to use their music locker. Big deal.
- pyre 15y ago
  True, but if you 'convert' a large collection today, then you skip the possibility that Apple will implement anti-piracy features in the future. With Amazon and Google, no one can really be sure what the status is right now. Especially since you are uploading bit-for-bit copies of the files to those cloud services. In financial terms, Apple is running an exchange, while Google and Amazon are running a safety deposit service. If someone looks in the safety deposit and finds illegal items, you are caught. If someone looks in Apple's music locker, you only see Apple's AAC-encoded content (though I guess they didn't cover how that works with music that you didn't buy through Apple and they don't carry on iTunes).

weaksauce 15y ago

Piracy is still going to happen; this way the record labels get a cut. If they make it easier than pirating it will be popular. I switched to amazon downloads because it was much easier than buying a CD and ripping it and I cannot live with DRM. Not to mention faster than waiting for the package to arrive.

joebadmo 15y ago

I'm not sure I understand the annual subscription. If I don't renew my subscription, does all my ripped/uploaded music go away? Or do I just lose access to more ripping/uploading?

irahul 15y ago
Most likely your converted music goes away(music you didn't buy from iTunes) from the cloud storage. The music on your harddisk isn't going anywhere.
- pyre 15y ago
  I guess the question is: When I upload something to iCloud, does that actually get synced to all of my devices or do all these things just have streaming access to iCloud? If it actually syncs all of the files, do they go away from all but the original computer after the service is terminated? I.e. if you use this to convert pirated files to legal AAC, do all of the synced AAC files disappear, leaving you only with the original pirated MP3s when you stop paying Apple?
hopeless 15y ago
I'm wondering this too although it's a moot point since iTunes Match will be (yet another) U.S.-only music service
count 15y ago
It appears to be the ability to 'upload' or match new songs and then have them wirelessly sync over the internet to all of your devices would disappear. AAC doesn't have the ability to 'expire' content, as far as I know?
- ugh 15y ago
  Apple’s DRM container files used AAC encoded audio. (This service seems to be without DRM, though.)
  - pyre 15y ago
    Yes, but the iTunes music store has been rid of those for a while, and like you said, they've specifically stated that these will be DRM-free.

mdasen 15y ago

It doesn't seem to be a license. It seems to be an agreement between Apple and the labels that basically allows for fair-use treatment. Basically, if you already own the songs, you have the license and you're just having Apple provide a convenience service for you - syncing your music to all your devices as high-quality 256k AAC files. You aren't getting a new license for them. You'll perpetually have the files, but it isn't something that will change your legal status. I'm guessing one of the reasons the labels agreed to this is that it provides them with ammunition that what Apple is doing isn't fair-use. If it was fair-use, Apple wouldn't be paying the labels. Therefore, Amazon, et. al. need to pay the labels for such services too. It sets a precedent that the labels like.

pyre 15y ago
The fact that someone paid for something shouldn't hold any legal water. Just because you suckered someone into paying you money that they didn't need to, shouldn't be able to influence how a court interprets the law. Especially the way that huge corporate interests like that will pay large sums of money to err on the side of caution and avoid a legal battle.

drewcrawford 15y ago

Here's what I don't understand about your (and a lot of people's, I don't mean to pick on you) comments, please help me understand this: Pirated files are not necessarily identifiable as such, not in the digital world. If I download some albums from what.cd, you can't tell they're pirated, maybe I ripped them with the exact same version of LAME. What I'm trying to say is that today, having a pirated file isn't a property of the file, it's a property of how you got ahold of that file. I don't understand what you mean when you say the service "legitimizes" (paraphrase) existing music. All it does is exchange one set of bits for another set of bits, and this set of bits or that set of bits don't make an audio file legitimate or illegitimate. I mean it's a bit like transcoding, isn't it? Except instead of doing it yourself, you're paying Apple to do it. The fact that a third party is providing the service doesn't necessarily mean that the process as a whole is legit, in the same way that taking a PDF of a book to FedEx Kinko's to print doesn't make the copy legit, in the same way that buying a Windows upgrade to upgrade your old pirated Windows doesn't make the resulting license legit. I realize we're in kind of a special circumstance here because Apple has paid the music labels a lot of money, but we're just speculating about what the contents of their license enables them to do, which is probably only to be indemnified in the event that people use the service with pirated music (but not to indemnify the actual users). Or am I missing something?

billybob 15y ago
No, I see your point. I guess it's an open question for me whether this is a transcoding service or a music license. Arguably, if I have a crappy MP3, and I pay Apple money, and they give me a version with a higher encoding rate, they have sold me the new bits for that song. Maybe the terms don't say that, but I think one could argue that I've paid for a copy of the song. In fact, I think that the labels, in an effort to make us repurchase our records as tapes and our tapes as CDs and our CDs as files, have tried to tie the license to the format. So that seems to back the idea that this deal gives me a license for the AAC-formatted file. Whether I had one for the MP3 is irrelevant, right? And would it be so bad if that's how the law sees it? This could actually be a boon for the recording industry. It could be win-win if pirates decide to do this: they start paying for music, they still get all the music they want, and they shift the distribution burden to BitTorrent and iTunes.

Shenglong 15y ago

I don't know what the demographic spread here is, but I'm 99.99% sure that none of the 800 people on my phone/facebook pay for every CD they want. More frequently, I find people buy CDs to support certain artists, and not just to have a legal copy. If this is the case, Apple's move is actually ingenious. I daresay a lot of pirates (who currently contribute $0) will pay $25/year for their music to be legal... for legal or moral reasons. The potential loss of revenue will lie on the people who buy 1-2 CDs/year. However, $25/year is likely more than the average amount these people pay, so it's still a plus, even if they stop buying the original CDs. I bet though, they won't. I see this as a huge gain in revenue.

ugh 15y ago

Torrenting those files will still be illegal and that doesn’t change after you sign up for this service and pay. It’s not an amnesty. (Also: Pirates are usually not caught by looking at the files they have on their HDD. Whether you have the original torrented files or Apple’s music files around doesn’t make a difference.) You can get those pirated files in slightly better quality and you won’t have to upload them to Apple if you want to use their music locker. Big deal.

pyre 15y ago
True, but if you 'convert' a large collection today, then you skip the possibility that Apple will implement anti-piracy features in the future. With Amazon and Google, no one can really be sure what the status is right now. Especially since you are uploading bit-for-bit copies of the files to those cloud services. In financial terms, Apple is running an exchange, while Google and Amazon are running a safety deposit service. If someone looks in the safety deposit and finds illegal items, you are caught. If someone looks in Apple's music locker, you only see Apple's AAC-encoded content (though I guess they didn't cover how that works with music that you didn't buy through Apple and they don't carry on iTunes).