View Full Version : itunes cloud
Im itching to buy an ipad 2 at the new lower price and transfer my discs to it but the apple store only sell the 16G version now. But with a good broadband connection and the icloud facility im thinking storage isnt really an issue.
Antone see any drawbacks to this method before i commit?
seoirse2002
04-05-2012, 18:36
Carphone Warehouse have the ipad 2 32gb for £399...just bought one a couple of weeks back and they still have it on deal...order online and pick up at your local store...youll be glad you did heres a link:http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/mobile-phones/APPLE-IPAD2-WIFI-32GB/HANDSET
Reid Malenfant
04-05-2012, 18:38
I can think of one that would put me right off... While you can defrag a drive that you have stuffed loads of files on with a home PC, I can't see how you'd do the same to get the best performance with a server :scratch: Also you'd have to back up what's on the server in case that went tits up - no?
To some people that may not matter, but to an uneducated bod like me, it would..
Thanks for the link.
I still wondering about using a 16g as a remote and paying the sub for itunes match. I hae read this works well streamed through an apple tv2. But then i still have to rip the cds :scratch:
I just want that seamless easy peasy choose n play apple solution.
Hi Colin,
I have the ATV2 and use iTunes match to store and stream my music.
My experience has been great so far. The only drawback that I can see is that it only streams AAC files. You can't stream lossless.
On the up side, I don't have to run a server in the house and it's all so easy to use. With my account, I can access my music from home, work etc. I had a squeezebox and NAS before but it was all a bit too much hassle for the family to use.
As a bonus, a mate gave me a copy of all his MP3 music collection, literally hundreds of albums of all genres - all lo-resolution but iTunes match converted them to decent quality AAC versions. Result.
Martin
P.s. audio streaming from itunes match via Internet sounds better than streaming from the iPad using AirPlay.
I can think of one that would put me right off... While you can defrag a drive that you have stuffed loads of files on with a home PC, I can't see how you'd do the same to get the best performance with a server :scratch: Also you'd have to back up what's on the server in case that went tits up - no?
To some people that may not matter, but to an uneducated bod like me, it would..
As far as I'm aware Mark server farms perform auto-defrag and auto-backup routines regularly. I still wouldn't trust my data to one though, particularly one run by Apple... :eek:
Beechwoods
04-05-2012, 21:44
I was very disappointed by iTunes Match. £21, days of bullsh*t faffing about while it tried to upload things to the cloud, and only partial success in matching what I'd got and uploading what I didn't.
Apple are very poor at anything cloud related. I have been a longtime .Mac / Mobile.Me user, and their sync services have always been flakey.
I personally, would be looking at setting up my own server if I were you Colin. There are a number of systems that will allow you to access your music remotely, via iPad or iPhone. I use Air Media Center (http://www.airmediacenter.com) and Stream To Me (http://projectswithlove.com/streamtome/). I used to really like Zumocast until Motorola bought the company and stopped iOS connection handshaking. I believe Zumocast may still live on for Android devices though.
The Air Media Centre developers are great; they made a number of app changes in response to feedback from me when I started using it, including beta SHN transcoding / streaming, and high-bitrate streaming over 3G (320kbps).
As far as I'm aware Mark server farms perform auto-defrag and auto-backup routines regularly. I still wouldn't trust my data to one though, particularly one run by Apple... :eek:
iTunes match isn't a backup solution.
It only uploads your music files that aren't in the iTunes store. If its in the iTunes store, it streams the AAC version Direct from the store. As a concept, that's genius, however it's not perfect - if it can't match the file for any reason, it will upload your copy.
I did notice that if you edit the file tags from the defaults, it doesn't help with the matching.
Maybe it's not for everyone, but for me it works perfectly.
Martin
I think the problem with any sort of 'cloud' computing (I hate that term), is you need a pretty good internet connection to do any serious uploading. I have great download speeds at around 14~17 Mbps, but my upload is never more than 0.9 Mbps, so uploading data takes for ever unless you have a fibre optic connection.
I do look forward to the day when I can stream my music successfully and cheaply from an internet server, so I can switch my NAS and computers off. But I would never rely on it for backup.
As a bonus, a mate gave me a copy of all his MP3 music collection, literally hundreds of albums of all genres - all lo-resolution but iTunes match converted them to decent quality AAC versions. Result.
Martin, please be careful in advocating what sounds like an illegal acquisition. Sorry if I've misunderstood, but you generally have to pay for music.
Apple are very poor at anything cloud related. I have been a longtime .Mac / Mobile.Me user, and their sync services have always been flakey.
If anyone wants a Microsoft solution, I can say that Microsoft SkyDrive works extremely well with Windows and Apple devices. I get 25GB free and the apps all integrate seamlessly, offering storage as if it were local to the machine.
I don't use it for music, but I do keep my photo collection on it and I can access them on all my PCs, laptops, iPad and phone.
Martin, please be careful in advocating what sounds like an illegal acquisition. Sorry if I've misunderstood, but you generally have to pay for music..
Yes, I didn't think of it like that - just deleted them from my iTunes match account.
For my business, I use Syncplicity and a copy on a USB HDD. Syncplicity allows me to log in remotely to access customer files, quotes etc, which has got me out of trouble a few times.
Martin
Another plus for the ATV2 is that you can easily and cheaply set up a great multi-room system.
Connect one to your bedroom tv for streaming music or Netflix or YouTube etc for only £99. Magic.
Martin
Apologies if i misunderstand, but why not just get a decent NAS such as a QNAP, run the Apple Media server in that one and all is solved?
Stream via your iPad to what-have-you iThingy?
No need to ar&e with accounts and poor synchronizing...
Drawback is that the full collection is only available in house if you dont get down and dirty with Internet sharing...
Br Mike
Apologies if i misunderstand, but why not just get a decent NAS such as a QNAP, run the Apple Media server in that one and all is solved?
Stream via your iPad to what-have-you iThingy?
No need to ar&e with accounts and poor synchronizing...
Drawback is that the full collection is only available in house if you dont get down and dirty with Internet sharing...
Br Mike
Does the NAS stay on all the time? Or do you switch on when you need it?
Apart from sound quality, i need something that's easy and hassle free for the rest of the family ( my 5 year old is playing her music on it at the moment). When I was running a squeezebox and server, it got the big thumbs down from everyone but me and had to go.
Also, from a start up cost point of view, its only £99 plus £21 fee to get up and running. A dedicated NAS plus squeezebox costs a lot more than that. You do need a dac though, as there are no analogue outs.
It has it's sound quality limits, so to make a better sound, I'd need to add a better player (ie squeezebox touch) and keep the atv for the family.
Martin
If you're only using it at home can't you just share your iTunes library and access it with the Apple remote app on the iPad or iPhone and use AirPlay to stream it to an AppleTV or Airport Express? Do you really need iTunes match?
dave2010
05-05-2012, 16:14
If you're only using it at home can't you just share your iTunes library and access it with the Apple remote app on the iPad or iPhone and use AirPlay to stream it to an AppleTV or Airport Express? Do you really need iTunes match?
Seems fair to me. If you go the SB Touch route you should be able to get Napster/Rhapsody and Spotify. Napsody doesn't seem bad value to me, and the quality is reasonable. I suppose putting it into context though, £21 for the iTunes Match compares well with £60 for Napsody, or £120 for Spotify Premium. Perhaps an old Mac Mini would do as a dedicated server for music. I tried to check these out last week, but even an old G4 tends to sell for at least £75.
After reading the posts i think i will try the 32g ipad and filling it with favorite cds and controlling spotify.
I do wonder if the ATV would work better than the SB touch though.
dave2010
05-05-2012, 18:35
After reading the posts i think i will try the 32g ipad and filling it with favorite cds and controlling spotify.
I do wonder if the ATV would work better than the SB touch though.Not sure what kit you have now, but I think most of the Logitech devices can be controlled by iPeng or Squeezepad apps if you do get an iPad.
Another route is to use a cable out, or a digital dock (e.g Pure, Onkyo, Wadia etc.) or to use a wireless route, such as Airplay. I've not tried all of these.
I have absolutely no experience of Apple TVs, and know little about them, other than that the hardware changed a year or more back. Correction - they're now on the 3rd generation - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV - as from March this year. The early versions had hard drive storage, while I think the latest ones have very little storage (no HD), but then the price is lower too.
I've just done some research on the copyright issues with iTunes match ( thanks MartinT for pointing this out).
It seems that when tracks are streamed from the apple server, royalties are paid to the artist. Your £21 per year covers this (up to 25,000 tracks in your collection). Not sure what the position is for uploaded files, but I guess these are covered too?
That means that for the CDs that I have rippped and matched, I will have effectively paid royalties twice or more. Once when I bought the disc and once every time I stream it.
Sounds like a good deal for the artist, doesn't it?
I'm still not sure of the position if you have ripped files and don't have the original discs to prove that they are legally yours. Many people rip CDs and then sell on the CDs.
Martin
Beechwoods
05-05-2012, 20:22
It's definitely a grey area and AOS cannot condone this kind of practice.
Technology is pushing the boundaries of what the law and the industry will tolerate, forging ahead setting precedence before the legal niceties are really sorted. It's still illegal in this country make backup copies of physical media for personal use or format shifting, though this is to be rectified shortly I understand. Nevertheless margins for musicians arising from streaming royalties are slim, versus physical media, and you can bet that obscure artists on independent labels do not benefit from any deals struck between Apple and the majors. Always support the artists. If you like the music, buy it.
Always support the artists. If you like the music, buy it.
+1.
...or use Spotify, which I find myself doing more and more these days ;)
Beechwoods
05-05-2012, 20:39
That is exactly what I do. Spotify is fantastic for music discovery and 'try before you buy'. Frustratingly some of the recent releases I've picked up on are only released digitally, via Spotify, iTunes and the Amazon store... I guess it's cheaper to dispense with a physical release, but it's annoying when you really like an artist and a limited run CD or cassette would better satisfy than a compressed version off something like Spotify.
Spotify is absolutely worth every penny of the £10 UK premium fee, IMO, whatever the frustration about physical releases.
+1.
I agree too.
Interestingly, with iTunes match, you can not only stream the tracks but also download them as 256 kbs DRM free files! This is effectively allowing you to swap pirated music files for clean versions.
Some parts of the media have described it as a amnesty for previous misdemeanours. I guess that the licensing bodies have accepted this, possibly thinking that some royalties are better than none.
With spotify premium, what quality can you get when streamed via a SB touch? Could I realistically just use this and not bother with anything else?
Martin
Spotify is absolutely worth every penny of the £10 UK premium fee, IMO, whatever the frustration about physical releases.
+1 who needs rips
Freaky or what a advert for icloud has just come on the telly
Beechwoods
05-05-2012, 21:03
Exactly. And no worries about a tap on the shoulder from the rozzers :)
I'm still not sure of the position if you have ripped files and don't have the original discs to prove that they are legally yours. Many people rip CDs and then sell on the CDs
This is illegal, as soon as you sell the CD, the copyright goes with it so you have no legal rights to retain the music, even if you used to own the CD. Once you no longer own the original music, its no different to downloading an illegal copy and keeping that.
Hope this makes it a little clearer Martin ;)
I buy a lot of my CDs used from amazon, sometimes at 1p plus £1.26 postage. Do the artists get royalties out of that?
I buy a lot of my CDs used from amazon, sometimes at 1p plus £1.26 postage. Do the artists get royalties out of that?
That's what I've been doing recently too, especially now that I've bought a nice CD/DVD player on eBay. Just need somewhere to store them now.
Martin
With spotify premium, what quality can you get when streamed via a SB touch? Could I realistically just use this and not bother with anything else?
You can set Spotify for hi-bandwidth music and it will stream to the Touch in that format, should it be available. It really depends on whether a) you have the necessary internet data cap, b) you can tolerate Spotify's holes in its collection (e.g. very little Pink Floyd) and c) you can live with only this level of quality.
I buy a lot of my CDs used from amazon, sometimes at 1p plus £1.26 postage. Do the artists get royalties out of that?
No, they only get royalties from when it was first sold new.
Beechwoods
05-05-2012, 22:18
The second hand CD you're buying is the original physical item that had royalties paid on it, it's not a duplicated copy, that is the difference...
b) you can tolerate Spotify's holes in its collection (e.g. very little Pink Floyd)
I couldn't survive without my Bananarama and Shakatak collections.:(
Martin
Let's say I lose all my CDs in a house fire but luckily I have a hard drive at my parents house with my complete lossless collection on it. Illegal to keep them?
It's all a load of rubbish if you ask me. I bought the CDs, I own the music.
I bought the CDs, I own the music.
You never own it, you've bought the right to play it.
You never own it, you've bought the right to play it.
So I can still play that music?
I don't understand why you are being so pedantic Lee - whether you agree with the copyright laws or not, those are the laws and they have been put in place to try and protect the rights of the artist. We didn't make them and don't necessarily agree or disagree with them, so its pointless going round in circles with differing scenarios. It seems to me you have a grasp of them anyway, but just don't agree with them.
I have heard every argument there is by folk who try to justify illegal ownership of copyright material :rolleyes:
dave2010
06-05-2012, 06:37
This is illegal, as soon as you sell the CD, the copyright goes with it so you have no legal rights to retain the music, even if you used to own the CD. Once you no longer own the original music, its no different to downloading an illegal copy and keeping that.
Hope this makes it a little clearer Martin ;)I'm actually not sure if it's quite as absolute as that, though until now I have held your position as well.
If I buy a CD and rip it, then sell it for the same price I'm obviously getting the music for free. What happens if (a) I sell it for a much lower price on eBay, (b) give it away to a Charity shop (c) put it in the bin for disposal. Perhaps the problem case is (c), which then may undermine the others.
If I put something in the bin I am ridding myself of it. I am mostly allowed to do this. However, if I put a CD in the bin I may have kept an electronic copy.
I think it would not be unreasonable to claim that if I paid for it in the first place that I should be allowed to keep the electronic copy. In that case however if challenged I would have to prove 1. that I had bought the CD in the first place, and 2. that I had indeed disposed of the CD.
If (c) stands as an argument, then turn to (b). This case is similar, except that now others can benefit from my disposal of the CD. Charity shops benefit, buyers benefit, and yet the money which changes hands is small. It might be considered reasonable.
If (b) stands, then what about (a)?
I would say that "borrowing" someone else's collection which they have ripped to media is definitely against copyright law.
English law also distinguishes between some cases based on intent and some on absolute factors. I don't actually know what the state is regarding copyright law in the UK. Indeed, do we have a consistent approach to copyright throughout the UK? Again, I don't know. Are there any lawyers here who know about this?
dave2010
06-05-2012, 06:58
That means that for the CDs that I have rippped and matched, I will have effectively paid royalties twice or more. Once when I bought the disc and once every time I stream it.
Sounds like a good deal for the artist, doesn't it?
Not sure whether it's particularly good or bad for the artist at all. I don't think they get much for each track streamed on Spotify or Napster, and I'm guessing that iTunes isn't much different.
Many minor artists reckon that they don't get much anyway, and there seems to be a general whinge (possibly justified) that the CD/DVD producers and distributors manage to benefit a lot more than most artists ever do, even though there are some big names who make millions.
In the case of iTunes I suppose that users who are "paying twice" as you suggest, are in fact paying the royalties (or at least a part of them) for those who ripped off the artists in the first place. It's a bit like paying car insurance - most of us have to pay more because some people choose not to, though I suppose in a few cases drivers think they've paid, but are not insured due to a technicality.
What about the music I've paid for three or four times? LP, maybe tape as well, then CD, then maybe SACD or DVD? Surely we have to be practical about these things, and accept that the world isn't quite perfect. The law also takes this view I think - it's not possible to micro-manage every activity or every transaction.
In any case, if I choose to buy music more than once in different formats that's my choice. If you choose to listen to music via a streaming service, that's your choice too, and you won't do it if you don't feel you get a benefit.
So I can still play that music?
The right goes with the media. Once you dispose of the media, your right to play disappears.
I don't understand why you are being so pedantic Lee - whether you agree with the copyright laws or not, those are the laws and they have been put in place to try and protect the rights of the artist. We didn't make them and don't necessarily agree or disagree with them, so its pointless going round in circles with differing scenarios. It seems to me you have a grasp of them anyway, but just don't agree with them.
I have heard every argument there is by folk who try to justify illegal ownership of copyright material :rolleyes:
I understand your comments, but I wouldn't say I'm being pedantic, I just feel that the whole area is a grey one, hence me offering scenarios which call it into question. I suppose that in my house fire scenario I would be expected to replace all those CDs with the insurance money, but then what if I had proof of purchase of every cd?
I feel that obviously some law must exist to protect the artists but at the same time I feel it's nigh on impossible to enforce.
I recently borrowed a box set from my cousin cos it had 12" remixes on it that I had on vinyl, but I don't have the setup required to rip that vinyl to computer. So, it was easier to borrow the discs and rip them. I still own the original content, just on a different media.
They said home taping was killing music. Well, it didn't did it?
seoirse2002
06-05-2012, 09:51
the right to play it,or the right to listen to it?
Because without a licence,you are restricted to where you play it,and who you play it to,and unless you actually buy the music from the originater,or buy the rights to it, i.e. distribution rights,broadcasting,resale etc. you will be in breach of the law.
I think when you buy any media for use in your own home and your own personal enjoyment,it doesent matter if you rip it and throw the original cd away as long as the music is just for your own personal use...no problem.
But if you were raided by the police and were found to have 1000s of songs on hard drive and no proof that you bought the original cd to prove it wasn't an illegal copy...well,you would be in trouble.
But what are the chances?:scratch:
Reid Malenfant
06-05-2012, 15:42
I have had a think about this & have come to the conclusion that the law is a total ass :rolleyes:
Now while I don't wish to provoke an arguement, I thought I'd better get this down while it was still in my head.
Now assuming I bought a CD from a retailer at full price (or in a sale - it doesn't matter) I have the right to play the music! But apparently I don't own the CD :lol:
Now if I copy that by processing it to an MP3 it's still not exactly legal, but it soon may well be legal. Ok so far?
Now assume I sell the CD but buy a download from wherever you buy downloads from... Where is the proof that I ever bought the download & how long does the supplier of the download have to keep a receipt of that transaction?
Also, if I have bought the copyright to music on a CD, what is to stop me copying some other format to a digital copy? After all, I have bought the copyright to play the music specified :)
Either it works both ways or it doesn't as far as I can see. As I say, I'll soon be able to copy the music to a digital format for personal use. At the present I can't (& don't by the way). It appears that as long as you have paid the contribution to the artist then all is well, but a court of law would say it isn't as it's a copy (at present), but when it is ok to do this format change from say CD to FLAC or MP3, having paid the artist to play the music, what is to stop me copying the blu ray even if I haven't bought that?
After all, the format change will be legal for personal use & as long as I have payed for that priviledge & can play that music, then it shouldn't matter what format it is in, because you'll legally be able to change it shortly for personal use...
As I say, the law is an ass :eyebrows:
But apparently I don't own the CD
You do own the CD, but not the music on it ;)
Reid Malenfant
06-05-2012, 16:12
:lol: :scratch: Mental....
But having bought it I have payed the artist so I'm allowed to spin the CD & listen to it - yes!?
That's it!
You should see the hoops we have to jump through for school performances of songs and plays still in copyright. The Performing Rights Society have a special kind of English they use just to bamboozle us.
Reid Malenfant
06-05-2012, 16:26
So what happens if they ever want the music back? How do they go about not damaging the CD? :scratch:
:rfl::rfl::rfl:
The world has gone crazy I swear :lol:
Unless I am mistaken and please correct me if I am wrong, the copyright laws we are referring too were passed long before we all had the ability to make perfect copies of the music we now buy and before the internet was easily able to freely distribute it. Its not so much that the law is an ass, its that its out of date?
Yes, I agree Tim. The law has fallen behind in all aspects of modern technology; look at the fiasco the government are making of internet filtering and access.
seoirse2002
06-05-2012, 17:22
Look at the mess the government has us in,period.:steam:
Not much the law can do even if it is changed. The genie is well out of the bottle and has had it away on his toes a while back. I think 'artists' are going to have to get used to the idea that they are going to have to distribute their material for free in the not to distant future. Or at best ask people to pay 'whatever they think it is worth' on a voluntary basis.
They can still charge for live performance and will get royalties from radio/tv play. If they can't make a living off that well they are just going to have to go out and get proper jobs and make their music in their spare time just for the love of it - like 99% of the unsigned bands in the UK already do.
Im itching to buy an ipad 2 at the new lower price and transfer my discs to it but the apple store only sell the 16G version now. But with a good broadband connection and the icloud facility im thinking storage isnt really an issue.
Antone see any drawbacks to this method before i commit?
Hi Colin, sorry if I've inadvertently wrecked your thread.
Have you reached any conclusions?
Martin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.