Apple is deleting local music files on people's hard drives

[MR2 Fan]

This blew up on Twitter today:

https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/

[Kchrpm]

Man, that's even worse than I was expecting.

[Freude am Fahren]

Holy shit. Fuck Apple. This is part of why I don't have any apple programs on my computer anymore (also they're mostly useless).

And in regards to him losing his own original music. Does Apples terms basically mean you give up rights to any original music you have on your hard drive? That shouldn't be legal...

[thesameguy]

Not rights, just local copies.

[Rare White Ape]

OK this is a big bag of mis-information.

Apple Music is a streaming service like Spotify et-al, that runs through iTunes or an i-device. It can store files locally for offline play. Those files are kept in a separate folder to your normal music library, are DRM-protected, and they'll delete them if you don't keep up the subscription. That's to prevent you from making a giant almost unlimited cache of music for $10 a month then unsubscribing.

iTunes Match (which is what this guy is actually using) is a service which makes songs from your normal library available via "the cloud" so you can listen to your library anywhere on an i-device without having to load it all onto its storage. They way it works is it matches (hence the 'Match' part of the name) songs on your library with songs on Apple's iTunes Store servers (which are different to the Apple Music servers, and have more songs). The kicker, and the big difference, is that it is DRM-free, and it puts anything in your library on your iTunes Store account so that it now becomes equivalent to something you've bought from the store, no matter the source, even after you cancel your subscription. It essentially 'legitimises' anything you've pirated, and adds any songs you've bought from rival services, too.

Where this guy is coming into trouble is that Match can replace song files with files served from the iTunes Store if it can supply them in higher quality, and will upload songs and re-serve them if it can't find a match to what's in his library. All of this is explained right on the iTunes Match splash page, so unless he chose to not read anything before subscribing, he would've seen it.

In a nutshell there's two different services with different functions, this guy has the two of them confused, and he didn't read any of the obvious info on the one he subscribed to.

The only positive thing I can say about his blog post is that he's at least smart enough to backup his personal files before he goes and opens up his library to Apple.

[Blerpa]

^ And all the things RWA explained are the reasons why:

1) I don't use Apple devices.

2) I just keep humongous offline storage of MP3 and FLAC files.

3) iTunes, Match, Spotify, Google Play Music, Tidal can fuck off. Too much of an hassle.

[Rare White Ape]

I'm not afraid to state that I've been sucked into the Apple ecosystem. It's working well for me, and I understand that it may not work so well for others, just like the Android ecosystem wouldn't work so well for me until I make the effort to fully transition.

I've got Apple Music. I did get a 2 year subscription for free, so there is that. At least it has stopped me downloading penis loads of pirated music. But I've not observed the problems that the guy in the blog post has spoken about, so I'm inclined to think that it exploded on Twitter thanks to eager Apple bashers who just want a piece.

[Blerpa]

I've got Apple Music. I did get a 2 year subscription for free, so there is that. At least it has stopped me downloading penis loads of pirated music. But I've not observed the problems that the guy in the blog post has spoken about, so I'm inclined to think that it exploded on Twitter thanks to eager Apple bashers who just want a piece.

That's almost certain, I reckon.
Same as any minimal problem with Windows 10 (so far smooth as silk and butter for me and everyone I know with it) brings up the riders of apocalypse and their "Windows 7 was the best ever. And still is." wailing mantra bombarded all over forums and facebook.

[Tom Servo]

I can't say I'm shocked. I remember the first time I tried to sync one of the first generation iPods...iTunes deleted a ton of stuff off my local hard drive.

Thankfully I had backups, and I've never trusted iTunes since.

[Cam]

I have used iTunes for like ever. I have never had a problem. However, I have never signed up for their service and disabled the store in the options. I currently use an older version and don't plan on updating it. I only use it to play my already existing music and internet radio. I also have backups. (Internal HD and external HD.) I haven't owned a CD or DVD for over ten years. (Actually, I still own one CD, a signed copy of Joe Satriani's Super Colossal.)

[Tom Servo]

Way, way back in the day, I had that first generation iPod. The one with the little touch wheel thing and a gameboy screen.

I went to sync it one day and the sync basically went the wrong way. Instead of putting the music on my computer onto the iPod, it removed the music on my computer that wasn't on the iPod (which was all of it).

I'm personally of the opinion that, unless you explicitly say "I want to delete this file", no syncing application should *ever* remove a file. Hell, even when syncing the Amazon S3, you have to explicitly pass an option saying "delete remote files that aren't on the local file system".

[thesameguy]

Where this guy is coming into trouble is that Match can replace song files with files served from the iTunes Store if it can supply them in higher quality, and will upload songs and re-serve them if it can't find a match to what's in his library. All of this is explained right on the iTunes Match splash page, so unless he chose to not read anything before subscribing, he would've seen it.

But nowhere does it say "We'll replace things with non-exact matches" and nowhere does it say "We will downsample." And it did both things to him.

[thesameguy]

I went to sync it one day and the sync basically went the wrong way. Instead of putting the music on my computer onto the iPod, it removed the music on my computer that wasn't on the iPod (which was all of it).

I'm personally of the opinion that, unless you explicitly say "I want to delete this file", no syncing application should *ever* remove a file. Hell, even when syncing the Amazon S3, you have to explicitly pass an option saying "delete remote files that aren't on the local file system".

I had the same thing happen, and I am damn good at computers. I also agree there is never a scenario where an algorithm should modify a filesystem without explicit permission from the operator. Bad design.

[Rare White Ape]

I also agree there is never a scenario where an algorithm should modify a filesystem without explicit permission from the operator. Bad design.

I agree with this.


But nowhere does it say "We'll replace things with non-exact matches" and nowhere does it say "We will downsample." And it did both things to him.

I can't agree with this. If it was a problem, then why aren't there any other subscribers complaining of the problem? If a solution is so hard to find, as he says it is, then it's probably because he is the only one who has had this problem, and I think it's because he's just stuffed something up himself and he's blaming Apple. I've explained the difference, which this guy seems to have missed, between Apple Music and iTunes Match, and to me it flags him as someone who's lacking in attention to detail.

Bear in mind I'm not defending Apple here (although I probably am... YOU DECIDE!) instead I'm attacking this guy's position. It's more fun.

[MR2 Fan]

more info:

http://m.imore.com/no-apple-music-not-deleting-tracks-your-hard-drive-unless-you-tell-it

I'm still undecided on whether there's more to the original story....but I wouldn't be surprised if music was deleted accidentally. I feel like it's happened to me before using Apple but I can't remember exactly.

[SkylineObsession]

I have iTunes, but only to purchase songs legally (instead of torrents etc like Limewire). Don't use it as a player, still use the AWESOME (...) Window Media Player. Oh well.

I assume i'm safeish from the above?

[Tom Servo]

Probably, but given my past experience with iTunes on a Windows box, I'd still keep backups.

FWIW, I prefer Amazon MP3 these days for music buying. Unencrypted MP3s that will play on anything.

[Freude am Fahren]

Probably, but given my past experience with iTunes on a Windows box, I'd still keep backups.

FWIW, I prefer Amazon MP3 these days for music buying. Unencrypted MP3s that will play on anything.

Same here. A lot of physical albums on Amazon come with free rips as well, so if you like having the physical copy, you can still have the MP3 immediately for the same price or only slightly more.

[Tom Servo]

Hell, it was cheaper for me to buy a couple of albums on CD and have them shipped, and I still got instant access to the MP3s.

[thesameguy]

I bought one single once with iTunes and that was enough. Since then, it's been legitimate Napster (seriously) or Amazon. Mostly Amazon. I hate that they rule the world, but they do it so nicely (from the consumer's standpoint ;) ) it's hard to really get mad.

[Kchrpm]

I use Google Play to buy music, since I can choose to download unencrypted MP3s (which I think even iTunes does now) on a PC or through browser, or play them from the web or app on a bunch of different devices quite easily.

The Android app's inability to download/show a normal sound file for use by other programs can be annoying, though.

[Cam]

I have not purchased music for about ten years. I simply listen to internet radio or podcasts.

[Yw-slayer]

Such a hipster. :roll: :p

[Rare White Ape]

Technically I haven't purchased any music for about that long, either.

[Tom Servo]

I've totally gone the other way. Ever since Amazon came along and offered MP3s without DRM for a reasonable price, I buy more music than I ever did before.

[thesameguy]

I am back to where I was many years ago - about a CD-worth a month, plus or minus. I make it a point to buy music from bands that I like. I am sure they don't get much, especially since I'm buying from Amazon, but it's something and sales statistics are almost as valuable as the money in the short term.

[Kchrpm]

Oddly/stupidly, I have a family plan subscription to Google Play Music, but when I *really* like an album/artist, I buy the music outright anyway (which happens maybe once or twice a year).

[thesameguy]

Really, I think that's how it should be. We have Pandora, but I'm still going to support an artist in the best way I know how.

[Random]

I am back to where I was many years ago - about a CD-worth a month, plus or minus. I make it a point to buy music from bands that I like. I am sure they don't get much, especially since I'm buying from Amazon, but it's something and sales statistics are almost as valuable as the money in the short term.

I've bought CDs via bands' BandCamp sites recently. I'm kind of curious if that gets them more or less of the CD price...

[thesameguy]

I dunno, but it certainly can't be worse. ;)

[Kchrpm]

I doubt any of the normal retailers give artists 90% of CD sales revenue.

https://bandcamp.com/pricing


Artist accounts are free. We make money through our revenue share on sales, which is 15% for digital, 10% for merch. We also offer Bandcamp Pro (our premium tier for artists), and Bandcamp for Labels, both for a monthly fee.

[FaultyMario]

Physical music is merch now?

[thesameguy]

Truth. And a great way to collect band signatures!

[Kchrpm]

It's a physical good vs a digital good, I assumed that's how they sorted their classification. I didn't see who handles the stock and production, which makes me think BandCamp processes the sales and the band's handle all the actual fulfillment of it (hence the lower cut).

[thesameguy]

That's what I assumed.

But, if a band has a contract with a label, wouldn't the label define production, distribution, inventory, costs, etc.? If you're an indie or startup band then you're probably at home making CDs with Roxio (rofl) - how does a signed band gain access to production inventory to sell via Bandcamp?

[Random]

It's a physical good vs a digital good, I assumed that's how they sorted their classification. I didn't see who handles the stock and production, which makes me think BandCamp processes the sales and the band's handle all the actual fulfillment of it (hence the lower cut).

The pair of CDs I ordered from Australian band were fulfilled by (a representative of) the band, FWIW.

edit: To tsg's point, I am getting the impression that a lot of indie/smaller bands are doing recording deals for recording/mixing/mastering/production and then getting a crate of 5000 CDs at the end to do with what they wish. That's just my impression, though; I am sure there's a lot more to it.

[Rare White Ape]

^^^ All of this is why the hoopla surrounding music piracy and hurting artists is bullshit.

Artists make next-to-zero off the sales of albums, and I've never seen an artist speak out about music piracy (apart from the old days of Napster and the infamous Lars Ulrich thing). It's the record company that makes all the money, and they're the ones making all the noises.

If you want the artist to benefit the most from your fandom, it's best for them if you go see their live shows and buy their t-shirts. That's where they earn their living.

[thesameguy]

That's certainly true of younger bands with less sway, but when you are Metallica or U2 you probably have the label over a barrel and records are good business for you. Or, maybe you're Madonna etc. with your own label, in which case music piracy is definitely taking a chunk out of your paycheck.

The irony with Metallica, of course, is that back when they were the odd band out, they encouraged boot legs. It wasn't until they started making money from the merch side of the business that they got irritated about people not paying them for their music. :smh:

[Rare White Ape]

For me, I feel less guilty about doing it for massive acts than I do for smaller acts. I imagine that all I'm doing to the big guys is contributing to them buying one less Ferrari this week, or having to wait one more month before they can buy out a whole designer clothing store. For the smaller guys, yeah I definitely try to see them live when time and circumstance allows.

[Kchrpm]

That's what I assumed.

But, if a band has a contract with a label, wouldn't the label define production, distribution, inventory, costs, etc.? If you're an indie or startup band then you're probably at home making CDs with Roxio (rofl) - how does a signed band gain access to production inventory to sell via Bandcamp?

Bandcamp has a different account type labels so they can manage multiple bands: https://bandcamp.com/labels

Aside from situations like Russ mentioned, where they make a stock for the band to do as it pleases, I would assume that's how any band signed to a label is on BandCamp: as part of their label, and still beholden to whatever deal they made with them.

[Reynard]

100% old school here. I buy all my music on CD and then rip them to my pc. I just gotta have a album cover, liner notes, lyrics, pics, etc. that I can hold in my hand and keep on the (very large) shelf. And yeah, I still have over 400 vinyl albums too... :o