Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

Except that once you use iTunes Match, the resulting audio files are legally licensed, in the same way they would be had you purchased them from iTunes. Here the third party, Apple, is providing that legitimacy as a service ostensibly due to licensing agreements between Apple and the industry players. While actually grabbing the files off of a tracker is still not necessarily legal, the ultimate outcome of the process is that you will have legal copies, thanks to Apple and whatever licensing deals they've made. In other words, everyone wins: I get my music, Apple provides a (hopefully) decent service, and the music industry has found a vector for tapping into those supposed loss in sales.

And if Apple or this service is de-legitimized through Apple going out of business and shutting it down in a decade or two (hey, it could happen) - or due to licensing disputes down the line with the record companies. Well.. Hope you backed up the original files. That's a good question, actually:

If you keep the old files around, and five years from now cancel the subscription.. ultimately it's likely you've paid much, much more than the original collection was worth. Are the old ripped files still legitimate, or do they cease to be?

All songs from iTunes are DRM-free, so they will continue working even if you cancel the service.

That's a huge assumption that I doubt very much will survive the EULA you'd need to agree to in order to use iTunes Match. It seems unlikely that the labels have licensed Apple to run the world's biggest pirated-music-laundering service.

Once you have a receipt from Apple for the music, you have proof of ownership.

If you accidentally lost the CD between then and the time you get your PC taken away for discovery in a copyright infringement lawsuit, that's plausible deniability.

At least, way more so than just having 2TB of MP3s laying around with no media you ripped them from at all...

Not really. Once you have a receipt from Apple, you have documentation that you used Apple's transcoding service.

If you accidentally lost 2TB worth of CDs between that time and the seizure of your PC, you're still going to have some explaining to do.

It would be like presuming guilt, you don't have to prove those mp3s are legal they have to prove that you stole them. Also having mp3s isn't the same as distributing mp3s. tptacek is right I believe. As far as I understand it, every p2p case has been about distribution or suspicion of distribution (make available argument). And they have to have a reason to come scan your computer. Hence why I won't be using this "scan and buy" service, the scan part is dumb.

Also as far as I know all my Amazon MP3 are identical to other users Amazon MP3 I don't think they have watermarks. How could you tell if they were mine or taken from someone.

In a civil prosecution (which is how copyright violation ought normally be handled, particularly at the individual consumer level) the burden of proof is usually only "the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely to be true than not be true), not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

(Of course, media companies would prefer that the government pass laws, pay for and implement the job of enforcing media company contracts, and this muddies the waters.)

That brings up a very interesting point - copyright lawsuits are currently civil affairs, and require a much lower burden of proof. The 'Industry' is pushing for it to become a felony, which would squarely sit it 'beyond a reasonable doubt' territory. My understanding is their current cases are full of little holes like this - would making it a felony actually make it easier for people to get away without convictions?

The reality here seems to be, people don't get busted for the 2TB of unlawful music they keep on their hard drives. They get busted for the gigabytes of music they actively transmit on P2P networks. So while this is a valid geek conundrum, it may not be of any practical import.

It sounds to me like a way to "launder" possibly-pirated music. Exchanging mp3s for iCloud songs is analogous to exchanging cash for bank account money.