You can get the files back onto the desktop and into a sensible naming structure quite easily using itunes. Just copy the ipod's music folder (which can be accessed if you show hidden and system files and mount the ipod as a disk drive) to the desktop, and import it into itunes, with the itunes option to reorder the library to its own format enabled.
Fair enough, but two things to point out about that solution:
Given the way it is described in the article you linked, it should work outside of iTunes. You should be able to follow the steps but at the last, drag the folder into MMJB, WMP, XMMS, etc.--any software that understands the internal tags of the files themselves. (Yeah, the ITMS files are only coming back if you use iTunes).
It will restore things to having a 'sensible naming structure' when you view the files in iTunes, but it won't correct the filenames themselves. You're still stuck with a file named OTKO.mp3 instead of something meaningful like "James McMurtry--Iolanthe.mp3."
The reason both of these things is true is that, in importing your "Music" folder back into iTunes, all iTunes did was dig into the media files and drag out the original internal tags (ID3 or equivalent) and arrange them by those attributes (Artist, Genre, Title, Album, etc.). Moderately useful, but if you want to actually, say, go into your music library and drag the files onto an mp3 CD compilation you're making for your car, you can't do it outside of iTunes anymore. And more to the point, you can't really manage those files very easily without iTunes (or some other library manager) because of the obfuscated file names. The ID3 tags is all you can manage them by, whereas once you could have done it by file name.
All of this is irrelevant if you're the kind of joe who wants iTunes to manage everything for you. But this is/., and lots of us prefer to retain more direct control over our media, including being able to organize our media files along multiple dimensions. Obfuscating file names doesn't help with that (though in this case, it's pretty easily avoidable).
When does iTunes or an iPod ever "rename[d] the songs for no good reason?" I've never seen that.
Then you've never looked into the way the iPod actually stores its files on that 30g (or 60g, etc.) hard disk. Apple, apparently in a concession to the music industry, obfuscates the file names of mp3s as it transfers songs to the device. "James McMurtry--Iolanthe.mp3" will become OTKO.mp3 on the device, stored in the folder F47 (and yes, there is an F01-F46), all with the express purpose of making it difficult (though not impossible) for you to find a song and copy it back by hooking up your iPod like a hard disk.
Which I find disappointing, but understandable. At least they don't force conversion of the song like some other players have done--it's still your mp3 file, and with pluck or the right software, you can still do just what you want to with it--I appreciate that.
Yet we champion open-source where our livelihoods come from supporting users, rather than closed-source where our livelihoods come from writing code.
Maybe, but part of the problem is how inclusive the closed model is. There are only so many jobs writing the "core" code (the OS, the drivers, the productivity software), which closes out most of us. With OSS, more people can participate because a big part of the qualifying criteria includes your willingness to donate time to the effort.
Then, a sort of meritocracy evolves, where the best people (among people who have already met the initial qualifying criteria of being willing to give their time) gain the most influence over the product.
In addition to this meritocracy, a marketplace evolves where people who have the skills (because they already paid an entry fee--giving their time--to join the marketplace) can sell their skills in a "secondary" market for support, customizations, etc. Again, something we can participate in that we couldn't have otherwise because there were still only those limited numbers of those jobs to go around.
Call it ironic if you want, but I don't see the OSS model as making developers inherently work against our own interests. On a macro scale, our interests are better served there than with the closed model, since we can crack open and participate in a process that, for most of us, was already closed off.
I haven't tried either service, but they strike me as implementations of a great idea that have been done clumsily. Proprietary player software, clumsy tie-it-to-a-device lock / registration codes, & you have to be at least a middling geek to have a hope of playing this stuff on your actual home-theater system.
I'm rooting for them to get this right, but I kind of hope they don't get the market traction until after they come to the realization that consumer choice and convenience need to be maximized in the implementation, and that people won't buy if they elevate their "property" rights over those things.
The sad thing is that Amazon, and other companies who aggressively pursue patents like these, don't have to actually *enforce* them to walk away winners in this game. It seems to be all about creating a chilling effect on the competition, and on having seemingly-enforceable patents in your arsenal when confronted with a competitor so that you can use them as leverage against that company. It's not about the merits of the technology, it's about how many 'chits' you can collect just in case they turn out to be useful.
But it's a generalized threat that can be used against anybody (even if non-threatening uses probably won't awaken a patent suit) and that completely mucks up the universe for the rest of us. "Freedom to innovate?" If we want that, we should start by reforming IP laws and the patent process to start encouraging desirable behaviors instead of I'll-get-mine-so-I-can-stop-you-from-getting-yours behaviors.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, but two things to point out about that solution:
The reason both of these things is true is that, in importing your "Music" folder back into iTunes, all iTunes did was dig into the media files and drag out the original internal tags (ID3 or equivalent) and arrange them by those attributes (Artist, Genre, Title, Album, etc.). Moderately useful, but if you want to actually, say, go into your music library and drag the files onto an mp3 CD compilation you're making for your car, you can't do it outside of iTunes anymore. And more to the point, you can't really manage those files very easily without iTunes (or some other library manager) because of the obfuscated file names. The ID3 tags is all you can manage them by, whereas once you could have done it by file name.
All of this is irrelevant if you're the kind of joe who wants iTunes to manage everything for you. But this is
Then you've never looked into the way the iPod actually stores its files on that 30g (or 60g, etc.) hard disk. Apple, apparently in a concession to the music industry, obfuscates the file names of mp3s as it transfers songs to the device. "James McMurtry--Iolanthe.mp3" will become OTKO.mp3 on the device, stored in the folder F47 (and yes, there is an F01-F46), all with the express purpose of making it difficult (though not impossible) for you to find a song and copy it back by hooking up your iPod like a hard disk.
Which I find disappointing, but understandable. At least they don't force conversion of the song like some other players have done--it's still your mp3 file, and with pluck or the right software, you can still do just what you want to with it--I appreciate that.
Yet we champion open-source where our livelihoods come from supporting users, rather than closed-source where our livelihoods come from writing code.
Maybe, but part of the problem is how inclusive the closed model is. There are only so many jobs writing the "core" code (the OS, the drivers, the productivity software), which closes out most of us. With OSS, more people can participate because a big part of the qualifying criteria includes your willingness to donate time to the effort.
Then, a sort of meritocracy evolves, where the best people (among people who have already met the initial qualifying criteria of being willing to give their time) gain the most influence over the product.
In addition to this meritocracy, a marketplace evolves where people who have the skills (because they already paid an entry fee--giving their time--to join the marketplace) can sell their skills in a "secondary" market for support, customizations, etc. Again, something we can participate in that we couldn't have otherwise because there were still only those limited numbers of those jobs to go around.
Call it ironic if you want, but I don't see the OSS model as making developers inherently work against our own interests. On a macro scale, our interests are better served there than with the closed model, since we can crack open and participate in a process that, for most of us, was already closed off.
I haven't tried either service, but they strike me as implementations of a great idea that have been done clumsily. Proprietary player software, clumsy tie-it-to-a-device lock / registration codes, & you have to be at least a middling geek to have a hope of playing this stuff on your actual home-theater system.
I'm rooting for them to get this right, but I kind of hope they don't get the market traction until after they come to the realization that consumer choice and convenience need to be maximized in the implementation, and that people won't buy if they elevate their "property" rights over those things.
The sad thing is that Amazon, and other companies who aggressively pursue patents like these, don't have to actually *enforce* them to walk away winners in this game. It seems to be all about creating a chilling effect on the competition, and on having seemingly-enforceable patents in your arsenal when confronted with a competitor so that you can use them as leverage against that company. It's not about the merits of the technology, it's about how many 'chits' you can collect just in case they turn out to be useful. But it's a generalized threat that can be used against anybody (even if non-threatening uses probably won't awaken a patent suit) and that completely mucks up the universe for the rest of us. "Freedom to innovate?" If we want that, we should start by reforming IP laws and the patent process to start encouraging desirable behaviors instead of I'll-get-mine-so-I-can-stop-you-from-getting-yours behaviors.