iTunes authorization
 

Does anyone know where the authorization info is stored on the HD?

I had to do an archive-install of OS X and I blew out one of my 3 authoriziations. I feel like such an idiot. It happened like this:

I have had an old 7600 with G3 upgrade running OS X 10.2.6 and an 80-gig HD that I set up as our family jukebox using iTunes. I just aquired a beige G3 with a G4 upgrade card in it to replace the 7600. Not really thinking, I just moved the HD to the new Mac, and proceeded to do an Archive install to bring it up and running (XPostFacto was required for the 7600, but not for the G3, so a reinstall was necessary).

Well, 3 seconds after I clicked the final "ok" on the install, I realized that I had not de-Authorized the old computer first. I thought, no problem, surely the archive install will preserve the original authorization on the hard drive, right? No way.

My heart sank when I first opened iTunes and got the License Agreement. It sank further when I had to re-Authorize it to play some of my purchased music.

So now I'm down to 2 computers on which I can play my already purchased music-- my laptop and my jukebox. While it's not the end of the world, what's going to happen when the next update or upgrade kills my last remaining authorizations?

I figure that the old authorization must be somewhere in the archived System-- does anyone have any idea where I might find it and move it back? Nothing got erased during the install-- just moved.

wsdr

Sorry to hear! I was under the impression that there was some sort of 'counter' in the AAC encoding that interacted with iTunes. I doubt that the info is stored in a file somewhere (begging for a hacking).

Apple is not advertising the system as working this way. The ID is supposed to be tied to the machine, not the installed system.

I can't offer specifics, but perhaps you have made some type of user error. Perhaps you haven't really lost an authorization, or perhaps you followed the wrong steps in re-setting up iTunes and unnecessarily lost an authorization.

If either is the case, it's a failure of the Apple Fairplay interface.

If you reinstall, you must first de-authorize your system first. I don't know if there is a way to recover what you are looking for, but I doubt you can; I think you are stuck.

It has to be local
 

I have been giving this some thought. The authorization _must_ be locally stored. Otherwise, how could you play songs when you aren't online? So I tried a simple test-- played some music in my library when I was no longer connected to the internet. Worked just fine.

But it also dawned on me that the key must be related to the S/N of the computer-- I think that every mac capable of running OS X can report it's serial number to the OS. The way I see it, it wasn't the archive install that killed me, it was moving the HD to a new CPU.

I'm moving it back and I'll report what I find. Oh, and this time I'm de-authorizing it before moving it!

It is stored locally.. Like I said before, inside the AAC encoded song ;). To clarify what I said earlier was that I seriously don't think that info is stored in a separate file from the song. When you move a song to a new machine, you're only moving the encoded song and it's going to ask you to authorize it to play on that machine. Well anyway, thoughts on IDing. Not ever computer can resolve it's own serial number, so it's entirely possible that it associates itself with the EHA (which is most certainly can resolve). Even if you put a new ethernet connector in the machine, the built-in is always there. Of course, it's also VERY possible that it's some ID info it takes from the motherboard. Even then, what happens if your motherboard gets replaced? [ponder]

I (think &) hope moving the drive back to the original machine works.

I don't think it's the song
 

Yellow, I'm sitting here waiting for the HD to boot back up on the old machine, so hopefully I'll fix this soon. In the meantime, if the authorization is stored in the song, then does each song get updated after you move it? I doubt that.

More to the point, I keep all of my music on one shared volume that my two computers can both access and play-- so the authorization for the particular iTunes must be separate from the song, otherwise, the songs would continuously be updated, right? Or the last one that authorized to a song would be the only one that plays it-- make sense?

More later....

HD identifier?
 

AFAIK...

there is a key in the aac file, which matches against some type of public key stored locally, which should be reaquirable without losing an authorization. this public key also matches against something hardware in the machine

you only have to be connected to the interernet to authorize/deauthorize, or to reaquire the public key.

i missed in your original post that you had swapped out the hard drive. the speculation has been that the hardware key was a machine's ethernet address or serial number, but perhaps the hardware identifier is tied to the boot hard drive instead, which would explain your problem.

a normal HD wipe / reinstall, without physically swapping out the HD should not result in a lost authorization.

my hunch is still some type of user error here, as outlined in my previous post, but it certainly is possible that it was the HD swap instead.

CPU, not HD
 

Petey,

I took the HD from one CPU to another-- not the other way around. So all the data is intact on the drive, just moved around from the Archive Install. That's why I'm trying to track down where that data was stored. I'm move the HD back to its original Mac in hopes that this will help in the search. It's no mean task, though, since the original Mac is a 7600 with G3 card-- I had to use XPostFacto to do the install, so I'm having to do yet another Archive install to get back. At least this time I deauthorized first, but it's slow as molasses reinstalling X on this 7600.

wsdr

DRM ?
 

i don't pretend to understand who/what/when these files:
perms on those files in privilege are wide open, which causes me some pause.

mervTormel,

Well, it certainly looks like you found something. However, I couldn't find anything like that on my (authorized) laptop-- nothing at all, no DRM_Home, nor the Privileges directories. Then I noticed the dates of your listings-- Nov 2002. So, unless your clock is wrong, this is not related to iTunes. Have you played with any other DRM mechanisms?

RE: CPU, not HD
 

OK.

your original post was quite clear about shifting machines. i missed that twice. perhaps i need reading glasses.

---

things now make sense. you SHOULD need a new authorization for the new machine.

if things continue to make sense, you should be able to deathorize the old machine by booting it off of ANY hard drive, not necessarily the original one.

Thanks. I'm still waiting to install OS X back on the 7600-- 2 hours and counting so far.

not to my knowledge. might be M$

thanks for the corroboration; i suspected it wasn't itunes related. dang frustrating not knowing who left the turds.

What's a Public Key?
 

i've never been clear on the whole public/private key thing, ala PGP, and i'm hoping Fairplay will help me understand things.

the way i understand Fairplay is that there is a private (?) key in every AAC file you purchase. when you authorize a machine, the Apple servers place a public (?) key somewhere on your hard drive or machine's NVRAM. this public key includes a machine specific identifier, and some info about the private key.

when you try to play a protected song, the private key in the AAC file needs to match the public key the Apple servers gave you. in turn, this public key needs to match the machine specific info to verify it's on the authorized machine.

my question: am i using the public/private terminology correctly here?

My son is experiencing somewhat the same problems. He opened a new Apple Id account today and downloaded an album. I already have an account, so this is the second on this machine. When he attempts to open his download he gets the message... This computer is not authorized to play... would you like to authorize? He enters his ID & password and gets the message... There was an error storing your authorization info on this computer... the required directory was not found or has a permissions error. I went thru and gave all the permissions I could to the app, his library and anything associated with itunes. Is there a site that has info about the various permission names in each group? I have also tried opening it from my side (admin) but with no luck... Suggestions?

mromano, you should contact apple about that. and please report the results back here.

I had a similar problem, and the music store support folks sent me to this kbase article. My problem was with a newly downloaded song, so not quite the same. However, I *did* find a folder nestled down a couple levels in my music directory with ownership problems, and changing the owner to 'me' fixed it up.

.DRM turds
 

I found a Macromedia page ( http://www.macromedia.com/support/se...rial_error.htm ) that mentions System/Application Support/Privilege/License Manager (But note that that page consistently crashes Safari!)

And the "Privilege" application seems to be the product of Aladdin Knowledge Systems (aladdin.com) (not to be confused with Aladdin Systems which is more familiar to Mac users: alladinsys.com !). Here's the description of the Privilege product:
http://www.ealaddin.com/privilege/default.asp?cf=tl

I'm sticking with my story that there's a counter in the encoded music file. When you hit 3 authorizations, that's it.

Yellow,

are you saying that your AAC files are modified whenever you authorize/deauthorize?

if so, you are very far from the truth.

Ethernet based
 

My reinstall of OS X to the old Mac and HD has been going very badly, and I've given up. However, I found this on the Apple Discussion forum:

http://discussions.info.apple.com/We...10@.3bc23546/0

Basically, Apple told this guy that only the MAC address is required-- so if I can get iTunes, any iTunes back on my old Mac, I should be able to get the authorization back. So I'm throwing an old HD in the old mac and erasing it and starting over.

Also, in the statement that Apple made to brian, it appears that they can manually override this-- so all is not lost even if your Mac gets stolen.

wsdr,

if you have a FW drive with an X install, perhaps that would work...

So I was right, it is tied to the EHA.

That was pure speculation on my part.. however, how come I can only copy an AAC file to 3 machines? I'm not copying anything except the file. I'm not connected to any networking. How does it know? So you're saying for it to know I have to be connected to a network? Does that mean if someone inside a proxied network could copy the file an unlimited amount of times? Couldn't people then sniff packets and then block whatever the connection to Apple for key verification? What is the "truth"? Please enlighten me!

yellow,

- you can copy a protected AAC file to a zillion different computers, not 3. that's not where the restriction exists.

- a reasonably casual think-through would produce a couple of reasons why there can't be a 'counter in the AAC file'.

- i've offered my theory on how the DRM mechanism works previously in this thread. it may turn out not to be correct, but it at least has the virtue of being plausible.

My fault for not being clear. You are correct that you can copy it an unlimited number of times, but you can only play it on 3 machines. Again, I noted that a 'counter' was purely speculation on my part. But don't just say 'no, you're wrong' and not enlighten as to why. Why couldn't there be something in the file? Pretend some of us have no idea why the file couldn't be changed and that no amount of casual think-thru will help fill in the blanks. No need to be snide.

yellow,

no, you are wrong.

---

i'm tempted to leave it there, as it seems clear that you aren't bothering trying to follow the previous posts in this thread.

wsdr has already offered one objection to your 'counter in the AAC file'. if you can explain why that isn't valid, i'd be happy to walk you through the even more obvious objections.

while i am unclear on the details, the basic architecture i've offered earlier in this thread is correct.

My appologies to wsdr, I had read the post previously and only skimmed it later. So wsdr had already noted that it worked without a net-connection. And I missed it. It IS entiredly possible to read posts and not actually read posts..

Perhaps I do too.. still, no need to be so snide about it. I surely hope you don't do end-user support. ;)

Well, anyway, wsdr, glad that you've got a solution (no thanks to me), and that you'll get your songs back!

petey likes being snide sometimes. especially when he has his facts in order. it permits him to suffer certain things gladly that he wouldn't otherwise be able to suffer.

LOL! I'd hate to see petey in a long line at his local Radio Shack. Oh, the things he must have to suffer at the hands of the little people.

Not to Worry
 

The authorizations are stored at Apple. Yes, you need to reauthorize, but you haven't "blown" one of your three. AFAIK, the most recent three requests for authorization are honored, and older ones are dropped.

(Which is probably a gaping security hole, since you could just keep entering the same password at an infinite number of machines, as long as no more than three are connected simultaneously. Tell you what... let's not mention this to Apple, so it isn't "fixed" in iTunes 4.0.2! :-)

petey has a much different attitude when he's trying to help people for free on these forums, as opposed to when sad minimum wage people are trying to sullenly help him.

PS. even the peons at radio shack can figure out a few obvious reasons why 'counter in the AAC file' doesn't make sense. the guy working the fry-o-lator at mcdonalds had no trouble with that. (hint: what happens when you start duplicating an AAC file that has a 'counter' inside it?)

petey has fallen in love with the concept of referring to petey in the 3rd person.

petey thinks petey wants another cup of coffee.

petey wonders just how far off topic petey can get before the macosxhintsforum server explodes.

if (petey == discoStu) go boom;

Well, If the counter is coded to only increment when a certain requirement is met, nothing would happen to the counter if it was copied multiple times. But since such a counter would require the file to be changed, and apparently it's totally impossible to change an encoded file, that couldn't happen now could it?

Anyway, thanks for the dead on character portrayal petey! Always nice to work with a professional.

sfleming,

you're more than a bit off the mark, here:

- wsdr actually HAS blown one of his authorizations. he may be able to get it back, however.

- the 'security hole' you describe does not exist. you really are limited to 3 machines simulataneously authorized.

I disagree. When iTunes Music Store came out, I did basically what he did... after installing iTunes 4 on one of my machines, I reformatted the HD and reinstalled Mac OS X 10.2.6 from scratch. I was able to reestablish its authorization (in addition to my other desktop and my laptop; total three) just by re-entering my Apple ID and password. I did not have to talk to anyone at Apple.

If that qualifies as "blowing an authorization", I can live with it. It's painless for the user.

Then we agree on that one.

sfleming,

nope. you missed the same point i missed at first:

the original poster did something quite different from you: he moved machines, not just X installations. new machine = new authorization required.

also, when you re-entered your ID & password after reformatting, you may not have had to talk to Apple, but your machine had to talk to Apple. if you had not been connected to the internet, reestablishing your authorization wouldn't have worked.

Re: Not to Worry
 

also, the above ain't correct.

if you have 3 authorized machines and try to authorize a 4th, it will be denied. this is why your 'security hole' doesn't exist.

Success
 

I managed to get my son's download up and running. Ran the Disk Utility to repair permissions which didn't work.It seems that when he opened his account the machine's authorization was changed back to unauthorized in my account (admin). When I tried to play one of my downloaded songs I got the need to authorize message. Did so and logged out of my account and logged into his, clicked on a song and authorized it and it began to play. Everything seems to be working fine in all the family accounts.

Alternate way around problem
 

There is an alternate way around the problem...

If you open the aac file in Roxio Toast and convert it to AIFF or WAV, and then revert back to AAC, the file loses the authorization restriction and you can play it on your Mac even without resolving the authorization problem.

It's not the best solution, but rather a jimmy-rig that will let you play a song for some instant gratification instead of waiting to fix the overall problem.

Cheers.

gsparks: Any loss of quality doing that?

Re: Alternate way around problem
 

- you will definitely lose sound quality in doing so. whether the resulting quality loss is acceptable or not is a matter of personal taste.

- i could be wrong, but i don't believe you can convert a protected AAC file to AIFF without authorization.

No loss in quality that I could detect... I'm a DJ, so I'm particularly picky about my sound...

Toast will allow the conversion without authorization... going from .aac to .wav or .aiff loses no quality, since those are uncompressed, lossless formats. Then, when you encode back to aac, the process essentially puts the file back where you started from, provided that you are careful with bit rates.

I experimented with a couple of songs I downloaded from the Apple Music Store (128-bit .aac), converted it in each direction, and ended up with a replacement 128-bit file that still sounds pretty incredible... I played it and the original back and forth, and they sounded identical to me. I also encoded it back to .aac at 160 and 192-bit, with similar results.

I presume it's probably because encoding back to .aac attempts to strip frequencies and data that were never in the file in the first place, so there's no additional loss (just a guess on that one).

Hope this helps... experiment on a couple of files and see what you think!

Of course, once Apple and Roxio realize that you can do this, there'll probably be an update to Toast that adds authorization support down the line... keep a copy of today's version on a CD just in case!!

Thoughts on conversion..
 

Well, isn't the music that you download from the store already authorized on your computer?

I will try bringing some songs from work that have not been authorized on my home machine and see if I can do this.

Does it seem strange that ToastT can even convert an AAC file at all? (It can)

Re: Thoughts on conversion..
 

i haven't tested, but my hunch is that yellow is correct. i believe that when you authorize a computer, Quicktime will then permit other apps to convert M4P files. my guess is that gsparks is using Toast on an authorized computer.

---

concerning AAC -> AIFF -> AAC conversions and loss of quality, petey would like to offer his trademarked friendly but definitive "No, you're wrong" to gsparks. in this case, i'd like to amend it to "No, you're dead wrong."

there really is a significant audio loss in that conversion, whether you notice it or not. i've done the roundtrip, and i can notice it. other people have noticed the degradation as well.

and recompressing into the same format you uncompressed from offers no special benefits. in other words, going AAC -> AIFF -> AAC is no different than going AAC -> AIFF -> MP3.

you can read a further exploration of this issue at:

http://forums.macosxhints.com/showth...light=fairplay

and just because you're a DJ, gsparks, doesn't mean you have a discerning ear for audio quality. you seem to think 128 bit AAC files sound 'pretty amazing', which i certainly don't.

(the quality of audio codecs is a whole other topic, of course. i believe minimal acceptable quality varies by person.)

Yipee! Got it back...
 

First, I got my authorization back. Yipee!

I guess we all knew what the answer would be by now (if you read the entire thread, right petey?), but there is a big difference between theory and practice. I can now make several definitive conclusions about this whole authorization thing:

1) There is no file stored anywhere on the computer with this info, at least not one that matters.

2) There is no computer related info stored in the AAC file, just account related info.

I know #1 because I put an entirely new drive in the old Mac, installed OS X and iTunes. I put no music files on the system whatsoever. Immediately after downloading and installing iTunes, I opened it (iTunes). The first thing I noticed was that it already indicated that the system was authorized, because the Advanced menu only had "Deauthorize..." as an option. I chose Deauthorize..., entered my Apple login and password and it reported to me that I had successfully de-authorized the computer. I checked my account settings and sure enough, my authorizations were decremented by one.

I'll leave the deduction of #2 as an excercise for the reader....

Thanks for all the chatter and everyone that helped.

Congrats
 

congratulations. there is indeed a big difference between theory and practice.

#2 - i agree wholeheartedly.

#1 - this is the interesting part.

your deduction may or may not be true.

first, there MUST be account authorization info stored somewhere locally on the computer. i arrive at this because given your #2, and the fact that you can play protected songs when not connected to the internet, there is no other way for things to work.

there are two places for the info to be stored locally, either in a HD file, or in NVRAM. if the account info is stored in NVRAM, then you are correct that it isn't stored in a local file.

the only scenario i can come up with that ends up with you being wrong is as follows:

Apple has given forethought to the concept of the user reformatting and reinstalling. therefore, when iTunes launches for the first time, it queries Apple's servers with your unique hardware identifier, and sees if that machine is already authorized. if so, it writes the HD file locally with the authorization info.

the way to disprove this, of course, would be to reformat and reinstall, and then launch iTunes without being connected to the internet.

...at least not one that matters
 

petey, that's why I put in my qualification. Certainly something must be stored on the HD to let iTunes know that it is authorized on particular accounts-- but this file is not what constitutes the authorization itself, checking in with Apple does that (the file just remembers this). We can also conclude that this file (or pref) must store some form of local ID that is matched against the computer (which we know is at least the ethernet card). Thus, the file can't be moved to a different computer (which I found out the hard way).

My point was that this file is not necessary or critical to the process-- just the playback. We know that if the file is lost or hosed (eh), it is trivial to get it back. That's all I meant. To put it another way, Apple's system is quite elegant in that there is no dependency on a local file in order to provide authentication-- thus less potential for disaster and phone calls to Apple.

Now, blow-out your ethernet card by a lightening strike, or lose a motherboard that has the ethernet on it, and you're at Apple's mercy.

Your theory about my computer checking in with Apple depends upon that lookup being able to match against the MAC address-- because I had not as yet provided any account info to the computer. I find it unlikely that this is the case, though certainly possible. Also, what I didn't mention before was that the iTunes menu never reverted to Authorize-- it still says Deauthorize Computer.... I even tried this on my laptop and it does the same thing. My assumption is that there is no "Authorize Computer..." menu (easy enough to check if someone wants to pour through iTunes using the developer tools) since it will automatically ask to authorize you if you try to play a tune (for which you aren't already authorized). So I doubt my computer checked in-- maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I leap to the conclusion that my computer never did check in with Apple-- it makes me feel better to think that Apple doesn't waste my bandwidth and their computing power to lookup my MAC address when there hasn't been a request to play protected music.

...it's been nice picking nits... I've learned a lot. I've also been even more convinced that Apple goes the extra mile to make a solution both elegant and robust. Just think if this had been executed by MS....

I thought this was supposed to be a helpful forum... Petey, WTF?? I certainly didn't deserve the digs from you. Too many people posting on this forum (Petey's not the only one) seem to think it's their opportunity to have free reign on pot shots at anyone they disagree with... and a high quantity of posts certainly doesn't automatically make them superior.

Compared to mp3, a 128-bit AAC files sounds pretty amazing. Personally, when I rip my own tunes, I do it at 256-bit now (used to do it at 320 for mp3s).

Furthermore, in going from 128-bit AAC >> AIFF >> AAC, if you re-rip at a higher bit rate, the degradation in quality is extremely minimal.

Perhaps audiophile snobs might notice a difference, but for the ordinary user, and even for the EXTREMELY PICKY DJ, the resulting sound quality is more than acceptable. I take offense at your comments. (BTW, a true audiophile wouldn't be caught dead with mp3s or AACs in the first place.) I run top-of-the-line audio PA equipment and speakers, matched on top of that, and probably have a better ear for sound than 99% of the DJs out there (having run audio production in a studio and live performances for more than 15 years, dude). So chill out.

My original posting here was intended to get someone around the problem of having run out of authorizations to play a tune... that's all.

FTR, yes, the computer I used to convert the AAC to AIFF with Toast was authorized. However, the new AAC file plays on any unauthorized machine.

Let's keep this civil and intelligent.

gsparks,

i'm sorry if you took offense at the tone of my comments, which was partially tounge in cheek, and partially referred back to an interaction earlier in the thread.

but i'll stand by them. i think they were helpful. and i think they were both civil and intelligent.

- i don't think your Toast idea would have worked for the original poster who was seeking help.

- i don't think you have a very discerning ear for the artifacts of digitally compressed audio.

(i'm no audiophile either - i encode into MP3 at 192VBR.)

in your post, you claimed that a file processed 128AAC -> AIFF -> 128AAC sounded identical to the original.

i can notice the difference there. i find the degradation reasonably dramatic. i think it would take a reasonably undiscerning ear to not notice the difference. but there are people with undiscerning ears. some folks are fine with AM radio, you know.

perhaps you might want to consider wearing ear plugs when you do live shows? an ounce of prevention...

again, sorry if you take offense. i'm sure you were trying to be helpful. i just happen to think you aren't exactly clear on the specific subjects you're discussing.

Petey,

This is what I'm talking about... WTF? Why is this necessary? I could suggest brain surgery to you for the same reason, except that it might be too late.

The fact that you encode to VBR shows me what I need to know about your audio skills. Furthermore, in trying to prove your point earlier, you referred me to another thread in which this was being discussed... problem is, you are the only one in that thread advocating that there is some huge degradation in quality. Seems that there were plenty of posts much more in agreement with me. Just because you post a lot doesn't make you an expert on the subject. Stick with what you know best... being an a**.

If I can just fit nazi into a sentence, this thread is done... :p

Maybe you two can continue your love fest via private messages?

ha!

the first mention of "nazi" wins! or loses. i forget. anyhow, akcrab wins/loses!

gentlemen, please be valorous and end the escalation.

Obligatory Soup Nazi reference:

NO TUNES FOR YOU!

It's springtime for Hitler in iTunesLand...

Sadly not:

"However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. "

taken from the link mentioned above ;)

I concur, lets take this to the next level. Mods could have some fun here, but implementation with PHP might be a tad daunting.

ha! thanks, dave. dang codicils and their effects. i invoke the "Ernesto 'Che' Guevara" edict !

Power to the people!

Vat vas dat? Achtung, you americanische Schweinhunde!

I see nu-ting, hear nu-thing!!! Alles klar?



Thank you for interjecting... LOL



:D :D :D

If we're tossing around images to put into threads--and thread wars--then I must drop this one into the fray, just for the heck of it:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~nowickt/rando.../thumbs_up.jpg

;-D

petey likes Mikey-San's link.

Yeah, it's a favourite of mine. The guy who made it (nowickt/Terry Nowicki) has a neat little Web comic if you have some time to kill:

http://rugg.keenspace.com

gsparks in a moron
 

hey mr brilliant DJ, what exactly is wrong with encoding to VBR?

i believe there is a reasonably wide consensus (outside of your audio challenged circle of DJ's) that encoding ANY audio or video to the same bit rate with variable bit rate encoding gets better results than with constant bit rate encoding.

of course, perhaps you are pioneering revolutionary new encoding tactics which you will have to share with us someday after the acid wears off.

best,
-petey

Re: gsparks in a moron
 

Wow, Petey, it took you two whole months to figure out
how to respond to my post... your amazing mental and
verbal skills are astounding. Oh, gsparks "in a moron"??
I guess your typing skills are right up there, too...

That said, WTF is your problem? How about having adult
conversations instead of always acting like an adolescent?

FTR, just because you claim a consensus doesn't make it
so... it's also widely known that VBR can cause havoc with
a wide variety of software applications, most notably resulting
in sound cutting-out occasionally. This is in large part due to
how Quicktime processes VBR audio files... The release of
QT 6 was supposed to have helped address this, but reports
are still coming in that the problem persists.

Before you go and start spouting off again, check your facts
and talk to people who make a living in this business and
stop harrassing those of us trying to help others. From what
I've seen of you, I'm not impressed.

Love and kisses,
GS

PS... ignore that sign-off... must have been the acid talking...

ok gsparks, perhaps you are not completely talking out of your ass this time. perhaps there is some grain of truth in this pronouncement of yours. but given your track record, you can understand my initial skepticism.

i'm curious in what specific real world situations VBR causes problems? honestly curious. i like to learn new things, even if they've been discovered by acid-muddled morons.

for MOST uses, VBR is clearly the way to go, both in audio and video. for my use of MP3 (basically an end product to be played thru iTunes or 3rd party MP3 players) VBR has never caused a single problem.

and i'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. i decided to take a break from sufferring fools over the summer.

incense & peppermints,
-petey

Um, so did it get resolved?
 

I glanced briefly at the replies, and it seemed like there was some resolution to the original problem, but I never really understood if he got his one authorization "ticket" back. It sounds like he's still limited to 2 authorizations, but maybe I'm not sure.

If this is the case, there's a simple solution to deauthorizing the non-existent system. I don't think anyone mentioned it. All you have to do is fill out a form to send to the iTunes Music Store team. Here are the links:

-- Knowledge Base article describing the problem and giving the link to the iTunes Music Store support page

-- Direct link to the iTunes Music Store customer service page

It sounds like you guys went through an awful lot of trouble to fix a problem with a simple solution. :) Although maybe I missed someone else pointing this out...

Re: Um, so did it get resolved?
 

SimX,

yes, it did get resolved.