Clearing orphaned music files after iTunes library migration
Before transfering the music back as is mentioned in the knowledgebase document, be sure to disconnect the iPod and clear your iTunes library by selecting all files that were synchronized and delete them. When prompted, select the option to move the deleted file to the trash. After this is done, go to the iTunes Media (or iTunes Music) folder and remove all the album and artist folders still present. At this point these should just contain the duplicate files and others that were not in your iTunes library.Using Automator and Finder Search capabilitiesApple's "Automator" can be used to locate and target all the files not included in the iTunes library so you can delete them. Unfortunately this is not as straightforward as it could be because like to the Finder, Automator does not have the ability to find or filter items in the Finder by exclusion (i.e., including all except a specific search criteria). If Apple had this filtering option available, finding the unused duplicate files in the Finder would have been as easy as searching for items that do not include "1.mp3," but this is not an option.Despite these limitations, you can get around them by using the Finder's labels for files and folders. The idea is to set up Automator (or the Finder) to first search for all files that do include "1.mp3" in their names (those that the iTunes Library is using), and then label all the found items with a unique color in the Finder. Once this is done it will be easy to do a Finder search on the folder for files that are not labeled, and be able to remove them in batches.To do this, create a new workflow and then put the following workflow actions in this order:Use this workflow to label the duplicated files that are currently being used by iTunes (click for larger view).Get Specified Finder ItemsBe sure to add the iTunes Music folder (or the "Music" folder within the iTunes Media folder) to the list. You can also use the "Ask for Finder Items" workflow action, but it requires you to select the iTunes Media/Music folder each time the workflow is run. The goal here is to somehow target the parent folder that contains the folders for your artists and albums.Get Folder ContentsBe sure to check the option to "Repeat for each subfolder found"Label Finder ItemsAdd this workflow and click the little "x" to ensure all found items are stripped of their labels before the workflow moves on.Filter Finder ItemsIn the first one of these filtering workflow actions, change it so the kind of file is "Music". This will ensure only music files are passed to the second "Filter Finder Items" action, and allowing the "Any" condition in the next step to work on this subset of files instead of all the ones in the targeted directory.Filter Finder Items (again)This is the key action to modify. With the criteria set so "Any" of the conditions should be met, add as many options to filter by name as you would like to include different file types in your library. Keep in mind that adding more items here will include more files in the search results; however, you can always narrow the resulting list by adding an additional "Filter Finder Items" workflow action after this one. Having multiple filters allows for you fine-tune the search parameters.Choose from ListAdd this workflow action in here as a precautionary step, which will list all the files being targeted so far. At this point you can choose to exclude any files you want to keep by unchecking the corresponding box.Label Finder ItemsSelect any color to use, but keep in mind this whole procedure assumes the files you wish to delete will not be included by the search filters in the 5th an 6th actions in this workflow, and therefore will no be labeled by this step.When run, this workflow will go through the music in your folder, and label all that you want to keep (based on the filter criteria you set up) with the selected label color. Keep in mind you can do something similar by using a Finder search like the procedure described below, so that is an option as well. The goal is to somehow target the duplicated files (that are being used by iTunes) that all share a similar naming pattern, and give them the same label so you can use the label to exclude these files later on.A Finder search of the folder (in this case it's my "iTunes Music" folder) for music files with no label should show the remaining files that are unused by iTunes (click for larger view).Once the files have been labeled, you can easily find the remaining ones by using a Finder search to target the files without any labels. To do this, go to the same iTunes Music folder you targeted with the workflow, and press Command-F to bring up the Find window. From here modify the search parameters right under the window's toolbar so the computer searches within "iTunes Music" (or the "Music" folder within the "iTunes Media" directory, if you have your music organized that way), and then be sure to search by File Name instead of Contents.Now modify the filters so the search includes only music files with no file label. To do this, next to the filter menu entitled "Kind" change "Any" to "Music," and then add a new search filter by clicking the plus button to the right side of the current search filter. In the new search filter, choose "Other" from the first menu, and locate the filter called "File label" (you may need to use the list's search box to find it). Select it, click OK, and then be sure to click the "x" in the label options for this filter so the search only includes items with no label.With these search parameters set up, you should be able to see all the duplicate songs in the search results, and be able to move them or delete them as you see necessary.Questions? Comments? Have a fix? Post them below or email us!Be sure to check us out on Twitter and the CNET Mac forums.
Report- Insiders a greater threat to data leaks
Report: Insiders a greater threat to data leaks
According to the survey, IT professionals said about 10 percent of their employeesare losing corporate devices like laptops and USB drives with valuable data more than once a year. "There's either a negligent behavior or careless recklessness in which they handle data maybe because they didn't realize it was there or maybe there's an education gap," Fred Kost, director of security solutions for Cisco, told CNET News in an interview. "The storage capacity of some of these devices and the types of access they have access to is becoming a critical issue for companies."The report also cited the growing risks of portable hard drives as opposed to lost or stolen laptops. One in three IT professionals said USB drives (including iPods) were their top concern, more so than e-mail (23 percent), lost devices (19 percent), and verbal communications with outsiders (8 percent).Surprisingly, 1 in 10 end users in the Cisco survey admitted stealing data or devices and then selling them for profit, or knowing of co-workers who have done so.Yet there are also nonmalicious reasons to explain how corporate data gets leaked into the wild. "If you think about the device leaving the enterprise, going into their home environment, the personal environment, maybe letting their children use it; that puts the corporate data at risk," said Kost. He said data leakage could occur when the kids are using the device to surf some Web 2.0 application. "And what about the end of life, when they go to give the device up on one of the e-waste recycling days? There's another chance for somebody to get that corporate data." Kost repeatedly mentioned the increasingly blurred lines between business use and personal use and how some of that is OK. But long-term personal use of a corporate asset could become a problem."Say they have their iTunes library on the device they use for work, now they have to give up their work device, and they have to figure out what to do."In the study, less than 10 percent of the employees did keep their work devices. Of those who did, 60 percent said it was because there were personal files on the device."It's not malicious," Kost said, "it may just be the only computer in the household."The Cisco study was conducted in late July through early August by InsightExpress, a U.S.-based market research firm, and involved more than 2,000 employees and information technology professionals. Specifically, the study surveyed 1,000 employees and 1,000 IT professionals from various industries and company sizes in 10 countries.The first report on cultural attitudes toward security was released in October.Of those who kept a work device, Cisco found that 60 percent did so for personal needs.Cisco
According to the survey, IT professionals said about 10 percent of their employeesare losing corporate devices like laptops and USB drives with valuable data more than once a year. "There's either a negligent behavior or careless recklessness in which they handle data maybe because they didn't realize it was there or maybe there's an education gap," Fred Kost, director of security solutions for Cisco, told CNET News in an interview. "The storage capacity of some of these devices and the types of access they have access to is becoming a critical issue for companies."The report also cited the growing risks of portable hard drives as opposed to lost or stolen laptops. One in three IT professionals said USB drives (including iPods) were their top concern, more so than e-mail (23 percent), lost devices (19 percent), and verbal communications with outsiders (8 percent).Surprisingly, 1 in 10 end users in the Cisco survey admitted stealing data or devices and then selling them for profit, or knowing of co-workers who have done so.Yet there are also nonmalicious reasons to explain how corporate data gets leaked into the wild. "If you think about the device leaving the enterprise, going into their home environment, the personal environment, maybe letting their children use it; that puts the corporate data at risk," said Kost. He said data leakage could occur when the kids are using the device to surf some Web 2.0 application. "And what about the end of life, when they go to give the device up on one of the e-waste recycling days? There's another chance for somebody to get that corporate data." Kost repeatedly mentioned the increasingly blurred lines between business use and personal use and how some of that is OK. But long-term personal use of a corporate asset could become a problem."Say they have their iTunes library on the device they use for work, now they have to give up their work device, and they have to figure out what to do."In the study, less than 10 percent of the employees did keep their work devices. Of those who did, 60 percent said it was because there were personal files on the device."It's not malicious," Kost said, "it may just be the only computer in the household."The Cisco study was conducted in late July through early August by InsightExpress, a U.S.-based market research firm, and involved more than 2,000 employees and information technology professionals. Specifically, the study surveyed 1,000 employees and 1,000 IT professionals from various industries and company sizes in 10 countries.The first report on cultural attitudes toward security was released in October.Of those who kept a work device, Cisco found that 60 percent did so for personal needs.Cisco
Filmmaker Spurlock- Digital distribution revenues are 'pathetic'
Filmmaker Spurlock: Digital distribution revenues are 'pathetic'
AUSTIN, Texas--The Internet and the rise of online video have meant a plethora of new options for independent filmmakers. But, as has been well-publicized, the money just isn't there yet. A panel at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival on Monday highlighted that this is an extremely contentious issue."Digital distribution is not some magic bullet," said panelist Gary Hustwit on the success of his documentary "Helvetica," in front of a packed room of audience members that came from both SXSWi and its sister festival, SXSW Film. "It's not that because the film is available digitally it does well. It's because you do the work...because of that exposure, it did well."In spite of widespread blog speculation that DVDs are dying and that digital downloads and streams will replace the physical medium in due time, filmmakers say that from the creative side, relying on these outlets--iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Joost, and SnagFilms, represented on the panel by CEO Rick Allen--simply is not profitable yet. In fact, in many cases, sales and revenue numbers are kept on the down-low.Morgan Spurlock, the documentarian behind "Super Size Me" and "Where In The World Is Osama bin Laden?," put it bluntly. "The reason numbers aren't released (for digital distribution revenues) is because the numbers are pathetic," he said. "The numbers are sadly low in comparison to what we expect from film and television.""If you're looking to pay your rent, not so much, if you're looking to pay your phone bill, you have a great chance," Spurlock continued. "It's getting to a point where it's down the road from being profitable, but we're just not at that point yet."The panelists disagreed over whether the best digital distribution strategy is to get a film on as many platforms as possible or to be strategic in the hopes of making more money.Matt Dentler of digital representation group Cinetic Rights Management argued for the be-everywhere model. "We are a direct aggregator to, I would say, about a dozen portals in the U.S., and we just closed our first couple of deals in Europe." Dentler said that Cinetic's films go to YouTube, Hulu, iTunes, SnagFilms, and quite a few others. "We're probably going to have about five to ten more in Europe over the next few months...what this touches on is there are so many freaking options out there for consumers that you kind of have to provide all of them."But Steve Savage, president of distributor New Video, disagreed. "It's good to be agnostic, and I think it's a good way to put everything out there and see what sticks but there's also other ways to do it," he asserted, "to be really strategic, to find where the money is."The panelists seemed to agree that, as so many people have said before, digital revenues are on the way. "The money you're going to make as an independent filmmaker right now," Dentler said, "the fact that we can start cutting checks for people today, it might not be huge checks, but at least they're checks.""They don't approach TV license fees," SnagFilms' Allen said. "We are at the front end of this. However, they are hundredfold, a thousandfold, the size of the checks that most independent documentarians have received from theatrical release."Gary Hustwit said that filmmakers need to take responsibility for pushing the digital distribution business forward themselves. "Go directly to the audience instead of relying on, with all due respect to the distributors here, other businesses to do it," he suggested. "Why are we building other people's businesses when we could build our own businesses?"
AUSTIN, Texas--The Internet and the rise of online video have meant a plethora of new options for independent filmmakers. But, as has been well-publicized, the money just isn't there yet. A panel at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival on Monday highlighted that this is an extremely contentious issue."Digital distribution is not some magic bullet," said panelist Gary Hustwit on the success of his documentary "Helvetica," in front of a packed room of audience members that came from both SXSWi and its sister festival, SXSW Film. "It's not that because the film is available digitally it does well. It's because you do the work...because of that exposure, it did well."In spite of widespread blog speculation that DVDs are dying and that digital downloads and streams will replace the physical medium in due time, filmmakers say that from the creative side, relying on these outlets--iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Joost, and SnagFilms, represented on the panel by CEO Rick Allen--simply is not profitable yet. In fact, in many cases, sales and revenue numbers are kept on the down-low.Morgan Spurlock, the documentarian behind "Super Size Me" and "Where In The World Is Osama bin Laden?," put it bluntly. "The reason numbers aren't released (for digital distribution revenues) is because the numbers are pathetic," he said. "The numbers are sadly low in comparison to what we expect from film and television.""If you're looking to pay your rent, not so much, if you're looking to pay your phone bill, you have a great chance," Spurlock continued. "It's getting to a point where it's down the road from being profitable, but we're just not at that point yet."The panelists disagreed over whether the best digital distribution strategy is to get a film on as many platforms as possible or to be strategic in the hopes of making more money.Matt Dentler of digital representation group Cinetic Rights Management argued for the be-everywhere model. "We are a direct aggregator to, I would say, about a dozen portals in the U.S., and we just closed our first couple of deals in Europe." Dentler said that Cinetic's films go to YouTube, Hulu, iTunes, SnagFilms, and quite a few others. "We're probably going to have about five to ten more in Europe over the next few months...what this touches on is there are so many freaking options out there for consumers that you kind of have to provide all of them."But Steve Savage, president of distributor New Video, disagreed. "It's good to be agnostic, and I think it's a good way to put everything out there and see what sticks but there's also other ways to do it," he asserted, "to be really strategic, to find where the money is."The panelists seemed to agree that, as so many people have said before, digital revenues are on the way. "The money you're going to make as an independent filmmaker right now," Dentler said, "the fact that we can start cutting checks for people today, it might not be huge checks, but at least they're checks.""They don't approach TV license fees," SnagFilms' Allen said. "We are at the front end of this. However, they are hundredfold, a thousandfold, the size of the checks that most independent documentarians have received from theatrical release."Gary Hustwit said that filmmakers need to take responsibility for pushing the digital distribution business forward themselves. "Go directly to the audience instead of relying on, with all due respect to the distributors here, other businesses to do it," he suggested. "Why are we building other people's businesses when we could build our own businesses?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)