Slashdot Mirror
EMI Launches Advertising-Supported P2P Service
SirClicksalot writes to tell us that EMI is launching the first ad-supported peer-to-peer music downloading service called Qtrax. With Qtrax users will have two tiers of membership available to them, which EMI hopes will draw in a large segment of users to try it out and graduate many of them to stay on with a monthly fee or purchase music permanently. From the article "In the ad-supported, free tier, users will be able to search the network for specific tracks, and those tracks registered with Qtrax will be made available for download in Qtrax's proprietary ".mpq" file format. Users will then be able to play the downloaded .mpq file in full-fidelity sound quality for a pre-defined number of times. Each time a consumer plays a track, the Qtrax player will also offer fans click-to-buy purchase options, as well as the opportunity to upgrade to a premium subscription service for a flat monthly fee."
Why is this better than iTunes? Because with iTunes, the money comes directly out of your pocket but you're still forced to decrypt those files you're buying. The primary difference is that iTunes gives you the sense that you'll always be able to play that song after you've paid for it, but does anyone have this in writing?
I'm not sure but I would wager that the "Premium" tier service for Qtrax operates in much the same way as iTunes
Having been in bands that only play the local scene, this new "P2P2A" just looks like another level of penetration preventing bands from "making it big." For a second there, it looked like the internet & P2P networks would allow starting bands to release their stuff for anyone if they so chose (something that used to require signing a label). Now, you have to be signed on a label and it has to be the right label with deals worked with iTunes or Qtrax to make your music available. If consumers are moved to use primarily one of these two programs for their music, how will they ever be exposed to bands on indie labels or bands not on labels at all?
What I'm trying to say is
My work here is dung.
Let's see... I get a "free" version of this P2P. Said P2P software contains adware and r00ts my system. Therefore, I pay a monthly fee for songs that are so DRM'ed that I can't play them more than a few times? Am I the only one that thinks there's something broken with this?
So, that means that I'll be buying
Oh, and on an unrelated note ThePirateBay is back up again.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Just go with one of the readily available recorders out there like http://www.soundrecorder.net/Sound Recorder.
Basically it sets up a sound card drvier on your computer that all the programs that emit sound use to play back through, and you can record that sound into different formats like mp3 and ogg as it is played through your speakers...
Patrick
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
It appears that EMI has seen that P2P can be a legitimate medium for which to distribute music to consumers, but it still has a lot to learn:
The premium subscription service tier uses Microsoft's Janus DRM technology...for unlimited access to music in the Qtrax network. Subscribers will also have the ability to transfer content to Windows Media enabled portable devices for as long as the subscription stays active.
1) You don't ever own the music. It's being licensed, and as soon as you cancel your subscription, the DRM will stop the music from playing.
2) You can't burn the music to a CD, still the most common method for playing music.
3) You can't play the music on any portable device that doesn't support Windows Media, meaning iPod owners can't transfer the music to their iPods.
EMI doesn't seem to understand that consumers want to take their music with them, not leave it on the computer. The #1 portable music player right now is the CD player, and iPod is #2. You can't have a viable competitor in the market if you cut off the top two music players, parading your DRM agenda. This service won't fly.
Not me. Converting a lossy compression scheme to a different lossy compression scheme loses even more fidelity.
.mpq file in full-fidelity sound quality". What, exactly, do they mean by "full" fidelity? As "high fidelity" means "highly faithful to the original performance", then logically "full fidelity" would mean "fully faithful", there's no difference whatever between the original performance and its recording. I can see this obviously bogus statement getting EMI in trouble in the UK, where they're not allowed to flat out lie in ads like they can here in the US.
Speaking of which, they say "Users will then be able to play the downloaded
How good is the fidelity of these files? What is the frequency response? CD's frequency response is horrible compared to earlier technologies, and compressed files like MP3 have even lower response. Likewise with the dynamic range, which is better in CDs than older tech, but its superior dynamic range has never AFAIK been used. A Compressed file also loses dynamics (but with the original having little or none it doesn't matter much).
I know you kids don't give a rat's ass how bad your shitty 398k (let alone 56k) MP3s sound, but in th e'70s I had vinyl playing through four way speakers with six drivers each, including a fifteen inch woofer in each speaker. If you turned it up and went outside you'd swear there was a live band in the living room, so I'm kind of spoiled. I care about fidelity. I'm a nerd, give me some numbers!
On a related note (and a story I just submitted to /.) Tiscali have just shutdown their JukeBox online music streaming service. Their reasons are given here Tiscali Jukebox switch off Q & A. From the article:
"Why have you decided to shut down the service today? Because after going online in total accordance with the music industry and having it launched officially, thus letting our users access it with the characteristics we tested and fine-tuned, today the music industry forwards unexpected demands."
and
"Clearly, major labels do not understand the business potential that is behind a service like Tiscali Juke Box which, by acknowledging and paying the rights for all songs being listened to in streaming mode, allows the safeguard of the rights of the industry and the artists."
Grab a camera and a microphone.
Put on something you'd expect to see a broadcast journalist to wear on TV
Grab a friend to operate the camera.
Go out on the street.
Interview random people about "The Sony Root Kit Debacle."
Watch the clueless looks you get, even if you try this stunt on the MIT Campus.
Joe Six Pack and most the nation most the nation know nothing about the Sony Root Kit.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
This service seems like an actual answer to the p2p users who defend their actions by saying that they only use p2p to preview music before they buy it. If EMI provides a way to legally listen to songs for a limited number of times for free this could be just what is needed to make this preview system valid and leave the sales model to Apple, they seem to have that market covered.