Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qtrax — Ad-Supported Music With iPod Compatibility?

Posted by kdawson on from the see-it-when-i-believe-it dept.

dnormant writes in with a note about QTrax, a 5-year-old startup that just announced deals with all the major labels to provide free, ad-supported music downloads. The new wrinkle is that, though the free tracks come encumbered with Windows Media DRM, QTrax claims that they will be playable soon on iPods. Wired's assumption is that the company is on the verge of a deal with Apple to allow use of its FairPlay DRM in place of Microsoft's. (Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay to anyone so far.) The AP coverage of the story assumes that QTrax has found a way around FairPlay on the iPod, and if so, that its solution will break the next time Apple updates iTunes.

131 comments

  1. prior art by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    QTrax, a 5-year-old startup that just announced deals with all the major labels to provide free, ad-supported music

    Hey, that's a pretty good idea. Maybe they could distribute them wirelessly... using radio waves!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neat idea. Then they can use iPod's scroll wheel to dial the radio frequency.

  2. "Assumes"? by dnwq · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article: "We've had a technical breakthrough which enables us to put songs on an iPod without any interference from FairPlay," said Allan Klepfisz, Qtrax's president and chief executive. Seems pretty damn clear to me.

    1. Re:"Assumes"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wired's assumption is that the company is on the verge of a deal with Apple to allow use of its FairPlay DRM in place of Microsoft's.

      That's not a technical breakthough.

    2. Re:"Assumes"? by thefear · · Score: 1

      From the article: "We've had a technical breakthrough which enables us to put songs on an iPod without any interference from FairPlay," said Allan Klepfisz, Qtrax's president and chief executive. Seems pretty damn clear to me.
      And that break-through was: Lawyer(tm) Let Lawyer(tm) solve all of your every day problems, from DRM licensing, to 'taking care' of people you just don't like, Lawyer(tm) does it all.
      --
      :(
    3. Re:"Assumes"? by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually that's not clear at all, since FairPlay doesn't "interfere" with anything.

      FairPlay-encrypted AACs are one of the formats the iPod can natively play. Unencrypted AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, and Apple Lossless files are other formats the iPod can natively play.

      So, do they mean they've gotten a license from Apple to encrypt their own files with FairPlay DRM? Or do they mean they've reverse-engineered FairPlay so that they are able to sell FairPlay-encrypted AAC files without Apple's blessing? Or do they mean they're offering a hack for the iPod's firmware that will add support for their own DRM format? Or do they mean they're selling unencrypted files?

      If they mean they've gotten a license, I'll be very surprised. I can't see how it would be in Apple's interest, at this point, to license FairPlay to other companies*.

      If they mean they've reverse-engineered FairPlay, Real tried that already, and Apple sued and got them to stop. I can't see how this time around would be any different.

      If they mean they're offering a firmware hack, I can't see how they could possibly support every model of iPod out there, and Apple definitely won't be pleased. Since this would undoubtedly void Apple's warranty, I could see a lawsuit coming from this.

      If they mean they're selling non-DRM files, why wouldn't they just say that?

      Something's fishy here.

      * Option #1 isn't in Apple's interests, because Steve Jobs wants to strongarm the industry into going with option #4, which will be best for everyone, including Apple. By licensing FairPlay, Apple would lose the ability to do this.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:"Assumes"? by prat393 · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I click on the AP article, I get a weather update:

      Qtrax Aims to Offer IPod-Friendly Tracks
      Sunday January 27, 10:15 pm ET
      By Alex Veiga, AP Business Writer
      Qtrax File-Sharing Service Launches; Offers Free Music Downloads Compatible With IPods

      LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Fast-moving thunderstorms brought new waves of rain on Sunday to Southern California, following days of drenching weather and heavy mountain snowfall and raising fears of mudslides and flooding.

      The worst of the storm was over, and Monday promised to bring a spell of clear weather, forecasters said.

      "Things will start to die down as the night goes on," said National Weather Service forecaster Ryan Kittell.

      Up to 3 inches of rain had fallen by early afternoon in valley and coastal areas since nightfall Saturday, with about 4 inches in the mountains, forecasters said. Wind gusts of 30 to 50 mph were reported in some areas.

      Officials said the rain brought a threat of serious slides on hillsides stripped of vegetation by last year's wildfires. Mud and minor rock slides prompted authorities to shut a highway through a burned area near San Diego. Voluntary evacuations were in effect in heavily burned Modjeska Canyon in Orange County.

      The Los Angeles County and Orange County fire departments were on standby for possible flash floods and slides. Flash flood watches remained in effect through Sunday night for Los Angeles, Ventura and San Bernardino counties.

      To avoid overflow, the flood gates at the Big Tujunga Dam in the San Gabriel Mountains were opened Sunday, releasing 500 cubic feet of water a second.

      Department of Public Works spokesman Gary Boze said the controlled flooding was routine during heavy storms.

      In downtown Los Angeles, Sunday's basketball game between the Los Angeles Lakers and Cleveland Cavaliers was delayed 12 minutes after a small leak in the Staples Center roof allowed a steady flow of water to fall on the court.

      The Santa Anita race track in Arcadia, meanwhile, canceled horse races for the sixth day this month because of wet conditions on the synthetic track.

      The storm system also soaked parts of Northern California and the weather service posted winter storm warnings for parts of the Sierra Nevada.

      A highway was closed in the mountains south of San Francisco, and Pacific Gas and Electric said about 2,700 homes and businesses were still blacked out because of earlier storms.

      A series of fierce storms has caused deadly avalanches, flooded streets and set off mud and rock slides in recent days. Some areas have received more moisture in a week than during the entire rainy season last year.

      Three skiers were killed Friday by a trio of avalanches that swept through canyons outside the trails of Mountain High ski resort at Wrightwood, northeast of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel Mountains. A fourth man escaped the avalanches.

      Avalanches are unusual in the San Gabriel Mountains, but the peaks had been hit by 3 feet or more of new snow this past week, drawing thousands of skiers and snowboarders.

      Associated Press writer Chris Weber and AP Sports Writer John Nadel contributed to this report.

    5. Re:"Assumes"? by wiz_80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something's fishy here.

      My assumption is that they have no idea how they are going to deal with the iPod-compatibility claims, but are hoping that by making enough noise and talking about it to anyone who will listen it will somehow magically happen.

      In fact I can quite easily imagine a meeting where somebody explained everything you mention, but all the PHBs were counting bonuses in their heads instead of listening.

      Certainly I will not be having anything to do with it. My personal use model has BitTorrent as my extended preview system, with Amazon providing the permanent data in handy CD form.

      --
      " There is a rational explanation for everything. There is also an irrational one. "
    6. Re:"Assumes"? by iLogiK · · Score: 1

      As I understand it they're going for option 1:
      They went to the labels with the idea of ad supported free music. The labels said fine, if you put DRM on them.
      Because of the success of the iPod the only viable DRM to put on the music so that people will be willing to put up with it is FairPlay.
      Apple won't go along with it because of the reason you mentioned, this is their plan. Have a popular music player that only works with the DRM from their store.

    7. Re:"Assumes"? by wiz_80 · · Score: 1

      According to El Reg, they don't even serve the files - they scrape what's already shared on Gnutella and then filter it.

      Does this mean that sharing files via Gnutella is now supported by the record companies?

      /me exits, boggling

      --
      " There is a rational explanation for everything. There is also an irrational one. "
    8. Re:"Assumes"? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Technical, yes.

      Technological, no.

      After all, royalties are just a technicality.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  3. Radio by webmaster404 · · Score: 0

    Isn't free ad-supported music called radio? Even if this lets you pick your own songs, why download them in DRMed, proprietary and ad-supported files? Isn't that why everyone moved to CD players and MP3 players to have all your own music with no ads?

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. Re:Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      maybe some people want to keep it legal but still not pay for music? just a thought. you know, i know it's not real popular around slashdot but there are still people who believe that artists deserve support and if they can't afford a large catalog taking a few seconds out here and there to listen to an ad is a pretty good trade.
       
      or a better question is why buy them in a drmed proprietary format from a company that can't let in a little competition? why is it that apple still receives praise when they've proven that they're even worse than the big bad wolf microsoft?

    2. Re:Radio by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      There are other ways of getting legal music other then downloading it in DRMed Propriatary format with ads, although you may have to pay a bit more for them and there is radio. I wasn't trying to get into a debate about ethics only that free music with ads is simply a backwards step twards radio which is why we got MP3 players in the first place.

      or a better question is why buy them in a drmed proprietary format from a company that can't let in a little competition? why is it that apple still receives praise when they've proven that they're even worse than the big bad wolf microsoft?

      Where in my post did I praise Apple?

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    3. Re:Radio by keraneuology · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? The ability to forever filter out and select only the songs that you want for free? Sign me up.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    4. Re:Radio by billeeto · · Score: 1

      what's nice about imeem is you can minimize the window and not have to see the ads, and they're small anyway. why are they promoting this qtrax idea of rented server space for limited use tracks, instead of pure streaming? i feel imeem has a shot at success.

    5. Re:Radio by DECS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're kidding right? A DRM format that continues to deliver its side of the bargain after the business model fails? Google Video, NFL, PlaysForSure, etc ad nauseam.

      DRM seems to be a fair way to rent movies temporarily or to buy music you can burn to CDs at any point. Outside of that, its a "trust me!" game that you shouldn't trust past what you can't afford to lose at any moment in time.

      Tom Krazit of CNET and Eric Savitz of Barrons Deny the Jesus Phone

    6. Re:Radio by keraneuology · · Score: 1

      I pay nothing, I buy no product. No risk, fun while it lasts, if it fails I have nothing invested.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    7. Re:Radio by DECS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you say "a company that can't let in a little competition," are you arguing that:

      - Apple has thwarted any retail market for devices that are not iPods, as Microsoft prevented the sale of DOS and Windows alternatives?
      - that Apple should be forced to license FairPlay to other companies, like how Microsoft was forced to license Office to rival third parties for resale under different brands?
      - that Apple should be forced to fund alternatives to iTunes for use with the iPod, the way Microsoft has enabled integration with Notes clients from Exchange, or CalDAV from Outlook clients, or WiiConnect compatibility from the Xbox 360?
      - that the iPod should play WMA DRM, just like Microsoft supports PlayStation 3 games on the Xbox 360?
      - that Fairplay should work on PlaysForSure players, just as Microsoft had to support Win32 apps on Unix?

      Because any of those ideas would be batshit nuts. What were you really thinking?

      And when in recent history has Apple become "even worse than the big bad wolf Microsoft," as I missed the story about:

      - two decades of holding back better technology,
      - promising vaporware that wasn't delivered for years if ever,
      - being charged with monopoly market exploitation and overcharging customers by various states and countries,
      - attempting to cover it up political astroturf campaigns uncovered by the LA Times,
      - delivering unusable technology at absurd prices,
      - raising the price of a desktop OS by 400 percent
      - stealing code and violating copyright while advertising anti-piracy campaigns
      - tightening spyware-policed phone home DRM on their OS
      - starting a format war to control the world's media DRM and push a shitty authoring system like HDi
      - working to raise the price of media downloads while killing off all fair use rights like WMA and WMV
      - shipping a new OS whose main features revolve around HD DRM policing and OS Activation
      - inventing Paladium
      - delivering a crappy mobile OS they can't hardly sell but would love to stick the world with
      - delivering a proprietary alternative to PDF, JPEG, MP3, H.264, Java, OpenDocument and every other open format with the intent to screw the world with a poorly designed file architecture that forces dependence upon a derelict monopoly ... or anything else Microsoft-like. When did any of those things happen? Or are you talking about specific evils of Apple, such as:

      - delivering an open sourced alternative to the NT kernel
      - delivering an open sourced, standards based alternative to the IE browser engine
      - delivering an advanced graphics compositing engine for Vista to copy 7 years later
      - delivering the advanced Cocoa frameworks to power Mac OS X and the iPhone, well ahead of .NET
      - delivering a smartphone that blows away the state of the art and forces innovation into a dead industry
      - promoting an open alternative to DirectX in OpenGL
      - promoting an open alternative to WMA DRM with the MP3 playing iPod
      - promoting a mild DRM that offers fair use rights to revitalize the dead music industry
      - promoting an end to DRM restrictions in music downloads
      - promoting an open alternative to WMV/VC-1 by pushing joint development of ISO MPEG standards
      - creating a competitive music player that sells better than DRM obsessed, subscription touting rivals
      - creating a competitive operating system that sells better than DRM obsessed, authorization touting Vista
      - promoting the use of open file formats such as PDF, PNG, MP3/AAC, H.264, OpenDocument
      - promoting a standards based web and working on HTML 5 rather than a Win32/.NET/Flash-based web
      - contributing back to the GPL/BSD community in core OS, security, and web rendering
      - developing a calendar server and releasing it to the community under the free Apache license

      Anyway, that's why there's a difference. Not sure why its so invisible to you. Also, the sky is generally blue on clear days.

      Apple TV Promises to Take 2008

    8. Re:Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is pretty good at DRM'izing the OS as you say Microsoft did with Vista themselves:

      They screwed up DTrace for processes such as iTunes by using an undocumented API, it's not documented in the kernel source either. They sneaked that one in.
      With that same API, they also ban debuggers (they go SIGSEGV if you attempt to debug iTunes).

    9. Re:Radio by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      I was merely quoting part of the post before me, I belive exactly what you are saying but the guy above me (which I replied to) did not.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    10. Re:Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was merely quoting part of the post before me, I belive exactly what you are saying but the guy above me (which I replied to) did not. That's why you sunk so low by telling DECS (891519) to slit his wrists, oh wait.....
  4. ummm... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The new wrinkle is that, though the free tracks come encumbered with Windows Media DRM Yeah, that won't get cracked tomorrow.

    The DRM business model is interesting. Ideally it would work allowing for people to receive reduced-priced music at the cost of ads or usability (i.e. music only able to be used on one device like what's been floating around lately) but the reality is they're providing another type of DRM which will allow another method of cracking and receiving (in this case) free music.

    I realize that what they're trying for is a compromise, but as long as there are insanely poor college students with way too much time on their hands out there, the market they're targeting will never go for something like this in the way they intend.
    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRM: Do (try to) Require Microsoft

    2. Re:ummm... by cheater512 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I dont see why they have DRM. Its there to prevent unauthorised sharing.
      When your giving it away for free it kinda loses its purpose.

      Whats wrong with a mp3 with ads on it?

    3. Re:ummm... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Because it can be edited to remove the ads?

    4. Re:ummm... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Which is different from editing it to remove the DRM how?

    5. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the impression you may get from reading slashdot regularly, not all DRM is cracked immediately, or even at all.

    6. Re:ummm... by gaderael · · Score: 1

      So, how is the DRM implemented? Are the ads actually played at the beginning or end of the track? Based on answers to my first two questions, how hard would it be to use a program such as Audacity to play them back in any format of your choosing without the DRM annoyance?

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
    7. Re:ummm... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Its not like they are using anything exotic. Its WMA.

    8. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, iTunes DRM was already cracked before, but it's such a non-issue that nobody's bothered keeping up with the patches.

      Furthermore, this bit, "(Apple hasn't licensed FairPlay to anyone so far)", is completely wrong; they licensed their format to Motorola for the ROKR and iTunes-compatible RAZRs. Rather short-lived though.

  5. Or maybe ... by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... it's just PR-fluff designed so people don't write them off as irrelevant because they don't support the single most popular PMP on the market.

    I predict that the touted iPod-compatibility will remain "coming real soon now!" until the company is quietly wound down.

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    1. Re:Or maybe ... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      " I predict that the touted iPod-compatibility will remain "coming real soon now!" until the company is quietly wound down."

      That happened the first time this little company went live - this is round 2. Same method, only different...rriiigggght.

    2. Re:Or maybe ... by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I generally refrain from replying to people's sigs . . . but your email is hidden and I can't resist. At the time of this writing your signature reads, "What part of 'a well regulated militia' do you not understand?"

      I assume you mean to convey by this that you interpret the second amendment as defining a State/collective right, and not an individual one. I'd like to respond with a quote from my own web page:

      The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:

              [. . .]That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia[. . .]

      So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.


      In light of this fact, do you maintain that the second amendment is not meant to ensure an individual right to arms? (Surely we can agree that such a right, should it exist, should not be restricted on the basis of sex, race, or seniority.)

      -Peter
    3. Re:Or maybe ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to their website http://www.qtrax.com/download.php (scroll to bottom)

      Qtrax beta for Mac OS X available March 18!

      I would hope that they have the DRM/iPod issue solved by then! I don't even think that you can play M$'s DRM'ed files on that platform!

  6. The didn't work out so well for... by SchnauzerGuy · · Score: 1

    Rhapsody.

    1. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by Albanach · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by it didn't work so well for Rhapsody?

      The article you linked to says that after Real launched Harmony, Apple issued a software update which stopped the Harmony tracks from playing. Real then issued their own software update and the tracks have played without a problem ever since.

      Now I'm sure Apple could issue another update in the future again breaking the tracks, but from the article you posted it reads like it worked out pretty well for Real, and for the iPod users that bought tracks for less than the cost over at the iTunes store.

    2. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by SchnauzerGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Note that the article I linked to was from 2005. After a lot of back and forth, and threatened lawsuits, here is the current situation as described on Rhapsody's website:

      The Apple iPod does not work with Rhapsody To Go. At this time Apple does not support track "rental" from Rhapsody or any other subscription music service. Purchased Rhapsody tracks also cannot be played on an Apple iPod.
      Like I said, it didn't work out so well for Rhapsody.
    3. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Rhapsody, I remember a conversation three years ago with a friend who thought Rhapsody's subscription model was the way to go. I, on the other hand, argued that Apple's buy-to-own model was the way to go.

      So here we are three years later.

      My friend has been paying $14.99 per month for a grand total of $539.64 and doesn't own any of the music he's been listening to, and I've spent around the same and bought approx thirty albums and lots of individual songs.

      We both started off with quite large libraries to begin with, after ripping all our CD's, so it's really down to new music. I listen to internet radio pretty much exclusively, primarily because I wouldn't know what to choose if I saw a long list of new bands. My friend, on the other hand, can listen to a whole album by a new band if he hears a single he likes, but never own the album (unless he want's to take advantage of the 10% off thing that Rhapsody offers for album purchases).

      In the three years he's been using Rhapsody he hasn't bought an album because, well, what's the point. He can listen to anything he wants whenever he wants so long as he pays the monthly subscription.

      If I hear band I like on the radio I can listen to about half a minute of each track, to make sure the single wasn't a fluke, and buy the album for $10.

      Needless to say the pros and cons go on and on forever, and seeing as we're going camping in a couple of weeks I was wondering if there are any definitive world shattering arguments for or against either model?

      Can I win the argument this time?

    4. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by DECS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well according to the free market:

      - Apple sold 4 billion tracks and is maintaining sustainable profits while growing its music business rapidly in per song sales.
      - Rhapsody is stuck with the same niche of music renters and can't find new ones, just like PressPlay and Duet and all the rental losers before it.

      Rhapsody did however manage to pull MTV's urge out of WMP and the Zune software, leaving a big hole in Microsoft's trousers. This didn't seem to have much of positive impact on Rhapsody though. Real is now promoting per track song sales.

      Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth

    5. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by nolife · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So do you see the merits in having cable TV at home or do you buy every thing individually that you watch?

      I have Rhapsody and it works out great. My kids and I each have a portable unit, for $15/month, we each have an unlimited amount of music to listen too on any of our computers (linux as well), or on our portables. One subscriptions allows 3 authorized computers and 3 portable devices. We can also use the Rhapsody web interface on any computer and and it does not count against the authorized total.

      For me, I already have the stuff I want on physical media or FLAC but I like the convenience of using Rhapsody on my portable. For my kids, they listen to new stuff and what is popular right now, not what was popular 6 months ago. Buying the tracks or the physical disk of "NOW That's what I call Music volume 2x" is only good for them for a few months.

      So in three years, you spent $540 and have 540 songs. I have paid $540 and have had unlimited access to millions of songs. I don't care if I own it or not, $15 a month is the cost on a single CD or 15 songs.

      The system does not work out for everyone but I've listened to more stuff that I would have NEVER bought or heard otherwise. There is no risk. I can drag over play lists, if I do not like them, oh well. I know my daughter has a dynamic play list of some type of top hits, every time her portable syncs, she has what someone considered to be "hot" now on her device. If you really do want to purchase a song as your own like iTunes, you can for $0.79. I've only done that once and that was before we had subscription compatible players.

      I don't care what you like better, I know what I like better. Why do you even care what your friend is doing anyway?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    6. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it didn't work out so well for Rhapsody.
      Sorry, I still don't get it.

      The original article is about another crowd that want to give you songs to keep that are wrapped in DRM. Rhapsody can also give you songs to keep wrapped in DRM that work on your iPod.

      Real have never claimed that Rhapsody To Go tracks can be played on anything other than a windows PC or a PlaysForSure device. I'm still not clear what exactly hasn't worked out for them?
    7. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by Basehart · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "So do you see the merits in having cable TV at home or do you buy every thing individually that you watch?"

      I see you're not going to be very helpful in my quest for campfire argument winning.

      FWIW the adults in the household don't watch any TV and haven't for years now, and I mean zip, nada, zero TV. We do have a basic service turned on to keep the cost of our cable internet down, but if we turned TV service off completely our internet would go up more than the $9 basic TV costs.

      Just to keep things scientifically accurate I just asked the kids when the last time they watched TV was and they couldn't remember. The oldest said the Superbowl, but I doubt it's been a whole year. I haven't seen them watching TV for a long time though, and even way back when we did have expanded digital cable it was never on. That's why we took the box back.

      I guess we just don't have the urge to stay on the entertainment cutting edge like you guys. Maybe we're of Amish ancestry, although that wouldn't explain why we all have iPods of one kind or another and a desktop or laptop in pretty much every room.

      I was intrigued by your closing comments btw:

      "I don't care what you like better, I know what I like better. Why do you even care what your friend is doing anyway?"

      Don't forget to bring your camping chair this time :-)

    8. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by SchnauzerGuy · · Score: 1

      Purchased Rhapsody tracks also cannot be played on an Apple iPod.
      While the rental tracks could never be played on iPods, the .wma format, DRM encumbered purchased tracks could be transfered to the iPod for a period of time, using Real's implemention of FairPlay. But as you can see from the above quoted text, the combination of Apple's legal threats and software changes made Real eventually give it up.

      Do you understand now?



      P.S. I worked with a large French electronics company back in 2004 that was going to do exactly this same scheme. They sold DRM'ed WMA format audio, and using a utility, it would decrypt and transcode the audio into FairPlay encrypted MP3 format. After spending a pretty good chunk of money producing this system and, they never released it...
    9. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by nolife · · Score: 1

      I was not thinking from a campfire talk setting ;)
      Maybe you could discuss something else. How about if McDonalds is "responsible" for contributing to the obesity problem in teens or if they as a company are simply supplying what the market demands. Same concept for SUVs and gas mileage. Here's another one but would probably take some background knowledge to maintain a decent argument. Safety devices installed on products. Are companies discouraged from "fixing" a safety issue at the risk of getting sued because they did not install them earlier or is waiting for the US government to mandate a specific feature justified. There are people that sue because their 1990 Honda did not have air bags and that their old lawn mower did not have the engine shutoff handle, should the companies be held responsible because they did not identify these "problems" earlier? Should the government have to step in to get these devices installed? If the company installs something are they acknowledging that the previous products were defective and should have had the safety device which makes them liable?

      Well usually when I am at the campfire, I am with old friends or relatives and we talk about the stupid crap we did years ago.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    10. Re:The didn't work out so well for... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      McDonalds, and the trash their crappy products are wrapped in that their obese clients like to throw out of SUV windows when they've finished getting their daily fix, is always good camping fodder - but difficult to get hot under the collar about because it's a no-brainer. And I'm guessing the Real vs Apple thing will be a non-event as well seeing as we're both pretty deep into our respective evils.

      The big one will be HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, then roll over into Xbox 360 vs PS3 (no doubt it's obvious I'm in the latter camp on both counts). Should be easier than last year that one for sure.

      Thanks for the product upgrade thought provoker btw. I'll bring that one up.

      FWIW I think there's should be an official "end of life" clearly stated at the time of purchase, separate from a guarantee which is all about fixing it if it goes wrong. The end of life period gives you updates and keeps the company liable for the "life" of the product. An independent standards institute of some kind can track it all, but not sure if it should be a govt. body.

  7. did they just reverse engineer FairPlay? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    Nice hack, I guess.

  8. It would never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would listen to all those ads? Why use radio anyways? The signal quality would probably suck a lot of the time. I doubt that this new 'radio' technology will supplant cable/fiber anytime soon.

    1. Re:It would never work by gerardolm · · Score: 0

      Wooooosh... (it's not a joke, but still, that was the analogy passing over your head and waving your sanity goodbye)

    2. Re:It would never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Wooosh" indeed.

    3. Re:It would never work by asCii88 · · Score: 0

      And later they could make some cool receivers that will let you skip those ads and record your favourite content to be played back later. And they should have a feature that would allow you to be listening to something, while at the same time recording something else. I think I'll patent this wireless entertainment device.

  9. It won't be Music by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I cannot see how they can put ads in place on the iPOD. The ad would have to be static, which is far less valuable these days then something that can be updated dynamically with all the invasion of privacy information they can collect.

    So the future I see is........ "Oh baby, Baby...... pfff Umm like this is Britney, buy my album and stuff for reals. Lawyers cost money. I'm serial. pfff Hit me one more time"

    Or a Paris Hilton track being interrupted by a commercial for Valtrex.

    1. Re:It won't be Music by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Or a Paris Hilton track being interrupted by a commercial for Valtrex. Well at least the ad is reaching its target audience.
    2. Re:It won't be Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you. it's comments like yours that keep me reading these music related stories. nothing brings a smile to my face faster than one of the self-appointed elite being approximately as stupid as possible, and not ironically. bless you.

  10. hehe by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, the inconvenience of p2p teamed with the inconvenience of DRM.  I'm sure it'll be a huge hit.

    --
    expandfairuse.org
  11. Why Bother With P2P if it's legal? by szyzyg · · Score: 1

    I mean there are advantages in terms of server load I'll give you that, but if you've licensed all the tunes then why not follow the imeem model and centralize everything on a website - no special p2p software needed just a flash player and a modern browser. P2P services were percieved to have some sort of limited deniability for a while because the content and sometimes the indexes did not exist on any of the developers servers, but there's no need to that here.

    I mean downloading movies and tv shows via p2p is popular, but it's nothing compared to the amount of pirate movies and tv shows shared on youtube, stage6, veoh and all those other sites indexed by clones of tv-links - if you can get instant gratification most people will take the easy option. So for the same reason I see imeem.com remaining popular since you can find pretty much every record on there in cd quality, available for instant listening and of course licensed by the record labels.

    Oh I see that the press release claims that they've signed on all 4 major labels, which it turns out is BS Warner Music Group hasn't signed on so users will have to do without Madonna when the site launches.

    1. Re:Why Bother With P2P if it's legal? by illectro · · Score: 1

      imeem is the youtube of music that's the best way to describe it (and it does video ad photos pretty well too ;-)

  12. Sorry to reply twice but by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    When are these people going to learn that there is no especial significance to a file being on someone's harddrive?  I can download an mp3 every time I want to listen to it as easily as open it off my harddrive.

    Thus, there is no meaning to making sure it is "deleted" via DRM.

    Hmm, well I guess it is pretty abstract.

    --
    expandfairuse.org
  13. Yet another solution in search of a problem by earlymon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you understand iPods at all, be prepared to wretch at the level of FUD in the article. For example:

    That's unusual, as iPods only playback unrestricted MP3s files or tracks with Apple's proprietary version of DRM, dubbed FairPlay.

    "We've had a technical breakthrough which enables us to put songs on an iPod without any interference from FairPlay," said Allan Klepfisz, Qtrax's president and chief executive. Let's be clear - the problem is DRM itself. The solution is to drop it.

    The problem is not how to get DRM content onto an iPod without Apple's help. The problem is not how to get content onto an Apple. The problem is not that iPods only play open MP3s and Fairplay'd tunes - Jesus, that's not true (cue the dead horse beating).

    The issue here - not in the summary - is that QTrax is P2P as well as download. And they're either scared or just stupid:

    As long as the DRM on downloads and advertising in the Qtrax application aren't too obtrusive, the music service may appeal to computer users now trolling for tracks via LimeWire and other unlicensed services, Enderle said.

    "This is a way to get the stuff for free and not take the risk of having the (recording industry) show up at your doorstep with a six-figure lawsuit," he said. Call it Flamebait if you will for what I'm about to say (which this isn't, BTW): if these guys aren't stupid, then my first suspicion is that they're a stalking horse for the record industry to prove that DRM is ok, and that the record company's version of what DRM is ok on an iPod isn't subject to Apple's dictates. Failing that, then they actually believe you can have your DRM and eat it, too.

    Either way, I'm disgusted by their attempt and their thinking.
    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:Yet another solution in search of a problem by Technician · · Score: 1

      Call it Flamebait if you will for what I'm about to say (which this isn't, BTW): if these guys aren't stupid, then my first suspicion is that they're a stalking horse for the record industry to prove that DRM is ok, and that the record company's version of what DRM is ok on an iPod isn't subject to Apple's dictates. Failing that, then they actually believe you can have your DRM and eat it, too.

      I've been trying to figure out the tech end. Someone with an iPod and iTunes care to help me out? I don't have iTunes on my Linux machine, so I can't veify anything. Doesn't iTunes permit downloading to the player and deleting songs off a player, but not copying stuff back off the player? Isn't that why 3rd party apps are popular? I'm thinking that the service may download DRM content from the website with advertisements, but export it directly onto a portable player with either Windows DRM, or a DRM free MP3 on an iPod hoping you don't notice that 3rd party software can move the unprotected tunes back off the iPod.

      The software for talking to iPods for Linux work just fine for transferring data both ways.

      Can someone verify the official iTunes software? This should keep the songs out of trouble with Apple.

      This is just a theory. Feel free to shoot it full of holes.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Yet another solution in search of a problem by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Yep, iTunes lets you put music on your iPod as a one-way deal - you can't pull them back off without third party software. (Whether they're popular or not, I can't say. I got one after a disk crash - only way to get my music back out - but that didn't involve anything DRM'd.)

      So far as I recall, you can only place iTunes Fairplay'd music on an iPod you _sync_ to - you can sync with an iPod (and only one) - or you can not sync, but transfer music to - and remove from - an iPod manually.

      Maybe merit in what you say - it's DRM'd on your desktop, but strips DRM on the way to the iPod. That's going to lock out working with sync'd iPods - the music with syncing has to be on your desktop. Also, I know very little about the internals of an iPod - I don't have idea what would happen with music copied in from iTunes next to music copied in from a third party app - maybe it's all good, I don't know.

      So, yes you have the food chain correct. Your idea that this is their scheme - allow a roundabout method to circumvent DRM and allow free music copying - while not impossible - seems to require more thinking that these guys seem capable of to me. After reading the Register article cited elsewhere in this thread, the only thing I'd give them credit for cranially is associated with venture capital.

      Thieves and scammers "think", too, but that doesn't make them a Johnny Lee ( http://johnnylee.net/ )

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    3. Re:Yet another solution in search of a problem by earlymon · · Score: 1

      PS - whatever these guys are really up to, the expression I was looking for to describe them was, "too clever by half."

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    4. Re:Yet another solution in search of a problem by Technician · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have idea what would happen with music copied in from iTunes next to music copied in from a third party app - maybe it's all good, I don't know.

      It works fine. We have put some MP3's on an iPod and backed up the entire iPod to hard disk under Linux. I guess the only thing you don't get backed up is the keys, but that iPod has never had DRM tracks, so it's a moot point.

      Pick your fav program here. Some are multi-platform.

      http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/managing_your_ipod_without_itunes

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  14. Facts by pete-classic · · Score: 1

    That's unusual, as iPods only playback unrestricted MP3s files or tracks with Apple's proprietary version of DRM, dubbed FairPlay

    Hard to take an article seriously when it gets the basic facts wrong. I've got about seven gigs of unprotected AAC files on my iPhone. They "playback" fine.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Facts by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Methinks they're using "MP3" in the common usage sense of "a music file that plays on a computer or portable player" (i.e. the same way people used to use "Xerox these pages" even when they were using a non-Xerox photocopier).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  15. The article is funny for 1 reason alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The fact that anybody takes Rob Enderle seriously anymore.

    I thought the whole SCO affair had made his reputation less than great?

    1. Re:The article is funny for 1 reason alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one really keeps score for pundits. They earn a reputation mostly through seniority rather than accuracy. If someone is willing to pay them to shovel shit long enough, eventually people assume they must know something.

      As a commentator, the worst thing you can do is be is silent. Being wrong has few consequences.

  16. It's been done by CSMatt · · Score: 1

    The industry tried a DRM'd P2P service a few years ago with PeerImpact. As far as I can tell the only difference is that Qtrax is ad-supported.

  17. Amazon already figured it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way to get around Fairplay is to use MP3.

  18. More info at The Register by Len · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Register has an article about Qtrax. They're pretty skeptical about it.

    1. Re:More info at The Register by iainl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I wouldn't put any weight behind what Andrew Orlowski says. But it turns out he was right to be sceptical in this instance - the system has 'mysteriously' failed to launch as planned today, nobody wants to talk to the press, and the majors are denying they ever signed such deals.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  19. Startup? by 8tim8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    QTrax, a 5-year-old startup

    Um, they've been around for five years, I don't think they're exactly a startup anymore. More like a regular company that's trying to attract some VC money and subscribers by trying to look all shiny and new.

    It's kind of like your mom wearing low-riders and a tube top--at some point this sort of thing just needs to stop.

    1. Re:Startup? by illectro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I'm seeing elsewhere they're claiming to have deals which they don't have, supposedly Universal and Warner have yet to sign on to allow their music to be shared. I feel the fail gathering in the wind......

    2. Re:Startup? by cranesan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's still a startup 'cause they haven't made any money yet.

    3. Re:Startup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me!?

      - Mom

    4. Re:Startup? by billeeto · · Score: 1

      Qtrax backtrax, according to reuters, the major label deals were smoke n' mirrors. are they smokin mirrors? http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2844446320080129

  20. DVD Jon to the white courtesy phone please... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    ...DVD Jon to the white courtesy phone.

    How long before something this stupid gets cracked? Let's start a pool on it. I'm in for two weeks and three days after the launch date. Everyone - pick a day.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:DVD Jon to the white courtesy phone please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It might as well be that DVDJon actually supplied the FairPlay DRM solution for them.
      http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/1826234

  21. my eyes! by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

    "It's kind of like your mom wearing low-riders and a tube top--at some point this sort of thing just needs to stop."
    that's just wrong. I don't know if I'll ever be free of that picture.

    "just because your moma's in jail and you were born in a trailer, doesn't mean you're trash" - Peggy Hill

    --
    -- Sig under construction...
  22. You haven't seen my mom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, this is /. No doubt you've turned up here pics while surfing...

  23. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends on how your Mom looks in them.

  24. The part that irks me by MrCopilot · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the Reg

    The company has pinched what it could from open source land. The fat client is a custom version of Firefox, with a fork of the Songbird music player layered on top. Normally software developers could expect a decent license fee from a $30m start-up for use of their work - but in the new Tim 2.0'Reilly "freetard" model, the Firefox and Songbird developers don't get a cent for their labour - merely the satisfaction that they're "building a platform".
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/27/midem_qtrax_launch/
    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    1. Re:The part that irks me by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Does it really make sense to refer to Fire-fox as a "freetard" model with the amount of money that comes in from its use?

      the so called freetard model was able to get the publicity and support to make Fire-fox incredibly successful project that would probably of flopped as a closed source product and that sentence really makes the rest of the work by that author very suspect.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:The part that irks me by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be irked too. First off, The Register is suggesting that using code from an open source project is "pinching". Pinching usually refers to theft, and there is no theft going on here. There's also no infringement, because the developers who worked on these projects have willingly licensed their code for anyone to use for free, regardless of whether or not the code is being used to make money.

      How rude of The Register to lambaste the company for building software using code that others are handing out under licenses that say "don't pay us a cent".

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:The part that irks me by Catharsis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it's a licensed fork. Songbird has licensed our technology to Qtrax and we provide support to them. It works well for everyone and we're delighted to see some little birds leave the nest.

      Songbird as a platform is making leaps and strides right now. If you're a Mozila-developin' fan of the project, we're in the middle of a Top 40 extensions contest to port cool extensions from Firefox. Come by #songbird on irc.mozilla.org or check us out at http://songbirdnest.com/top40 . Win cool schwag! Meet great people! Hack on something fun!

      As a daily-use media player we're still not quite there yet. We are, after all, only at version 0.4. Still, many people are discovering all the cool things that having an extensible framework in your media player enables you to do.

      Squawks,
      -pvh

      --

      "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume

    4. Re:The part that irks me by dangitman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Win cool schwag! Meet great people! Hack on something fun!

      Uggh. Are you Open Sourcing pathetic market-droid speak, too? What's next, Songbird X-Treme edition?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:The part that irks me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he will... right after you open source being an asshole.

    6. Re:The part that irks me by hweimer · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a licensed fork. Songbird has licensed our technology to Qtrax and we provide support to them. It works well for everyone and we're delighted to see some little birds leave the nest.

      Um, how does this work concerning the parts of Songbird PotI doesn't hold the copyright for (i.e., Firefox & VLC)?

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  25. Idiots by RetiredMidn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's easy to put songs on an iPod without interference with FairPlay: use DRM-free music. Most writers, and /.ers, it would appear, seem to miss this point: Apple does not restrict non-FairPlay music from the iPod. Whatever DRM scheme Qtrax is using is designed to prevent music from being played on devices that don't license their DRM scheme.

    The only way Qtrax can get their music to play on the iPod is to a) make it DRM-free, which it doesn't sound like it's doing; b) use FairPlay DRM, which they seem to have eliminated; c) implement their DRM "client" (unlocking) on the iPod, which seems unlikely; or d) get Apple to license their DRM scheme for the iPod, retroactively. Yeah, that'll happen.

    I smell a rat: too many claims, too few details.

    1. Re:Idiots by Romancer · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just obfuscate the file on the ipod during the file transfer? The same way that apple does with itunes. Third party utilities have been out for a long time addressing this since the songs weren't meant to be accessable for retrieval once they were transfered to the ipod without itunes letting them. As long as the ipod can play the file they are ok.

      Adding a piece of software to run on the ipod seems like the most obvious method of doing this since it would allow access to the file by the firmware but prevent retrieval and copying from the device without the ad supporting softwares approval. The two pieces, one on the computer to display ads and download -> transfer to the ipod, and the ipod add-on to enable the altered file to play back. The ipod add on could also update an ad database when connected and display them as album art during playback for more exposure.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    2. Re:Idiots by DECS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple doesn't "obfuscate the file on the ipod during the file transfer." If you're thinking of the private file system iTunes copies to the iPod when it copies tracks over (whether MP3/AAC or AAC-Fairplay), what's going on is that iTunes gives all the files identically long, pseudo-random file names to optimize reading and file system transversal on the iPod.

      It's not designed to hide anything, only to make reading files and transversing the file system simple. That's why you can browse the hidden directory and copy files back manually. Song files are hidden primarily to prevent users from mucking with the files once iTunes copies them over, so that the software won't have to deal with verifying file system integrity and externally edited files or directories. If Apple really wanted to hide the files or prevent you from getting them off, it knows how to create an encrypted file system disk image.

      Modifying the iPod's firmware to play back WMA wouldn't be impossible it seems, but doing so would be legally difficult for a commercial company. Rockbox and Linux can already run on the classic iPods. However, Apple could repeatedly bork every attempt with new firmware updates, just as it did to stop Real from shoving its DRM on the iPod.

      Apple is happy having Amazon sell MP3s for the iPod, but they're not going to stand for Helix, WMA or any other DRM system locking up music in a way that takes advantage of the iPod. Also, with Apple now selling two families of iPod, rolling out a system that works on both the Nano/Classic and the Touch/iPhone would be far more difficult for a Fairplay-compatible system like Real tried to do with Helix. They only copied the basic ACC format, no messing with the firmware.

      Getting WMA to play on the iPod would require a very sophisticated firmware change, and only the classic iPods are known to have WMA capable hardware. The Touch/iPhone likely only has hardware support for H.264.

      Playing ads on the iPod using DRM tracks would be absurd. It would be much easier to just serve up songs as video podcasts running ads or videos with ads, just like TV and the web, where users can ignore ads. Forcing the screen to play would rape battery life though, and who really needs ads to sponsor songs they can get for 99 cents or from CDs they own? A foolish idea all around it seems.

      Will Steve Jobs License Apples FairPlay DRM ?
      How FairPlay Works: Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma

    3. Re:Idiots by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not designed to hide anything, only to make reading files and transversing the file system simple.


      That doesn't really hold water. If the motivation for the funny names and the hidden directory was simply to make traversing the file system simple, then why would they bother preventing drag-outs from the iPod in iTunes? Newer versions of iTunes won't let you copy music back out of your iPod into your computer; it is now necessary to dive into the hidden directory.

      The directory may have originally been intended as you describe, but then they took advantage of the happy side effect of obfuscation, as part of a trend of increasing evil/stupidity.

      Clearly, the iPhone was designed to be completely locked up -- unlike the iPod, it doesn't get mounted as a file system when you plug it in. :-(

    4. Re:Idiots by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Getting WMA to play on the iPod would require a very sophisticated firmware change, and only the classic iPods are known to have WMA capable hardware. The Touch/iPhone likely only has hardware support for H.264.

      H.264 is a video codec. WMA is an audio codec, which requires much less processor power to decode. I suspect that all iPods have plenty of processor power to do a software decode of WMA files, even with DRM thrown into the mix. Media acceleration is a recent thing for Windows Mobile PDAs (which all support WMA), and mostly is only required for the more heavily compressed video codecs.

    5. Re:Idiots by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Clearly, the iPhone was designed to be completely locked up -- unlike the iPod, it doesn't get mounted as a file system when you plug it in. :-(

      Doesn't the iPod require a specific option to be set to do this? Does the iPhone have the same option hidden deep within its configuration menu?

    6. Re:Idiots by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      "Rockbox and Linux can already run on the classic iPods."

      Not on the new 6th generation classic iPods they don't, thank you. Apple has implemented encrypted firmware on these newer models.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    7. Re:Idiots by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really hold water. If the motivation for the funny names and the hidden directory was simply to make traversing the file system simple, then why would they bother preventing drag-outs from the iPod in iTunes? Newer versions of iTunes won't let you copy music back out of your iPod into your computer; it is now necessary to dive into the hidden directory.

      The directory may have originally been intended as you describe, but then they took advantage of the happy side effect of obfuscation, as part of a trend of increasing evil/stupidity.

      Clearly, the iPhone was designed to be completely locked up -- unlike the iPod, it doesn't get mounted as a file system when you plug it in. :-(


      By preventing dragouts, you keep a simple form of piracy at bay. I.e., you show your friend a cool tune on your iPod, and he wants it, so he connects to iTunes and drags it out. It's the sneakernet form of P2P sharing. (Nothing prevents you from copying the music elsewhere in disk mode, either).

      The music industry is already jittery about digital music. You really want them to start suing iPod users for copying music amongst each other? Why do you think the Zune's WiFi sharing is so crippled?

      And compared to the Zune, Apple deems the obfuscation enough. Nothing's keeping you from actually dragging the folder out and running an ID3 editor on it to move/rename the files back, after all. You don't even need the iTunes database for that. Better than Microsoft, which requires using their software to access the Zune (it's MTP, but the Zune does a certificate exchange at the beginning, otherwise it locks out access to the media). The only advantage is that a modern PC lets you browse the MTP virtual directories in a sensible manner - the're stored in equally strange arrangement if you actually mount the disk (it's TFAT - transactional FAT, but mountable as regular FAT32).

      As for evil/stupidity, considering the iPod keeps this (at least for all "dumb OS" iPods - i.e., non-iPod Touch, non-iPhone) arrangement for years. The database format has changed (for better or worse). If Apple wanted to be evil, they'd have added encryption to all the files, or put them all in a big "virtual hard disk" or other mechanism such that the simple circumvention isn't possible. As it is, it probalby keeps 95% of the iPod using population at bay - the other 5% would've cracked whatever complex scheme they cook up. DRM is a money sink - you add engineering R&D time and get back nothing, effectively (other than a slightly lower chance of getting sued). Apple knows making it tough to copy the music off an iPod doesn't add any value - those that won't, haven't, those that do, will find a way.

      The iPhone and iPod Touch run OS X internally. They can't really export the filesystem as a disk because a Windows bug can easily corrupt the OS X part of the firmware, and attempting to do so in software is unpredictable. Plus, OSX might decide to mount the HFS+ partition that forms the OSX part of the iPhone/iPod Touch, leading to all sorts of fun. (Mass storage class exports a block-level interface - the OS just says "write sectors 3-10 with this data". Allowing two computers to independently access the same disk is a Very Bad Idea - see race conditions and other fun corruption stuff).
    8. Re:Idiots by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Getting WMA to play on the iPod would require a very sophisticated firmware change, and only the classic iPods are known to have WMA capable hardware. The Touch/iPhone likely only has hardware support for H.264.

      H.264 is a video codec. WMA is an audio codec, which requires much less processor power to decode. I suspect that all iPods have plenty of processor power to do a software decode of WMA files, even with DRM thrown into the mix. Media acceleration is a recent thing for Windows Mobile PDAs (which all support WMA), and mostly is only required for the more heavily compressed video codecs.

      So why do people complain (even sue) because the iPod doesn't support WMA even so it is hardware supported?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:Idiots by DECS · · Score: 1

      What connection do you see between file names on the iPod and how iTunes' graphical interface works?

      iTunes is certainly designed to guide users into using the iPod as a "pod" of music spun from iTunes' library, and not as an overt file sharing mechanism to copy/paste music between users' libraries. However, that has zero relation to how iTunes lays out the tracks it copies to the iPod.

      If Apple were trying to make an ultra secured media library on the iPod, it would have offered no HD disk mode and would have gone beyond simply hiding the music directory. The iPhone/Touch both have no disk mode or simple way to move files off, so that appears to be the direction of the future. But that has no relation to how those files are named.

      With Flash storage, there's little compelling need to copy files to the iPhone in disk mode, and less need to copy files back manually. Are you using it as a backup drive for 8GB of your music? That's what Time Machine or some other backup program is for. The only other reason I can see for wanting to move files back and forth is file trading. Am I missing something?

      Why Low Def is the New HD

    10. Re:Idiots by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Some iPods may have a media accelerator in them with hardware support for WMA that is not used by the software. This has no bearing on whether all iPods are perfectly capable of decoding WMA in software.

  26. Deals not done by Rand1956 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Qtrax touted in a press release Sunday morning that it was the first Internet file-swapping service to be "fully embraced by the music industry," and boasted it would carry up to 30 million tracks from "all the major labels." New York-based Warner Music undermined that claim, declaring in a statement that it "has not authorized the use of our content on Qtrax's recently announced service." Universal Music Group and EMI Group PLC later confirmed they did not have licensing deals in place with Qtrax, noting discussions were still ongoing. A call to Sony BMG Music Entertainment was not immediately returned.

  27. Hey I have an idea! by kcbanner · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know! Let's sell mp3s without any DRM, so people can play them on *any* player, and support those with ads. Wait, what? Who are you guys? Why are you...*silenced gunfire*.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
  28. No DRM is the key! by filbranden · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When will companies realise that the answer is to stop shipping DRM? Amazon and others are doing it now with great success. Even iTunes Plus does it. Companies that base their business on DRM are condemned to a slow but certain death.

    1. Re:No DRM is the key! by cybereal · · Score: 1

      DRM is fine for a subscription service. This is essentially the same idea, but instead of paying a monthly fee, you are seeing ads and presumably generating revenue stream for the company serving you the songs.

      The tradeoff is that you have more restrictions on how you can use the music you download.

      DRM itself, technologically is severely flawed. The utility of it is not flawed at all, it is in fact, a very good idea in the benefit of the copyright owners. Unfortunately, no matter how good that idea is, nobody has managed to execute it in a way that actually works. The consumers have to deal with questions of compatibility worse than almost any media technology they have ever encountered. The rights of the people are violated by preventing fair use. The copyright holders don't actually get the protection they think they have because the technology is flawed by design. We invent ridiculous laws that are primarily used entirely outside of their original intent (DMCA).

      On the topic of fair use and DMCA. I haven't seen anyone musing about the reversal of rights here. If we were to take an optimists view of the DMCA, it would exist to help protect the rights of the copyright owners. But, what of the rights of all people, the largest group? We should have a law that requires any technology to allow for fair use of copyrighted materials without unnecessary hinderance. This law would be supported by original intent for precedent from fair use provisions in the copyright law.

      This law would make all DRM in its current form illegal. It would all have to be updated to allow excerpts to be made for whatever use we the people dream up. Furthermore, anti-competition laws should support requiring all DRM schemes, if any should continue to exist, be made usable publicly without license or secret by all potential recipients.

      Furthermore, and this is very important: It should be illegal to insinuate any form of ownership over any encumbered artifact, song, document, or otherwise. This is an outright lie. Nobody owns a DRM encumbered song. A term like "purchase song" is a lie. And while I realize I will get arguments about how all copyrighted material is licensed and never owned, I don't really care. The laws are meant to support the people in a fair way. People have come to understand after decades of purchasing music, that they OWN their copy. Let's not forget that personal ownership of property is one of the basic tenets in the foundation of The United States of America. If we are unable to own a copy of a song, then at the very least, we should be clearly instructed and educated on the package in which we receive it, virtual or physical, that we're merely licensed to use the item.

      An entire industry is trying to wrest an understanding built through ignorance and convention on the part of both sides of the purchase. It's too late to "go backsies" on this now. So I suggest that all media where the copyright owner wishes to revoke the concept of ownership from the purchaser be treated as the exception, not the rule. This media should require a very obvious and contrasted warning about this ownership in a consumer friendly form. It should not be hidden in legal threats, it should be simple truth:

      LICENSE - By paying for this media, the purchaser is not granted ownership of the contents. The purchaser is granted license to consume the contents in a restricted way."

      Or something, hopefully even more daunting. Basically, de facto understanding is being exploited by the media companies to benefit their marketing attempts and this should not be allowed. By continuing to insinuate ownership, they are having their cake and eating it too.

      --
      I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  29. Are you down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with O-G-G? (Vorbis and Theora forever!!!)

  30. e) by Rix · · Score: 1

    Write their own implementation of FairPlay.

  31. Don't fall for it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 5 year old startup?

    Clearly this is the RIAA trying to trap unsuspecting users into an umbrella corporation and then sue.

    Nice try RIAA. Next time don't use the ole 5 year startup ploy. Everyone knows a startup is less than 6 months old, and has a web 2.0 branded name.

    Qtrax. HA. Sounds like something I would wipe my hard drive with.

  32. Point taken... by RetiredMidn · · Score: 1

    ...but still not what I would call a long-term plan for success: handling ad-supported distribution of otherwise-free music and committing yourself to keeping up with Apple's avoidance maneuvers.

    But it does trigger a thought: what if the record companies are looking at a scheme where they'll release DRM'd music under Qtrax's nominally free ad-supported model, and adopt Apple's $0.99/track DRM-free alternative? I could live with it.

  33. Business Plan by cranesan · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Make or copy a method of uploading your own music onto an Ipod without using iTunes.
    Step 2: Announce your product to the world. Sign deals with record companies. Sell the product.
    Step 3: Wait for Apple to break it in the next iPod firmware.
    Step 4: Sue apple
    Step 5: ?
    Step 6: Profit

    Alternate Business Plan:
    Create a 'secure' format and convince all the record companies that it's secure. Then simply convert the secure music into MP3 and dump it in the user's iTunes Music directory.

  34. Dead on Arrival by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    DOA. Anything laden with DRM is bound to fail, especially when amazon is considering worldwide release of MP3.
    Its another company that burns money and dies unheralded.

    Forced to listen to ads, plus DRM-laden? My God, what were the promoters thinking??

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Dead on Arrival by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Forced to listen to ads, plus DRM-laden? My God, what were the promoters thinking??

      They were thinking "without DRM, how do we force them to listen to the ads?"

      (Yes, it's still stupid.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  35. Wow by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    So I guess I lose my place in the pool then, since the date he cracked this thing is actually in the past.

    Thanks for the link - I missed that story the first time around and it's fascinating.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  36. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the fact that their hyped launch is now an hour and 15minutes late is part of their press strategy?

    I mean honestly, if it says "Midnight EST" and it's 0130 something prolly messed up.

  37. Well, yes by Rix · · Score: 1

    But how much foresight do you really expect from something like this?

  38. failed launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like qtrax is a little high on marketing hype and a little low on legal signatures. Looks like their contract with warner music expired and qtrax didn't realize it.

    oops.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/updated-music-label-says_n_83439.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080128/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music;_ylt=AqkSd1FOGDKGg2itrlsdV.MjtBAF

  39. Warner, EMI, Universal agreements may not exist by ecavalli · · Score: 1

    Or not?

    That article states that Warner, EMI and Universal media group have all denied signing any sort of agreement with the qtrax people. The author attempted to contact Sony on the issue but was unsuccessful.

  40. Re:yuo Fail It by ecavalli · · Score: 1

    It might be obvious, but the parent's link is NSFW and mind-searingly horrible.

  41. finnly by luther349 · · Score: 0

    a p2p app that wont get waves of lawsuits. if they truly did find a way to be ipod computable even there drm isnt all that bad. if they also figure out a way to burn to cd we will relly be getting somewhere.

  42. Is that you, Steve Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing "mild and fair" about FairPlay, which requires you to have to burn and rip in order to get usable MP3 tracks.

    Apple has certainly not been "promoting an end to DRM restrictions in music downloads". The iTunes Music Store tracks are still crippled.

    Nore has Apple delivered "a smartphone that blows away the state of the art and forces innovation into a dead industry". The iPhone is lousy at being a phone: both in the UI (which buries the touch-tone pad) and in the phone voice/sound quality. The iPhone is really just another PDA, and is also crippled by being tied to the AT&T service. Nasty Apple makes it hard to use it with other services. As always happens, other companies will come out with iPhone alternatives that cost have as much and have a better UI.

    At least one item in your first list describes Apple also, such as "working to raise the price of media downloads while killing off all fair use rights"

  43. If its free, then why the DRM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's free, (you do need to download some software for it - thats fine) but if its "free" and everyone can get it with no strings attached, why the DRM? The DRM is basically put there to prevent copying to an unintended audience (which doesn't pay). If they are looking to start a new "trend" like the original Napster, then if everyone runs the software, everyone will get anything on it for free. There's no need for other "illegal" ways to download music.

    I don't see why the music has to be protected if its available to everyone. The end result would be a few downloading music, stripping off the DRM and sharing it on another medium.

    This is all assuming good faith on Qtrax's side. Maybe they intend to charge money for the tracks once their ad-based service fails miserably then you lose all your music collection?

    Something's either fishy or the music industry is still blind.

  44. Why not just use We7? by gagravarr · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like We7, only with faff about DRM.

    We7 do advertising supported downloads of MP3s, so you can put them on whatever device you want, including your iPod. A month after you downloaded the ad version, you can go back and re-download without adverts. They've got quite a lot of major labels on board, so there's a fairly decent choice. With the option of We7, why would you bother with something similar that still has DRM crap on it?

    --
    This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
  45. Record Companies are denying an agreement by gregbishop160 · · Score: 1

    The record companies are saying there are no agreements yet It was all just a dream.

  46. According to thisislondon.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Free music downloads site in chaos as record giants pull out" http://tinyurl.com/2m989y (tinyurl) give 'em another 5 years?

  47. Vapor... by gauauu · · Score: 1
    Looks like vapor to me. From an update to the article:

    Amanda Collins, director of communications for Warner Music Group, said, "Warner Music Group has not authorized the use of our content on Qtrax's recently announced service." Silicon Alley Insider says no deals have been struck, and the LA Times agrees that deals have not been struck with UMG, EMI, and Warner (it describes the state of the Sony/BMG deal as "unclear").

    QTrax does not appear to have other major label deals the company's top executive, Allan Klepfisz, told me it had:

    A QTrax spokesperson maintained that certain deals are in place, and that QTrax staff "still feel they have the backing of the industry."

    A picture is emerging that while QTrax is in talks with the labels and may have made progress in some cases, deals have not actually been signed. The company appears to have misrepresented the state of the deals in order to make its announcement during the Midem conference. As a result, it may end up paying the labels a lot more than it would have otherwise (this sort of stunt hardly strengthens one's bargaining position).

  48. They already copied the ad concept, why not? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1


    I don't want freaking ads.

    Just charge me a fair price, pay the artists, and get out of my way so I can play the music I bought.

    Idiots.

  49. MOD PARENT UP! by businessnerd · · Score: 1

    I saw a similar article on BBC News this morning. This company has advertised that it has signed agreements with all four major record labels, yet all four are denying this fact. Warner has said that they have been in talks, but that is in no way a signed agreement. If they are going to exaggerate their record company backings, then why should we believe them when they say they are iPod compatible. It doesn't make any sense. The iPod only supports Apple's FairPlay DRM, yet they say their tracks all use Windows Media DRM. Let's wait for Apple to chime in on this one before we get too excited.

    Personally, I'm not excited for any music store that uses any DRM, even if the tracks are for free. I'm still restricted in how I can use the tracks. Tip of the hat to Amazon for presenting a music store that is 100% DRM free, uses a format that is widely accepted and supported as a de-facto standard, and isn't just indie music, but has backing from the big four labels.

    And another thing, can we stop calling them MP3 players? That and satellite radio. TV's use radio waves, but we don't call that visual radio. /rant

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  50. I bet it's easy by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Here is your Qtrax DRM : Sell video files with song identification information and encrypted info for ignoring the video. Your player then ignores the video, playing just the music and downloading more updated banner ads instead. But on an iPod the song behaves like a video.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  51. Can you say, Bittorrent? by singingjim1 · · Score: 0

    Hello! McFly! It's me! The 800 lb. gorilla sitting next to you! You know, the one that gets all your music, movies, and pr0n for free with no DRM hassles. Did you forget about me? Oh, that's right, no one is supposed to talk about me or acknowledge my existence when talking about "legitimate" media download services. Hah! Who's everyone kidding?!? I'm not going away anytime soon so you might as well find a way to either work WITH me or work AROUND me, but I'm going to sit right here next to you and there's nothing you can do about it. Sure Azureus is just a harmless program for legal file sharing. And I'm going on a diet. Shyeah, asif.