Qtrax — Ad-Supported Music With iPod Compatibility?

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.

Comments

prior art

[User 956]

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!

"Assumes"?

[dnwq]

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.

Re:"Assumes"?

[Phroggy]

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.

ummm...

[CaptainPatent]

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.

Yet another solution in search of a problem

[earlymon]

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.

Startup?

[8tim8]

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.

Re:It would never work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wooosh" indeed.

The part that irks me

[MrCopilot]

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/

Re:The part that irks me

[nacturation]

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".

Idiots

[RetiredMidn]

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.