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.

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.

Or maybe ...

[NoMaster]

... 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.

It won't be Music

[EdIII]

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.

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.

More info at The Register

[Len]

The Register has an article about Qtrax [theregister.co.uk]. They're pretty skeptical about it.

Re:Startup?

[illectro]

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......

Re:DVD Jon to the white courtesy phone please...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 [slashdot.org]

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.

Re:The didn't work out so well for...

[SchnauzerGuy]

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 [rhapsody.com]:

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.

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.

Re:Idiots

[DECS]

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 ? [roughlydrafted.com]
How FairPlay Works: Apple's iTunes DRM Dilemma [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:Idiots

[Dr. Zowie]

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. :-(

Re:"Assumes"?

[wiz_80]

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.