Wired wrote:
After years of fighting peer-to-peer file sharing companies, the major record labels have decided that if they can't beat them, they might as well join them -- in one case, anyway. At the MIDEM conference held in Cannes this week, QTrax announced deals with all of the major music labels and publishers to offer the first free and legal ad-supported P2P service to include major label music.
"You can't change the attitudes and habits of what is now probably amounting to two generations who believe that music ought to be free on the internet," said QTrax CEO Allan Klepfisz. "Those people are not going to be discouraged by Supreme Court decisions, they're not going to be discouraged by technological interference. Ultimately, what will discourage them is a demonstratively better service."
Klepfisz pegs the current catalog of the service over 25 million songs, dwarfing that of iTunes and other online music stores. All of the songs will be wrapped in Microsoft's Windows Media subscription DRM. This means that unlike the free, ad-supported services offered by imeem and Last.fm, QTrax's songs can be downloaded onto compatible players. The application is based on the Songbird engine, so sharing and downloading occurs within a Firefox browser -- no separate application required.
As of now, the tracks are not compatible with the Apple iPod, but Klepfisz said that the service would be compatible with iPods before too long -- an indication that Apple could soon apply the subscription technology developed for iTunes Movie Rentals to the music market.
To get the industry onboard with P2P, QTrax signed over "the lion's share of revenue" to labels and publishers, paying out on per-download and per-play bases. The site also categorized the music of the world into three lists. One list includes of artists who do not permit their music to be made available online in any capacity. "The blacklist is fast-disappearing -- my prediction is that in a year, the blacklist won't be in existence," said Klepfisz. The white list consists of the standard digital catalogs from the major and indie labels -- the same five-plus million songs that are on iTunes.
The gray list constitutes the difference between what's available on iTunes and what's available on BitTorrent. "Then you have the gray list, which is that vast body of stuff that's out there on P2P, where there are rights holders, but the rights holders themselves may not even know that a song is being downloaded frequently... To the best of our ability, we identify the rights holder and pay them a percentage of the advertising revenue. In the minority of cases where we can't identify a rights holder, we will actually put up the song for claiming, and will reserve the portion of the ad pie until that song is appropriately claimed." As with other free, ad-supported services, revenue comes from advertisers who want to target ads to specific types of listener.
Advertisers have long understood the power of music to move product, and many have developed specific music strategies for working with new services such as QTrax, according to Klepfisz. But without the labels' sign-off on this service, a sanctioned P2P service of this size never would have been possible.
Between imeem, Last.fm, SpiralFrog, and QTrax, the labels have demonstrated a new openness towards business models that deviate from rigid, record store-impersonating models such as that of iTunes.
"This is a tacit acknowledgment that 'bulletproof' wasn't working," said IDC consumer audio analyst Susan Kevorkian. "And it hasn't been working. But it was an experiment the music industry needed to undertake in order to figure out how to address digital distribution. It was a very long learning process, but fortunately there's still the possibility of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."
"You can't change the attitudes and habits of what is now probably amounting to two generations who believe that music ought to be free on the internet," said QTrax CEO Allan Klepfisz. "Those people are not going to be discouraged by Supreme Court decisions, they're not going to be discouraged by technological interference. Ultimately, what will discourage them is a demonstratively better service."
Klepfisz pegs the current catalog of the service over 25 million songs, dwarfing that of iTunes and other online music stores. All of the songs will be wrapped in Microsoft's Windows Media subscription DRM. This means that unlike the free, ad-supported services offered by imeem and Last.fm, QTrax's songs can be downloaded onto compatible players. The application is based on the Songbird engine, so sharing and downloading occurs within a Firefox browser -- no separate application required.
As of now, the tracks are not compatible with the Apple iPod, but Klepfisz said that the service would be compatible with iPods before too long -- an indication that Apple could soon apply the subscription technology developed for iTunes Movie Rentals to the music market.
To get the industry onboard with P2P, QTrax signed over "the lion's share of revenue" to labels and publishers, paying out on per-download and per-play bases. The site also categorized the music of the world into three lists. One list includes of artists who do not permit their music to be made available online in any capacity. "The blacklist is fast-disappearing -- my prediction is that in a year, the blacklist won't be in existence," said Klepfisz. The white list consists of the standard digital catalogs from the major and indie labels -- the same five-plus million songs that are on iTunes.
The gray list constitutes the difference between what's available on iTunes and what's available on BitTorrent. "Then you have the gray list, which is that vast body of stuff that's out there on P2P, where there are rights holders, but the rights holders themselves may not even know that a song is being downloaded frequently... To the best of our ability, we identify the rights holder and pay them a percentage of the advertising revenue. In the minority of cases where we can't identify a rights holder, we will actually put up the song for claiming, and will reserve the portion of the ad pie until that song is appropriately claimed." As with other free, ad-supported services, revenue comes from advertisers who want to target ads to specific types of listener.
Advertisers have long understood the power of music to move product, and many have developed specific music strategies for working with new services such as QTrax, according to Klepfisz. But without the labels' sign-off on this service, a sanctioned P2P service of this size never would have been possible.
Between imeem, Last.fm, SpiralFrog, and QTrax, the labels have demonstrated a new openness towards business models that deviate from rigid, record store-impersonating models such as that of iTunes.
"This is a tacit acknowledgment that 'bulletproof' wasn't working," said IDC consumer audio analyst Susan Kevorkian. "And it hasn't been working. But it was an experiment the music industry needed to undertake in order to figure out how to address digital distribution. It was a very long learning process, but fortunately there's still the possibility of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."
I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. As the industry has been moving away from DRM- and rightly so for paid downloads, here it is again... but it's free downloads. If this can hit a larger audience, it could possibly work. If it only stays in net circles, I'm not so sure... It'll be more convenient, take less net savvy, take less computer user knowledge, and alleviate moral consciousness but take longer to catch on. One thing's for sure... if it doesn't become compatible with iPods... it will struggle.
Aside from that... it's questionable how much of the revenue will actually make it to the artists. Not a fair amount, I'm sure.
Wait, so what's the deal? You can download it for free, so why DRM?
I guess it's to accurately track the number of downloads and listens per song, but it just seems self defeating, and if people can get better stuff via torrent, they'll do that, so I don't really see this taking off.
I guess it's to accurately track the number of downloads and listens per song, but it just seems self defeating, and if people can get better stuff via torrent, they'll do that, so I don't really see this taking off.
probably the most intelligent thing they could do with this service is to offer every single song in WMA Lossless, but of course, they'd never do that.
seasonsinthesky wrote:
probably the most intelligent thing they could do with this service is to offer every single song in WMA Lossless, but of course, they'd never do that.
If you ask me, that's at least what it should be when you pay for it. I can't imagine paying $.99 per track at 128 KBPS, and even the new Itunes premium is still only 256 kbps, still below CD quality by a good margin.
just found out about this a few hours ago. the download app starts tonight 12pm EST.
i'm still curious how artists are going to get paid by this; as they haven't mentioned that aspect just yet. the browser looks very cool and user friendly too.
i'm still curious how artists are going to get paid by this; as they haven't mentioned that aspect just yet. the browser looks very cool and user friendly too.
They get paid via advertising deals...That's how the whole thing works.
Best part of this is that it will take a lot of the heat off the private torrent sites.
Arkhan wrote:
Wait, so what's the deal? You can download it for free, so why DRM?
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...
something isn't adding up here... Besides, the majority of music I listen to isn't put out by the major labels, which is one of the best things about finding music on p2p networks.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it by making an ad-laden knockoff with DRM encrypted files that lock me into Microsoft's audio format with no intention of allocating profits to the artists.
This is probably all just a back-room bargain to sell more Zunes, and as soon as iPods update to comply with the M$ Windows files, Qtrax will pack up their shit and the circus will leave town. Then the RIAA will unveil some hidden clause that will accuse all former users of Qtracks for copyright infringement.
I'd say I'm just kidding (and I am), but they've done crazier shit to their artists/customers in the past.
Or maybe they actually (partially) pulled their heads out of their asses... maybe they noticed that artists were figuring out and experimenting with ways to maintain mainstream success without them. Maybe they actually did look at what Radiohead did w/ In Rainbows, and they realized that if you can profit even slightly from a free download, you might as well... Though they would be going with advertising instead of a tip jar, which is a bit more reliable I guess.
And, it's not like the album bombed when it finally hit store shelves.
words wrote:
i'm still curious how artists are going to get paid by this
They won't.
waffels wrote:
Best part of this is that it will take a lot of the heat off the private torrent sites.
That might be true (and I doubt it), but I still will maintain that the torrent networks are/were/not-sure-anymore the emerging method of self promotion. Part of what was empowering the smaller artists was that they waded in the same pool as the major label acts. That was the biggest threat: it wasn't record sales, it was its viability as a means of exposure that circumvented them.
Now, they'll create the biggest p2p site... the "only one that you won't get sued for using." It seems like it's an attempt to get a stranglehold on the torrent "market;" that they've realized it's a valid method of advertisement, and you can even pull in a little "extra profits" from it. I find the potential implications of that upsetting and a little disheartening.
I liked it better when it seemed impossible that they would survive... that they would lose the ability to secure control over what music is popular with their money.
Oh well.
Qtrax wrote:
"You can't change the attitudes and habits of what is now probably amounting to two generations who believe that music ought to be free on the internet," said QTrax CEO Allan Klepfisz. "Those people are not going to be discouraged by Supreme Court decisions, they're not going to be discouraged by technological interference.
No shit. So why the fuck do I need you?
Qtrax wrote:
Ultimately, what will discourage them is a demonstratively better service."
Better service... Now with DRM!!! (and probably a shitty quality 128 kbps bitrate).
I don't like this. Maybe I missed it, but where are the details of the DRM? Also, it says it uses firefox as the P2P program, am I the only one who doesn't want my browser sharing files? I like having a separate program I can turn off whenever I want.
It just seems fishy, also what is the bitrate? If it is 128 kbps, I wouldn't even bother. This seems to me like a way of pulling the normal mtv kids off of other P2P networks so they can focus on the other people.
Like I said, I don't like it.
It just seems fishy, also what is the bitrate? If it is 128 kbps, I wouldn't even bother. This seems to me like a way of pulling the normal mtv kids off of other P2P networks so they can focus on the other people.
Like I said, I don't like it.
Jinsai wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...
Jinsai wrote:
Now, they'll create the biggest p2p site... the "only one that you won't get sued for using." It seems like it's an attempt to get a stranglehold on the torrent [and all forms of P2P] "market"... maybe they actually (partially) pulled their heads out of their asses... and they realized that if you can profit even slightly from a free download, you might as well... Though they would be going with advertising instead of a tip jar, which is a bit more reliable I guess.
To be exact, QTrax will make it's profits from advertising; QTrax will pay the labels fees per listens and downloads.
It also shines a 1000 watt lightbulb on what I had posted in the RIAA/MPAA Headlines thread:
bwary wrote:
also see-
Warner Music goes after Seeqpod
Slashdot wrote:
Warner Sues Search Engine, Tests DMCA Safe Harbor
"Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."
"Warner Bros. Records is suing SeeqPod, the music search engine, in an attempt to test the limits of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions with a theory of contributory, vicarious and inducement liability. While other services like Last.fm have cut deals with the labels, SeeqPod relied on the DMCA Safe Harbor alone to protect it. According to the complaint [PDF] SeeqPod 'deliberately refrains' from adding simple yet ineffective content filters to screen out copyright infringing materials, presumably by not buying those filters from label-affiliated companies. Of course, this lawsuit is merely part of a recent trend seeking to move the responsibility for policing copyrights away from the copyright holders and on to third parties."
also see-
Warner Music goes after Seeqpod
Seeqpod (as mentioned in the article) is very similar. They are trying to eliminating other web based competition. It's in bad taste and I don't really see them prevailing (assuming that Seeqpod will have capable and well paid lawyers). Just like the failed attempts at suing Google for copyright images that show in search results.
QTrax wrote:
Again, how much of the revenue will make it to the artist? If any, at all (because contracts), not enough, I'm sure.
To the best of our ability, we identify the rights holder and pay them a percentage of the advertising revenue.
One of the biggest problems with the industry is that the labels are the rights holder instead of the artist. Once this changes and the artists are the rights holder, things will be much better (for both artists and consumers). IMHO, this is what artists should be banding together to reform about copy right laws. It will invigorate competition in the market place again if the artists maintain the rights (of course, it will require more legalities within the bands). I think this type of reform would be won if taken up en masse. It's been the reverse for so long that there are some very entrenched organizations that would be cut out (with very loud lobbyists) (read: RIAA)... it will take large sums of money, some very smart attorneys, and several years of court battles (artists v. RIAA; oh the irony), but ultimately, I see this happening. Supporting initiatives like this QTRax will help the cause. The more it's clear in court that the labels' profits substantially outweigh that of the works' creators for which copy rights are held in a digital world where distribution doesn't require the labels, the less footing the labels have to maintain rights. (The same fight can be combined with authors v publishers.)
bwary wrote:
That made me think of something, what if they can completely cut out the artists, or give them a very small percentage in a similar fashion to what caused the writers to strike? It seems rather similar, this is a new medium, with nothing built into existing contracts pertaining to it. Seems like another way for labels to rip off artists.
Again, how much of the revenue will make it to the artist? If any, at all (because contracts), not enough, I'm sure.
bwary wrote:
Seeqpod (as mentioned in the article) is very similar. They are trying to eliminating other web based competition. It's in bad taste and I don't really see them prevailing (assuming that Seeqpod will have capable and well paid lawyers). Just like the failed attempts at suing Google for copyright images that show in search results.
I hope so...
And until the artist sees a reasonable portion of revenue, no compromises... It's still on bitches,
all of your song are belong to us
eatyourblud wrote:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=302796
LOLZ
LOLZ
Haha! That made me laugh. What a pathetic start.
Windows only...
DRM...
OH WAIT...NOTHING AT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE FULL OF SHIT!
Or something. We'll see. Anyway, sounds like shit to me.
johnbron wrote:
Haha! That made me laugh. What a pathetic start.
eatyourblud wrote:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=302796
LOLZ
LOLZ
Haha! That made me laugh. What a pathetic start.
agreed :/
johnbron wrote:
Windows only...
not iPod != Windows only (from a consumer view point; Apple proprietary < MS DRM)
johnbron wrote:
OH WAIT...NOTHING AT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE FULL OF SHIT!
could be...?
johnbron wrote:
Or something. We'll see. Anyway, sounds like shit to me.
ever play stratego?
If this launches, it could benefit artists that want to fight the labels. And I sure as hell hope that the frail insiders afraid of actually having to compete for their top dollar earnings aren't reading us here after the last year's events... but to those insiders that are bold... read, read, read! (and choose the artists' side if you want a healthy retirement account)
Fuck this. There's no chance of a 320kb bitrate, downloading a track from the service could potentially allow the company to spy on your hard drive contents, and you know that the only shit available is going to come from the majors. Until Universal is debuting new albums on the Pirate Bay I won't be participating in any RIAA related regime. This is just a flimsy tactic to ensure that kids are still listening to crap all the while making "the biz" seem like the good guys in all this.
WAAA FREE MUSIC I WANT BETTER FREE STUFF WAAA I AM ENTITLED WAAA
it's all a big fraud in case anyone is actually wanting this
edit: quote != edit
edit: quote != edit
kenthebear wrote:
WAAA FREE MUSIC I WANT BETTER FREE STUFF WAAA I AM ENTITLED WAAA
Did you miss the memo about how shit already is free, and it doesn't matter how much you do or don't like it?
Where the fuck do these P2P detractors get the slogan slugging from? I'm getting a little tired of the use of the word "entitled" to deride file sharing.
I want better free stuff because I can and will.
seasonsinthesky wrote:
probably the most intelligent thing they could do with this service is to offer every single song in WMA Lossless, but of course, they'd never do that.
I don't understand the WMA Lossless format... With Apple Lossless, there aren't any options to choose (which makes sense because it's only dropping the file size, not the audio quality) but when I saw the WMA Lossless format it had all these options and I was sitting there staring at it thinking, "What the fuck is this?".