Cybersam's Blog - My thoughts on Qtrax

Thursday, June 08, 2006

My thoughts on Qtrax

I just read EMI's announcement on the release of Qtrax - an ad- and subscription-supported peer-to-peer music distribution service. Let's analyze this announcement piece by piece.

"Qtrax will offer two tiers of service: the first is a free, advertising-supported tier designed to work with and filter copyrighted content from existing peer-to-peer networks. The second tier is a premium subscription service which will require a monthly fee."

Alright, so far so good. Despite my dislike for advertisements in software, the music service sounds good so far.

"In the ad-supported, free tier, users will be able to search the network for specific tracks, and those tracks registered with Qtrax will be made available for download in Qtrax’s proprietary “.mpq” file format. Users will then be able to play the downloaded .mpq file in full-fidelity sound quality for a pre-defined number of times."

Oh no!!! Not another proprietary file format. This means that I will need to use a proprietary program to listen to downloaded music and that I can't play them on my iPod. Worse, you can only play each downloaded music for limited number of times.

"The premium subscription service tier uses Microsoft’s Janus DRM technology, which allows consumers to pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to music in the Qtrax network. Subscribers will also have the ability to transfer content to Windows Media enabled portable devices for as long as the subscription stays active."

Let me get this straight... I don't own the music but rent them? In other words, the downloaded music is only good as long as I keep paying for them.

I am also curious if I can burn my downloaded music to a CD so that I can listen to it on my CD player in my car? If the service is peer-to-peer, does it mean any songs that I am looking for are subjected to availability of these songs from peers who share them?

A week ago, I made a brief assertion that convenience is an impetus for the adoption of a technological innovation or product. Certainly, any product that makes life easier for the consumers will most likely be successful. After reading the article, I can't help but to think that Qtrax business model is doomed for failure. Why so? It seems more trouble than it is worth.

6/8/2006 4:34:29 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00) Comments [6] Business

6/9/2006 8:11:35 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

The music/tv/film industry is going to be in flux for a while until it adapts to the modern state of technology. I think of all industries, copyright-driven industries have been disrupted the most by the proliferation of the internet.

I see the industry eventually moving toward subscription-based services available in a hand-held set. Aka you pay $15 per month for unlimited access to a set library of songs (the copyright portfolios to be negotiated by IP clearinghouses like BMI). The user will never actually download and possess them, but they'll have access to any song in the library at any time with no limit to the number of times that song can be heard.

But, before this can happen, the information dissemination infrastructure needs to improve (i.e. cities implementing free wi-fi access).

Just my two cents and vision of this industry circa 10-15 years from now.

Steve G

6/9/2006 9:28:57 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

You are correct, the media industry has been in flux and has invented copyright related technologies to combat the proliferation of illegal distribution of media content. There is no denial that digital distribution is the new way of delivering media content directly to users.

I also don't think subscribing to a service is bad. In fact, eMusic uses such model and has been very successful (read http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/emusic.ars). But, at least eMusic allows the consumer to own the music. Shouldn't the user be given the right of owning a piece of copyright content indefinitely as long as the legal terms and conditions of using the content are agreed to by the user? Sure, any business can implement a business model of renting out music (music is good as long as the user pays for them) but I reject such model. There is not enough incentives for me (and many other like-minded people) to use such music. I use iTunes and eMusic (I subscribe eMusic for a period if I want to download their music), and have been very happy with their services.

The bottom line is that I don't like products that give me more trouble than they are worth. Thankfully, in a competitive market consumers have options and they will always look for a product that offer the best ancillary features that make their life easier.

Cybersam

6/9/2006 5:45:35 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

It boils down to consumers' lack of understanding of what they actually "own" when they buy a CD or download a song from Itunes. In reality, consumers who buy CD's or download the songs from Itunes don't really "own" the music; they are merely given a limited possessory license from the true owner (big, evil record company) in exchange for whatever consideration they pay to the record company. In a legal sense, you don't actually "own" any of the music that is in your collection; you are merely allowed to possess it. This is why it would be illegal for you, to say, broadcast your music collection over the airways or over the internet: that type of use is beyond the scope of your limited possessory license.

Clearly, people who download songs/tv/movies and share them with their friends are stealing the protected content. In my model, there is no incentive for such piracy, since everybody who pays the monthly fee has access to a virtually unlimited bank of copyrighted material. If you can access the song at any time of day from any spot on earth in your hand held set, why would you ever need to actually possess it?

In the long run, consumers will change their views on what ownership of music actually entails. That's partially why I think it'll take 10-15 years or more before a model such as mine can take hold; it's not just that the technology needs to be in place. The present music/tv/film distribution model has been in place for a century or more, so it'll take time before society changes.

I hope that makes sense.

Steve G

6/10/2006 11:45:10 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

I don't disagree with you - I did qualify my response by saying that "ownership" is subjected to some legal terms and agreements. I also don't reject that the new business model that is distribution of content.

I do endorse subscription-based media subscription (like eMuisc, which I use occasionally) but I really don't like the notion of renting music - one's music expires if he/she doesn't continue paying the record company on a regular basis. Imagine if you were to downloaded 1,000 songs. A few months later you decided to cancel the subscription and consequently all your downloaded are disabled. To me that is not acceptable. I don't like being hijacked by the record company. What if the company decides to raise price? What then? Why should I go through all the trouble?

Like you, I think that piracy is a problem and that some form of DRM (digital rights management) is necessary.

I fully agree with you that digital media download is the new paradigm for distributing media. I think iTunes and eMusic are doing it right - these business models give consumers a compelling reason to switch. I may be wrong but I don't think Qtrax with its rental model is compelling enough for consumers to adopt the service.

Finally, I have this to add: we are living in an age of empowerment and enhancement. The Internet and the proliferation of digital tools empowers individual music artist to bypass the media conglomerates completely and go straight to the consumers directly.

P.S. - Steve, on a side note, I can see that you are thinking like a lawyer these days. ;-)

Cybersam

6/10/2006 11:50:05 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Steve, I know that one can't embed body language or inflections to a blog comment but I was being complimentary, not sarcastic, when I said that you think like a lawyer. Yeah, good luck on the bar exams BTW. ;-)

Cybersam

6/10/2006 4:12:00 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

No offense, mate. I've just been too busy studying for the wretched bar exam to check back regularly!

I guess that explains why everything I do now breaks down into a legal scenario . . .

Steve G