Talk:Qtrax

Is this going to go through?

So, with UMG, Warner, and EMI saying that Qtrax is making some false claims, is this even going to fly? bluemonq (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, no. I'm pretty sure it's all been a big media hoax... possibly as a demonstration to the big four of the interest in the Qtrax service (maybe). It seems like a really weird way to gain leverage in negotiations. More about the failed launch and the big music companies comments on negotiations with Qtrax (or lack there of) here on a Slyck article Blissfulpain (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a monumental cock-up. They launched with the understanding that they had agreements in place, but nothing had been signed. Surely rule number one is: "Don't promise something you can't deliver". Especially not your first promise! However, the attractiveness of their offer will probably ensure the service survives IF they can get the record companies on board eventually.

They've already become a case-study on how not to launch: http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/364949/qtrax-a-case-study-in-blowing-a-launch.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.109.130 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitrate?

Are there any details yet on file bitrate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exity (talk • contribs) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, if this were true P2P, it would have to depend on each individual user. bluemonq (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it depends on individual users, unless the individual users were responsible for buying the actual CD, ripping it, and then wrapping it in WMDRM. But that asks another question; is Qtrax ripping and protecting 25m+ tracks? I really wish there was some legitimate information on their Website instead of a pile of marketing copy.Smd 6710 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

Its all an elaborate hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.201.219 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty expensive one, then. They spent 500,000 pounds on the launch party at the Cannes.bluemonq (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an investor scam. Research Brilliant Technologies. Start here: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?cik=1054825 Smd 6710 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The only thing left that prevents me agreeing with you is that two of the large labels have stated that they *are* in negotiations with Qtrax. What's their cut? bluemonq (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemonq, do you have a source for that statement? The latest news I have is that three of the big four have denied a solid agreement, with the fourth (Sony) being out of contact.Smd 6710 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the CNET article, which is [4] in the article. In it, it is stated that Warner and Universal don't have an agreement but that they were still negotiating at least until the 27th. It is somewhat ambiguous if they are still in negotiations. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until someone explicitly says otherwise. I never claimed there was an agreement in place. bluemonq (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. "Negotiations" being the operative term. Negotiations could mean anything, good or bad. I'm with you, let's leave them with the benefit of the doubt. I find it a little puzzling, though, that these behemoth corporations would trust their assets with a little known company that popped up out of nowhere, with seemingly sketchy financial history, offering a golden solution. Smd 6710 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Wired I think was edited since the 26th or I completely misread like 3 paragraph yesterday. Anyways, he has quotes from the music companies involved about their negotiations Vs agreements. Wired didn't seem too happy about the conflicting information either. Blissfulpain (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have it installed at this very moment... still working on getting a song to play... they list 9 million available, but it's also asking for a login ID... check my Talk page for screenshots Blissfulpain (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Definitely Songbird. Starting new talk thread on functionality and other questions I have.Smd 6710 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the whole thing seems very odd -- P2P that gives labels its cut? Does this mean it somehow filters only "correct" music? Can people retag and lie? Etc etc. Perhaps that's a bit off topic for the page, but...yeah, this whole thing confuses me. But anyway, stick to reporting the verifiable info, it doesn't really matter either way if it turns out to be a hoax, so long as we keep to WP policies (whew, steered it back). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Time Conventions

In America, 11:59:59 PM January 1 --> 12:00:00 AM January 2. Qtrax is American. Therefore, midnight January 28th EST has already passed. Midnight launch parties for electronics starts at at the same day as the day they are noted to be released, not the day after. Midnight movie releases on Xth day occur on Xth day, not X+1th day. Ergo, Qtrax is late. bluemonq (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

The midnight EST detail is correct. They mean 5am GMT on the 29th January so this is when it can expect to be downloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.109.130 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, that's pretty irritating. They should have said 12:01. bluemonq (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the new CNET article. That's not true; original launch was the 28th. bluemonq (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they've put out a press release stating that the service has already been launched and already have users. So unless they're writing from the future, at no point did they intend to launch it on the 29th. Read press release here: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYM15428012008-1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemonq (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Client based on Songbird

It's based on the Songbird software: http://www.songbirdnest.com/node/2603 it will be interesting to see if they license it under the GPL or not --80.58.205.51 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Where are they from? US-American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.182.4 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qtrax is based in New York City, so they are probably American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemonq (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song Metadata

Just browsing through the available songs (downloads are disabled), it seems like track numbers are inconsistently listed on the search results page (at first it seems like they're just showing the number of results, but if you sort by another column heading, the arbitrary number stays associated with the same song), and some song lengths are listed as 0.00... looks like the teething problems may not only be with the business side of things. Thatjoekid (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these songs coming from? I really wonder if Qtrax ripped and encoded 25 million songs, or if this service is just leveraging WMA (WMDRM) tracks that are floating around on some existing pirate network. I'm baffled by this whole thing.209.129.161.251 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality

What is the network back-end? Gnutella? Bittorrent? Can you shape the bandwidth characteristics? Has anyone been able to actually download a song off of it?Smd 6710 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created a temporary account with fake details... because... I just don't trust the site yet... but anyways, I CAN NOT find any way to play a song. The confirmation email still proclaimed 25 million songs, while the display directly in the player lists only 9 million. Since I first opened it though the Users-logged-on counter has gone from 2054 (1 hour 3 minutes ago) to 3925 Blissfulpain (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on Gnutella

"These songs aren't stored in any Qtrax database--they're scanned from Gnutella, with false files and other nasties filtered via technology from MusicIP." http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13526_1-9859840-27.html

so, they want all the major labels to sign a deal that states that everyone could download free music from a p2p gnutella network ? why don't they make it without signing anything ? come on it's p2p ! that kinda doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps because they don't want to be sued out of existence? Though the entire setup seems a little fishy. bluemonq (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]