It's taken a few months for Qtrax to actually score a contract with one of the major labels after announcing in January that it would offer free, legal downloads of over 25 million tracks, but it looks like the company has finally succeeded in spearing itself a whale. Universal is the first major on board, joining bankrupt indie TVT, and Qtrax says the deal is for "all" of Universal's music. Of course, in true Qtrax form, there might not actually be a contract yet -- Universal spokespeople would only confirm an "agreement," but "declined to elaborate or to say whether a contract has been signed." Sigh. Well, the first one's always the hardest, right?

[Thanks, Steve Z.]

QNAP's TS-109 / TS-209 NAS drives weren't anything to sneeze at, but the company's looking to improve overall responsiveness and speed up BitTorrent download performance with a pair of successors. The one-bay TS-109 Pro II and two-bay TS-209 Pro II both include a potent 500MHz Marvell processor and 256MB of DDR2 RAM, which is double the memory stuffed within the prior iterations. You'll also find a new and improved BT engine that promises "the [same] level of P2P download speed as PC-based BT downloads," built-in Joomla! CMS 1.5.1, scheduled backup / logging applications, DivX-friendly TwonkyMedia v4.4.4 and support for DLNA / NFS / SMB multimedia sharing. Sorry, no pricing deets to share at the moment.

Although Comcast has been beating around the proverbial bush about its data-meddling ways, it seems the pressure from the recent FCC investigation efforts have forced it to play nice. Reportedly, the firm is getting set to (begrudgingly, we presume) announce that it will "stop targeting BitTorrent on the internet." More specifically, the cable company will purportedly "boost broadband capacity" in order to make things speedier all around, but details on this tidbit were unsurprisingly absent. Nevertheless, BitTorrent has also agreed to make its software "more efficient," but those hoping that Comcast would leave well enough alone are in for even more disappointment. The outfit still plans on managing traffic on the 'net (standard practice, we know), but Tony Werner, executive VP and CTO, noted that it was "working hard on a different approach that is protocol-agnostic during peak periods."

[Thanks, Mike and Kenneth]

We're guessing we're not the only one to have never heard of P4P before now, but there's probably a good reason for that: it doesn't exist yet. See, P4P is designed to speed up peer-to-peer file transfers and alleviate network strain by using information about network conditions and network topology in order to increase routing efficiency -- more bits, less work. The problem is that you're going to need service provider cooperation to pull that off (P4P stands for Proactive network Provider Participation for P2P) and now Verizon has signed on to take the concept to the next level. What's not clear yet is whether only specific, commercial P2P apps will be able to benefit from this tech, so that carriers can make sure everything is on the up and up, but with tested performance improvements as high as 600 percent, we sure hope this is coming soon to a torrent client near you.

[Thanks, Ehren]

Man, Qtrax just can't stop over-hyping and under-delivering, can it? The company's trumpeting new deals today with EMI Publishing, Sony / ATV Music Publishing, and TVT Records, but of the three deals, only TVT will actually have music available for download. The deals with EMI and Sony / ATV are for publishing rights only, and since publishing companies only represent songwriters, and don't actually own the rights to the song recordings, Qtrax still can't offer songs to consumers. It's confusing, but Qtrax needs both types of deals to make things work. Still, considering that the EMI and Sony agreements are extensions of existing agreements, it's a little strange for Qtrax to hype them up -- if you're keeping score at home, this is essentially the same sort of half-truth Qtrax launched under, so it's pretty ballsy of the company to try and pull it again. On the other hand, getting TVT on board is no small feat -- TVT artists include Lil Jon, Ambulance LTD, Dude 'N Em, The Polyphonic Spree, and The Cinematics, so it looks like Qtrax might be getting better at this whole "signing actual deals with labels" thing.

Update: We had said in an earlier version of this post that several major labels had denied having deals in place with Qtrax -- while that's still true, the information was a few weeks old. The deals announced today are for real, but until Qtrax sorts out actual content-distribution rights, nothing's really changed.

[Via Tech Digest]

Sorry to disappoint, but Qtrax is falling just a bit short of its promised 25 million tracks at launch. Qtrax busted out its software in "beta" this evening, but isn't offering a single song -- or even a working music browser. The application is a barely skinned version of the open source Mozilla-based Songbird music player, which has certainly come a long ways since its infancy, and which means Qtrax has done just about nothing for you yet -- other than lie about label deals. When you launch the application it helpfully points you to a placeholder page from a Oracle application server, and that's all you'll be getting until Qtrax manages to get label deals sorted, which isn't looking likely at this point.

Update: 4 hours later and we can see music. About 10 million tracks by their count. However, clicking download results in an error message, "Downloads coming soon!!" How soon, exactly? Would that be after the contracts are signed?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Read - Qtrax
Read - Music labels say no deal

You know what your mother always used to say about things that seem too good to be true, but the deafening amount of hype and hyperbole being thrown about in reference to the "game changing" Qtrax with "25 million tracks" is quite distracting enough to take note of. According to the Qtrax website, the P2P client -- Windows only, a Mac version is slated for March 18th -- will be available at midnight EST, but while Qtrax is confident of its supposed deals with the majors, a few of those labels claim to be short of an actual deal with Qtrax. The business model is simple enough: DRM'd tracks count the number of times they're played and then report back to the mother ship -- which will divvy up revenue based on ad sales. It sounds like there's PlaysForSure under the hood, and Qtrax claims it'll have an iPod-friendly version ready before too long, but there's a disturbing lack of detail on the official site. There is $30 million of VC funding behind the venture, so they clearly expect some results, but $30 million and high hopes certainly is no guarantee of label support of a crazy -- and perhaps entirely overdue -- scheme like this. We'll be certainly watching for what happens at midnight.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Read - Qtrax
Read - Times Online (It's a go)
Read - NEWS.com.au (Labels back away)
Read - ZDNet UK (Rupert Goodwins weighs in)

The MPAA has never been too high on college kids -- remember the dishonor roll? -- but it looks like Hollywood set is bummed about not being invited to that last kegger, because the MPAA is now admitting that it drastically overstated the effect of college downloading in previous studies. Back in 2005, the MPAA claimed that a whopping 44 percent of revenue losses came directly at the hands of carefree coeds nationwide, and used that number to pressure colleges into enforcing harsher downloading policies and even propose legislation currently before Congress that would tie federal education funds to copyright enforcement requirements. We're not sure why the industry is now backing off that 44 percent number, but it's now saying that "human error" resulted in a miscalculation, and the revenue loss from college piracy is more like 15 percent -- a number which is further disputed by campus IT groups, who say it should be more like three percent. Of course, while it's good to see the MPAA take an upfront stance on this, simply admitting you're sleazy doesn't actually wipe the slime off, so let's see how the industry approaches future studies, shall we?

According to a report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Comcast has yet to relinquish its data discriminating habits, and users attempting to share content via P2P could still face slowdowns and unexpected delays. Of course, Comcast's Charlie Douglas proclaimed that the firm "does not, has not, and will not block any web site or online application, including peer-to-peer services," but followed up by stating that it did engage in "reasonable network management to serve all of its customers with a good internet experience." The EFF, however, saw things differently. During its own tests, it was reportedly able to confirm conclusions drawn earlier this year by the AP, and it also exclaimed that Comcast was "essentially deploying against its own customers techniques more typically used by malicious hackers." Pretty strong words, to say the least, but we're curious to know if the continued Comcast bashing is indeed legitimate. So, dear readers / Comcast users, are you still (or have you ever, for that matter) experiencing sketchy P2P performance, or is this all just one overblown mess?

Just a fortnight after the AP called Comcast out for tampering with some users' ability to swap files over P2P networks, a coalition has formally asked the FCC to stop the operator from interfering with such activity. The petition reportedly asks the Commission to "immediately declare that Comcast is violating the FCC's policy," and it's being supported by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Media Access Project and professors at the internet practices of the Yale, Harvard and Stanford law schools (among others). Separately, Free Press and Public Knowledge are filing a complaint that asks the FCC to demand a "forfeiture from Comcast of $195,000 per affected subscriber." It's also said that this will be the "first real test of the FCC's stance on Net Neutrality," but there's no telling how long the Commission will wait before acting on the filings.

Following AP reports published last week that painted Comcast in a less-than-positive light for apparently stifling BitTorrent uploads, the company has come clean (somewhat, that is). Reportedly, the firm did admit to "delaying" some subscriber internet traffic, but stated that any hiccups were "temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users." More specifically, Mitch Bowling, senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, was quoted as saying that Comcast utilized "several network management technologies that, when necessary, enabled it to delay -- not block -- some peer-to-peer traffic," but that doesn't exactly jive with the AP's findings. Nevertheless, Mr. Bowling also stated that the problem was "unintentional and due to a software bug [saywha?] that had been fixed." So with that being said, are any of the afflicted users out there still seeing issues, or has all this negative attention really resulted in a change of heart?

ISPs throttling or downright banning access is certainly not unheard of outside of America, but for Comcast customers fully expecting an unadulterated portal to the intarwebs, the AP's latest findings may cause some serious kvetching. Reportedly, the Associated Press has "confirmed through nationwide tests" that Comcast is indeed "actively interfering with attempts by some of its high-speed internet subscribers to share files online." Deemed the "most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a US internet service provider," the outfit seems to be stifling BitTorrent uploads (but not downloads), and spokesman Charlie Douglas even went so far as to confirm that the company utilizes "sophisticated methods to keep web connections running smoothly." Granted, we're not shocked at all that Comcast is engaging in traffic shaping, but as of now, it has yet to come clean about its apparent involvement in hindering P2P uploads. So, dear Comcast users, have any of you noticed any such shenanigans going on?

[Thanks, Jerry]

In today's episode of "no surprises here," we look at a recent study published by Piper Jaffray & Company which attempts to take an intimate look inside the minds of high schoolers across the US. As you'd probably expect, none of the results were all that shocking. When asked about MP3 players, some 82-percent of those that already owned some form of DAP stated that it was an iPod, which was slightly up from last fall. Additionally, 64-percent of those surveyed admitted to downloading music illegally, which may actually be an (ever-so-slightly) positive figure considering that the percentage actually dropped from 72-percent in 2006. As for the iPhone, just 3-percent of students claimed that they owned one, but nearly 10-percent stated that they were looking to pick one up "within the next six months."

[Via CNET, image courtesy of MSN]

If you're scouting a decent media server that just so happens to double as a NAS drive and BitTorrent server, we'd probably wait out this weekend. Apparently, the Popcorn Hour website is set to go live in T-minus two days, but an eagle-eyed individual managed to pull down what appears to be a screenshot of the firm's forthcoming Networked Media Tank. The NMT reportedly enables users to "watch, store and share digital content on your home network," and it also allows for "seamless integration between your digital media and your entertainment system." Best of all, buyers can toss in a hard drive of their choosing, and the 1080p output is sure to please the HD buffs. According to the capture (shown in full after the jump), all this functionality will only run you $179 (sans an HDD), but we'll out find out for certain in a matter of hours.

UPDATE: Seems this could be a rebadge of another product -- guess we'll wait and see, eh? Thanks for the update, Gabriel M.

[Thanks, Johan W.]

Nothing's been filed yet, but Jammie Thomas and her lawyer were on CNN today discussing that ridiculous $222,000 damage award for sharing songs on Kazaa and confirmed that they will, in fact, appeal. The exact nature of the appeal is still up in the air, but Thomas' lawyer says it'll have to do with whether or not Thomas actually transferred a song to another Kazaa user or just made it available on the network. That's a pretty unsettled part of the law and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case, but we'll have to wait and see what the actual appeal says before we'll have an idea of how this will play out. Peep the full interview on CNN at the read link.

[Via TG Daily]