Slashdot Mirror

Liquid Audio did support the Mac. Of course, they dropped Mac support for version six; they never supported OS X; and the download link on this page no longer actually gets you to a Mac version. But this has more to do with the company's having become completely irrelevant than with Mac support per se.

Platform support isn't the reason Liquid Audio failed.

Liquid Audio's days are numbered [...] The board voted unanimously in favor of a $57 million stockholder cash payout. They would rather sell the company, but if there is no buyer then they would probably have to liquidate the company.

Liquid Audio's days are numbered [...] The board voted unanimously in favor of a $57 million stockholder cash payout. They would rather sell the company, but if there is no buyer then they would probably have to liquidate the company.

How about a banjo-playing rock star?

• I'm sick and tired of people arguing that this doesn't hurt sales

Prove that it does. Find any evidence - any evidence - that it has reduced sales. Anecdotes don't count. Common sense doesn't count. Your opinion doesn't count.

Show us the evidence.

• Also in other news I heard yesterday on the radio that a couple of the labels will be selling singles online for $.99

No, they will be renting you access to SDMI secured data stored on your hard drive. Download the Liquid Audio player and read the license. Access to the tracks is conditional on a renewable license tied to your credit card. It's a rental locker system, and they can take away the keys at any time. Wake us up when they actually offer mp3's, will you?

Assuming Sony and Universal's proposal were a success, how useful would it be to the unix world? Liquid Audio has a free player for Windows and for Mac, but how about the rest of us. Can anyone find a player for BSD, Linux, etc? Otherwise, though potentially profitable (I guess that is the bottom line), it wouldn't be very useful to me.

It's regrettable, because this is a step in the right direction, but this won't fly.

The article mentions that the tracks discussed by Universal are to be in Liquid Audio format.

(More about them is available here)

Closed-format music that I can't play in non-Windows operating systems or in a dvd or car cd deck that can decode mp3 CD's doesn't interest me in the slightest. MP3 succeeds because it's portable and small. Liquid audio files may not be very large, but they're not portable at all (except to Rio players).

By the time I've converted to CD and then ripped to mp3 again, I've spent way more than $1 worth of time, and I'm inclined to just go get an mp3 rip of the song and have done with it.

Sorry guys, try again. They're halfway there, but it's got to be MP3, or bust. The really depressing part of all this is that when this fails, it will fail because the dirty thieves on the internet want something for nothing, not because they tied themselves to a wrongheaded proprietary format that nobody asked for and nobody needs.

In all the discussions about DRM, streaming audio, perceptual encoding, etc., I do not think I have read one mention of DRM in Liquid Audio. The sound quality is quite decent all-in-all. It uses watermarking to uniquely identify content. It uses various parameters to set number of plays, expiration, whether or not to allow burning to CD, and so forth. Yet hardly anyone is using it.... They seem to have the technical issues pretty well solved and reasonably balanced against consumer needs, but evidently not much market exists.

I bought a downloadable live show in LiquidAudio by the artist Momus from the CDNow site some time ago. Supposedly I can move this file from one computer to another, but have to supply a credit card number again. Frankly I do not recall, andit does not matter much for the following reason:

I was also able to capture it digitally, so that I could edit down some of the between-song quiet (the banter, btw, is quite worth keeping), and make it fit on an 80-minute CD-R. Now, I would be quite leery about redistributing it, due to the claimed link between the watermark and my own self (via the credit card number). But, I was indeed able to alter this content to my preference, and copy it to a new medium (CD-DA on CD-R media).

The method of copying, btw, was to send the audio to a pro audio card, and record the monitor mix (pure digital) in a sound editing app.

Any way they try to stop this would also stop me from being able to record and mix my own, original creations, in which I hold the copyright. Somehow I doubt the RIAA would mind that very much. But, I do think that the very least a centralized government could do is to protect the ability to create intellectual property in the first place!

I suppose Liquid Audio could refuse to stream to a pro card. Then I would have to buy an ordinary low-performance sound card to hear this content. But then we have those pesky analog outputs to contend with. This is where the watermark comes in...

Plenty more to say on this topic, but another time.

In all the discussions about DRM, streaming audio, perceptual encoding, etc., I do not think I have read one mention of DRM in Liquid Audio. The sound quality is quite decent all-in-all. It uses watermarking to uniquely identify content. It uses various parameters to set number of plays, expiration, whether or not to allow burning to CD, and so forth. Yet hardly anyone is using it.... They seem to have the technical issues pretty well solved and reasonably balanced against consumer needs, but evidently not much market exists.

I bought a downloadable live show in LiquidAudio by the artist Momus from the CDNow site some time ago. Supposedly I can move this file from one computer to another, but have to supply a credit card number again. Frankly I do not recall, andit does not matter much for the following reason:

I was also able to capture it digitally, so that I could edit down some of the between-song quiet (the banter, btw, is quite worth keeping), and make it fit on an 80-minute CD-R. Now, I would be quite leery about redistributing it, due to the claimed link between the watermark and my own self (via the credit card number). But, I was indeed able to alter this content to my preference, and copy it to a new medium (CD-DA on CD-R media).

The method of copying, btw, was to send the audio to a pro audio card, and record the monitor mix (pure digital) in a sound editing app.

Any way they try to stop this would also stop me from being able to record and mix my own, original creations, in which I hold the copyright. Somehow I doubt the RIAA would mind that very much. But, I do think that the very least a centralized government could do is to protect the ability to create intellectual property in the first place!

I suppose Liquid Audio could refuse to stream to a pro card. Then I would have to buy an ordinary low-performance sound card to hear this content. But then we have those pesky analog outputs to contend with. This is where the watermark comes in...

Plenty more to say on this topic, but another time.

1. Decode their file format to something useable (MP3?).
2. Add support for my CD-R.
3. Buy the whole CD.

1. Buy the whole CD.

• The Band (http://www.shupe.net/))
• The CD (http://www.shupe.net/bird.html)
• Liquid Music (http://www.liquidaudio.com/index.html)
• The desired CD @ Liquid Music (http://www.liquidmusicnetwork.com/cgi-bin/search/ search.cgi/473718453@liquid?search_type=AlbumItem& album_id=21830)
• Liquid Music Permissions (http://www.liquidmusicnetwork.com/cgi-bin/search/ search.cgi/473718453@liquid?search_type=HelpGen)

1. Decode their file format to something useable (MP3?).
2. Add support for my CD-R.
3. Buy the whole CD.

1. Buy the whole CD.

• The Band (http://www.shupe.net/))
• The CD (http://www.shupe.net/bird.html)
• Liquid Music (http://www.liquidaudio.com/index.html)
• The desired CD @ Liquid Music (http://www.liquidmusicnetwork.com/cgi-bin/search/ search.cgi/473718453@liquid?search_type=AlbumItem& album_id=21830)
• Liquid Music Permissions (http://www.liquidmusicnetwork.com/cgi-bin/search/ search.cgi/473718453@liquid?search_type=HelpGen)

Hmm. That capability doesn't seem to be in the Phase 1 standard. A picture of the Phase 2 standard is beginning to emerge then. Detection of content that has been ripped from watermarked content and compressed with a perceptual encoding scheme is clearly part of it. I think we can safely assume a more detailed set of permission flags than the Phase 1 "no more copies". I wonder how companies that sell compressed content on the net like e-Music and Liquid Audio will get the "full" watermarks? Will their client software be able to watermark content? Perhaps it will have to have a different watermark. Maybe the differences will give people clues on how to hack the watermark. Interesting. And what's up with Napster? I hear Napster wants to charge a subscription fee now. If I pay money to Napster, and Napster pays the record companies for content, then I expect quality content with the "full" watermark. Chris Owens
San Carlos, CA

Trading MP3s of copyrighted music is theft. Have people forgotten that this is actually against the law?

Sony certainly appear to have..

Check out http://www.sony-europe.com/com/po pkomm/index.html.. Yes folks.. its a link to a music site.. with downloadable MP3s of Limp Bizkit..
And it gets worse.. or better.. depends..
http://206.132.60.30/ .. Whats this? Its Sony MusicClub. Sony's own download site. Ok, the files are in an odd 'OpenMG' format and only playable in LiquidPlayer (LiquidAudio).. But version 5 of Liquid Player has a nice 'Burn to CD' option.. heck, WinAmp doesn't even go as far as letting you make CDs of your downloads.
When Sony say they are anti-Napster, it seems that its only because its a competing product.

• Some people say that Yamaha's VQF has better quality than MP3 given the same bitrate: http://www.yamaha-xg.com/english/xg/So undVQ/, http://www.vqf.com/
• AAC had some popularity for a while but I haven't heard much about it lately: http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/aac.html
• Many people use shorten for lossless compression: http://www.softsound.com/Shorten.html
• Some proprietary formats:
• Windows media: http://www.mi crosoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/download/defau lt.asp
• Liquid audio: http://www.liquidaudio.com/
• Realplayer G2: http://www.real.com

I wrote this email to the contact listed on the press release. Hopefully someone important will read it, but probably not.

Hi, I am writing to you in response to a press release from David Bowie's official website at this address on August 30th. The Outside Org website is listed to obtain more information at the end of the release and on David Bowie's page on Outside Org, this email address is listed as the contact. Forgive me if I am directing this to the wrong place and I would appreciate it if you could forward to the right person.

While I certainly believe that digitally downloaded music is the far, if not near, future of music, I am disappointed with David Bowie's (and/or his record label's) decision to release his album in only Liquid Audio and MS Audio, encoded with SDMI. I, along with many other consumers, would have preferred the open and flexible MP3 standard, which started this digital music revolution. Because anyone is free to write an MP3 player and anyone is free to write an MP3 encoder (as long as they do not use a patented algorithm) without paying licensing fees, there is a much wider selection of MP3 players for a wide variety of computer systems. Personally, I use the open source Linux operating system, for which I believe there is no Liquid Audio or MS Audio player. A quick search on the de facto website to get Linux software (Freshmeat), reveals no matches for "SDMI" or "Liquid Audio" (I also looked at Liquid Audio's official site which only has players for Windows and Macintosh), while almost 100 matches for "MP3". This includes MP3 players, encoders, and graphical frontends which make it simple for people to create MP3's from their own purchased CDs. Without a doubt, an MP3 release would enable many more people on different hardware to have access to David Bowie's music. Not only is it wrong to force people to deal with one or two companies (in this case Microsoft and Liquid Audio) as the sole source for a certain format, it is also bad business. While the technically superior Betamax was held tight by Sony, the open VHS standard won the consumer war. I expect that formats such as Liquid Audio and MS Audio (and maybe even SDMI, though it is open) will fail in the same way.

There is a concern growing in the traditional record industry that downloadable music is more subject to piracy than normal purchased CD's and that a secure, encrypted standard that only allows play only on one device is necessary for commercially released music. This is wrong for, at least, two reasons. First, most of the music available illegally in MP3 format was not originally downloaded from a website. It was originally purchased on a CD and then encrypted to MP3 and put on the internet. There is no way to stop this from happening. If you release your album on a CD and it is popular, it is subject to being encrypted into MP3 and put onto the internet. In fact, if you ever intend for music to be listened to, then it will always be technically possible to copy it. Secondly, as fast as new "secure" formats are being created, they are being unsecured. Read this article about Microsoft's WMA format being cracked for evidence of this.

While there will always be some people who insist on pirating music, the majority of consumers simply don't have the time for it. It usually takes more than $15 worth of effort to find a CD that you would pay $15 for in MP3 format illegally on the web, especially if you want a certain CD in particular. When given the choice between affordable, easy-to-use, downloadable music in a popular format from reputable companies and illegal, hard-to-find from who-knows-where, _most_ consumers will pick the former. By using non-open standards to release digital music, such as Liquid Audio and MS Audio, and using encryption such as SDMI, you are simply making it harder for consumers to get and enjoy legal music.

There are also some interesting "facts" about David Bowie's involvement with digital music and how he is the "first" to do this and the "first" to do that. He is most certainly _not_ the first major recording artist to release an entire album online (some have even made some albums available _only_ online). Check out Emusic for this. Some of the more notable artists are Frank Black (former lead singer of the Pixies and a guest at Bowie's 50th birthday bash, where he performed with Bowie on stage at Madison Square Garden) and They Might Be Giants. But press hype is what it is. I suppose I should expect it.

Despite of this, I am a very big fan of David Bowie. I will buy his new album, though not online, because I couldn't listen to it even if I did. I will wait for the CD and encode it myself into MP3 format so that I can listen to it through my computer and on a portable MP3 player. I hope that in the future he will realize the demands of market and use an open standard that is available to everyone.

from the article: "Steve Grady, vice president of marketing at MP3 retailer GoodNoise, said that if the record labels don't put the consumer first in their architecture plans, piracy will only increase and the industry could ultimately lose out on new business opportunities on the Web."   What's this? An industry honcho with the consumer in mind? The RIAA and the companies it represents should take a lesson from this man.   I'm not worried. If people want MP3, it will always be around. Plain and simple. As soon as SDMI starts becoming popular w/ the record companies (and it will) i'll find a cracked player (cracked not to take away from the developer(s), just not to fund the RIAA) and record the SDMI files to wav w/ total recorder as they pass through my soundcard. After all, that's how i've been converting the liquid audio and a2b "secure" foramts all along.

from the article:
"Steve Grady, vice president of marketing at MP3 retailer GoodNoise, said that if the record labels don't put the consumer first in their architecture plans, piracy will only increase and the industry could ultimately lose out on new business opportunities on the Web."

What's this? An industry honcho with the consumer in mind? The RIAA and the companies it represents should take a lesson from this man.

I'm not worried. If people want MP3, it will always be around. Plain and simple. As soon as SDMI starts becoming popular w/ the record companies (and it will) i'll find a cracked player (cracked not to take away from the developer(s), just not to fund the RIAA) and record the SDMI files to wav w/ total recorder as they pass through my soundcard. After all, that's how i've been converting the liquid audio and a2b "secure" foramts all along.