If you think this seems far-fetched, look no further than to HD video. To produce a Blu-ray player, you must agree to limit the picture to DVD resolution if the display connection doesn't have HDCP encryption. MQA could become the music industry's equivalent of HDCP.

{just riffing off of your post mansr}

 

This is why MQA = DRM in it's current form (which I put at 1.1 - 1.0 being the original hardware only version). You can not produce a hardware or software decoder TODAY without agreeing to limit the output to the 24/48 (putting aside it is only 'really' 17 bits at most) content. As a consumer, you can only access the "Hi Res" content TODAY unless you agree to the terms and conditions (purchasing a license, etc.) and if you do try to access said content you are in violation of the agreement, IP, patent laws, etc. You, as a consumer are being "managed", by a "digital product" - your "rights" are limited legally and technically - what is this called? That's right, it has a name and it is:

 

DRM ("Digital Rights Management")

 

Now, I know many believe DRM to be something different - they believe DRM = copy protection. This is one form of "digital management" that DRM can take (among many), and it is a specific technical implementation of DRM, but DRM can in no way be reduced to just copy protection, any more than all dogs can be reduced to Chihuahuas. Let's look at the first two sentences of Wikipedia's entry for DRM:

 

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies.

 

Notice the generality, the multiplicity, and the emphasis on "proprietary", etc. Copy protection is but one form of DRM, and DRM can not be reduced to copy protection/prevention schemes. It is the larger "Rights Management" of the consumer through "Digital" means, but more than that through legal (i.e. IP, patents, etc.) that is the important take away. DRM turns your software/hardware into a legal mechanism to control your behavior. Open formats and standards have neither the digital implementation and design to do this, and more importantly they do not have the legal status to do this. The Wikipedia entry does not mention "copy protection" until several sentences late when it is listing several ways DRM is implemented as an example.

 

Now, I understand that many consumers are "ok" with all sorts of DRM as long as it is not the dreaded "copy protection", but remember others are not and DRM is not such a limited concept - never has been and never will. Not only is MQA DRM in its current form, it actually is a good example of it...