MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

7 minutes ago, Axial said:

So Bob's our best friend? 

No, Bob's your uncle..as they say in Brexit Land.🤣

[Axial]

I hope you guys sort it all out ...

• https://duckduckgo.com/

 

[esldude]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

The name doesn't easily verb, though.

I just say DDG search. 

[esldude]

So we are nearing 500 pages.  MQA is not really vapor ware as much as we wish it were.  It is of course not at all what it was claimed to be.  Ole Bob has outdone himself with the BS on MQA.  Most Questionable Authority, and he had a good rep he threw under the bus.  Bob, poor Bob should have stayed Robert. 

[John_Atkinson]

16 hours ago, FredericV said:

The source was
https://ifi-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/iFi-audio-Tech-Note-GTO-filter-FINAL.pdf
not Stereophile.

 

Thank you for supplying the link. All the graphs in that white paper have been reproduced from Stereophile without permission. I will contact iFi to let them know that this is copyright infringement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

Thank you for supplying the link. All the graphs in that white paper have been reproduced from Stereophile without permission. I will contact iFi to let them know that this is copyright infringement.

Are you sure they didn't create them themselves? Can you even claim copyright to a plot of somebody else's filter response?

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you sure they didn't create them themselves? Can you even claim copyright to a plot of somebody else's filter response?

 

 

Quote

Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the first requirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not “original works of authorship,” under the definitions in the Act. At first glance, this probably doesn't make much sense; if a researcher runs a series of experiments and collects a data set, isn't that original, and aren't they the author of it? In a sense, yes, but in the sense that's important for copyright, no. Facts and data aren't considered original works of authorship because they are not “created” so much as they are “discovered.” For example, if a scientist takes temperature readings at various locations over a period of years, she isn't “creating” the data, she's recording the data. If she keeps a log describing how she feels every day, and how the sunrise looks at the testing station, that's original, creative, authorship. Recording natural phenomena is not.

 

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83329/copyrightability_of_tables_charts_and_graphs.pdf

[FredericV]

1 hour ago, John_Atkinson said:

 

Thank you for supplying the link. All the graphs in that white paper have been reproduced from Stereophile without permission. I will contact iFi to let them know that this is copyright infringement.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

So you really believe you are the first party who measured these filters? So you want us to believe iFI has no skills to generate the impulse and then run it though their own analyser, but instead source it from you?

All you did was peer review what was probably already measured by iFI.

Anyone can buy an AP analyzer, and duplicate what you measured. I know several designers who have such kit, one is famous for class-d. I actually found a bug in his design where his module would go into protection under certain home cinema loads, so we ran the module through an AP workstation 

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Are you sure they didn't create them themselves? Can you even claim copyright to a plot of somebody else's filter response?

 

Stereophile is becoming one big joke.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83329/copyrightability_of_tables_charts_and_graphs.pdf

 

This is a little deceptive, if I publish a chart, derived from my original work, then yes, that particular chart is copyrighted. If someone creates an identical chart, based on their own work, there is no copyright infringement. 

 

If however, someone lifts my chart from my published work, and republishes it, especially without credit,  that is almost certainly a copyright infringement. 

 

Besides, isn't this something for them to work out in private? 

 

-Paul

 

[Axial]

Mr. John Atkinson, I have a lot of respect for you in the last fifty years. 

Your emotional stance with your graph, copyright, doesn't diminish that respect. 

But seriously Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Have a green pint and enjoy relaxing listening to traditional Irish music.   Share the love, the music, the audio discoveries during your life's journey among the flowers singing in the spring. 

 

 

 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Are you sure they didn't create them themselves? Can you even claim copyright to a plot of somebody else's filter response?

 

Can we try to stay away from amateur lawyering? The answer is "Depending on the circumstances, yes," and no, I don't feel like getting into a discussion of what circumstances.

[Axial]

We are here to enjoy life, music, audio, learn about being better @ everything, share our knowledge to get closer to peace, look @ the sky in its vast space, search for simplicity, measure the truth in its just balance, for the sake of living happier on our planet, all the people, without borders without colors and without languages. ...With one universal transmission...the power of musical true love and reality. ...Including MQA and all the measuring graphs in the world from the universal scientific audio book of the blessing heavens. ...Among all the clouds and the fires and tornadoes and earthquakes of the universe. 

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

If however, someone lifts my chart from my published work, and republishes it, especially without credit,  that is almost certainly a copyright infringement. 

 

 

I thought so too but the article I linked to appears to be saying that even this isn't usually copyright infringement.

 

Quote

Furthermore, representations of data are also not protectable. Rereading section 102(b) with a particular emphasis on the second half reveals this, as it reads: “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” Essentially, that means that a graph, chart, or table that expresses data is treated the same as the underlying data. The courts have been clear as to the practical implications of this statement and the broader principles that it informs. For example, they have ruled that a digital schematic of an automobile was not sufficiently creative to merit copyright protection, that when certain topics are essential to expressing an idea they are not protectable,  and that when there are only a few possible ways to express an idea, they are not subject to copyright protection.

 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/83329/copyrightability_of_tables_charts_and_graphs.pdf

 

Again, it depends. I would guess that you can probably think of circumstances in which a way of presenting data might be an original work of authorship and copyrightable.  And once again, no, I don't particularly feel like being drawn into a discussion of what circumstances. I come here for a break from my work, not to do more of it.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

Can we try to stay away from amateur lawyering? The answer is "Depending on the circumstances, yes," and no, I don't feel like getting into a discussion of what circumstances.

Seems like a valid question to ask, then. Please note that I did not attempt to provide an answer.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Again, it depends. I would guess that you can probably think of circumstances in which a way of presenting data might be an original work of authorship and copyrightable.  And once again, no, I don't particularly feel like being drawn into a discussion of what circumstances. I come here for a break from my work, not to do more of it.

 

I understand. I don't think anyone's expecting you to wade in on this subject.

 

BTW, the guy who wrote the article I linked to has a J.D. in IP Law from Berkeley so I would consider the article fairly trustworthy.

[Jud]

A valid question, but one I would think was now between Stereophile and iFi.

 

Certainly it would not hinder anyone here from either providing their own measurements or providing Stereophile's upon requesting and granting of permission.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I understand. I don't think anyone's expecting you to wade in on this subject.

 

BTW, the guy who wrote the article I linked to has a J.D. in IP Law from Berkeley so I would consider the article fairly trustworthy.

 

The problem is not with the trustworthiness of an individual article, it's with placing what's stated in one article into a larger context that people who haven't worked in copyright law don't have.

[Axial]

If you from Stereophile wants to be an exclusive club of snobs, a cult of audio degenerates, living in a world of paranoia, deception and fear of sharing their graphs, their measurements, their articles; hire the audio police and patrol the cyber space in the pursuit of lawbreakers, of corruption, of copiers, of thieves, and stop living a free life by picking another hobby more helpful for the planet...climate change, children education, clean water for everyone, and 5G serious studies on mental and physical health. 

 

Tell your grand children too, that they cannot share Stereophile graphs and it's better to plant trees instead, for the shape, for the brain, for the soul. 

 

Perhaps we shall never read Stereophile ever anymore.

[Axial]

11 hours ago, esldude said:

So we are nearing 500 pages.  MQA is not really vapor ware as much as we wish it were.  It is of course not at all what it was claimed to be.  Ole Bob has outdone himself with the BS on MQA.  Most Questionable Authority, and he had a good rep he threw under the bus.  Bob, poor Bob should have stayed Robert. 

 

It's not the name, it's the presentation to a scientific audio audience.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Axial said:

If Stereophile wants to be an exclusive club of snobs, a cult of audio degenerates, living in a world of paranoia, deception and fear of sharing their graphs, their ,measurements, their articles; hire the audio police and patrol the cyber space in the pursuit of lawbreakers, of corruption, of copiers, of thieves, and stop living a free life by picking another hobby more helpful for the planet...climate change, children education, clean water for everyone, and 5G serious studies on mental and physical health. 

 

Tell your grand children too, that they cannot share Stereophile graphs and it's better to plant trees instead, for the shape, for the brain, for the soul. 

 

That is one extreme. The other is never defending copyright and having other people freely use and profit from material you worked and paid for.  The truth, to quote @The Computer Audiophile, lies somewhere in between.  🙂

[Axial]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Again, it depends. I would guess that you can probably think of circumstances in which a way of presenting data might be an original work of authorship and copyrightable.  And once again, no, I don't particularly feel like being drawn into a discussion of what circumstances. I come here for a break from my work, not to do more of it.

 

Jud, it's an audio forum, 365 days a year. Tell John Atkinson about it, and tell him to relax too. He's the guy jumping backwards on this beautiful lovely day. Tell him that it's not the end of the world and nobody, no animal were hurt during the filming. 

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

It's not the name, it's the presentation to a scientific audio audience.

Over the years I've seen Bob give presentations or interviews where he was very scientific and in others be very much the listening ear audiophile.  He tailored his message for the audience.  So I referred to good ole Bob the audiophile as opposed to Robert the author of AES papers.  So yes sometimes it is the name.  With MQA he has tried doing both at once and it doesn't really work. 

[Axial]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That is one extreme. The other is never defending copyright and having other people freely use and profit from material you worked and paid for.  The truth, to quote @The Computer Audiophile, lies somewhere in between.  🙂

 

Profit? Who's profiting here if the source was taken somewhere else in the first place as explained already.

 

I think this is an obsession in this audio business; the control. 

I don't see that as the general trend. So it's not worth it, and better get back to our normal routine...MQA flavor or vapor. 

[John_Atkinson]

1 hour ago, FredericV said:

Do you really believe you are the first party who measured these filters?

 

No, but I did create the graphs featured in the iFi white paper. All the graphs I create for publication in Stereophile have a unique aspect ratio and other identifying features. We do not allow third parties to make use of our copyrighted content without permission.

 

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile