MQA and DRM

[The Computer Audiophile]

Sorry, but we need to be more specific when we talk about “MQA and DRM”. The phrase needs to be qualified.

 

Using lay language, I find it useful to distinguish 2 parts in a MQA-encoded content (i.e. music file):

 

(a) The higher-res part (that requires an MQA-compatible DAC and devices);

 

(b) The lower CD-quality part (that does not MQA-compatible DAC).

 

If the consumer does not need special tools (hardware/software/crypto-keys etc.) to playback (b) within MQA-encoded content, then clearly that portion is not DRM-enabled.

 

But if in order to get (a) the consumer must employ special tools, then it’s fair to say that MQA in DRM-enabled.

 

So to be fair to Meridian and proponents of MQA, we in the CA community need to be more specific when we talk about “MQA and DRM”.

 

Being as specific as possible is good in this scenario.

[mansr]

Based on this are you saying that MQA has no DRM, but someday could have DRM? I'm just trying to figure out what your position is.

 

No, I'm saying it has DRM now but the files/streams currently being offered aren't making use of it. Tidal could flip that switch tomorrow, but they probably won't since MQA DACs are still quite rare. Once compatible DACs reach a certain threshold, I'd be surprised if they didn't turn on the encryption. It is well within their capabilities to collect statistics on which DACs theirs subscribers use.

 

If you buy an MQA download today, it will obviously remain unencrypted. There is still the risk, albeit a small one, that a future decoder version (firmware update) will refuse to play these old files. The greater risk with purchasing MQA content is that the format will fail and future DACs will be unable to play it for that reason. History is full of examples where this has happened.

[mansr]

Sorry, but we need to be more specific when we talk about “MQA and DRM”. The phrase needs to be qualified.

 

Using lay language, I find it useful to distinguish 2 parts in a MQA-encoded content (i.e. music file):

 

(a) The higher-res part (that requires an MQA-compatible DAC and devices);

 

(b) The lower CD-quality part (that does not MQA-compatible DAC).

 

If the consumer does not need special tools (hardware/software/crypto-keys etc.) to playback (b) within MQA-encoded content, then clearly that portion is not DRM-enabled.

 

But if in order to get (a) the consumer must employ special tools, then it’s fair to say that MQA in DRM-enabled.

 

The availability of (b) depends on the file. If it is encrypted, it can't be played on a non-MQA DAC, not even in low quality.

[crenca]

Sorry, but we need to be more specific when we talk about “MQA and DRM”. The phrase needs to be qualified.

 

Using lay language, I find it useful to distinguish 2 parts in a MQA-encoded content (i.e. music file):

 

(a) The higher-res part (that requires an MQA-compatible DAC and devices);

 

(b) The lower CD-quality part (that does not MQA-compatible DAC).

 

If the consumer does not need special tools (hardware/software/crypto-keys etc.) to playback (b) within MQA-encoded content, then clearly that portion is not DRM-enabled.

 

But if in order to get (a) the consumer must employ special tools, then it’s fair to say that MQA in DRM-enabled.

 

So to be fair to Meridian and proponents of MQA, we in the CA community need to be more specific when we talk about “MQA and DRM”.

 

I disagree. In fact, the way you put this is evidence of the marketing coup that is MQA - the idea that it is a kind of Frankenstein that is both at the same time DRM and not DRM. No, it is a format and standard and can not be so neatly split. It certainly is not this legally. Just because it allows you to "hear" something from your "legacy DAC" does not mean it is not DRM - on the contrary it is evidence that it is DRM...

[duxservit]

If you don't think obsoleting $billions worth of equipment for no good reason isn't bad enough, consider the vastly higher barrier to entry for a new DAC manufacturer this poses. Smaller companies could easily find themselves excluded entirely. Such a choke on innovation can only be detrimental to the consumer.

 

Mansr, I agree with you. But it would be useful to separate the "moral question" (about DRM here & generally) from the "technical truthfulness" (as to whether MQA uses DRM technology).

[smartin]

No, I'm saying it has DRM now but the files/streams currently being offered aren't making use of it. Tidal could flip that switch tomorrow, but they probably won't since MQA DACs are still quite rare. Once compatible DACs reach a certain threshold, I'd be surprised if they didn't turn on the encryption. It is well within their capabilities to collect statistics on which DACs theirs subscribers use.

 

That makes no sense. I think the fact that Tidal (and now by investment, Sprint) is the main source for MQA content is a huge argument against the DRM being activated. Tidal and Sprint would never want to limit their potential market to people with MQA DACs. In fact, I think it's much more likely that the hardware requirements will decrease over time. As has been mentioned in previous threads, the potential income from adding more software-decoded consumers of MQA dwarfs the potential from hardware licensing.

[duxservit]

I disagree. In fact, the way you put this is evidence of the marketing coup that is MQA - the idea that it is a kind of Frankenstein that is both at the same time DRM and not DRM. No, it is a format and standard and can not be so neatly split. It certainly is not this legally. Just because it allows you to "hear" something from your "legacy DAC" does not mean it is not DRM - on the contrary it is evidence that it is DRM...

 

I don't have much doubt that some kind of "DRM or DRM-like technology" is being used under-the-hood by MQA for part (a).

 

The question I'm concerned about is whether it is fair to apply the broad brush of DRM to all parts of MQA. Clearly the MQA folks have gotten buy-in from Labels because of part (b).

 

Otherwise, if we play "broad brush" it becomes just a marketing war.

 

(FYI. I personally will not be buying anything MQA anytime soon. I love DSD, will stay with DSD).

[crenca]

Mansr, I agree with you. But it would be useful to separate the "moral question" (about DRM here & generally) from the "technical truthfulness" (as to whether MQA uses DRM technology).

 

But it does, it does "use DRM technology" - it by technical design is DRM because it limits what you hear digitally.

 

The "moral question" (or legal or behavior question) can not be separated from the "technical" question because DRM is both - otherwise it would simply be a technical thing (like say, the mathematics of PCM or DSD encoding)...

[mansr]

That makes no sense. I think the fact that Tidal (and now by investment, Sprint) is the main source for MQA content is a huge argument against the DRM being activated. Tidal and Sprint would never want to limit their potential market to people with MQA DACs. In fact, I think it's much more likely that the hardware requirements will decrease over time. As has been mentioned in previous threads, the potential income from adding more software-decoded consumers of MQA dwarfs the potential from hardware licensing.

 

If virtually all Tidal hifi subscribers were found to use MQA DACs, there'd be little downside to Tidal. Although they might lose a few customers (entirely or to a lower tier), the rights holders may well provide incentives to do so regardless.

 

Another possibility is that only some tracks will use the encryption feature, perhaps those perceived as being most as risk from piracy.

 

The important thing is, the capability is there, only waiting to be used. This alone should be cause for concern.

[crenca]

The question I'm concerned about is whether it is fair to apply the broad brush of DRM to all parts of MQA. Clearly the MQA folks have gotten buy-in from Labels because of part...

 

Yes, it is absolutely "fair" because as Forest Gump would say DRM is as DRM does - and MQA "does" DRM all day every day

[The Computer Audiophile]

If virtually all Tidal hifi subscribers were found to use MQA DACs, there'd be little downside to Tidal. Although they might lose a few customers (entirely or to a lower tier), the rights holders may well provide incentives to do so regardless.

 

Another possibility is that only some tracks will use the encryption feature, perhaps those perceived as being most as risk from piracy.

 

The important thing is, the capability is there, only waiting to be used. This alone should be cause for concern.

 

Your reaching at straws here. If all customers had MQA DACs, then nobody would be put out or be forced into an upgrade.

 

 

In the long run this is all meaningless. MQA will be embedded into chips from DAC manufacturers automatically and nobody will be able to purchase a DAC without it. OK, that's conjecture.

[duxservit]

But it does, it does "use DRM technology" - it by technical design is DRM because it limits what you hear digitally. ...

 

Agree.

 

The "moral question" (or legal or behavior question) can not be separated from the "technical" question because DRM is both - otherwise it would simply be a technical thing (like say, the mathematics of PCM or DSD encoding)...

 

The world has gone through several iterations of the moral question about DRM (as far back as the Napster days and the CableBox days). At the end of the day, the question lies in the legal license that the consumer agreed to. If a consumer agrees to a terms of service or license, then he/she needs to stick with it.

 

For me the question is more about "consumer education" -- how can the CA community properly educate consumers without going overboard (into emotional DRM wars language).

[The Computer Audiophile]

If MQA files contain the infrastructure for heavy-handed DRM, but it isn't used, what right is being managed by this infrastructure?

 

I agree that if it contains this infrastructure it is concerning and I'm not a fan at all. Heavy-handed DRM doesn't work in the purchase download market, we've yet to see what could happen for the streaming market.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Agree.

 

 

 

The world has gone through several iterations of the moral question about DRM (as far back as the Napster days and the CableBox days). At the end of the day, the question lies in the legal license that the consumer agreed to. If a consumer agrees to a terms of service or license, then he/she needs to stick with it.

 

For me the question is more about "consumer education" -- how can the CA community properly educate consumers without going overboard (into emotional DRM wars language).

 

Thanks for the post. I agree 100%. It's all about education. The most successful arguments and educators always offer pros and cons to both sides without vilifying one side. Those who can do this bolster their own argument greatly.

[smartin]

If virtually all Tidal hifi subscribers were found to use MQA DACs, there'd be little downside to Tidal. Although they might lose a few customers (entirely or to a lower tier), the rights holders may well provide incentives to do so regardless.

 

Well, that's very unlikely to ever be true, but even if it did occur, Tidal isn't only concerned about it's current customers. Potential customers matter also. It just doesn't make sense that Tidal (and even more importantly Sprint) would even consider this.

Another possibility is that only some tracks will use the encryption feature, perhaps those perceived as being most as risk from piracy.

 

Again, I have a hard time imagining a scenario where a service/label/artist would do the calculation that limiting playback to MQA DACs only would result in more streams/purchases (and hence income) than not limiting it (and having some pirating).

The important thing is, the capability is there, only waiting to be used. This alone should be cause for concern.

 

Concern yes, but it seems to me as if market forces are working against it's utilization, even without people even being aware of it.

[duxservit]

The availability of (b) depends on the file. If it is encrypted, it can't be played on a non-MQA DAC, not even in low quality.

 

The MQA literature I have read states that consumer do not need new hardware/software to playback MQA-enabled content but they will get CD-quality (or somewhat less-than-CD quality).

[The Computer Audiophile]

The MQA literature I have read states that consumer do not need new hardware/software to playback MQA-enabled content but they will get CD-quality (or somewhat less-than-CD quality).

 

True, and it can be verified by anyone willing to download a free track from 2L.

[duxservit]

If MQA files contain the infrastructure for heavy-handed DRM, but it isn't used, what right is being managed by this infrastructure?

 

I agree that if it contains this infrastructure it is concerning and I'm not a fan at all. Heavy-handed DRM doesn't work in the purchase download market, we've yet to see what could happen for the streaming market.

 

Any DRM system will require additional "DRM infra" on the part of the content-provider, and new "clients" (software/hardware) on the consumer side. Lots of moving pieces to manage by the DRM-infra (e.g. keys, licenses, revocations, etc etc).

[sdolezalek]

Chris: Might I ask you to consider your question a bit differently? First, let's acknowledge that all of this applies to three types of music content:

 

1. Streamed Content -- I only have rights as long as I pay my subscription fee;

2. Downloaded and "Purchased" -- Did I really purchase it, or is it just a license subject to some ongoing restrictions (which could include DRM);

3. Purchased Physical Goods, i.e. CDs, SACDs, LPs, etc.: It's mine and I can do anything I please with it;

 

I think there are two easy cases and one difficult one.

 

Purchased Physical Goods: Easy case. Much of the anger over "DRM" started with the property notions we traditionally ascribed to this content. Since we bought and owned them, it was our right to do with them whatever we wanted, copy them, sell them, etc. as long as our activities didn't break some other law, there should be no restriction on our behavior with our own property. I still vividly remember the anger I felt when after spending more than $100 on a set of early downloaded music files, the seller went bankrupt and suddenly I could no longer play the content I owned, because it contained a form of DRM that was triggered by the bankruptcy. Suddently I was out my $100 and had no recourse. Today, I do my best not to purchase any content that could repeat that experience.

 

Streamed Content: Also easy case. As long as I get to use it, I pay my subscription. If I don't, I stop paying and you stop streaming. Add any DRM you like, I have no expectation that I should be able to do anything else with the streamed content once I stop paying. We can create arguments here, but I think the reality is that simple. And if you stop offering what I want, I'm pretty sure someone else will start offering it in a way I'll subscribe to.

 

Downloaded and Purchased: Hard case. Here I think the real question is about whether the applicable file standards are "open" or "proprietary and closed." Because FLAC, WAV, etc. are open standards, anyone who can build hardware that reads them allows me to listen to my content in that format. MQA, because it is proprietary, does not allow me to do that. As a result, it is possible that the owner of that proprietary standard could retroactively take away my ability to enjoy content I had paid for. Most of us don't like that and thus we equate the proprietary standard to DRM (whether or not that was Meridian's intent in using a proprietary standard).

 

Surprisingly, all of us who own iPhones have long ago agreed to live under that same restriction with regard to any Apps we purchase for use on own phone. Even though we paid for the app, our ability to use it is forever tied to Apple's willingness to let us do so. Why have we been so willing to give up our property rights with respect to purchased content on our phones? Because the benefits hugely outweight the costs and we haven't really been offered a viable alternative.

 

I think the real concern in this entire discussion should be around whether the music industry can use MQA (as a proprietary standard) to effect DRM-like restrictions on our enjoyment of things we believe we purchased. If the entire industry was to adopt any proprietary standard (MQA or otherwise) then, yes, they can restrict what we do with it. In a world used to living with large collections of LPs that may be a frightening concept. In a Netflix, iTunes, Tidal, etc. streaming world it's a "who cares..."

[mansr]

If MQA files contain the infrastructure for heavy-handed DRM, but it isn't used, what right is being managed by this infrastructure?

 

I agree that if it contains this infrastructure it is concerning and I'm not a fan at all. Heavy-handed DRM doesn't work in the purchase download market, we've yet to see what could happen for the streaming market.

 

All streaming services already use encryption at the networking level, and that's OK (as long as the services exist, they'll provide clients to handle it). This still leaves the possibility for capturing the audio stream going from the player to the DAC, and the rights holders are none too happy about this "loop hole." MQA, or something like it, provides them the means to "secure" the audio all the way from their mastering consoles to the consumer's DAC, end to end. It was similar reasoning that led to the development of HDCP for video.

[crenca]

The world has gone through several iterations of the moral question about DRM (as far back as the Napster days and the CableBox days). At the end of the day, the question lies in the legal license that the consumer agreed to. If a consumer agrees to a terms of service or license, then he/she needs to stick with it.

 

For me the question is more about "consumer education" -- how can the CA community properly educate consumers without going overboard (into emotional DRM wars language).

 

Well, some emotionalism is going to be expected because DRM/MQA boots our musical discussion up into another domain - it is a political question/issue and we consumers (and the industry such as manufacturers of DAC's who have to compete with or against MQA) have to first admit that. We can't hide behind a limited technical conception of DRM or we become Lenin's "useful idiots".

 

IMO, here at Computer Audiophile the simple fact is that most community members here are long on the audiophile and short on the computer aspect - or more accurately the digital aspect (both technically and legally). IMO In the more general audiophile community (most especially the press) there it is nothing short of rapant ignorance about things digital. IMO, things actually improve a bit when you leave the audiophile community and enter the more general music lover and/or music consumer in that this demographic tends to be younger and a bit less ignorant about things digital. They also more easily see that MQA is DRM because of what happened in video (which is really their cup of tea). Thus, it was smart play on Bob's part to sell MQA to the audiophile community first.

 

That is what you are up against IMO...

[The Computer Audiophile]

All streaming services already use encryption at the networking level, and that's OK (as long as the services exist, they'll provide clients to handle it). This still leaves the possibility for capturing the audio stream going from the player to the DAC, and the rights holders are none too happy about this "loop hole." MQA, or something like it, provides them the means to "secure" the audio all the way from their mastering consoles to the consumer's DAC, end to end. It was similar reasoning that led to the development of HDCP for video.

DO you think people renting access to music should be able to capture the audio stream?

[mansr]

DO you think people renting access to music should be able to capture the audio stream?

 

Not to store or redistribute. They should have the ability to apply DSP effects during playback.

[sdolezalek]

Not to store or redistribute. They should have the ability to apply DSP effects during playback.

 

+1 or upsample for that matter.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris: Might I ask you to consider your question a bit differently? First, let's acknowledge that all of this applies to three types of music content:

 

1. Streamed Content -- I only have rights as long as I pay my subscription fee;

2. Downloaded and "Purchased" -- Did I really purchase it, or is it just a license subject to some ongoing restrictions (which could include DRM);

3. Purchased Physical Goods, i.e. CDs, SACDs, LPs, etc.: It's mine and I can do anything I please with it;

 

I think there are two easy cases and one difficult one.

 

Purchased Physical Goods: Easy case. Much of the anger over "DRM" started with the property notions we traditionally ascribed to this content. Since we bought and owned them, it was our right to do with them whatever we wanted, copy them, sell them, etc. as long as our activities didn't break some other law, there should be no restriction on our behavior with our own property. I still vividly remember the anger I felt when after spending more than $100 on a set of early downloaded music files, the seller went bankrupt and suddenly I could no longer play the content I owned, because it contained a form of DRM that was triggered by the bankruptcy. Suddently I was out my $100 and had no recourse. Today, I do my best not to purchase any content that could repeat that experience.

 

Streamed Content: Also easy case. As long as I get to use it, I pay my subscription. If I don't, I stop paying and you stop streaming. Add any DRM you like, I have no expectation that I should be able to do anything else with the streamed content once I stop paying. We can create arguments here, but I think the reality is that simple. And if you stop offering what I want, I'm pretty sure someone else will start offering it in a way I'll subscribe to.

 

Downloaded and Purchased: Hard case. Here I think the real question is about whether the applicable file standards are "open" or "proprietary and closed." Because FLAC, WAV, etc. are open standards, anyone who can build hardware that reads them allows me to listen to my content in that format. MQA, because it is proprietary, does not allow me to do that. As a result, it is possible that the owner of that proprietary standard could retroactively take away my ability to enjoy content I had paid for. Most of us don't like that and thus we equate the proprietary standard to DRM (whether or not that was Meridian's intent in using a proprietary standard).

 

Surprisingly, all of us who own iPhones have long ago agreed to live under that same restriction with regard to any Apps we purchase for use on own phone. Even though we paid for the app, our ability to use it is forever tied to Apple's willingness to let us do so. Why have we been so willing to give up our property rights with respect to purchased content on our phones? Because the benefits hugely outweight the costs and we haven't really been offered a viable alternative.

 

I think the real concern in this entire discussion should be around whether the music industry can use MQA (as a proprietary standard) to effect DRM-like restrictions on our enjoyment of things we believe we purchased. If the entire industry was to adopt any proprietary standard (MQA or otherwise) then, yes, they can restrict what we do with it. In a world used to living with large collections of LPs that may be a frightening concept. In a Netflix, iTunes, Tidal, etc. streaming world it's a "who cares..."

Well said. Bravo.

 

I always shy away from purchasing music when my access to the music can later be limited or revoked. I'm completely different when it comes to movies and apps etc...

 

 

 

A couple of potential scary items

 

If the record industry wants, it could offer only MQA. This would leave no streaming service to switch to for people who don't like MQA. I guess this could happen, but we must consider how likely this is to happen. It would also happen without MQA.

 

 

Purchased and downloaded content could be made incompatible with future MQA hardware. I supposed MQA 2.0 could come along and tout new re-focussing (like deblurring) and require a 2.0 version to be purchased. This would be a bummer. It's no different than a new format to purchase. The bigger bummer would be if new MQA DACs wouldn't play MQA version 1 etc...

 

All "could happen" type stuff of course.

 

 

 

On the other hand, why do people care so much about this? Do some love music so much? Do some just hate proprietary anything? Do some .....

 

I'm not judging. It's just interesting to me why people care so much. I also care quite a bit. My question has no relation to my level of caring.