Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA and DRM


Recommended Posts

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.

 

I don't think B can or would be encrypted or it would go against the goal of MQA being widely compatible . The compatibility aspect of B is another factor that makes MQA unique to other forms of audio delivery, that it works for all current hardware. I don't think any content provider would allow that or they wouldn't use MQA.

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

 

I do, and so did consumers/government in the famous "betamax" supreme court case. IMO once it enters my digital domain, I have "the right" to do with as I see fit in my own domain (not outside of it - where "piracy" and illegaly profiteering occurs). Could I agree to a licence that limits this right? Sure, as long as I agree. Should I allow DRM into my domain because the industry feels I am untrustworthy and they should be allowed a "big brother" role in my own domain? I don't agree.

 

NO (no no no) the above is NOT motivated by "piracy" or other "free lunch" motivations...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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.

 

 

I generally agree with this. I'd quibble only with one word in a sentence in your first paragraph. That sentence says "Once compatible DACs reach a certain threshold...." I'd substitute "If compatible DACs reach a certain threshold...." And perhaps I'd say in your first sentence that it has DRM capability now, since as we agree this isn't turned on yet.

 

 

So very simply, what I'm saying is this:

 

 

- MQA and the labels *right now* aren't actively employing DRM, though the capability exists.

 

 

- There's no reason to turn on the DRM capability unless MQA-encoded music reaches "critical mass" in the market.

 

 

Let's stop for a moment and consider what we mean by "the market." If MQA-encoded music reaches critical mass for streaming, then there is reason for the streaming companies to turn on DRM, and for makers of equipment designed mainly to play streams to do so. But for providers of downloads and makers of equipment designed to play them, there would not be. So far I haven't seen an indication of MQA pushing into the download market, and there appears to be (even) less reason for MQA there than in the streaming segment, since size with downloads matters (even) less than it does with streaming (not that it matters a lot with streaming necessarily, not that there aren't better, open means of making things smaller, etc., etc.).

 

 

Then let's say the DRM capability does get turned on, at least for the streaming segment of the market. That still allows downloads, unless we want to posit that all the downloads become MQA-encoded and encrypted as well. OK, let's do that, while recognizing how far into speculation ahead of current events we are. Then two things are likely to happen: (1) People into hi-res will buy fewer downloads, since they are now the "ruined" MQA versions rather than the originals, exactly the opposite of what the music industry would like to see; and (2) for those who still want to access the MQA versions, as mentioned earlier in the thread, "Like all forms of DRM, this is of course mere security by obscurity, in reality about as secure as writing the combination on a post-it note next to the lock." So turning on the DRM provides a prime incentive to promptly crack it, opening up not only the music industry's damaged (because MQA-encoded) content, but also MQA's precious intellectual property, their processing. How eager would MQA be to cause this to come to pass, if we get to a conjectural future where MQA has come to dominate not only streaming but downloads as well?

 

 

- Thus it seems to me to be a better idea to let Tidal and the music industry know about our true, current complaint that MQA reduces quality (if indeed this is the complaint we have) and we are therefore less likely to buy it, rather than screaming at them about a conjectured future in which they control all music. The former, since it means less money for Tidal and the industry, they might listen to. The latter would be their wet dream, and I can't think of a better means of persuading them MQA is a great idea.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Does anyone have stats and/or an opinion on how often this happens? Is this a rampant problem? Or is this something that "could" happen? I'm asking out of ignorance.

I don't have stats, but I also don't believe it's a real problem. Especially in the days of streaming services because people are required to spend too much time "recording" a digital stream. Locking down the digital stream wouldn't have a real benefit for anyone, consumers or labels.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

 

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.

 

My answer:

 

Ask me how large my Blue Ray (DRM) collection is...

 

A: A couple of dozen titles, mostly gifts from others or titles for the kids from the bargain bin.

 

Ask me how large my music (non-DRM) collection is...

 

A: it's YYYYYYuuuuugggggeeeeee (I don't know $value$ level, but many thousands)

 

Ask me how large my DRM music collection will be in the future...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
I do, and so did consumers/government in the famous "betamax" supreme court case. IMO once it enters my digital domain, I have "the right" to do with as I see fit in my own domain (not outside of it - where "piracy" and illegaly profiteering occurs). Could I agree to a licence that limits this right? Sure, as long as I agree. Should I allow DRM into my domain because the industry feels I am untrustworthy and they should be allowed a "big brother" role in my own domain? I don't agree.

 

NO (no no no) the above is NOT motivated by "piracy" or other "free lunch" motivations...

 

That's not an unreasonable stance to take. I like it as well. The other side of the coin is that we don't have to pay for anything to which we don't agree. If we don't like the terms of service, then we can stay away. It would suck if we couldn't listen to any new music because of this of course.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
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...

 

As long as there are enough of us willing to pay for things other than MQA, the industry will offer it because they want the profits from incremental sales.

 

BUT: Your second point is the one I think we should all be worried about. More and more producers of computer software have moved to subscription models. Why? Because it keeps getting harder to come up with new features we will pay for. Much easier to force us to pay an annual subscription. In a short-term world, we rarely do the net present value analysis, so we are more willing to pay an annual fee than we should be. Adobe still offers the ability to purchase Photoshop as a lifetime license, but the price is such that almost everyone has switched to the subscription model even though we all complained hugely when they first announced it.

 

I think the music industry wants to take us in the same direction. By switching us to subscription models they retain the flexibilty to changes prices as needed over time. And they can keep coming back and charging us a bit more for the latest version. The good news is we don't have to re-buy our whole collection when a new format arises. The bad news is that we will, over time, pay more.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
My answer:

 

Ask me how large my Blue Ray (DRM) collection is...

 

A: A couple of dozen titles, mostly gifts from others or titles for the kids from the bargain bin.

 

Ask me how large my music (non-DRM) collection is...

 

A: it's YYYYYYuuuuugggggeeeeee (I don't know $value$ level, but many thousands)

 

Ask me how large my DRM music collection will be in the future...

 

I agree with the gist of this. The unspoken truth is that BDs are fairly easy (way, way easier than SACDs) to rip and transcode. I simply wouldn't purchase BDs if I couldn't rip them. And this is precisely the reason I rarely purchase SACDs, and then, only hybrid ones that I can rip the CD layer.

 

This is likely an fringe opinion, but so long as I can defeat the DRM for my personal use, I have no problem with it.

Link to comment
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...

 

If an open format becomes obsolete, you can always convert any content to a new format. When a closed format becomes obsolete (and they all eventually do), your options are to buy the music again or stop listening to it. You might be able to get by so long as your old hardware or software still works, but eventually you'll want a new DAC for whatever reason, and the old software won't work on the latest OS version. This is why unrestricted access to purchased content is important. If you've paid for the licence to listen to a file in perpetuity, you should have the means to exercise this right even if the original delivery format becomes unusable. Technical obsolescence has always been an issue with physical formats (the last VHS player was manufactured a few months ago). Digital file-based storage has finally released us from those shackles, and we're fools to build ourselves a new prison in the form of proprietary formats, with or without DRM.

Link to comment
I agree with the gist of this. The unspoken truth is that BDs are fairly easy (way, way easier than SACDs) to rip and transcode. I simply wouldn't purchase BDs if I couldn't rip them. And this is precisely the reason I rarely purchase SACDs, and then, only hybrid ones that I can rip the CD layer.

 

This is likely an fringe opinion, but so long as I can defeat the DRM for my personal use, I have no problem with it.

 

With discs, even though they may have DRM, you get something tangible. You can put them on a shelf and look at them and even resell them. With streaming you don't.

Link to comment
I generally agree with this. I'd quibble only with one word in a sentence in your first paragraph. That sentence says "Once compatible DACs reach a certain threshold...." I'd substitute "If compatible DACs reach a certain threshold...." And perhaps I'd say in your first sentence that it has DRM capability now, since as we agree this isn't turned on yet.

 

 

So very simply, what I'm saying is this:

 

 

- MQA and the labels *right now* aren't actively employing DRM, though the capability exists.

 

 

- There's no reason to turn on the DRM capability unless MQA-encoded music reaches "critical mass" in the market.

 

 

Let's stop for a moment and consider what we mean by "the market." If MQA-encoded music reaches critical mass for streaming, then there is reason for the streaming companies to turn on DRM, and for makers of equipment designed mainly to play streams to do so. But for providers of downloads and makers of equipment designed to play them, there would not be. So far I haven't seen an indication of MQA pushing into the download market, and there appears to be (even) less reason for MQA there than in the streaming segment, since size with downloads matters (even) less than it does with streaming (not that it matters a lot with streaming necessarily, not that there aren't better, open means of making things smaller, etc., etc.).

 

 

Then let's say the DRM capability does get turned on, at least for the streaming segment of the market. That still allows downloads, unless we want to posit that all the downloads become MQA-encoded and encrypted as well. OK, let's do that, while recognizing how far into speculation ahead of current events we are. Then two things are likely to happen: (1) People into hi-res will buy fewer downloads, since they are now the "ruined" MQA versions rather than the originals, exactly the opposite of what the music industry would like to see; and (2) for those who still want to access the MQA versions, as mentioned earlier in the thread, "Like all forms of DRM, this is of course mere security by obscurity, in reality about as secure as writing the combination on a post-it note next to the lock." So turning on the DRM provides a prime incentive to promptly crack it, opening up not only the music industry's damaged (because MQA-encoded) content, but also MQA's precious intellectual property, their processing. How eager would MQA be to cause this to come to pass, if we get to a conjectural future where MQA has come to dominate not only streaming but downloads as well?

 

 

- Thus it seems to me to be a better idea to let Tidal and the music industry know about our true, current complaint that MQA reduces quality (if indeed this is the complaint we have) and we are therefore less likely to buy it, rather than screaming at them about a conjectured future in which they control all music. The former, since it means less money for Tidal and the industry, they might listen to. The latter would be their wet dream, and I can't think of a better means of persuading them MQA is a great idea.

 

You put forth a reasonable argument, but you fail to consider that the music industry as a whole is anything but reasonable. They are utterly paranoid and will stop at nothing in their efforts to prevent piracy, whether or not the threat is real. Recall that a few years ago some Sony CDs came with a computer virus that prevented an infected system from ripping CDs (it was of course easily defeated) and as bonus made it vulnerable to attacks from more nefarious malware. That incident neatly demonstrates both the level of their desperation and their contempt for the customer. The music industry is one that will readily cut off its nose to spite the face.

Link to comment
Even if ripping them is technically illegal?

 

I am not a lawyer, so I have no basis for entertaining such a conversation. I am familiar with the concept of space shifting. I have never downloaded pirated media nor have I ever made any media I own available to others. I simply want to make media that I legally purchase available to me in ways that maximize my convenience without having to purchase different versions of the same title.

Link to comment
If you've paid for the licence (sic) to listen to a file in perpetuity, you should have the means to exercise this right even if the original delivery format becomes unusable.

 

This should be investigated further. I honestly don't know if the license agreement says "in perpetuity." Someone should purchase an MQA album and ask for the license agreement.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I am not a lawyer, so I have no basis for entertaining such a conversation. I am familiar with the concept of space shifting. I have never downloaded pirated media nor have I ever made any media I own available to others. I simply want to make media that I legally purchase available to me in ways that maximize my convenience without having to purchase different versions of the same title.

 

Very reasonable

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I am not a lawyer, so I have no basis for entertaining such a conversation. I am familiar with the concept of space shifting. I have never downloaded pirated media nor have I ever made any media I own available to others. I simply want to make media that I legally purchase available to me in ways that maximize my convenience without having to purchase different versions of the same title.

 

What you describe isn't necessarily legal under the DMCA. I'm not a lawyer either, so I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment

I'm not a lawyer but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night! I say rip it for personal use!

 

I say sell the MQA files on a disc along with 24-96 or 24-192 untouched hi-res files, Like the remixed Yes on Blu-ray discs. There's a ton of extras like original mixes, demo tracks and you can get them for $22! Add MQA'd tracks to that and I'll buy it!

 

Do they think ripping the Tidal stream isn't gonna be a problem? Isn't someone already doing it?

Link to comment
Do they think ripping the Tidal stream isn't gonna be a problem? Isn't someone already doing it?

 

The thing that makes recording Tidal streams less of an issue is that it must be done in real time. Hitting record and waiting for an hour isn't as conducive to piracy like ripping a disc was.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
The thing that makes recording Tidal streams less of an issue is that it must be done in real time. Hitting record and waiting for an hour isn't as conducive to piracy like ripping a disc was.

To the music industry, "ripping" a stream isn't much different than ripping a CD. Once it's ripped it can be distributed in bulk, almost instantly. This is different from the pre-digital days, where each copy also had to be made in real time.

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
That's certainly a nice reason to have access to the stream.

 

I recall some discussion of this in some MQA material. There was a suggestion of an option / API where the stream would be made available from the decoder for DSP and then fed back into the decoder so it could have the ID stream re-inserted and fed to the MQA renderer. I don't see how this could be done without implicitly allowing the digital stream to be recorded at that point.

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
I recall some discussion of this in some MQA material. There was a suggestion of an option / API where the stream would be made available from the decoder for DSP and then fed back into the decoder so it could have the ID stream re-inserted and fed to the MQA renderer. I don't see how this could be done without implicitly allowing the digital stream to be recorded at that point.

 

This is only available to licensed applications.

Link to comment
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.

Never was a fan of soap opera dramatics as a way to persuade. Can you share a reference that shows MQA licensing suffers from the same pricing issues as SACD licensing did?

Regards,

Dave

 

Audio system

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...