MQA and DRM

[crenca]

Absolute twaddle - have you actually never heard of the OpenHome Software Platform, aka UPnP with Linn extensions, nor even Linn Open Source Software?

OpenHome Platform

Linn Open Source Software

 

 

Not only that, one can even grant the essence of realhifi's arguement (that Linn is not a benign market player - which is true) to recognize the truth of Linn's recognition that:

 

"MQA is an attempt to not (just) simply sell the same content again at a higher margin, or to maintain audio quality in streaming ecosystems: it is an outright land grab. It’s an attempt to control and extract revenue from every part of the supply chain, and not just over content that they hold the rights for."

[realhifi]

Absolute twaddle - have you actually never heard of the OpenHome Software Platform, aka UPnP with Linn extensions, nor even Linn Open Source Software?

OpenHome Platform

Linn Open Source Software

 

Yes, understood. The reference was to their whole system approach and their wanting to sell someone every bit of their hifi including the cables, etc. It was merely an oblique comparison showing that they also like to make money, lots of money, from their products (and services if you include their recordings) and to bring attention to what I feel is a bit of hypocrisy on their part by complaining about another company trying to make money. Just how adamant do you think Linn would have been about the open source platform, etc. the last number of years if it wasn't in their best financial interests? The comments made by article in question simply felt self serving and disingenuous to me that's all. Only my opinion so obviously take it with a grain of salt!

[mansr]

Yes, understood. The reference was to their whole system approach and their wanting to sell someone every bit of their hifi including the cables, etc. It was merely an oblique comparison showing that they also like to make money, lots of money, from their products (and services if you include their recordings) and to bring attention to what I feel is a bit of hypocrisy on their part by complaining about another company trying to make money. Just how adamant do you think Linn would have been about the open source platform, etc. the last number of years if it wasn't in their best financial interests? The comments made by article in question simply felt self serving and disingenuous to me that's all. Only my opinion so obviously take it with a grain of salt!

 

It would be easier to take you seriously if you responded to the actual statements made rather than merely attacking the messenger.

[Jud]

It would be easier to take you seriously if you responded to the actual statements made rather than merely attacking the messenger.

 

He should know that we never question the motives of industry figures speaking about MQA here!

[realhifi]

It would be easier to take you seriously if you responded to the actual statements made rather than merely attacking the messenger.

 

Heck, I don't care if I'm taken seriously.

I hardly think I attacked them. I did however respond to the statement in the article about profit and how they felt somewhat disingenuous coming from a company that also is very interested in profit (as most I assume are).

[realhifi]

He should know that we never question the motives of industry figures speaking about MQA here!

 

My bad.

 

PS. How do I get to the member status you've achieved? I feel cheated.

[crenca]

My bad.

 

PS. How do I get to the member status you've achieved? I feel cheated.

 

I just noticed that: Senior Member vs. Señor Member

 

The latter has that certain Latin cachet. I bet he gets all the girls...

[Jud]

How do I get to the member status you've achieved? I feel cheated.

 

Heh heh heh.

[mansr]

Heck, I don't care if I'm taken seriously.

I hardly think I attacked them. I did however respond to the statement in the article about profit and how they felt somewhat disingenuous coming from a company that also is very interested in profit (as most I assume are).

You didn't explain why you think his arguments are flawed. That Linn is a for-profit business has no bearing on the validity of what he said, even if it may have motivated him to say it.

[Jud]

You didn't explain why you think his arguments are flawed. That Linn is a for-profit business has no bearing on the validity of what he said, even if it may have motivated him to say it.

 

You owe me for a busted irony meter. (Not that I even think many of the arguments you have made against MQA are wrong, just that there is a healthy dose of "They are doing this for money, so let us be extremely skeptical from the outset of any representations they make that this is doing anyone but themselves and their business partners any good at all" in them.)

[jmudrick]

You didn't explain why you think his arguments are flawed. That Linn is a for-profit business has no bearing on the validity of what he said, even if it may have motivated him to say it.

I'm rolling on the floor on this one Mansr.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mansr]

You owe me for a busted irony meter. (Not that I even think many of the arguments you have made against MQA are wrong, just that there is a healthy dose of "They are doing this for money, so let us be extremely skeptical from the outset of any representations they make that this is doing anyone but themselves and their business partners any good at all" in them.)

Huh? Where have I based any arguments about MQA on anything other than an analysis of what it actually does? Sure, when I've found them to be telling outright lies, I've probably speculated that profit might be a motive, but that's really quite different.

[mansr]

I'm rolling on the floor on this one Mansr.

 

What's so funny?

[jmudrick]

What's so funny?

Seriously? The nonstop references to the financial motivations of those involved in MQA resulted in a busted irony meter for me as well.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mansr]

Seriously? The nonstop references to the financial motivations of those involved in MQA resulted in a busted irony meter for me as well.

 

You must have me confused with someone else. When I have criticized MQA as a technology, it has been entirely based on measurements and reverse engineering. I have also criticized the MQA company and their business model of locking away content and extorting royalties at every stage as being bad for consumers. At no point have I alleged that the fact that MQA makes money in itself is a reason to avoid the system. It is the manner in which they (wish to) make money I take issue with.

 

The guy from Linn makes an argument against jumping onto the MQA bandwagon. Would have done this if his company sold shoes? Probably not. Does this in itself invalidate his argument? Hell no.

 

The person I replied to, rather than attempting to refute the argument as such, implied that because Linn makes money, anything they say is automatically without merit. There is no irony whatsoever in pointing out this fallacy.

[christopher3393]

You must have me confused with someone else. When I have criticized MQA as a technology, it has been entirely based on measurements and reverse engineering. I have also criticized the MQA company and their business model of locking away content and extorting royalties at every stage as being bad for consumers. At no point have I alleged that the fact that MQA makes money in itself is a reason to avoid the system. It is the manner in which they (wish to) make money I take issue with.

 

The guy from Linn makes an argument against jumping onto the MQA bandwagon. Would have done this if his company sold shoes? Probably not. Does this in itself invalidate his argument? Hell no.

 

The person I replied to, rather than attempting to refute the argument as such, implied that because Linn makes money, anything they say is automatically without merit. There is no irony whatsoever in pointing out this fallacy.

 

I don't think you are accurately reflecting realhifi's response, but exaggerating it to make your point. And I too smiled immediately at what I thought was the irony. Perhaps you haven't communicated the distinction between MQA as tech and MQA as company as clearly as you perceive you have. I would also say that you at times have mixed the 2 and some of your speculation gets mixed with your tech analysis, which, in places, has also appeared biased to me. Might be good to take a step back and restate the position you truly want to communicate.

[Jud]

You must have me confused with someone else.

 

 

Possibly - but he looked an awful lot like you.

 

 

When I have criticized MQA as a technology, it has been entirely based on measurements and reverse engineering. I have also criticized the MQA company and their business model of locking away content and extorting royalties at every stage as being bad for consumers. At no point have I alleged that the fact that MQA makes money in itself is a reason to avoid the system. It is the manner in which they (wish to) make money I take issue with.

 

It is fair to take issue with the manner in which MQA potentially seeks to profit. On the other hand, look at the position you criticize below. That position could be construed as not criticizing the profit motive itself, but that Linn may be viewed as in competition with MQA's less expensive technology for consumer dollars, and thus motivated to be uncomplimentary to MQA on that basis. So the position would not be one of criticizing the profit motive in itself, but criticizing denigration of a competitor.

 

 

Edit: See, for example, http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/linn-blog-discusses-mqa-31637/#post635678

 

 

All sorts of nice distinctions can be made.

 

The guy from Linn makes an argument against jumping onto the MQA bandwagon. Would have done this if his company sold shoes? Probably not. Does this in itself invalidate his argument? Hell no.

 

The person I replied to, rather than attempting to refute the argument as such, implied that because Linn makes money, anything they say is automatically without merit. There is no irony whatsoever in pointing out this fallacy.

[mansr]

It is fair to take issue with the manner in which MQA potentially seeks to profit. On the other hand, look at the position you criticize below. That position could be construed as not criticizing the profit motive itself, but that Linn may be viewed as in competition with MQA's less expensive technology for consumer dollars, and thus motivated to be uncomplimentary to MQA on that basis. So the position would not be one of criticizing the profit motive in itself, but criticizing denigration of a competitor.

 

Oh, so other audio companies aren't allowed to criticize MQA now? Like Elizabeth Warren isn't allowed to criticize Jeff Sessions? With rules like that, it's impossible to have any meaningful debate.

[smartin]

Oh, so other audio companies aren't allowed to criticize MQA now? Like Elizabeth Warren isn't allowed to criticize Jeff Sessions? With rules like that, it's impossible to have any meaningful debate.

 

Wow, world is black and white huh? Of course they can, and the gist of your argument, that Lin's line of reasoning is worth addressing on it's face is valid. The other posts I've read here don't refute that, just point out that the author has a very strong financial incentive for MQA to fail, which can't help but color the way in which he portrays the situation.

 

I think his reasoning is valid, but largely ignores market realities. We already have a very good idea how much the market is willing to pay for music, no matter how you package or present it. MQA represents a new 'package' for HiRes music (how true that is is obviously a matter of debate). Currently there are options for music that cover the entire range of 'quality' and cost. MQA does not change the underlying economics of the music business. Given the myriad quality/cost options, a majority of people are not willing to pay anything for their music. A smaller, but sizable (and where the music industry's future lies), percentage are willing to pay a little (i.e. pandora, apple music, spotify, a person who buys a few albums a year, etc). A much, much smaller percentage are willing to pay a little more (Tidal, a person who buys a few HiRes albums a year, etc). There is zero evidence that market will support anything that costs more than Tidal (indeed it seems likely that Tidal's model is not sustainable, though Sprint's investment likely makes that irrelevant). MQA, even if the most dystopian predictions come true, is not going to fundamentally alter the current market reality.

 

Lin's post uses the same argument I've seen used many other times, that the labels have ultimate pricing power. That's just not true. We have very good evidence that the mass market for music is pretty elastic (at the high end it's more inelastic, but that's barely a rounding error for the market as a whole). 20$/month (this applies to both streaming and purchases) is likely at, or slightly above, the upper end of what is economically viable. MQA's financial future lies in convincing some of the people paying 5-10$/month, who up until now did not feel the jump from mp3-cd quality was worth the added cost, that the jump to HiRes (real or imagined) is worth it. They (or other HiRes delivery systems) don't need to convince many people for it to be viable, but that is a far cry from a world where an MQA monopoly drastically reshapes the economics of a massive, well established, functioning market.

 

So, in my humble opinion, Lin's post raises valid concerns, but the gravity and seriousness of the consequences he lies out are simply not realistic, and can not help but be colored by his own self interest.

[patagent]

I'll add my .2 on this controversial topic. Not sure if MQA has DRM right now. But it looks like the capabilities are at least in place. While DRM and copyright laws are real, we should remember that consumers are protected by fair use doctrine.

 

In fact, the courts have ruled that bypassing DRM for fair use is legal (Judge Cote rules DRM removal for fair use is not copyright infringement - TeleRead News: E-books, publishing, tech and beyond). However, as a consumer, I don't want to be the one (a) bypassing existing DRM protocols or (b) suing a large company because their DRM protocol goes too far. Unless the MQA format is compellingly better than other existing formats, I won't be spending any of my money on it.

[mansr]

Unless the MQA format is compellingly better than other existing formats, I won't be spending any of my money on it.

 

If most DACs start incorporating MQA, you won't have any choice but to give them money. That's the really insidious part of it.

[Jud]

If most DACs start incorporating MQA, you won't have any choice but to give them money. That's the really insidious part of it.

 

You may have skipped a step or two between most DACs starting to incorporate MQA and world domination. If:

 

 

- Most DACs not only incorporate MQA but make it the only thing they'll play; and

 

 

- MQA takes over not only the streaming but the download world (or companies no longer sell downloads) and discs go away.

 

 

I actually would much rather see non-proprietary non-down-rezzed formats with as few operations/conversions as possible performed on them before they get to us, and thus I would rather not see MQA gain market dominance. Yet I constantly feel the need to interject the thought that we aren't yet anywhere close to the feared future you seem to be talking about as if it's here now. Should we know about possibilities and potentials? Undoubtedly. But at least for me personally, clearly and without exaggeration delineating what is the case now and what is potential would be welcome.

[Jud]

Oh, so other audio companies aren't allowed to criticize MQA now? Like Elizabeth Warren isn't allowed to criticize Jeff Sessions? With rules like that, it's impossible to have any meaningful debate.

 

Do you really have so little that is cogent to contribute in response that you must set up strawmen, or is it just force of habit for you in your discussions to misrepresent what someone else has said?

 

 

Everyone should be free to say what they like, and I should be free to think of it what I like. I never thought much of audio dealers who denigrated their competition, and I don't think much of audio manufacturers who do it either. I haven't read the Linn blog entry, so I don't know to what extent they're doing that, if at all. realhifi (way back in prehistory a number of posts ago) felt that's what Linn was doing and criticized them for it, which it seems to me is a perfectly valid criticism if that is what he feels.

[labjr]

Do you really have so little that is cogent to contribute in response that you must set up strawmen, or is it just force of habit for you in your discussions to misrepresent what someone else has said?

 

 

Everyone should be free to say what they like, and I should be free to think of it what I like. I never thought much of audio dealers who denigrated their competition, and I don't think much of audio manufacturers who do it either. I haven't read the Linn blog entry, so I don't know to what extent they're doing that, if at all. realhifi (way back in prehistory a number of posts ago) felt that's what Linn was doing and criticized them for it, which it seems to me is a perfectly valid criticism if that is what he feels.

 

I don't see Linn and MQA as competitors. Far as I can tell, Meridian and MQA are separate entities. Auralic also posted a link to the Linn article on their facebook page earlier today. I had thought Auralic was going to add MQA support to their products. Not sure what happened there.

[sedest]

I haven't read the Linn blog entry,

Never too late... five minutes of your time.

 

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music