Stereophile Series on MQA Technology

[knickerhawk]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Putting aside the details of copyright a consumer owns a PCM file (or any other open format music) in a way that he does not with MQA.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?  Copyright is THE dispositive detail here. Moreover, ownership is a legal concept, not a technological one. A consumer no more “owns” any copyrighted PCM file than a MQA file. The distinction is a practical one related to control of playback, copying and the ease of violating the (normally) identical limited license that applies to any format applicable to the underlying intellectual property encoded into the files.

[knickerhawk]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Replace the crossed out sentence with something like:

 

"Copyright is NOT the detail that accounts for consumer rejection of DRM" and your mostly right.  The "limited license" of the music is simply does not rise very high on the problem with DRM  - rather it is all the other legal aspects that comes with DRM (i.e. the "Digital" and the "Management") aspects.

 

Indeed, the wrong focus on copyright is one of the prevailing tactics used to obfuscate the reality and debate around DRM...

What are the “other LEGAL aspects that comes with DRM” to which you are referring? The only “digital” and “management” aspects I can think of are technological and practical ones (which can, indeed, be onerous and frustrating for legal use as well as use that violates the license/copyright). They are not legal ones, unless what you are referring to are the added legal consequences of violating/hacking the DRM scheme itself. 

[knickerhawk]

17 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Unfortunately, the "other" legals aspects are both obvious quite impactful on the consumer.  For example, by agreeing to the license of MQA, I am giving the licensor the ability to encrypt, phone home, change (in some future version, say MQA 2.0) what equipment I can play my file on, etc. etc. etc.  I am granting none of these rights to the licensor when I purchase an "open" format such as PCM.  In other words, while copyright is relevant in both cases, the legal and technical methods of both "digital products" could not be more different...

But what you are referring to as “legal aspects” are actually technology aspects. As I’ve explained, the dispositive legal driver here is copyright law and the associated interpretations (primarily related to the concept of fair use) of the limited license you are granted when you purchase a disk or download a file. Those legal drivers are not substantively changed by MQA compared to PCM or other “open” formats. You still have a fair use right to copy the file and you are no more limited from doing so than you are with the “open” formats. What you ARE limited from doing (thanks to underlying DRM tech) is creating a digitally identical copy that ensures endless format/playback options without degradation, which is basically how things stood in the pre-digital era when the fair use exemption for personal copying of this kind of IP was established in the first place.

 

You are not now and never have been in a position of “granting...rights” to the licensors or withholding them. That upside down perception is a side-effect of the digital era in which perfect file copying is feasible and even easy and has become so ingrained in consumers’ minds that this narrow exception to copyright law has morphed into a proclaimed “right”. It’s the digital equivalent to gun activists who insist that any limitation whatsoever on their “rights” are unconstitutional and the first step to tyranny. Sorry, but those rights were never absolute, just as your “right” to perfect, painless fair use copying of IP you’ve licensed is not absolute.  For a couple of decades now the technology has tilted in favor of the consumer being able to take advantage of an old physical ownership model. That’s rapidly changing. Get ready! They’re coming to pry your PCM files from your cold dead fingers! 

[knickerhawk]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Um, no.  You make several errors, including confusing lisensor with licensee (or your sentence is off).  Besides, you said it yourself - "copying" or cracking, or  in any way technically "getting around" IP "is not absolute".  Why?  Not because it can't be technically done, rather because I am legally prevented from doing so. DRM, IP, etc. etc. - these are first and foremost legal realities that are then "managed" through technical ways.  It is not all about copyright - rather, it is about the legal (and technical) burdens placed on the consumer over and above copyright...

 

 

It’s usually a good idea when pretending to know what you’re talking about to at least spell the terms correctly. It’s “licensor” not “lisensor.” And, no, my sentence is not “off” and I have not confused who is the licensor and who is the licensee in the kind of IP licensing scenario being discussed here. My law school contracts, property, commercial law and IP law profs would be rather disappointed to learn that, nearly 40 years later, I still hadn’t got it right. My former clients for whom I negotiated numerous  software license agreements would be lining up to sue me as well.

 

As for the rest of your insights, well...I’m just not motivated enough to walk you through the basics that you’re struggling to absorb from my prior posts. I’d rather relax by listening to some MQAs streamed on Tidal.