MQA - A clever stealth DRM - Trojan

[crenca]

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9113-mqa_-_a_clever_stealth_drm-trojan

 

Presenters give a shout out to this forum and its contributors.  At around the 50 minute mark the presenters go into what DRM is, and why MQA is a good example of it.  They also detail the public/private key aspects of MQA better than I have seen before.

 

All in all a good presentation, the errors being mostly of omission, but with 60 minutes this is expected.

[crenca]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I thought, "let's see then". What crenca hasn't seen, I may not have either. It starts out with a moroneous question whether people think this is DRM. No answer. So the conclusion is a Yes ??

Now THAT is scientific CRAP.

 

 

Science and crowd?  That is CRAP

 

The presenter outlines very nicely what DRM is, and how MQA is a good example of it.  He thinks the "freemium" DRM scheme defines MQA for  now (i.e. MQA v 1.2) it this is right...

[crenca]

2 hours ago, NoisyNarrowBandDevice said:

 

In your post I am missing any curiosity about possible systemic effects of such an IP-regime...

 

This is a key point, one that goes to the heart of why the art & wine, radically subjectivised audiophile and "audiophile press" have been (quite literally) hoodwinked into thinking about MQA as just another sound quality tweak.  A culture of radical subjectivism of course fosters this attitude, but I wonder if that explains the whole phenomena??  Such folks can't claim ignorance, as audio has had Dolby, MP3, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc.etc. (granting the differences of each of those).  They also live in the 1st world with the rest of us, and are certainly aware of the effect DRM has had in Video.

 

The attempts at arguing that MQA is not DRM (which presupposes an erroneous "copy protection" or similar definition of DRM) are, well, delusional...

[crenca]

8 hours ago, Norton said:

Unless it degrades SQ, what's wrong with DRM?

 

 

For example, HQP is very popular on this site, I don't see anyone complaining that it requires you to buy a licence and install a key.  Isn't Miska just managing his digital rights too?

 

Norton,

 

As far as question #1 - it depends.  Some folks are fine with DRM (look at the video world).  Actually, I am fine with some DRM as well.  On the level of a format, which is what ALL the rest of your (in this case musical - we are talking audio with MQA) digital ecosystem depends on (from beginning to end - from your playback software/hardware to your speaker, and in the case of MQA before it gets to you in its "end to end" influence on the recording chain itself) many consumers understand the consequences which include:  ceding control of SQ, innovation, design, digital filter & DSP, and ownership to one company.  It is fundamentally monopolistic.

 

As to your second question, licensing in of itself is not DRM (its a legal construction).  A digital key system that enables a product like HQP is a form of DRM in the broadest possible sense, and one that is very common (I use HQP).  DRM is more properly thought of (don't take my word for any of this - wiki DRM) as a kind of active control of digital functionality and "rights" that cedes control of the product to the licensor on a constant basis (both legally and digitally).  The licensee is then in a sense a passive unit of manipulation with very limited rights who no longer is in control of this or that aspect of his digital domain.

 

MQA move way beyond merely enforcing a payment agreement - it controls the product (MQA itself) by design - as the presenters in the video demonstrated it is a "freemium" model of DRM.  It controls the user of MQA (which includes not only the consumer but also everyone else in the musical production chain - DAC manufactures, labels, etc.) through a public/private key encryption system that we don't fully understand and we can't - it is intentionally (legally) hidden from us.  As the licensee, we agree to be "ok" with this situation and even agree that the licensor can change the functionality of the software (MQA is software) at any time for any reason.  

 

Consumers are usually "ok" with DRM in limited case - this particular software, this particular device - when they can control the influence of it, it can be removed (with another product, or another method of doing the same thing, etc.), there is competition, and the like.  However, when DRM goes the the root of something (and at the root of all things digital is something called formats, standards) then the consumer no longer has any choices.  Net Neutrality is an example - it involves a fight over a standard, a standard that has existed since the beginning is and changed by carriers imposing a tiered delivery system over the top of TCP/IP.  

 

A metaphor:  I don't know what kind of music you like, but what if one day someone came along and defined what music is by putting legal and digital requirements on it that it has to have violins, a harp, a distorted guitar, and a drum machine set at 120 BPM. When you complained (or simply pointed out the truth of these conditions) I said to you:

 

"what's wrong with this?  It has musical instruments, did not the music you used to listen to not sometimes have these things to?  Is this not music?" 

 

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because you want to see it like that.

 

  

You are in error PeterSt.  Neither you nor I defined what DRM is.  Please don't fill this thread with your rambling, half baked english.  You are not going to "subjectivise" DRM as it is not part of the art and wine audiophile world that you live in...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

 

DRM and monopolies are two separate things.  I do take your point about the dangers when the two are combined, but I don't see that DRM in itself is inherently bad.

 

This is not quite correct norton.  I won't argue whether DRM is bad "inherently" (I don't know, like the Devil  ).  DRM, when limited and balanced is "ok" for most consumers.  However, DRM can be used to impose a de facto monopoly.  It is a legal monopoly, a monopoly in the sense of leaving the consumer with no other choices.  MQA is monopolistic (if it becomes the standard format) in a double sense - it leaves the consumer AND the manufacturing/supply chain with no choices at all.

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Thanks for this, I'm not sure I have taken it all in yet, but I am a big fan of SACD which I have always been perfectly happy to accept as a closed system (prior to  reliable ripping that is).  Do you seen MQA as fundamentally different to SACD in this respect?  

 

Yes, I see MQA as fundamentally different.  SACD is closer (if not the same) to HQP than it is to MQA on the continuum of DRM and its consequences.  SACD does not impose a public/private key encryption mechanism I do not believe.  It has no "end to end" aspirations which fundamentally limits innovation.  This is not to say that it did not want to become a standard (which it failed at), etc.  Besides, what does a closed standard like SACD give you that open DSD does not?

 

In audio, now that we have the benefit of hindsight (SACD, DVD-A etc.) and others experience (video, etc.), and we have had the benefit of de facto open standards (namely PCM), what is in it for us (as consumers, as manufacturers, etc.) to cede this situation?  JA argues that there are problems with the current situation and of course there are, but is a DRMed, "end to end" MQA a step forward or a step backwards?  Even if MQA could deliver all of its promises, would the consumer be better off overall?  Is a closed, DRM locked, innovation stifling standard  better in the long term even granting its claimed immediate benefits?