MQA is Vaporware

[Rt66indierock]

55 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm going to stop debating this one with you guys. If I continue I will be seen as a shill for MQA.

 

I agree with you this is where dull accounting becomes exciting accounting. Way too many Bands are not getting the royalties they have earned. Accounting for royalties has been an issue for a very long time in the music business. And the issue of bands not receiving proper payments is getting worse in the digital age. Whether this agreement makes things better is unknown at this point. Copyright enforcement is just a process to insure the owner's of music get paid when their music is played.

 

DRM is licensing or other restrictions on at least one of these: the encoding process, the digital file and the decoding process. You license or restrict rights in any of these three areas and your are managing the digital rights. DRM can be as simple as not allowing the file to be modified.

 

Completely different activities copyright enforcement and digital rights management.

 

[fung0]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm going to stop debating this one with you guys. If I continue I will be seen as a shill for MQA.

 

Nobody is calling anybody names. And I don't think shilling is the problem in any case. It's that a large chunk of the audiophile (with and without the capital A) community hears "better sound quality" and is too ready to stop reckoning up any other concerns. I'm a long-time consumer-electronics journalist myself, and I've been amazed at the eagerness among my colleagues to accept MQA uncritically. When, to my mind, simple logic raises extremely troubling issues.

 

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

How is it "bias" to consider sound quality and copyright licensing/enforcement separate issues?

 

MQA bundles them tightly - and needlessly - together. This raises two obvious concerns for me:

1. Why apply supposedly bleeding-edge sound enhancements to a lossy format? Surely audiophiles would have been more eager to accept this wonderful new technology as an adjunct to lossless PCM, while average consumers simply won't care. (Bandwidth is no explanation, at a time when the Internet is rapidly gearing up for 4K video streaming.)
2. What does 'authentication' have to do with sound quality? It brings negligible benefit to consumers, and can only be seen as a cash-grab by MQA and a means of increasing control over the distribution chain by the big music labels. Not to mention a way of preferentially disadvantaging smaller companies.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

58 minutes ago, mansr said:

Not prepared to stand by your claims?

 

If MQA were just about sound quality, it would make no sense to mention it in relation to copyright.

That logic is about as ridiculous as can be.  So, if anyone, anywhere cares about sound quality, they would be giving away any technology they devised for free.  They would look the other way while competitors freely copied it.  And, if they do not do that, they totally do not care about sound quality at all.  

 

What a beautiful world that would be, except there would be no incentive for anyone to develop anything at all new and different. Improving sound quality is a noble and worthy cause, but if there is no profit in it, why bother?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, fung0 said:

Nobody is calling anybody names. And I don't think shilling is the problem in any case.

 

Hi fung0 - I've taken serious heat for arguing the "other" side of MQA when people were arguing against it. I want all sides to be discussed openly and fairly. I think that's the only way to really get to the bottom of anything. However, rather than risk losing reputation points, I'm bowing out of the arguments. I'll just provide a neutral platform for the discussions and hope that people will argue both sides. 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

No.

 

Copyright enforcement in this case is working with streaming companies to license material and tracking down unlicensed use such as YouTube or freemp3s.domain name. A different side of a different coin. 

 

Gosh darn it, you guys made me read this dry press release

 

Chris,

 

I think what you are not seeing in this is the fact that it is MQA and not a service like Spotify, or a radio station, or YouTube, or Hollywood, or any other company/provider that is the conduit of artist content to the end user and in the process makes money somehow (through advertising, charging the customer, etc.).

 

Why is a format making deals like this?  How does a software company like MQA make this kind of agreement when they don't in fact provide any content or otherwise have the ability to do so (for profit or any other reason)?

 

What exactly can they (i.e. Merlin and MQA) agree on, and how can MQA help Merlin (i.e. their clients) is the question.  The answer to this question speaks directly to which side of the coin MQA is about, so to speak...

[fung0]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Hi fung0 - I've taken serious heat for arguing the "other" side of MQA when people were arguing against it. I want all sides to be discussed openly and fairly. I think that's the only way to really get to the bottom of anything. However, rather than risk losing reputation points, I'm bowing out of the arguments. I'll just provide a neutral platform for the discussions and hope that people will argue both sides. 

 

Good approach. This has been a great thread - it's influenced my own thinking a great deal, both pro and con, and incidentally provided me with some new bands to track down.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

 

Completely different activities copyright enforcement and digital rights management.

 

 

 

Right...so why is MQA making such a deal - what do they have to offer the accounting dept.?  How can they help Merlin and their clients

 

Answer:  DRM as it is really defined, and not in the narrow sense so many consumers errounously assume (file copy protection, etc.)

[crenca]

Food for thought:

 

According to Bob, MQA is "just PCM" right?  PCM has been around for quite a while, does it have any "deals" with Merlin and the like?  

 

Which part of MQA (as a software file/digital entity, as a legal entity, as a company) is useful in any way to the mission of Merlin which is to protect their clients copyright and make sure the client is paid? 

 

Seriously, this is getting old.  Chris talks of "a debate" about MQA but there simply is no debate about its status as a DRM mechanism (both technically and most importantly legally) in the marketplace - this is what this "deal" is about!! Non DRM formats, such as FLAC, can in no way make "deals" at all!!  The only thing that MQA has to offer a company like Merlin is DRM - there is nothing else to offer.  "Deals" are about exchanges - you give me something I want and I give you something you want.  What is it, exactly, that MQA is exchanging in this deal?

 

(ok, I will shut up now  )

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes ago, crenca said:

ok, I will shut up now

 

Ahhhh. Thank you :~)

 

Only kidding crenca. We may not agree, but I appreciate your contributions. 

[mrvco]

1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I agree with you this is where dull accounting becomes exciting accounting. Way too many Bands are not getting the royalties they have earned. Accounting for royalties has been an issue for a very long time in the music business. And the issue of bands not receiving proper payments is getting worse in the digital age. Whether this agreement makes things better is unknown at this point. Copyright enforcement is just a process to insure the owner's of music get paid when their music is played.

 

DRM is licensing or other restrictions on at least one of these: the encoding process, the digital file and the decoding process. You license or restrict rights in any of these three areas and your are managing the digital rights. DRM can be as simple as not allowing the file to be modified.

 

Completely different activities copyright enforcement and digital rights management.

 

 

DRM is used to enforce Copyright.

 

The two relevant use-cases here are:

1. Restrict or grant access to content.  This is the sort of DRM that most folks are aware of today, such as PlayReady, FairPlay, Widevine, etc. used for streaming video and audio from streaming services like Netflix, Apple Music, etc.
2. Enforce how someone may or may not use the content which they have rights to access.  Examples would be the Broadcast Flag (Can this content be stored on a DVR for later viewing?) or HDCP (Can this content be output on a particular interface or does the quality need to be degraded?).

MQA is clearly the latter since it requires licensed software or hardware to access the encrypted MQA data stream, but the content is still available at a reduced level of quality (Even for an MQA encrypted music file that you have purchased).

 

Much of the concern is that since the DRM framework has been put in place, then the former may be implemented at  the behest of the music labels in the future if MQA becomes the dominate format for HiRes music.

[Sal1950]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm going to stop debating this one with you guys. If I continue I will be seen as a shill for MQA.

Chris, you have to realize your always one of the first to jump to MQA's defense in each debate.  Minimally I would hope for a neutral position, if not to err on the side of the consumer rights and freedoms.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Just now, Sal1950 said:

Chris, you have to realize your always one of the first to jump to MQA's defense in each debate.  Minimally I would hope for a neutral position, if not to err on the side of the consumer rights and freedoms.

Yes, well, define "neutral", please.  I do not think you have an accurate handle on what that means.  The evidence abounds.  Yet, you still want to push or undermine Chris, to your "rational, objective, neutral" position when you or many others have made not even a pretense of neutrality.  

 

BTW,  have you actually heard MQA yet?  Not saying you will like it, but it might provide some perspective.

 

[Sal1950]

9 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

BTW,  have you actually heard MQA yet?  Not saying you will like it, but it might provide some perspective.

No, as I've told you before Fitz, what MQA may or may not sound like is totally irrelevant to issues at hand. I know you see that but you continue to chose to ignore them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Chris, you have to realize your always one of the first to jump to MQA's defense in each debate.  Minimally I would hope for a neutral position, if not to err on the side of the consumer rights and freedoms.

 

Hi Sal - I certainly respect your opinion even if it's not based on the same data I use. If nobody else wants to bring up the other side of the debate, I tend to jump in (if I'm available). I really want to jump in when I see people unwilling or unable to see more than one side of an issue. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to be seen as anti-consumer or anti-the very people who frequent CA. Thus, I'll bow out of this one. 

 

I wish people could separate the argument from the person. No matter what side someone argues, they aren't condemned to being a shill for that side. 

[Rt66indierock]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

Food for thought:

 

According to Bob, MQA is "just PCM" right?  PCM has been around for quite a while, does it have any "deals" with Merlin and the like?  

 

Which part of MQA (as a software file/digital entity, as a legal entity, as a company) is useful in any way to the mission of Merlin which is to protect their clients copyright and make sure the client is paid? 

 

Seriously, this is getting old.  Chris talks of "a debate" about MQA but there simply is no debate about its status as a DRM mechanism (both technically and most importantly legally) in the marketplace - this is what this "deal" is about!! Non DRM formats, such as FLAC, can in no way make "deals" at all!!  The only thing that MQA has to offer a company like Merlin is DRM - there is nothing else to offer.  "Deals" are about exchanges - you give me something I want and I give you something you want.  What is it, exactly, that MQA is exchanging in this deal?

 

(ok, I will shut up now  )

 

crenca,

 

One of the things the “accountant’s” do in the case of Merlin is negotiate deals that can’t be negotiated individually. MQA Ltd can’t individually do deals with thousands of labels and distributors. All that was announced in the press release was Merlin and MQA Ltd have agreed on the terms an independent record company must comply with if they distribute MQA files. Terms each record label can choose to except or not except.

 

The independent label is still responsible for encoding the master as an MQA file and delivering it to a digital service. Same as any other format streaming services use. The independent label still has to buy licensed MQA encoding equipment (DRM) so MQA LTD can receive royalties when an MQA file is played by a streaming service. All that was done here was set licensing fees, royalty payments and setup the processes so MQA gets royalties paid to them.

 

What does MQA get out of this? About 12% of the market can now encode their masters as MQA files if they want to, if it makes sense financially and if they can convince their artists it is worthwhile. What does Merlin get out of this? They have done their job so their members can distribute MQA files to digital streaming services. This is just removing a legal hurdle nothing more.

 

As of today (May 15, 2017) about 84% of the streaming market has licensed MQA. The market (people) will decide by subscribing to streaming services that offer MQA streaming or they won’t. So far only TIDAL offers the format and did you notice they are not considered important in the press release.

[crenca]

41 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

crenca,

 

One of the things the “accountant’s” do in the case of Merlin is negotiate deals that can’t be negotiated individually. MQA Ltd can’t individually do deals with thousands of labels and distributors. All that was announced in the press release was Merlin and MQA Ltd have agreed on the terms an independent record company must comply with if they distribute MQA files. Terms each record label can choose to except or not except.

 

The independent label is still responsible for encoding the master as an MQA file and delivering it to a digital service. Same as any other format streaming services use. The independent label still has to buy licensed MQA encoding equipment (DRM) so MQA LTD can receive royalties when an MQA file is played by a streaming service. All that was done here was set licensing fees, royalty payments and setup the processes so MQA gets royalties paid to them.

 

What does MQA get out of this? About 12% of the market can now encode their masters as MQA files if they want to, if it makes sense financially and if they can convince their artists it is worthwhile. What does Merlin get out of this? They have done their job so their members can distribute MQA files to digital streaming services. This is just removing a legal hurdle nothing more.

 

As of today (May 15, 2017) about 84% of the streaming market has licensed MQA. The market (people) will decide by subscribing to streaming services that offer MQA streaming or they won’t. So far only TIDAL offers the format and did you notice they are not considered important in the press release.

 

So, in laymen's terms, MQA is the client of Merlin.  MQA by signing this deal is farming out contractual terms of use and collection of $ for each MQA encoded file that is played or sold.  In other words I had it exactly backwards.  Are you sure this is the case or is this an assumption based on what you know about Merlin's business?  Does any other licensed format (mp3, Dolby, etc.) use this mechanism?

 

I wonder if artists understand that MQA is yet another third party dipping into the shrinking pie?  It strikes me that it would be in artists best interest (given that they have been forever complaining about this for ever) to reject a format that demands a piece of the action...

[witchdoctor]

Fact_ I did not pay an extra dime for the MQA tracks dropped by Tidal.

Fact- I prefer MQA over redbook and PCM or DSD.

Fact- A lot of members on this board spent $$$ on hirez recodings now available on Tidal in MQA/

Fact- People HATE wasting money.

Conclusion- A bunch of members here wasted tons of $$$ buying hirez files when they didn't need to and regret it.

Remedy- Get over it and enjoy the show.

[Sal1950]

35 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Fact- People HATE wasting money.

Conclusion- A bunch of members here wasted tons of $$$ buying hirez files when they didn't need to and regret it.

Really, is that what you think this is all about?  LOL

Your very lost in your deductions.

 

[witchdoctor]

14 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Really, is that what you think this is all about?  LOL

Your very lost in your deductions.

 

That is exactly what this is all about, a bunch of malcontents feeling ripped off they overpaid for their hirez software.

 

Fact- If you build it they will come. By "building" a higher quality stream via MQA it makes legal streaming more appealing over pirated MP3's. Consumers, artists and labels all win. 

 

Here is the hirez customer that just learned he wasted $$$$ on PCM and DSD recordings:

 

[Sal1950]

7 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Consumers, artists and labels all win. 

There's a sucker born every minute

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Really, is that what you think this is all about? 

 

That raises an interesting question. What is this all about for people who are so against MQA? Honestly, I'm interested in this answer. It will help focus discussions.

 

[witchdoctor]

Just now, Sal1950 said:

There's a sucker born every minute

I know, I feel bad for all the suckers that bought DSD and PCM albums at $25 a pop but too late now, how much money did you waste?

[witchdoctor]

Fact- It is a ROYAL PIA to rip hirez files plus it takes up a lot of hard drive space. With Tidal Masters I click a playlist and kickback, no muss, no fuss: How many albums would I need to buy, how much time would it take to create a playlist like this? 

 

https://tidal.com/playlist/b2c94789-14d4-4a55-b6ee-33a96b952900

 

 

[Ralf11]

I'd like to see a digital "expansion" or unfolding origami sound quality increase that would ensure that the artists who create the music get adequate compensation, not the labels or A&R flacs.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That raises an interesting question. What is this all about for people who are so against MQA? Honestly, I'm interested in this answer. It will help focus discussions.

 

A couple of quotes from Lucian Grainge CEO of Universal February 7, 2013

 

“The data shows and has proved that the enjoyment, the pleasure, the use, the interest in music has never been higher. Ironically, our ability to monetize that through distribution has never been lower.”

 “Power is the ability to stop new services. Power is the ability to create new services.” 

 

MQA gives the major labels more ability to monetize distribution of music and more power. Neither is a good thing but you already knew that.