Jump to content

MQA Users & Discussion Thread


Guest AndrewC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

 

I think they’d get more traction licensing the codec alone. It’s been successful smart business for others before them.

But that goes to Bob Stuart's point. Simply licensing the codec alone won't achieve the end-to-end control to 'do it properly'. I know Bob denied it in the video, but they do need a form of control to realise what they want. I don't think anyone else has tried this before them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Eggcup The Daft
6 minutes ago, LHC said:

but they do need a form of control to realise what they want.

Isn't that the nub of the matter? Regardless of the profit aspect, they need a form of control to realise what they want. We're discussing precisely that.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LHC said:

But that goes to Bob Stuart's point. Simply licensing the codec alone won't achieve the end-to-end control to 'do it properly'. I know Bob denied it in the video, but they do need a form of control to realise what they want. I don't think anyone else has tried this before them. 

 

Control can just as easily be ‘and this little light here will only ever come on if you’re playing it back on a DAC we’ve approved of’. License a codec, license a little light with an approved development process. Why sting consumers amidst this?

 

Suggesting otherwise and restricting rights to content already paid for using digital means is the very definition of DRM. Bob and friends are taking the piss to suggest otherwise.

 

To be clear - there is no reason that ‘end to end control’ can’t be effected without limiting ‘here’s the content you paid for when you bought a file’. That’s a business choice - an extremely poor one at that - there is no implementation of this business model anywhere in mass market that’s ever been successful, with good reason.

 

Bob can stroke his chin, stare into space and sound ethereally knowledgeable all he likes in his videos. I hope his other hand’s patting a white elephant, they need love. 

Edited by rmpfyf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Isn't that the nub of the matter? Regardless of the profit aspect, they need a form of control to realise what they want. We're discussing precisely that.

Yes, and this where I do take issue with MQA's marketing strategy and PR approach - they are unnecessarily cynical, evasive and argumentative. They could do a better job of explaining what form of control they would need and why alternatives won't work. They should also explain what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of this control, and the reasons for any latent capabilities (e.g. hidden copy protection mechanisms). 

 

34 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Why sting consumers amidst this?

Very good question ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



15 hours ago, LHC said:

Everyone is just conjecturing, and I regard that as weak argument.

It is not conjecture to point out what capabilities are documented in the MQA patents.

15 hours ago, LHC said:

Give me a historical pattern of MQA's offending behaviours

They have patented a system, which I have described for you.

 

There are many of the elements of the system which are "unnecessary" for purposes other than to control access to, and the control the quality of the content.

 

If *I* were a corporation, I would absolutely seek to do what MQA has done.    The idea that we should expect MQA to behave otherwise, or behave in a way that is in anyone's interest except their own....  is majorly naive.

 

 

 

We have been conditioned from every angle to believe that corporations "should behave responsibly" ... and we should ask them to do so.... and that they should wield some "social license".

 

This thinking is A-grade wool over eyes, and corporations are extremely happy for this to be the narrative .... as they can do one thing (maximise profits) while saying another (we're good citizens and/or we are sorry) .....  and every day the people spend chasing after badly behaving corporations is another day wasted where people are not solving problems themselves by either inventing alternative systems, or enacting laws to prohibit certain negative corporate behaviours.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LHC said:

But that goes to Bob Stuart's point. Simply licensing the codec alone won't achieve the end-to-end control to 'do it properly'.

Who says MQA themselves need to retain end-to-end control?   This is another element of the system design which is necessary to achieve the stated goals.

 

Again, I would absolutely implement such control if I were MQA.    We just need to ask ourselves is that the system we want ... and if not, we need to do something about it (invent something else, or "control the controller", ie. regulaations)

 

15 hours ago, LHC said:

but they do need a form of control to realise what they want

Not true.

 

If you can pick a part of the system that you think they need such centralised control to implement ..... I can explain some alternative ways it could be implemented.

 

Of course, why would MQA choose to implement it any other way (?!)  ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

they need a form of control to realise what they want

If you can be specific....  we can unpack ways which the goals could quite easily be implemented in other ways.   I think this would be good, as it might highlight how MQA could be used in quite clever ways (which are "unnecessary").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

To be clear - there is no reason that ‘end to end control’ can’t be effected without limiting ‘here’s the content you paid for when you bought a file’. That’s a business choice - an extremely poor one at that

I see what you mean.... but I think it's an excellent business decision.... but obviously only if your product is successful.

15 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

- there is no implementation of this business model anywhere in mass market that’s ever been successful, with good reason.

Do you mean a system which restricts where the content will play, whether the content will play, and the quality that the content will play ..... in effect a system which seeks to limit what I can do with the "full resolution" content  (ie. only play it [and nothing else but play] on an approved device, that will agree to cooperate within the "rules") ????

 

 

HDCP

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, wolster said:

I don’t feel that I am being stung

I don't think anybody does now.

 

The system described in the MQA patent allows them to change that in the future.

 

They will obviously not do anything to make anybody particularly sad until they have enough gravity....  and that might never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LHC said:

 They could do a better job of explaining what form of control they would need and why alternatives won't work.

They know the answers to these questions ..... It does not matter if their intention is to abuse (or not) the capabilities of such a platform ..... either way it would not be in their interests to discuss these types of questions.

 

 

I would imagine the strategy is to "not rock the boat while the recording industry is on-boarded" .... however that is obviously my speculation.   We can't know what they will do .... only what the patents say that can do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

It is not conjecture to point out what capabilities are documented in the MQA patents.

They have patented a system, which I have described for you.

 

There are many of the elements of the system which are "unnecessary" for purposes other than to control access to, and the control the quality of the content.

 

If *I* were a corporation, I would absolutely seek to do what MQA has done.    The idea that we should expect MQA to behave otherwise, or behave in a way that is in anyone's interest except their own....  is majorly naive.

 

We have been conditioned from every angle to believe that corporations "should behave responsibly" ... and we should ask them to do so.... and that they should wield some "social license".

 

This thinking is A-grade wool over eyes, and corporations are extremely happy for this to be the narrative .... as they can do one thing (maximise profits) while saying another (we're good citizens and/or we are sorry) .....  and every day the people spend chasing after badly behaving corporations is another day wasted where people are not solving problems themselves by either inventing alternative systems, or enacting laws to prohibit certain negative corporate behaviours.

One of the recommendations of the Intellectual Property and Competition Committee review was

 

“• repealing the current s. 51(3) and related provisions of the TPA; and

• inserting an amended s. 51(3) and related provisions into the TPA to give effect to

ensuring that a contravention of Part IV of the TPA or of section 4D of that Act shall

not be taken to have been committed by reason of its imposing conditions in a licence,

or the inclusion of conditions in a contract, arrangement or understanding, that relate to

the subject matter of that intellectual property statute, so long as those conditions do

not result, or are not likely to result in, a substantial lessening of competition. The term

‘substantial lessening of competition’ is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with

the case law under the TPA more generally. (my emphasis )

 

Section 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act (TPA) essentially exempted IP from the TPA – following on from the original Patents Act’s exemption from the Monopolies Act of Queen Anne - on which much of IP and competition law is based! Our recommendation should cover your concerns but I am not sure if it was ever enacted – because I don’t think many at that time really understood the importance of Intellectual Property, having mostly grown up in the Industrial/Manufacturing Age.  And for much the same reason I am not sure if the ACCC would have the knowledge and/or inclination to enforce it anyway.  But that is up to democratic process, as with the recent banking enquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

I see what you mean.... but I think it's an excellent business decision.... but obviously only if your product is successful.

 

If by excellent you mean 'designed to maximise license revenue per every sale of encoded material', sure. 

 

Most organisations follow a more general 'maximum profit' target without getting bogged down in details like 'just how many times can I get paid for a customer wanting to play back a file they already own'. Seems to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory there.

 

Bob Stuart might be intelligent though this move isn't particularly smart, IMHO. 

 

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

HDCP

 

Nope, that's copy protection. Very different intent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

If by excellent you mean 'designed to maximise license revenue per every sale of encoded material', sure. 

How could they reasonably do anything else?

 

If they did not do this, they would be in violation of the law in many jurisdictions.

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

 

Most organisations follow a more general 'maximum profit' target without getting bogged down in details like 'just how many times can I get paid for a customer wanting to play back a file they already own'. Seems to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory there.

 

Bob Stuart might be intelligent though this move isn't particularly smart, IMHO. 

But they're not doing any of this yet....  If they did that now then they would be silly.   They need to wait until a significant portion of content is encoded with MQA..... even better if the only version of the content in existence (ie. if it was encoded in the recording studio) is encoded with MQA.

 

They they can begin to do things ... and what choice have you got?

1 hour ago, rmpfyf said:

Nope, that's copy protection. Very different intent. 

I don't see how the intent is very different.

 

HDCP controls how a player is allowed to output protected content.   It will not allow the content to be sent to certain destinations at all (eg. digital outputs where I may be able to gain access to digital versions at full resolution)

 

Some types (non-HDCP-compliant) output destinations will work ..... but they will only receive a reduced quality version of the content  (eg. analogue outputs)

 

 

The intent is to control what I can do with the content, and under what circumstances I can have the full quality.

 

MQA is different how?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, legend said:

the subject matter of that intellectual property statute, so long as those conditions do

not result, or are not likely to result in, a substantial lessening of competition. The term

‘substantial lessening of competition’ is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with

the case law under the TPA more generally. (my emphasis )

Without putting too much thought into this (so I might have missed something) .... I find that somewhat concerning.   Shouldn't it say something like:

 

"As long as those conditions do not result in a substantial lessening of consumer rights, as afforded by <copyright act>"

 

Thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft

Specifics?

  • They want their hardware and software inserted at key stages in the recording and playback processes - they have talked about MQA ADCs at the start of the process (surely editing is harder with a set of MQA encoded tracks to mix?)
  • They want to ensure that the software is used in ways that they prescribe,
  • They want to make a profit - and potentially to maximise their profit, I'd guess - from the use of their software.
  • They want to keep their software protected.

 

They believe their software fulfills at least one purpose (improved sound quality) that makes it worthwhile for everyone in the industry (the consumer is then a given, as they receive encoded music once the industry adopts it) to use their product. I'm sure they are marketing this with a list of other advantages to the big studios and streaming companies - what they are saying when things are covered as "commercial in confidence" would be an interesting read, I'm sure.

 

Note that I have not stated any goals relating to how MQA works - I regard MQA as a product separate to patents, published papers, etc.  I'm sure that's not what you intended, but I see my answers as more relevant to the debate currently at hand.

 

How the product is used by the industry is a secondary issue - where it is used, i.e. that it is inserted at the key points of recording, production of the studio master (which gives MQA more power than just encoding existing masters) and playback gives MQA control and space for profit.

 

Once we see this as a product that they are selling, your question as stated appears moot, and your fear (probably the wrong word, that) of their potential power is more explicitly supported. Where a studio master is produced as MQA encoded, can they now or later prevent sale of unencoded copies, for example?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

How could they reasonably do anything else?

They could take a longer-term view, a quick SWOT would reveal as much. That's reasonable.

 

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

How could they reasonably do anything else?

 

If they did not do this, they would be in violation of the law in many jurisdictions.

But they're not doing any of this yet....  If they did that now then they would be silly.   They need to wait until a significant portion of content is encoded with MQA..... even better if the only version of the content in existence (ie. if it was encoded in the recording studio) is encoded with MQA.

 Sure they are doing things. I buy an MQA file, I can only access full content if I also buy an MQA DAC. 'Full content' is different to 'full experience'. 

 

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

I don't see how the intent is very different.

 

HDCP controls how a player is allowed to output protected content.   It will not allow the content to be sent to certain destinations at all (eg. digital outputs where I may be able to gain access to digital versions at full resolution)

Right. That's the 'CP' in 'HDCP'. It won't send audio somewhere it's likely to be copied. That's the purpose - copy protection - glad we're all clear on this.

 

If Meridian wants to put anything in their music to stop people making unauthorised copies, fine by me. If they want to use DRM to limit what access legitimate copyright holders have to their music, different story... and that's what they've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

They could take a longer-term view, a quick SWOT would reveal as much. That's reasonable.

A longer-term view to maximising revenue/profits?! .... Yes.

 

ie. a loner-term view to "maximise license revenue per every sale of encoded material".    The way I see it, the MQA platform has the capability to do the things they need to achieve that end.

49 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Sure they are doing things.

Sure.  Poorly worded on my part .... I mean they are not yet utilising all the capabilities that the platform described in the patent allows for.

49 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Right. That's the 'CP' in 'HDCP'. It won't send audio somewhere it's likely to be copied. That's the purpose - copy protection - glad we're all clear on this.

HDCP prevents me from gaining access to the full quality of the content .... unless I use approved methods.

MQA prevents me from gaining access to the full quality of the content .... unless I use approved methods.

 

The Australian government says I should be able to freely access and copy the content for my own personal use.

49 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

If Meridian wants to put anything in their music to stop people making unauthorised copies, fine by me. If they want to use DRM to limit what access legitimate copyright holders have to their music, different story... and that's what they've done.

Who decides what is "authorised" ?

 

To go back to the earlier example.   Isn't HDCP something which "limit what access legitimate copyright holders have to their content" ?

 

Almost all displays are HDCP certified.... out of necessity.... because most content has HDCP, and if you want to see it in any half way reasonable quality, then you need HDCP.    HDCP is so ubiquitous, that most consumers do not even know it is there.   That is what MQA could become....  and reading between the lines, it is their goal.     The difference with MQA is that it could be much more sophisticated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Surely editing is harder with a set of MQA encoded tracks to mix?

Not fundamentally different to any other music format..... You need an "encoder" and "decoder".

2 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

What they are saying when things are covered as "commercial in confidence" would be an interesting read, I'm sure.

The talking points:

 

MQA let's you distribute the best version you have (ie "the golden goose")  ... but you don't have to worry about people doing anything but playing it back (eg. copy it, remix it, format-shift it) ..... If they do "capture" the output, it won't be in as good a quality as your "golden goose".

 

MQA certifies the content "came from you" ..... this means that if someone were to adjust you content, and then try to sell it as an "improved sound quality version"  (eg. by encoding it with a higher sampling rate, or boosting the bass, or....)  then everyone will know as the audio will be either "non-compliant", or the MQA fingerprints (if encoded with MQA) will prove it.

 

MQA lets you distribute content that has high sampling rates .... using much lower network bandwidth (eg. 2mbps instead of 20mbps)

 

MQA can apply filters to the audio both at distribution and at playback.

 

MQA is "backwards" compatible.   The distributed audio is PCM.

 

2 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

 

 

How the product is used by the industry is a secondary issue - where it is used, i.e. that it is inserted at the key points of recording, production of the studio master (which gives MQA more power than just encoding existing masters) and playback gives MQA control and space for profit.

 

Once we see this as a product that they are selling, your question as stated appears moot, and your fear (probably the wrong word, that) of their potential power is more explicitly supported. Where a studio master is produced as MQA encoded, can they now or later prevent sale of unencoded copies, for example?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



39 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

A longer-term view to maximising revenue/profits?! .... Yes.

 

ie. a loner-term view to "maximise license revenue per every sale of encoded material".    The way I see it, the MQA platform has the capability to do the things they need to achieve that end.

 

I'm contending they'd likely move far more product if the DRM wasn't so obtuse, and it doesn't need to be.

 

41 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

HDCP prevents me from gaining access to the full quality of the content .... unless I use approved methods.

MQA prevents me from gaining access to the full quality of the content .... unless I use approved methods.

 

The Australian government says I should be able to freely access and copy the content for my own personal use.

 

Sure, though HDCP is extremely different in intent. It's primarily intended for copy protection. 

 

42 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

Who decides what is "authorised" ?

 

To go back to the earlier example.   Isn't HDCP something which "limit what access legitimate copyright holders have to their content" ?

 

Almost all displays are HDCP certified.... out of necessity.... because most content has HDCP, and if you want to see it in any half way reasonable quality, then you need HDCP.    HDCP is so ubiquitous, that most consumers do not even know it is there.   That is what MQA could become....  and reading between the lines, it is their goal.     The difference with MQA is that it could be much more sophisticated.

 

Dave, that's an ethereal discussion and not an unimportant one but seriously I'm not going to waste time scratching my chin contending that Intel and go trying to protect HD content from being easily pirated - a problem in video distribution - is something with any conceptual parallel to what Meridian is trying to do. You're taking the piss here and you know it. 

 

You buy your HD content and you can watch it. Sure, there are corner cases where HDCP is in the way, for the most part it does its job as intended - no one making a video copying device was going to get a key. Which is fine. If I have a HD screen to view my HD content I get to enjoy HD. I don't get to enjoy better HD when I have a certain screen from a certain manufacturer that costs a certain bit more to cover a certain license for a certain mastering process that needs certain decompression that needs to be certainly verified for a certain light to come on and tell me everything is, well, certain. 

 

If I buy an MQA file I own it. It is mine. MQA creates a paradigm where the quality of experience is a walled, vendor-specific garden - unnecessarily so.

 

It's not anyway comparable in concept with HDCP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

I regard MQA as a product separate to patents

I don't really understand the difference.   The patent describes the MQA product/service.

 

3 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

it is inserted at the key points of recording, production of the studio master (which gives MQA more power than just encoding existing masters)

As soon as this starts to happen..... MQA is "here to stay", if they want to really play hardball.

 

3 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

Where a studio master is produced as MQA encoded, can they now or later prevent sale of unencoded copies, for example?

In theory no....  MQA can't take away the content creators rights to sell it.

 

 

However... In practise, yes.     I just made my record .... and all the tracks/stems, and the final mix are all MQA encoded.   How do I get the full resolution digital data as not-MQA?   I can't.   MQA decoders will not give me the decoded digital content.

 

I could capture the analogue output of a MQA player.   That would be the best option available, (ie. one DAC+ADC generation away from the MQA version)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer

Do people really think that the MQA process was created just so they could ensure consumers get a better product? 

 

Do people really think that the fact that this process can give them complete control over everything from recording to delivery to playback is just a coincidental innocent byproduct ?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and no. It is never black and white. But who cares? We simply don't know enough to know for sure. Only MQA knows the answers; and they are only providing the 'answers' allowed by their marketing strategy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

Dave, that's an ethereal discussion and not an unimportant one but seriously I'm not going to waste time scratching my chin contending that Intel and go trying to protect HD content from being easily pirated - a problem in video distribution - is something with any conceptual parallel to what Meridian is trying to do. You're taking the piss here and you know it. 

I'm 100% not.   This discussion began with:

Quote

To be clear - there is no reason that ‘end to end control’ can’t be effected without limiting ‘here’s the content you paid for when you bought a file’. That’s a business choice - an extremely poor one at that - there is no implementation of this business model anywhere in mass market that’s ever been successful, with good reason.

HDCP is an example of this business model.    They limit your ability to get the content.   You don't notice, because HDCP is almost completely ubiquitous.

 

My point is that this model can work if the system is ubiquitous and unobtrusive enough....   so I don't agree that MQA are (necessarily) making a mistake here.   It all depends on how they play their cards.

7 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

You buy your HD content and you can watch it. Sure, there are corner cases where HDCP is in the way, for the most part it does its job as intended - no one making a video copying device was going to get a key. Which is fine. If I have a HD screen to view my HD content I get to enjoy HD.

 

"In order to make a device that plays HDCP-enabled work, the manufacturer must obtain a license for the patent from Intel subsidiary Digital Content Protection LLC, pay an annual fee, and submit to various conditions"

 

7 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

I don't get to enjoy better HD when I have a certain screen from a certain manufacturer that costs a certain bit more to cover a certain license for a certain mastering process that needs certain decompression that needs to be certainly verified for a certain light to come on and tell me everything is, well, certain. 

Sure... but you could.

 

Right now... you don't have this "pay per quality" in MQA either.     You pay for MQA, and if you don't have a MQA device, you can listen on something else and get basic quality.

 

Just like HDCP.   You pay for the content, and if you don't have a HDCP device you get basic quality.   Everyone has a HDCP device, because the entire industry got onboard.

 

In the future, MQA might implement much more sophisticated versions of that.   It's all there in the MQA patent.....  HDCP might implement much more sophisticated things later too.

 

The "content certification" bit isn't a problem in video....  as opposed to audio, where there are perceived issues with "high res" formats being untrusted by consumers.

7 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

If I buy an MQA file I own it. It is mine. MQA creates a paradigm where the quality of experience is a walled, vendor-specific garden - unnecessarily so.

They aren't doing that yet.    Right now, it's just like HDCP.    Compliant device = full quality.  Otherwise, basic quality.

 

The only difference is that HDCP is ubiquitous.

7 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

It's not anyway comparable in concept with HDCP. 

Anyways.... Let's not get hung up on whether it is the same as HDCP.   The point I was trying to make is that if you have a system where you have a situation where it's like this:

Quote

We won't totally prevent the content from being played .... but unless you play by our rules, then you won't get the full quality content.

That system can be one which isn't rejected by consumers, and can be not at all a bad business decision.    As I've said, the MQA system in the patent can do a lot of things.....   how they leverage that?    It remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top