1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Where we are now: The site is back up and running! The character set encoding issue has been fixed so old posts should now look ok. I am currently working on themes/skins etc and I will be deleting the temporary green skin very soon as it has many issues. I will do a very quick variation on the stock blue skin first just to get a light-grey background and san-serif font, and I will set this as default. Later this week I will hopefully add a professional third-party skin in pfm colours (life is way too short to do this crap myself, and I've found one I really like than needs next to no tweaking). We are getting there slowly...
    Dismiss Notice
  3. May I please request people check and update their email address if it is out if date. I ask as I’m getting countless bounce errors as the server fails to send notifications through etc. I’ll eventually figure out how to send these to a black hole somewhere, but it makes sense to address it at source as quite a few folk are obviously not getting the thread and conversations notifications they have set in their preferences.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

MQA announces licensing deal with Universal Music Group

Discussion in 'audio' started by radamel, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

  2. mattgbell

    mattgbell canis pictus

    Great. The music company that delivers streaming files riddled with audible watermarking.
     
  3. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    Perhaps MQA will allow watermarking free streaming.

    That would certainly make sense IMO.
     
  4. mattgbell

    mattgbell canis pictus

    UMG could allow watermarking-free streaming tomorrow if they wanted to. Your point is what exactly?
     
  5. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    If it is "as the artist intended" it shouldn't include any form of watermarking.

    And if those who think that MQA includes some form of DRM are correct watermarking would be somehow redundant. :cool:
     
  6. mattgbell

    mattgbell canis pictus

    And if Qobuz and Tidal are streaming "CD quality" files from UMG, they shouldn't include any audible watermarking either. And yet they do.
     
  7. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    Indeed. Again, let's hope MQA will then allow for streaming without any watermarking.
     
  8. mattgbell

    mattgbell canis pictus

    Bonne chance.

    It'd be interesting to find out whether MQA have had talks with UMG about watermarking, though I suspect there's little chance of getting a straight answer.
     
  9. JohnW

    JohnW Trade: Lakewest

    DRM, DRM, DRM..... :(
     
  10. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

    What does this water marking sound like?
     
  11. davidsrsb

    davidsrsb pfm Member

  12. jirij

    jirij Virtual Member

    There may be no audible watermark, but you won't be able to tell if there is/isn't a hidden one in the encrypted metadata.
     
  13. johnhunt

    johnhunt pfm Member

  14. Dowser

    Dowser Learning to bodge again..

    But then it is easier to bypass, hence them altering the actual payload, no? At the end of the day, the average content purchaser cannot tell the SQ difference between media types. Who is interested in a very small percentage of people who can hear the difference? 80/20 rule.

    Digital rights/protection isn't just a music/media problem, it is becoming a global digital data problem given the expansive proliferation of cloud based services - how do we protect our data from people we don't want to see it, when we want to store it on public infrastructure not controlled by ourselves?

    Watch the market - I wonder how long before a tokenised solution is used to protect media content :)
     
  15. jirij

    jirij Virtual Member

    Right, you could easily bypass it by cutting away the "folded" encoded track, which kind of defeats the point for mqa for the end user (assuming the encoded track contains some kind of magic that makes the music better), so it's fairly safe to assume most people will just leave the files alone.
     
  16. HarryB

    HarryB pfm Member

    Excellent. More opportunities to sell the same stuff all over again to the gullible, the golden eared and those with too much money and time.
     
  17. radamel

    radamel pfm Member

    This should be especially directed at streaming services and not downloads.

    I haven't paid a penny more for having access to Tidal's MQA music.
     
  18. Dowser

    Dowser Learning to bodge again..

    I have no technical knowledge on how MQA does its thing (and to be fair I am pretty anti digital full stop - vinyl sounds better than Cd - CD sounds better than file based digital :)), I come at this from an overall IT perspective and how to protect data within public infra (secure the payload, not the file) - so is this enfolded track stored as meta data with MQA then? What happens if it is removed? A good way to protect data is to use something you know, with something variable/uncontrollable, and merging the first with the second such that the first is undetectable. Digital media is a pretty good variable source to use with something you know, but if MQA stores the bit people know as metadata, I give the format a very limited shelf life before someone breaches it.

    In general digital data protection today, it is more about how you protect the "bit that you know" - this is generally a key of some sort, and that is the bit that must be protected...of course, any access to the data means that before payload access you must be provided to the key somehow...this is where it gets interesting.

    I think either MS or Google will release the first scalable solution (MS Azure tokenised digital rights first release comes in March or April I think) - it won't work properly for the first few releases, but once it does then media digital content providers will have a sure fire way of controlling who can access their data.

    However, anyone who can access that data, can then quite easily clone it and re-release it without any protection. So how do you protect your payload to ensure that if it is cloned, the end result payload is lower quality/inferior somehow? Legally, a digital signature of course - but practically, that does not not work with digital audio/video payload - there are enough of us out there that just don't care about the legal aspect. But if you knew that the best quality was only available via a paid source, wow - you'd be set for life :) I never really followed MQA until now, I will now go and try to inform myself what it is and how it works.

    Digital rights/protection is an incredibly important and interesting subject currently IMO - the future has us storing all data files in a big public cloud (let's call it the Internet), and then restricting who can access the payload within those files. This is a sea change to previous approach of protecting access to the data files in the first place, which while the talk of protecting access to the data rather than the perimeter has been corporate security buzz wording for several years now, there is no end-end scalable solution that enables this ideal.

    When it does it will have unexpected impact methinks :)
     
  19. HarryB

    HarryB pfm Member


    YOU haven't. Yet. But you will.

    But how many new people have been sucked in already?
     
  20. peperoni

    peperoni Officially now an Old Git

    No one is sucked in, we do have brains and can think it through ourselves. We really don't need a great overseer to protect us.
     

Share This Page