To be fair, I believe they removed that comment because it could be understood as asking for something meant to circumvent copyright, especially under the US DMCA…
How so?
Since when is it not allowed to make copies of something you already bought and payed for
for personal use? I ripped al my cds (>1000) to a NAS, because I don’t feel like running around all the time and besides my DAC is superior than the DAC in my cd player.
No… they just banned the author (removing all his posts) because they don’t want to show
that with Tidal you are paying already for mqa as it provides you that “first unfold”.
It’s calculated in the subscription to Tidal, part of the income => mqa.
Don’t blame me, blame the DMCA - even the act of ripping for personal use is not really protected in clear terms - yet again, this depends on each country’s jurisdiction.
As for your reference to Tidal, I am not sure it applies to what the guy asked for - he wanted free software to unfold his ripped MQA files.
1 Like
As you note that’s ASF’s take, the FSF sees things differently and it’s always been a PITA. I’ve read that page more times than I care to remember these last 8 years and it’s never been resolved. I tend to believe the ASF’s interpretation as well. Thanks for the opinion anyway, I’ve not got direct access to legal advice and every little helps. 
And apparently that doesn’t exist.
I’m quite sure that software like Audirvana and Roon that can do a first unfold,
have to pay mqa for the implementation of that first unfold in their software
for each license of Audirvana or Roon that is sold.
Which makes me wonder… if you only stream using Qobuz (to avoid mqa)
you are still paying for the mqa unfolding software part in Roon ?
Is this the reason why there are a handfull of mqas (from 2L) on Qobuz?
To make it valid to charge Roon users - streaming from qobuz only - as well for the mqa unfolding software? 
In cases such as this, the situation would have to be resolved by the courts - otherwise it is always one view against the other.
Yes
No, it is essentially laziness on Qobuz’ part. One of their representatives pledged on Computer Audiophile a few years back that as a matter of policy/business strategy they were not interested in hosting/streaming proprietary black box encodings like MQA. He also admitted that they don’t really have a process to verify what exactly labels are uploading to them so they simply have to rely on the good will of the labels. As I recall, they were going to be in touch with 2L in particular as that was the example they were made aware of. I suspect 2L told them that they were an all-in MQA shop now, and Qobuz decided to let it be…just my speculation of course.
Your reasoning cannot be defended, since the software maker is free to charge whatever it wants for its creation - so even if paid, the MQA unfolding bit is just part of their development cost - it would be extremely difficult if not downright impossible to individualize that bit and justify different pricing depending on which streaming service you use.
You are correct, but from a consumers point of view he is correct to think about how vertical collaborations/cooperation’s, in this case by MQA/Tidal/Roon, end up costing consumers in “hidden” ways, limiting them (i.e. the consumer), and leveraging them in this effort to limit their choice/freedom.
2 Likes
Of course it does; but you would only be able to argue against that if Roon were suddenly considered as abusing its position as the dominant player of an extremely niche market segment - and even then, for what reason? They could charge the same they charge now, and even more for MQA users, with no gain to consumers. Not to mention that one of Roon’s main advantages is the integration of music sources - the moment they lose that, they lose their appeal.
Incorrect. All “dominant” market players started somewhere. This MQA/Tidal/Roon play, with the labels in the background, is just such a play.
$money$. Market positioning and domination (niche, most - does not matter) is all about money and profits…this should be obvious.
That’s not the way monopolies and efforts to gain monopolistic conditions work. The choice is only a choice until it isn’t. If the labels decided that it was time to limit the consumer to MQA and other proprietary encodings, Roon would in no way “lose its appeal” because the consumer would have no other choice.
2 Likes
A handful of albums from a tiny and otherwise pretty irrelevant label from Norway that re-packages MQA inside FLAC…
O well, I understand why Qobuz with their 70 million tracks couldnt care less. Apart from that they are pretty much MQAFree. 
2 Likes
Yep, I can’t argue against this. It IS against their explicit policy, but in the end it does not matter much. Heck, it even help highlights the many ways MQA is as a technical/audio creation irrelevant to consumers in both the niche “audiophile” market and every other one. It would only become relevant if labels were to force the DRM issue. This is one of the advantages of Bandcamp like direct-to-consumer development, it decentralizes motivation away from a handful of large labels…
Not sure what your point is; you seem to be blaming Roon for MQA functionality while conveniently ignoring that Roon is not the entity responsible for setting music licensing conditions.
And every antitrust lawyer knows that one doesn’t have to dominate a market to infringe antitrust law, but merely to commit illegal acts towards that goal - yet Roon is far from being in that position.
My point is beyond the legal. I look at this from a consumers point of view and I believe @Wim_Hulpia was as well in his own way. The legal aspect is almost a side show, especially given the fact that corporations always have the law tilted in their favor - they have the deep pockets to have the laws written and interpreted in their favor.
I am not blaming them ‘legally’ or in a strict moral manner. Rather I am simply pointing out that they are a cog in the MQA/Tidal/Roon/label effort to foist this anti-consumer proprietary black box encoding unto the market and consumers. This can not be denied, nor can their past and present relationship with originator of this anti-consumer affair, Bob Stuart - he is one of the persons given thanks in the credits of Roon. Unfortunately for the consumer these sorts of monopolistic efforts and practices are legal.
But even if, in the wildest nightmare, MQA becomes the only format, no one needs anything special to play it. So what’s the point again?
You appear to be stuck in debate mode. The point is obvious - MQA being a black box proprietary encoding that is parasitical on a market/technology that does not need it, it would just be bad in every way. It siphons off licensing and thus money from consumers for a lossy lower bit resolution experience than current non proprietary PCM.
The legal aspect (your area of expertise) is a side show to consumers, one usually leveraged by deep pockets for their own benefit. Try to step out of that perspective and look at this MQA/Tidal/Roon/label effort for what it is to consumers - music lovers everywhere for whom it is a step backwards.
1 Like
The biggest issue is that when you play an mqa without “unfolding” it sounds worse than mp3.
And you said it was difficult to make the mqa decoding in roon an option?
I’m an ITer. It takes 1 line of code
if (payedextraforcrap == true) {
unfoldthecrap();
playthecrap();
} else {
playthecrap();
}
In fact I would like that people who don’t need mqa are also never paying for it.
Now it seems all users are paying for it.
I noticed in a poll here that 80% of the users prefer Qobuz over Tidal,
That might mean 80% don’t like/need mqa, so then it would also be fair that
the license cost of mqa unfolding is payed only by the 20% who love it and not by everyone.
So two versions of roon then : with an without an mqa decoder 
price roon without mqa encoder = current price - mqa decoder license
price roon with mqa encoder = current price + 5x mqa decoder license
(to compensate for the 80% loss)
I wonder how much that would be… and I wonder how many would actually still go for the mqa decoding.
1 Like
Again, I have not paid $.01 more for MQA via Tidal. My equipment manufacturer provided the update for MQA for free. So it has been 100% free so far.
“I have not paid $.01 more for MQA…”
Your mistaken, there is no free lunch. MQA licensing cost is included in the overall cost, just hidden from you. You don’t get a BOM or otherwise a line-item breakdown of the cost of your consumer products, but you pay for every bit of it in the total at the end.
1 Like