Yes, Of Course! Those Kindly Record Labels and MQA Only Have Your Best Interests in Mind.

I don't quite understand what MQA has to do with the subject of Fair Use, this being the topic of the video.

Putting that aside, perhaps UMG have a deliberate policy of stifling music education? After all, the fewer people with any knowledge of music the greater the possibility there is of selling recordings of the talentless artists that they often sign :-)

Anyway the record industry does provide a social service in providing employment for greedy and stupid people*. I worked in it for over a quarter of a century hence I have not ended the previous sentence with a smiley.

* I was never greedy.

RE: Yes, Of Course! Those Kindly Record Labels and MQA Only Have Your Best Interests in Mind., posted on October 26, 2017 at 09:34:54
cawson@onetel.com Audiophile Posts: 2596 Joined: September 27, 2004	Who would want to learn music online? Surely one would learn so much more by getting out of the house and visiting someone or going to a college where music is properly taught - with recordings legally used to illustrate points, and where the teacher can properly hear what you are doing wrong and can offer face-to-face advice.

Music online videos can be valuable complements to traditional music study [nt], posted on October 26, 2017 at 11:29:01
Chris from Lafayette Audiophile Posts: 28649 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012

RE: Yes, Of Course! Those Kindly Record Labels and MQA Only Have Your Best Interests in Mind., posted on October 26, 2017 at 17:56:33

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

This was intended to be a jab at all of the MQA supporter who apparently honestly believe that MQA, Bob Stuart, and the record labels are all offering the "vastly superior sound of MQA" at "no extra charge" to all of the music-loving audiophiles who subscribe to Tidal Hi-Fi.

I guess it was too obscure to come across properly. The point is that the record labels are NOT your friends, MQA is NOT your friend, and Tidal may or may not be your friend. All are for-profit enterprises (nothing wrong with that per se) - the record labels are publicly held and are legally mandated to put profit above everything else. MQA and Tidal are privately held. MQA's shareholders direct MQA to act in the same way as a publicly held company, with profit being the highest motive. Tidal is privately held, and the goals of the shareholders are unclear. However the CTO of Tidal has been intimately involved with MQA virtually since it began, and likely has a financial stake in its success.

It is much the same as Google. Google constantly offers "free" things to people - from e-mail service to web browsers to complete operating systems (Android) used in billions of mobile devices. Yet they are a publicly held corporation that is legally required to maximize shareholder profit. People think Google is their "friend" due to all of the "free" things they offer. Yet somehow they manage to make many billions of dollars from thee "free" products. They do so by secretly taking advantage of the users of the "free" products, often to the extreme detriment of the user and of society. Just as in physics, there is no such thing as a free lunch in business either. Google is NOT your friend.

An even better video on the business practices of publicly held UMG is linked below:

Better video on why record lables suck

RE: Yes, Of Course! Those Kindly Record Labels and MQA Only Have Your Best Interests in Mind., posted on October 26, 2017 at 18:03:39

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

I don't think anybody thinks that they can become a professional musician simply by watching YouTube videos. But for all professional, semi-professional, former professional, and strictly amateur musicians, YouTube videos can be both informative and entertaining.

But that is not the point. The point is that many vocal supporters of MQA have portrayed both MQA and the record labels as being benevolent near "father figures" that are simply trying to offer the world higher quality music for "free" (as long as you subscribe to Tidal Hi-Fi service at $240 per year).

My post was intended as a subtle jab at the people who believe that, but I guess it was too subtle. For an even better explanation of how terrible the record labels are, here is an even better explanation of their truly short-sighted (that is the kindest way to put it) policies:

A better video on the poor policies of record labels

Google is complicit in the theft...., posted on October 27, 2017 at 11:47:34

Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 17157
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

My wife puts a lot of her Yoga videos on Youtube. Becasue they have music, she has to be careful to only have royalty free music. Now and then, she'll have one track in an hour that she misses and bam! No monetization on that one. Some get tagged way after the fact after she's got several thousand views which is key in the Youtube ranking and SEO. On top of that, Youtube has no facility to update a video, so if she fixes it and takes out the 60 second copyright music, it's seen as a brand new video and loses all the past views.

The worse case is her short Yoga Dance videos which she knows will get tagged with the money going to the 'artist'. I really wonder what that artist actually gets versus the publishing thieves and Google. These videos generate very high view counts and are a huge income machine for Google. Of course, Google is completely un-transparent. It seems that the monthly revenue is constant regardless of views.

She's also learned not to include certain artists at all. Garth Brooks is one that makes Google take down anything with his music.

-Rod

Agreed! (nt), posted on October 27, 2017 at 12:25:40
Charles Hansen Manufacturer Posts: 6984 Joined: August 1, 2001	nt

Preaching to a crowd of mostly baby boomers that record labels don't have out best interest in mind!, posted on November 4, 2017 at 11:06:20
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	Find me a baby boomer with a ID above 50 that needs being told! Just hilarious!

Q, posted on November 6, 2017 at 13:36:20

BubbaMike
Audiophile

Posts: 650
Location: Left Coast of the USA
Joined: January 4, 2002

Apparently mastering engineer Brian Lucey isn't to excited about MQA either.

"MQA has no future in the world of serious engineers in my view, it's a corporate money scheme at this point."

When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey

Brian Lucey

RE: Q, posted on November 6, 2017 at 14:38:24
sentinel90125 Audiophile Posts: 96 Location: Virginia Joined: August 24, 2005	Great interview. Thanks for posting!

Just wanted to add Charles..., posted on November 7, 2017 at 00:41:20

Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002

Greetings from Shanghai, Charlie,
Just wanted to add given that you're also a manufacturer...

I think we all appreciate the importance of making money! Nothing wrong with capitalism, corporations, and the profit motive of course. When companies make good products, this is to be lauded and rewarded.

The issue IMO with MQA is that it's bogus. It was marketed in a bogus fashion, it is not capable of what it claims, and even if we don't call it all-out DRM, they have not addressed the observation of such an underlying intent or to clarify what limits they seek to protect consumer interests.

This is IMO bordering on fraud (again - this is my opinion). There are IMO lies being spoken of in the advertising and claims. When this happens, then absolutely, as audiophiles and music lovers, we must come out fighting against such nonsense whether perpetuated by the company itself or in the moronic audiophile press.

As audiophiles, I think we can all find and see products being advertised demanding that we be skeptical of. For the most part, we can probably just let it pass... But in the case of MQA, there's a real threat here of that corporate "greed" infecting the music production and distribution chain that provides NOTHING to the consumer; in fact, it's counterproductive for the consumer. This is a major problem with MQA and again, demands thoughtful audiophiles to respond in kind.

-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

Completely agree, posted on November 8, 2017 at 21:17:00
Charles Hansen Manufacturer Posts: 6984 Joined: August 1, 2001	Thanks for stopping in.

Digital Drive

Yes, Of Course! Those Kindly Record Labels and MQA Only Have Your Best Interests in Mind.

75.166.126.87