To the people who 'know' that MQA is of no consequence: have you never been caught out in the past over the disruptive power of technology and the internet?
I, personally, would never have dreamed of some of the things that are now mainstream. Would I have predicted that SMS would be a popular form of communication? Would I have predicted the rise of MP3? The rise of Twitter? That phone cameras would be better than the best 35mm camera? Absolutely not.
But there might be one thing that I did partly predict correctly: that there is no reason to think that the internet will stay 'free' forever. I was always sceptical of claims that the spread of pirated content across the internet would always be beyond the control of anyone. The idea of locking down hardware to prevent playback or recording of content without the right watermark was touted a few years ago, but thankfully went away again, but I don't think the fundamental motivation did.
What seems clear to me is that politics is now the vehicle through which the internet will be locked down, ostensibly to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas. Some previous advocates of net neutrality may now even be slightly less vociferous about it because they are so horrified at what the internet may have been responsible for politically - in their fevered imaginations, anyway.
I think we are seeing the possibility that the internet itself will be increasingly monitored for the wrong type of packets and packets that emanate from blacklisted sources, and lobbying from the corporations and mission creep will inevitably mean that this extends to pirated content. Rather than attempting to prosecute offenders after the fact, the internet service providers will (be required to) simply block content. I could imagine MQA being a ready-made authentication scheme that would be adopted for this purpose - something that maybe Bob Stuart himself didn't envisage just a few years ago, but something he would now vigorously pursue.
I don't think you can simply bank on the free market, commercial knowledge and experience to give you all the answers on this one.
I, personally, would never have dreamed of some of the things that are now mainstream. Would I have predicted that SMS would be a popular form of communication? Would I have predicted the rise of MP3? The rise of Twitter? That phone cameras would be better than the best 35mm camera? Absolutely not.
But there might be one thing that I did partly predict correctly: that there is no reason to think that the internet will stay 'free' forever. I was always sceptical of claims that the spread of pirated content across the internet would always be beyond the control of anyone. The idea of locking down hardware to prevent playback or recording of content without the right watermark was touted a few years ago, but thankfully went away again, but I don't think the fundamental motivation did.
What seems clear to me is that politics is now the vehicle through which the internet will be locked down, ostensibly to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas. Some previous advocates of net neutrality may now even be slightly less vociferous about it because they are so horrified at what the internet may have been responsible for politically - in their fevered imaginations, anyway.
I think we are seeing the possibility that the internet itself will be increasingly monitored for the wrong type of packets and packets that emanate from blacklisted sources, and lobbying from the corporations and mission creep will inevitably mean that this extends to pirated content. Rather than attempting to prosecute offenders after the fact, the internet service providers will (be required to) simply block content. I could imagine MQA being a ready-made authentication scheme that would be adopted for this purpose - something that maybe Bob Stuart himself didn't envisage just a few years ago, but something he would now vigorously pursue.
I don't think you can simply bank on the free market, commercial knowledge and experience to give you all the answers on this one.