Finally, somebody recognized one of the reasons why I didn't buy a single track from iTMS but spent hundreds at allofmp3.com or on vynil/CD at musicstack.com etc... :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6516189.stm

As it's been always obvious for many of us there's no other way for otherwise parasite-like studios/publishers to survive: they have to change their principal business model and it has to offer something over pirated music, not take away like they do currently.
This EMI move is a big step into right direction - let's pretend we don't see that studios very soon won't be able to offer anything for musicians, in best case they will maintain some minimal encoding operatiojn, shrinked to the 1/100th of their current size and influence - but it's still a crappy lossy AAC-encoded stuff if I'm not mistaken so when can I get uncompressed music?
ALso while it's a brave move by EMI I'm not entirely convinced they won't roll it back in 6 months, pressured by the most evil RIAA/Sony/etc conglomerate...
Although I bet I'm not alone being skeptic what this EMI step means on the long run, (not so) surprisingly the industry's Johnny-come-late 'truth-telling man' Jobs isn't one of them: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6739

So where are those uncompressed DRM-free track, Steve? :p

First, EMI is part of the RIAA conglomerate, themselves.

Second, part of the un-DRM-ed offering is your pick of higher encoding rate -- at least up to 192 kbit. With top-rate encoders, AAC at 192 kbit is pretty darn hard to distinguish from raw CD, and even MP3 at 192 is very, very good.

I think this is a great move. I'd pay the $0.30 extra to get the higher bitrate alone.

First, EMI is part of the RIAA conglomerate, themselves.


Right... and your point is?
;)


Second, part of the un-DRM-ed offering is your pick of higher encoding rate -- at least up to 192 kbit. With top-rate encoders, AAC at 192 kbit is pretty darn hard to distinguish from raw CD, and even MP3 at 192 is very, very good.

I think this is a great move. I'd pay the $0.30 extra to get the higher bitrate alone.

For uncompressed wave files, I'd do too.
Too bad it's still lossy compressed stuff. :(

Another take on this story: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38678

Hmm it seems EMI & Apple have bigger problems to care about: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/apple_emi_ec_fines/

Second, part of the un-DRM-ed offering is your pick of higher encoding rate -- at least up to 192 kbit. With top-rate encoders, AAC at 192 kbit is pretty darn hard to distinguish from raw CD, and even MP3 at 192 is very, very good.
- I agree that 192kbps is a huge step up from 128kbps using AAC, but I don't think it's even close to CD quality on any home setup.

I rip all my files at 192kbps on my iPod and think it sounds very good in my car setup and Shure E2C headphones, but it's a definite step down on my Paradigm setup.

As a point of clarification, Apple's offering the lossless tracks at 256 Kbps, not 192.

He goes further and calls for the same thing I do ever since DRM was introduced: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2111806,00.asp

Something to share with the forum.

Best visual metaphor about IP/copyright/DRM. Ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJWT3p7uM6Y