Re: DRM is dead - almost
- From: "Poldie" <Poldie@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Apr 2007 14:02:38 -0700
On 2 Apr, 21:46, Kirk McElhearn <kir...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-04-02 19:55:34 +0200, EM <e-m-e-m-e-m-...@xxxxxxxxx> said:
You'll probably have seen elsewhere that EMI will be selling music
DRM-free, and in higher quality (256 kpbs AAC).
Why not FLAC or APE (lossless), or high quality MP3?
Well, AAC at 256 kbps is better than (or equal to) "high quality" MP3.
As for lossless, I think it will take a while. Lossless files can be
pretty big, and most users don't have the bandwidth. Give it another
year or two.
I don't understand that anyone can afford a PC and a hifi and has
broadband or above can't handle an album compressed using FLAC. A few
albums a month won't make much of a dent in anyone's download quota,
and the speed it takes is irrelevant. Even on dialup you could leave
it downloading over 2 or 3 nights and have the whole thing - if it's
that or nothing, anyway!
I think it's likely that the reasons why lossless music isn't more
common is simply that most people can't tell the difference, and
because there's no way of applying any drm to losslessly encoded
music. Perhaps if the record companies thought they'd make more money
from lossless formats they'd do it. Maybe now in this brave new post-
DRM world it will become more compelling.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DRM is dead - almost
- From: Kirk McElhearn
- Re: DRM is dead - almost
- From: Steve de Mena
- Re: DRM is dead - almost
- References:
- Re: DRM is dead - almost
- From: Kirk McElhearn
- Re: DRM is dead - almost
- Prev by Date: Re: Pianist Pachmann's Life Stolen
- Next by Date: Re: DRM is dead - almost
- Previous by thread: Re: DRM is dead - almost
- Next by thread: Re: DRM is dead - almost
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
