EMI is taking security locks off downloaded songs. Some may scream “at last!” and I’d be among them if it wasn’t for one thing: why do these tracks cost more than the normal versions? Their argument is that they’re more portable and that they’re higher quality.
Fact is, if I pay for a track I expect it to be portable. I expect to be able to listen to it on my PC, my laptop, my MP3 player, my car stereo, my home stereo and to be able to take it to a friend’s house. Why should I be charged extra for this privilege.
As for higher quality… most MP3s I’ve seen for download seem to be 192Kbps which is more than needed. I always resample mine down to 128Kbps which (I think?) is CD quality. Regardless, with the equipment I’ve got I can’t hear any difference between 192 and 128 – just that the latter is around 25-33% smaller in filesize. I’m certain that upping the download “quality” to 256Kbps or higher will be even less useful to the average punter. They’ll only end up downloading a larger file which sounds the same as on half it’s size!
“We are adding another product, priced higher, with more features, higher sound quality and hassle free interoperability.”
Horse ****. It’s the same product, priced higher, with no more “features” (What the ****? Features?), the same sound quality as far as the human ear is concerned and “hassle free interoperability” that we’ve had from tapes, LPs and CDs for decades. So, by my reckoning, to all intents and purposes it’s actually just “the same product, priced higher”.
Yet another case of a record company trying to sound magnanimous about making more money from us by attempting to give us something we should get for our money anyway. Stinks of the hoo-hah over legally downloadable films… another laughable attempt to keep up with technology.