Of course, distribution in a non-lossy format (like FLAC, some non-lossy Sun Audio subformat, or even M$WAV compressed with bzip2) still strikes too close to home, doesn't it?

...how about a push to move from MP3 to a better format, like Ogg Vorbis?

There weren't any shackles to begin with, and Vorbis is still a lossy format.

When there's a mass market audio player that support FLAC (or, for that matter, OGG Vorbis) out the box, then there will be a market for things in these formats. Clue: it's not going to happen.

I know there's rumblings about using 320kbps MP3 files. Anybody who can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file on normal kit has bat-like hearing. It tends to be audiophiles that harp on about that sort of thing - the same people who will spend hundreds of dollars on custom-turned wooden knobs that minimise harmonics, and thousands on cables that are carefully twisted by blind cave-dwelling virgins wearing gossamer gloves because "it makes the sound richer", and I for one feel they should be denied anything to listen to on general principal.

That said, if you feel a need for a FLAC file, I will gladly transcode an MP3 to FLAC at zero gravity, so that the heavy bits are normalised, for £2500 per megabyte.

``When there's a mass market audio player that support FLAC (or, for that matter, OGG Vorbis) out the box,''

Cue flac(1):

FLAC(1) FLAC(1)

NAME

flac - Free Lossless Audio Codec

SYNOPSIS

[snip]

DESCRIPTION

flac is a command-line tool for encoding, decoding, testing and analyz-

ing FLAC streams.

[snip]

``Anybody who can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC file on normal kit has bat-like hearing.''

I can easily hear the difference on some random CMI8738 card, so s/bat/cat/ I guess...

...then again, MP3 is heavily dependent on LAME encoders (pun sincerely intended).

``the same people who will ''[...]``and I for one feel they should be denied anything to listen to on general principal.''

Hm, care to have some of my tooth enamel about those idiots?

``That said, if you feel a need for a FLAC file, I will gladly transcode an MP3 to FLAC at zero gravity, so that the heavy bits are normalised, for £2500 per megabyte.''

% <crap.mp3 | mpa -d | flac -c - >crap.flac # ? :X

Why do you consistently bash napster? What you apparently don't understand about subscription music is that it is not necessarily intended to replace ownership...if that is important to you. The beauty of the subscription model is in the flexibility and access it provides. When I use the service, which is every day, I end up discovering so many new songs and artists that I would otherwise never have known about. It is well worth $13-$15 per month just for the ASP service of the napster software. The fact that I can download it onto my cell phone or mp3 player is just gravy. Now napster is upping the value proposition by allowing me to purchase DRM-free mp3 files if I care to own some of the artists I discover. I probably won't do so because I never expect to stop my subscription, but I could if that mattered to me. Why don't you guys take a fresh perspective on what one is really paying for with the subscription model rather than just mindlessly bashing it by comparing to ownership. What does one really "own" anyway? A file of electrons hidden inside a box of wires? What value is that? What I care about is hearing good music. "Owning" it is irrelevant.

Perhaps you should set up an appointment with an audiologist...