Eric,
Completely off the topic, there's something for you on my blog. If I can master email technology I might email you.
Completely on topic... Doesn't Michael Jackson actually own all the rights to the Beatles music? I can't see him making it accessible - if I have the story right.

Catez, I'm quite honored by your, um, honor. Your presence alone on this blog is plenty cool, even without the other thing.

You're right in stating that Michael Jackson owns the Beatles catalog, and I'm not sure how that all plays into decisions regarding distribution of the music. My admittedly uninformed view is that Jackson gets some percentage of the proceeds whenever the music is purchased, and the arrangement with the iTunes Store would simply be one more retail outlet where folks could buy that music. It would seem to be to his financial benefit to allow that -- if, indeed, he could prevent it to begin with. Perhaps some more knowledgeable readers could educate us as to how Jackson plays into this issue, if at all.

this is one of the most confusing issues in all of the music business. because the beatles catalog is so lucrative and everybody wants to get their hands in it, it's almost impossible to understand all the players up to this point. but, as I understand it...

michael jackson owns the publishing rights to most of the beatles songs, which means several things. as far as i can understand, he does NOT make any (or much) money from sales of Beatles music. he makes money licensing beatles music to commercials, printed lyrics, radio play, elevator music, etc. with things changing so much when digital distribution came into the picture, i do not know what role the publisher has in that, but i would ASSUME that role still belongs to the record label, who owns the mechanical rights (right to sell recorded versions of the songs).

however, from what i hear, due to some legalities, paul mccartney (and john lennon, if he were alive) will soon regain control of their publishing rights from michael jackson anyway. then the struggle will be who gets control of john lennon's 50%: paul mccartney, yoko ono, or lennon's sons?

No mo' DRM? Wahoo!

But...

The downside here is that Apple will still be serving up files - albeit non-restricted, higher-quality files - in AAC format instead of the far more universal MP3 format. This is purely a control manuever but I don't get it. Granted, iTunes only came to exist for the sake of selling iPods, but by moving to MP3 format, Apple would open iTunes up to serving every other device in addition to their own iPod.

Oh sure, once there are non-DRM AAC files, there will be a mad dash from hackers to whip up quick 'n dirty AAC to MP3 converters for ever OS known to man, but I'd sure come a lot closer to jumping on the iTunes bandwagon (see my Digital Music Project post on why I have yet to do so) if they'd offer MP3 format music files.

OK, let's see -- you don't like AAC because, um, why exactly? Smaller files, better quality than MP3 -- yeah, I can see what a bummer that is. ;-)

Regarding the conversion issue, iTunes -- Apple's *free* software for *both* Windows & Macs -- already provides the capability for one-click conversion of non-protected AAC files to MP3, and a somewhat more complicated process for conversion of *protected* AAC files. I guess Apple has a way to go before completely mastering that control thing, huh?

My main beef is AAC files is platform/device compatability. We use MP3s on our PCs, TiVo, PDAs, iPods, etc. AAC files simply do not work on some of these devices. And because I'm so fervently against DRM-enabled files (regardless of format), I've avoided iTunes so I can't even use AAC music files on my PCs without loading a sizeable chunk of software that I otherwise have no use for.

I'm just in favor of a more universal format, even at the expense of slightly larger files - gigabytes are cheap, after all.

Size aside, are AACs really better quality than MP3 format files? This is an angle I had not previously heard...

You'll get no argument from me about the pain incurred by competing data formats, be they audio, video, or any other type.

However, I'm not willing to concede the "space is cheap -- don't worry about file size argument" because flash memory and tiny hard drives are still not that cheap. When we start seeing .5TB iPods for $399, then I'll be content to stop worrying about file size.

...are AACs really better quality than MP3 format files?

Well, technically, the quality issue IS a size issue, in that music ripped to AAC at a higher bitrate yields a file size comparable to MP3 at a lower bitrate, and AACs ripped at the same bitrate yield smaller file sizes. So, if you equate bitrate to quality, the argument seems valid. I'm not sure my ears can tell the difference though.