I think you're not understanding my point; why, in the age of digital distribution, should the definition of 'lossless' be a number that is dictated by a physical distribution medium? Especially when that medium is already on the brink of vanishing and will almost certainly be a memory within 10 years.
That's what I'm getting at.
CDs are lower quality than studio masters, fact - they're far lower in bit rate and they're only 16-bit. If the word Lossless has any use, it is for when music is sourced from a purchased disc, and only ever in that instance. Because for digital distribution, CDs never enter the equation in any part of the encoding process; Apple, Amazon and the like do not have a legion of monkeys ripping tracks from CDs for the iTunes store. They're all sourced from the labels from files that are far in excess of anything CDs have ever been capable of holding.
People calling for Lossless distribution from companies like Apple are asking for the bit rate bar to be raised for the distribution of intangible things to a level dictated by tangible medium that is both now-ancient and quickly dying. There's no need for it, the difference is not audible, and the files being distributed are not even sourced from that medium anyways so there is absolutely no point in matching its specification bit rate other than nostalgia.
If Apple is going to answer the few calls being made and offer 'audiophile' quality at some point, then they should do it by conducting as many tests as possible to find out what the next audible, appreciable step above 16-bit/256k AAC is. And if/when they do, the result will almost certainly be both far higher in bit rate than CD ever offered and 24-bit. To match CD's specification would be arbitrary and a waste of bandwidth.
Okay now I see what you're getting at. To match the specifications of a CD makes it more like you ripped the CD yourself. If not 1411kbps, then what? If it were not 1411, then I'd say the number is arbitrary. It's just because of the legacy of the CD, and how it's kind of the de-facto standard in music listening (save for SACD and the likes).
However, you are wrong about Amazon and iTunes files being superior. They may be from a higher quality source, but that doesn't matter because the file still has the same bit depth and sample rate as the CD. They are most certainly inferior because their bit rate is lower, and they have compression artifacts whether you can hear them or not.
Even If Amazon or iTunes sold lossless files from a higher quality source it still wouldn't matter because they'd be 16 bit and 44.1 kHz (Meaning they'd be nearly identical to the CD). They only way for those files to be superior to a CD is if they had a higher bit depth and sample rate, for example www.hdtracks.com
The reason why people insist on having lossless audio.. whether it be from a CD or online is merely for peace of mind. I openly admit to the fact that I can't distinguish lossless vs. lossy, but I still like knowing that I have accurate files. It is silly, but it's my choice. I have the space on my HDD to do so.
