I guess I cannot comment on that as first, it is not in a language I understand and second it is from two different iTunes stores. I mean no disrespect there, but I cannot in good faith comment on something that I cannot fully look at, see, etc.
Can I ask you this? Did you purchase and download both versions? If you look at the files, is there a difference, or is it the same file? Obviously the metadata will be different, it is a different country/store. But if you remove those obvious differences, is there any indicator that there is a difference?
It is really senseless to debate something that is fact. When I submit to iTunes, my submission will either pass and get listed as MFiT within the 2 week window, or it will “fail” and not get labeled as such. As I say that, you are correct that historically, there will be different releases. You will have those in the original 128 iTunes, you will have iTunes Plus (which I have already shown to be a progression of quality), and you will have MFiT. In that sense, yes, there will be different versions from the same store. But, those different versions are not available (active and there for purchase) at the same time.
If you think that MFiT is that important and has a real differentiating meaning, then I will consider my post here voted down. What boggles me is that differences of MP3 vs AAC/M4A are ignored, but something that has no obvious tangible impact on the product, like MFiT is put on a pedestal. Why is MB not differentiating iTunes Plus, as iTunes Plus actually makes a noticeable difference as compared to its predecessor?
What I am trying to say here is that MFiT is really nothing that is in need of a distinction, especially since MB does not distinguish between those prior (ie iTunes Plus). I know you have stated that I was wrong, but there is proof on the table to say you are incorrect. iTunes Plus is a mastering and encoding (generally speaking) “term”. Same as MFiT. Given the guidelines as they stand, I fail to see why MFiT has any place in disambiguation.