4 ms·

Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the c

Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the copyright, file sharing, music piracy arguments and debates from the 90s (Metallica, Napster! Hah) and 00s. But when I talk about this stuff now with people in their early 20s there seems to be less awareness. DRM & 'Stream everything' are the way it is, as if its some kind of inevitability. The concept of actually owning, or possessing, something (even if its a byte stream on a physical hard drive in your house) seems to be disappearing. It's interesting to watch. I think the most interesting part is the lack of discussion.

Arzh 8y ago
That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. It also seems to have a lot less attribution than video stream right now so people don't have to pay attention to where they can stream a specific song, they can use just about any app and get what they are looking for.
- amelius 8y ago
  > That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. What good is "better" if songs disappear every now and then?
  - Arzh 8y ago
    That's the 1% of the time that it's not better. Using a streaming service doesn't stop you from buying albums or song that you really want to keep around for a long time.
- Retric 8y ago
  Depends on your tastes. If you only really care about say 100 ish or fewer CD's worth of music then you can easily hit that and save money vs a streaming service. So for someone like me they are a complete waste of money. Remember, 70 years * 10$ / month ~= 8,400$ for music over a lifetime. By comparison you can easily buy say every piece of music by Bob Marley and your done no need to ever do so again. Sure, if you really care about music then a service is great.
  - blux 8y ago
    Even then, your figure of $8400 is very optimistic. Assuming 1% inflation per year people will pay $20 per month in 70 years.
    - bhelkey 8y ago
      I believe that the parent comment is calculating the cost in 2018 dollars.
- blux 8y ago
  One major drawback to me is the recurring cost. My feeling is that building an offline library that you truely own is much cheaper than using some streaming service with monthly recurring costs that inflate over time.
  - Arzh 8y ago
    After ten years maybe, I have too much of an eclectic musical taste to get away with that.
  - rbrcurtis 8y ago
    Only if you never listen to new music. CDs cost around $10, which is your Spotify sub cost per month. Imagine only listening to one new album every month.
- Can_Not 8y ago
  The streaming service is superior for discovery, but inferior for long term use. It's not a good library when an artist can remotely disable a song. I can always add new discoveries from Spotify to my personal archive. I have the best of both worlds.
lenocinor 8y ago
As someone who used to have a lot of CDs and MP3s and basically got rid of all of them for Spotify, I can cite a number of reasons why I switched: 1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about) 2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass deep collections in) 3. Easily accessible playlists from other people (I really appreciate the "This Is <band name>" playlists especially from Spotify) 4. Seeing what my friends are listening to all the time (I get a lot of new music this way) Yeah, stuff goes away on the service. Yeah, certain less-popular genres are patchy and incompletely represented (and are we ever going to get Tool?). Yeah, the personal library limits are a bummer (although as someone who never uses this feature, I don't care myself). Yeah, the UI is terrible for certain things (classical music is especially bad, and I really hate that single-song repeat gets turned off in so many ways). Yeah, some of their clients are worse than others (why is the PS4 client's sound quality so bad and not changeable?) Yeah, there's no lossless versions of anything (I think). And yet, for all that, Spotify has transformed my music listening, and I've been listening to a huge array of music for almost 25 years now. I listen to so many more new and interesting artists and songs on Spotify than I ever would have otherwise. I'll never go back, personally.
- srean 8y ago
  I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ? EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.
  - 8_hours_ago 8y ago
    Yes. I have done this with Spotify on many car trips :) clarifying edit: This is for the paid version of Spotify. I've never used the free version but I believe that it plays ads in between songs.
  - Doxterpepper 8y ago
    If you have Spotify premium then yes. I've had premium for some time now so I don't know if it's changed but without premium shuffle is always toggled. So without premium you could listen to dark side of the moon, but it'd be out of order.
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
In a science fiction novel I wrote, the main character has trouble understanding the concept of data that has a physical location; to her, it's something that's just there. While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable. It does require some mind-shifts on all sides, including those of content creators/providers, though. I don't know that I need to "own" any of my media in an everything-available-all-the-time world, but that requires, well, everything to be available all the time. If content availability comes and goes like the tide based on contracts and deals that I'm not a party to, it makes me a lot more skeptical of the implicit everything-everywhere promise.
- coldacid 8y ago
  >While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable. I think that we're already there. This "cloud" generation seems to think that everything that exists (or at least is worthwhile) just sits on that magical Internet to be streamed to them whenever they want (and pay for it).
- solarkraft 8y ago
  > In a science fiction novel I wrote care to link it?
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    Sure. The novel is Kismet, which is at the top of this page: https://coyotetracks.org/for-sale/ https://coyotetracks.org/for-sale/ And, a direct link to Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Kismet-Watts-Martin-ebook/dp/B01MY02OXB https://www.amazon.com/Kismet-Watts-Martin-ebook/dp/B01MY02O...
kaiken1987 8y ago
I see it kind of akin to how so few people carry cash on them. Credit cards and streaming are great for the day to day things and make things much easier. It's important to have a backup for the things that you care about. If the power goes out how are you paying for lunch. If your cloud photo site shuts down or has a data failure you just lost those baby pictures.

Arzh 8y ago

That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. It also seems to have a lot less attribution than video stream right now so people don't have to pay attention to where they can stream a specific song, they can use just about any app and get what they are looking for.

amelius 8y ago
> That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. What good is "better" if songs disappear every now and then?
- Arzh 8y ago
  That's the 1% of the time that it's not better. Using a streaming service doesn't stop you from buying albums or song that you really want to keep around for a long time.
Retric 8y ago
Depends on your tastes. If you only really care about say 100 ish or fewer CD's worth of music then you can easily hit that and save money vs a streaming service. So for someone like me they are a complete waste of money. Remember, 70 years * 10$ / month ~= 8,400$ for music over a lifetime. By comparison you can easily buy say every piece of music by Bob Marley and your done no need to ever do so again. Sure, if you really care about music then a service is great.
- blux 8y ago
  Even then, your figure of $8400 is very optimistic. Assuming 1% inflation per year people will pay $20 per month in 70 years.
  - bhelkey 8y ago
    I believe that the parent comment is calculating the cost in 2018 dollars.
blux 8y ago
One major drawback to me is the recurring cost. My feeling is that building an offline library that you truely own is much cheaper than using some streaming service with monthly recurring costs that inflate over time.
- Arzh 8y ago
  After ten years maybe, I have too much of an eclectic musical taste to get away with that.
- rbrcurtis 8y ago
  Only if you never listen to new music. CDs cost around $10, which is your Spotify sub cost per month. Imagine only listening to one new album every month.
Can_Not 8y ago
The streaming service is superior for discovery, but inferior for long term use. It's not a good library when an artist can remotely disable a song. I can always add new discoveries from Spotify to my personal archive. I have the best of both worlds.

lenocinor 8y ago

As someone who used to have a lot of CDs and MP3s and basically got rid of all of them for Spotify, I can cite a number of reasons why I switched: 1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about) 2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass deep collections in) 3. Easily accessible playlists from other people (I really appreciate the "This Is <band name>" playlists especially from Spotify) 4. Seeing what my friends are listening to all the time (I get a lot of new music this way) Yeah, stuff goes away on the service. Yeah, certain less-popular genres are patchy and incompletely represented (and are we ever going to get Tool?). Yeah, the personal library limits are a bummer (although as someone who never uses this feature, I don't care myself). Yeah, the UI is terrible for certain things (classical music is especially bad, and I really hate that single-song repeat gets turned off in so many ways). Yeah, some of their clients are worse than others (why is the PS4 client's sound quality so bad and not changeable?) Yeah, there's no lossless versions of anything (I think). And yet, for all that, Spotify has transformed my music listening, and I've been listening to a huge array of music for almost 25 years now. I listen to so many more new and interesting artists and songs on Spotify than I ever would have otherwise. I'll never go back, personally.

srean 8y ago
I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ? EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.
- 8_hours_ago 8y ago
  Yes. I have done this with Spotify on many car trips :) clarifying edit: This is for the paid version of Spotify. I've never used the free version but I believe that it plays ads in between songs.
- Doxterpepper 8y ago
  If you have Spotify premium then yes. I've had premium for some time now so I don't know if it's changed but without premium shuffle is always toggled. So without premium you could listen to dark side of the moon, but it'd be out of order.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

In a science fiction novel I wrote, the main character has trouble understanding the concept of data that has a physical location; to her, it's something that's just there. While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable. It does require some mind-shifts on all sides, including those of content creators/providers, though. I don't know that I need to "own" any of my media in an everything-available-all-the-time world, but that requires, well, everything to be available all the time. If content availability comes and goes like the tide based on contracts and deals that I'm not a party to, it makes me a lot more skeptical of the implicit everything-everywhere promise.

coldacid 8y ago
>While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable. I think that we're already there. This "cloud" generation seems to think that everything that exists (or at least is worthwhile) just sits on that magical Internet to be streamed to them whenever they want (and pay for it).
solarkraft 8y ago
> In a science fiction novel I wrote care to link it?
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  Sure. The novel is Kismet, which is at the top of this page: https://coyotetracks.org/for-sale/ https://coyotetracks.org/for-sale/ And, a direct link to Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Kismet-Watts-Martin-ebook/dp/B01MY02OXB https://www.amazon.com/Kismet-Watts-Martin-ebook/dp/B01MY02O...

kaiken1987 8y ago

I see it kind of akin to how so few people carry cash on them. Credit cards and streaming are great for the day to day things and make things much easier. It's important to have a backup for the things that you care about. If the power goes out how are you paying for lunch. If your cloud photo site shuts down or has a data failure you just lost those baby pictures.