4 ms·

Although I get your point, there is an important difference between those two though. Once you've bought the CD you can listen to it forever, that is not true f

by shaan7 6y ago

Although I get your point, there is an important difference between those two though. Once you've bought the CD you can listen to it forever, that is not true for subscriptions - _that_ is why they are cheaper. I kinda use a hybrid - I discover new music on free tier of subscription services, and once I identify songs that I love, I buy them from iTunes DRM-free. I'm just afraid that option won't remain there forever.

ryandrake 6y ago
These streaming services are approaching the right price (digital media’s marginal cost is $0), but at the expense of user freedom to backup, time shift, collect, and use offline. Is $9/mo streaming better than $20 CDs? Maybe, maybe not. The higher quality product (DRM-free files you can store) is still free and unencumbered by usage rules.
maxfurman 6y ago
You said it yourself - now you can pay $1 for 1 song and own it forever. Still a better deal than what we had back in the CD era.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I don’t think you own it, just a lifetime license (for you and X friends/« devices » sometimes). Depending on how extensions go, your children and grandchildren may have to re-pay to listen to your collection.
  - patagurbon 6y ago
    Amazon Music used to sell music DRM free, you could download it and do what you wanted with it. Not sure if that's still the case.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
CD's do break, and I'll tire of the music on it. Spotify is cheaper than a CD a month and provides a superior service than radio or music TV ever did. I have absolutely no need to own a piece of music. I'd start here about Spotify not paying artists enough. But honestly, the music industry - as a whole - has been screwing over artists for decades, at least, so it is pretty much same thing in a different dress. If I'm going to support musicians more directly, I'll head over to Bandcamp while still giving the artist listens on spotify if they have music there.

by shaan7 6y ago

ryandrake 6y ago

These streaming services are approaching the right price (digital media’s marginal cost is $0), but at the expense of user freedom to backup, time shift, collect, and use offline. Is $9/mo streaming better than $20 CDs? Maybe, maybe not. The higher quality product (DRM-free files you can store) is still free and unencumbered by usage rules.

maxfurman 6y ago

You said it yourself - now you can pay $1 for 1 song and own it forever. Still a better deal than what we had back in the CD era.

Scoundreller 6y ago
I don’t think you own it, just a lifetime license (for you and X friends/« devices » sometimes). Depending on how extensions go, your children and grandchildren may have to re-pay to listen to your collection.
- patagurbon 6y ago
  Amazon Music used to sell music DRM free, you could download it and do what you wanted with it. Not sure if that's still the case.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

CD's do break, and I'll tire of the music on it. Spotify is cheaper than a CD a month and provides a superior service than radio or music TV ever did. I have absolutely no need to own a piece of music. I'd start here about Spotify not paying artists enough. But honestly, the music industry - as a whole - has been screwing over artists for decades, at least, so it is pretty much same thing in a different dress. If I'm going to support musicians more directly, I'll head over to Bandcamp while still giving the artist listens on spotify if they have music there.