[shaan7]

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]

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.

[Broken_Hippo]

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.

[maxfurman]

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]

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]

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.