Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Young Listeners Opt For Streaming Over Owning

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the maybe-more-of-them-should-get-the-bills dept.

Cloud 390

An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that younger listeners are increasingly opting to stream music rather than own it. If their music is constantly available anywhere on any device, then 'what's the difference?,' ponders the article. The distinction between streaming music and owning music is starting to blur. From the article: 'But Van Buskirk also suggests another reason for streaming, not acquiring music. It's liberating. "There is a certain relief with not having to own music. It is a lot of work," he said. ... Porter says the way people own music is transforming. He believes the cloud model is where the state of music is heading, and for many people ownership is not essential. "I think ownership is access, you don't have to have music on your local hard drive to own it," he said.' Will the concept of ownership of music and software fade as cloud based services become the way people expect to access media and software?"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Young listeners? (3, Informative)

aztrailerpunk (1971174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370669)

I wouldn't consider myself young anymore and I certainly prefer streaming over owning.

Re:Young listeners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370835)

Did the article say *only* young listeners?

Re:Young listeners? (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370981)

Well, for the most part...the music being produced today, just isn't worth keeping, and owning to replay over and over again in the coming years.

That's not just my "get off my lawn" mentality either...I hear it from younger people today. They go through tons of music, but it is quite often disposable, I've heard them say.

"Oh, yeah, I'll get this, listen to it for a few months, but doubt I'll throw it on again."

Me? Geez...well, I own most of my music in CD form. I've yet to buy a mp3 off the internet....I'd rather buy in a the best format I can generally get, for home use...and then for lessor listening environments, I rip the music to high quality mp3's....which is plenty good enough for bad listening environments like the gym or the car.

But pretty much everything I've bought...I listen to OVER and over again...and have for decades.

I never get tired of hearing Dark Side of the Moon, or The Wall....and I usually play those in their entirety, from beginning to end since to me..they are whole pieces of music...the whole album is.

I never get tired of Brown Sugar....or the plethora of other Stones songs.

More recently...well, I do like pretty much the whole Wolfmother first album...great stuff. I've found some good bluesmen of today...Guitar Shorty, and Tinsley Ellis.....but yes, most of my stuff is in the electric blues driven classic rock era.

But I find I like to OWN my music...because, it WILL and is often listened to quite often. A lot of the stuff coming out today...well, I don't usually find it to be something I'd listen to over and over, I can sympathize with the kids of today.

I'm trying to figure out...when did music become disposable?

Re:Young listeners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371129)

And I'm keeping this Frisbee, you little bastards.

Re:Young listeners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371215)

I never get tired of hearing Dark Side of the Moon, or The Wall....

Funny, those are the only two I get tired of, maybe because they were so heavily overplayed on the radio for so long. I'll listen to Animals or Meddle forever, though.

Re:Young listeners? (1, Flamebait)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371253)

when? when recording takes became disposable. recording used to be an expensive process that required skilled techs to splice tape and operate mixing and mastering equipment. the tape itself for high quality recordings was very expensive. this gave record labels an incentive to only sign talented acts, and then to support those acts. when recording went digital and everyone and their mother including good artists like trent reznor and shitty 'artists' like justin bieber decided to produce music in their garage, that's when it all went downhill. takes were disposable, and therefore so were the songs themselves, as well as the artists.

Re:Young listeners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371159)

I second that! 37 years old here.

Young people don't drive. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370683)

I can stream music on my phone, and I often listen in the car. I don't stream music while driving because it cuts out due to cell hopping and things. I'd have to get satellite radio for a better solution.

It's still much much easier to just use locally stored music - CDs or on my phone SD card or otherwise.

Re:Young people don't drive. (4, Interesting)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370825)

The streaming service I use allows for locally downloaded copies of the tracks, so when I'm in the car I just download an entire album and let it go. When I'm done with the drive, the album gets deleted.

Re:Young people don't drive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370831)

My phone doesn't suffer from skips. Hell, I had XM in my Cobalt SS for the first 6 months I had it (It was a trial from buying the car) and it cut out all the time in the industrial section of town. My Tilt 2 doesn't hiccup with Pandora running (I'm running Android on it... not WinMo).

Re:Young people don't drive. (2)

Cap'nSmithers (2474202) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370837)

For the most part, I agree with you. I've kept my huge iPod classic for that very reason, so I can have something other than the radio to listen to in my car. Very recently, I started a trial with Spotify premium on my phone, which allows me to cache some music (up to 3,000ish songs) locally on my phone, so I don't cut into data with streaming. Tentatively, I'm kinda excited about it, mostly because it's much more fluid than my iPod, and I can change what is on my device pretty easily.

That said, the cynic in me is just waiting for that model to crash and burn due to conflict with the RIAA and such. I love streaming, but permanent ownership isn't going anywhere, I think.

Re:Young people don't drive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370997)

mostly because it's much more fluid than my iPod
Can you put a bit more substance to that statement?

Re:Young people don't drive. (2)

Cap'nSmithers (2474202) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371255)

What I meant by that is my iPod is completely static, I can only add or remove music when I'm connected to a computer. So far, what I've seen with Spotify is that I can make 'playlists' on the go with music that I find, and then download those to my phone right away. So if I find a song I like, I can look up similar artists, and download some of those artists songs, all without a computer. It's a pretty slick idea, and relatively well implemented, IMO.

Re:Young people don't drive. (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371015)

I love streaming, but permanent ownership isn't going anywhere, I think.

Indeed. I think TFA draws the wrong conclusion. People prefer the convenience of streaming, but I'm sure they would have preferred ownership if the convenience was the same.

Say there was an audio/video home server that you could buy pre-configured, where all your purchases appeared DRM-free, and you could start accessing the files as they started downloading, not wait until complete. Including a burner with a point-and-click interface for producing DVDs and CDs from your purchases for using elsewhere. That would certainly add value over DRM-laden streaming that you have no assurance whether will be available next year or next month, and can't access anywhere.

Ownership isn't going anywhere; while the new generation might think less ahead than the older ones, they still see a value when it becomes obvious. It's just now that the convenience wins out.

Re:Young people don't drive. (1)

trcooper (18794) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371193)

I use Rhapsody and Google music and have no issues with it cutting out. Both allow for storing songs locally as well.

I'm not in the young category, unless they're rather liberal with the term... But I've been a Rhapsody user for years and love the service. I save quite a bit of money, and have access to damn near anything I want to hear. Before I would easily spend over $500 on music per year. Now... under 200.

Am I worried about Rhapsody going away? Nah, I'd just move on to the next option.

Plus $360 per year to the telco (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371251)

Now... under 200.

Plus the $360 per year that your cellular Internet access provider charges for a data plan, correct?

Probably just because it's so easy (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370685)

It's extremely easy and available, there are so many ways and places to stream it, so it doesn't surprise me that it's popular...

Re:Probably just because it's so easy (3, Insightful)

heypete (60671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370785)

Indeed. Pandora, for example, is free and has less ads than a radio station. One can even up/downvote various songs so that it plays more music that you're interested in.

Even their paid service is only $36/year, has better quality, and no ads. Why would I bother to buy a small amount music (particularly on physical CD) when I could pay less (either $0 or $36/year) in exchange for essentially unlimited amounts of music any time I want it?

Then again, I have a 5-minute commute on the train and am in the lab all day working on an internet-connected computer, so my needs may be different from people with longer commutes and spotty internet service.

Re:Probably just because it's so easy (1)

Volanin (935080) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371139)

I am losing a couple moderation points already spent in this discution, but I had to post.

I am not quite young anymore, but personally never had any inclination for owning music, but I always liked radio and streaming services. After discovering Pandora, I fell in love imediatelly. I listen to Pandora almost exclusively nowadays during my commutes and free time, but due to licening issues, Pandora's streaming was blocked for listeners outside the US a few years ago.

Since I am not american, I have to subscribe to a VPN service ($7 per month) that I use almost exclusively to listen to it. So for me, Pandora costs $7 per month, with ads, and Pandora itself never sees a cent of this money. I'd rather pay directly to Pandora and support the service, but the rules doesn't allow me too, and my greed inner bastard refuses to pay $7 + $4 for the complete ad-free international streaming solution.

This is the thing that really worries me in these cloud-based services in general. You are giving away a little part of the control and power you have of your consumption in exchange for (questionably) more convenience and better service. And inevitably, sometimes it's exactly this little amount of the control you have conceded that comes back to bite you in the ass.

Ask slashdot time: Why is it that Pandora is forbidden to stream internationally, but other services like Songza do it at will and with no ads whatsoever?

Re:Probably just because it's so easy (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371179)

I use the time-honored solution of "get both". My collection of purchased music is the stuff I really like and don't get tired of; it is on my phone, both computers, and my home server. I listen to the stuff on the phone when I'm at work (poor data reception in the building, and streaming on company network/hardware is prohibited), in the car, or while running.

If I'm in the mood to find new things, or just get variety, I'll stream something in the car or at home. If I find something through streaming that I like, I will investigate further, and possibly purchase.

Circles (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370703)

We seem to be going in circles with music. Own a phonograph, stream from radio, own an 8 track/cassette/CD, stream from TV (MTV or countless other music channels), own mp3's, stream from the Net

Re:Circles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370875)

Local, cloud, local, cloud, local cloud.

This time it's cloud. Give it 15 minutes and we'll be back to local. Give it 30 more minutes and we'll be back to the cloud, though hopefully with a less ridiculous name this time.

Re:Circles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371019)

Except, with radio and TV, it's the station that decides what songs are played, not the listener. With streaming from the net, the listener decides what to listen to just like with own mp3's.

However, the circle might indeed go to own again, once people start realizing that the cloud might not always work. Internet connections can go down. When people own music, they can still play music while their internet is down.

So, in the end, probably both will merge, streaming and owning. Like subscribe to a streaming service, but get to own/have your favorites locally stored as well. (Some streaming services already provide this option.)

Re:Circles (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371045)

Own phonograph.
Oh, it's too much work to manage my collection.
Stream from radio.
Oh, I can't decide what I want to hear.
Own a tape/casette/CD.
Oh, it's too much work to manage my collection.
Stream from TV.
Oh, I can't decide what I want to hear.
Own MP3s.
Oh, it's too much work to manage my collection.
Stream from the net.
Oh great, I can decide what to hear and don't have to manage my own collection!
(Some time in the future)
Oh wait, there was this song I particularly liked. Where has it gone? Maybe I should have my own collection again.
Damn, the RIAA no longer allows me to own!

Re:Circles (2)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371173)

That's what I can't wait for - the jumping the shark moment in digital rights. The point at which they say that ownership of music format of any kind is illegal, and that we have to either stream it or pay a leasing fee per month.

Then the riots start.

Ownership may fade in the short term (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370711)

Without ownership, you're giving someone else the ability to take away your access. Once that happens a couple times, I think people will start moving back to an ownership model.

I think the cloud is great as long as it works. The problem is these services sometimes go away. I was personally bitten by the Google Video shutdown. They refunded the money I paid at the end, but I lost the shows I bought. Now I don't buy videos unless they're on DVD or Blu-Ray. At least I have the physical media and player in hand.

Re:Ownership may fade in the short term (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370845)

Certain people also seem to have an interest in grossly overstating the "burden" of ownership. Wasn't the whole point of iTunes in the early days was that it eliminated this "burden of ownership". Wasn't it supposed to make adding a physical copy of music to your electronic library easy and painless?

It seems the marketing propaganda changes to suit whatever the current product is.

Ignore all of those old ads, we have a new gospel for you today.

I don't "maintain" squat. Something gets ripped when I buy it and just sits around. If a device can accommodate my entire music collection, then there is nothing to "manage".

Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat (4, Insightful)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370911)

Bandwidth and power used by internet infrastructure is a waste of money and energy compared to playing locally off a low power digital device. Streaming only serves to commodify usage similar to how industries have eked their way into every "payable" crevasse of our existence. Its vampiric how our little time here has been turned into being wage slaves for ideas such as this. Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.

Re:Even if you win the rat race, you're still a ra (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370989)

Agreed. And as wireless providers are already starting to phase out unlimited data plans, the party for streaming is about to end, I do believe.

Re:Ownership may fade in the short term (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370993)

This isn't about owning or renting online... this is about streaming, (i.e. pandora, slackware,etc). Think radio, your issue is mute. If one provider dies just select another. You're not purchasing anything.

Re:Ownership may fade in the short term (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370995)

Ownership is still very very easy, if we want it.

Re:Ownership may fade in the short term (1)

pinballer (655113) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371147)

Hypothetical situation, but what happens to the stuff you own when the format becomes obsolete? Although I'm sure it will be quite some time. In *theory* these media are supposed to be copy protected so you can't transfer them from one format to another. One could say you don't really own what you have right now, even though you have it "in hand".

TCO (4, Insightful)

jeffy210 (214759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370725)

I guess it all comes down to how often do you want to pay for it? One time up front, or every single time you want to listen to it. For me it's the former. Also, the biggest fallacy in the article is "If their music is constantly available anywhere on any device, then 'what's the difference?" What happens when the service you're streaming from is no longer available or the RIAA revokes the licenses. What happens then? I guess people will just move on to the next hit and not care.

Re:TCO (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370943)

RIAA revokes the licenses

Can't happen without a change of law, the US has compulsory licensing for audio recordings with rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board.

Re:TCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371021)

I'm 40, so this article isn't about me, but most people I know are streaming from Pandora or Spotify for free now so the equation is a little different. Its free now - if I have to pay for it in the future I'll worry about it then.

Re:TCO (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371259)

You move onto the next provider, (i.e. change radio stations).

download once keep forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370731)

sorry dont care what they say once i own/download it i never have to do that again
BURN enjoy

Re:download once keep forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371081)

sorry dont care what they say once i own/download it i never have to do that again
BURN enjoy


If I want "streaming" the radio is free.
Otherwise the music is stored locally, no charges for streaming on the web, no problem accessing what I own etc...
The ownership model wins 10-0.

"Liberating" (4, Insightful)

giltwist (1313107) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370737)

Two thoughts come to mind here.

1) It's "liberating" in the same sense that being chemically castrated and color-blinded is "liberating" in Lois Lowry's The Giver. You are "liberated" from the onerous chore of responsibility for your own actions.

2) Oh, you know what, even though you've spent $100 bucks on every album by Blah Artist, he's now a bad influence on society. We, the corporations, will benevolently "liberate" you from such unwholesome thoughts. *287 files deleted*

Re:"Liberating" (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370869)

Freedom IS slavery, citizen.

Seriously though, on one hand, I agree with you.

On the other hand, being "liberated" from the chore of keeping backups of your music is nice when you're young and a spare 80 GB harddrive just for redundant music was quite a bit of extra cash, which is, interestingly, the demographic being referenced in the Story.

Re:"Liberating" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370883)

Yes, you're right, saying that streaming music is liberating because you don't need to go to a store and buy things is exactly the same as saying "I'd like to be castrated and color-blinded, and I am a stupid sheeple (sheeperson?)". Look, I completely agree that there are concerns here about corporations having too much control over things in a streaming model. However, slashdotters in general need to realize that when you raise these concerns with hyperbole like "OMG HOW CAN YOU STREAM YOU STUPID IDIOT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU'D PROBABLY LIKE TO BE CHEMICALLY CASTRATED AND NOT EVER THINK ABOTU ANYTHING", people stop taking you seriously. In their minds you are put in the same box as nutjobs on the street shouting about the coming end of days and whatnot. I think there's more than a grain of truth to what you're saying, but I can guarantee you that the people you need to convince won't.

Re:"Liberating" (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370999)

The castration comparison is quite appropriate.

Some people want the ability to choose for themselves and others seem to want total dependence. The idea of becoming a eunuch for the sake of convenience is not far off the mark really.

The founding fathers are spinning in their graves over this "ownership is a burden" rhetoric. It was one of the key things they fought for.

You know... life,liberty, property.

Re:"Liberating" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370947)

It's music. It's entertainment. Maybe people are just tired of screechy histrionic Manichean diatribes all the time and would just like to hear some tunes instead.

Streaming vs Local storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370739)

Streaming works 99.9% of the time but you're totally screwed on that 0.1%.

Not having an internet connection, 3G or otherwise, is still extremely possible even in 2012. It depends where you live, wired vs wireless, etc.

But even if you do have a connection, lag could overcome your streaming buffer and stop your music. Or your monthly data quota could kick in.

So, I mean no disrespect when I say that streaming is for idiots.

Re:Streaming vs Local storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370871)

Streaming vs. Ownership is somewhat of a false dichotomy. I own the music that I want to ensure I have access to, but I enjoy streaming for "background" music, where I don't really care if a particular artist is discontinued - I think of streaming as source of "pleasing background noise in the vein of the music that I like."

TL;DR: it's possible to both "own" and stream, and remain self-consistent.

Imagine no posessions (2)

pancakegeels (673199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370749)


Re:Imagine no posessions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371133)

I wonder if the text of that song may be taken as indication that you may legally copy it :-)

Bandwidth costs, offline access ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370751)

For me, streaming is the opposite of what I want. Between ISPs wanting apply bandwidth caps and additional costs, or being able to play music in my car or wherever I want it, I definitely prefer to own.

Granted, I'm not covered under the definition of "young" here, so it's probably a generational thing.

I still pretty much exclusively get my music on CD, and transfer it to MP3 so I can play it on whatever device I want to.

I'm definitely in the "own not rent" camp.

Re:Bandwidth costs, offline access ... (1)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370839)

Hence I'd much rather have a friend toss me their USB drive or a DVD they burned with all the mp3s on it...

Re:Bandwidth costs, offline access ... (1)

guru42101 (851700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371237)

I share your concerns with bandwidth. I constantly stream music at work to listen to, and I worry that I'll get in trouble for bandwidth usage. If I bought every song I listen to (I have quite eclectic tastes) then I'd go broke quickly. In the car I mostly listen to NPR or a book on CD as music tends to give me Highway hypnosis ( and eventually I become narcoleptic.

I do buy a few albums from my favorite artists, but that probably averages out to one or two a year. Due to storage space and cost I'm very picky about what albums and movies I buy.

"Own" the music? (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370753)

Doesn't it get absurdly expensive to "own" the music?

Oh wait, you meant own a copy of the music. Or is it own a license (non-transferable) to a single physical copy...well, there's fair use of course.

I am so glad no one has gotten to the point of trying to build business models around breathing.

-- MarkusQ

Re:"Own" the music? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370863)

Or own the (non-revokable) media upon which the bits of information, which can be translated into the music, reside. Own all the licenses you want, no license or lack thereof will stop me from reading the bits on my media.

Personally, I am torn. I like owning the media, because then I know it can't be revoked. I know, within my ability to keep drives spinning and backups working, the only way I am going to lose my ability to hear what i want to hear (read what i want to read, see what i want to see) is if I remove it.

Companies can go out of business. ISPs can decide to change plans and start charging for banwidth. Bad decisions get made (like the Amazon 1984 debacle) etc. Owning the media and controlling the system which stores and serves them up is the only way I can be sure that its really there when I want it.

That said, I can see why people like the streaming model, hell, I use the streaming services these days, and haven't touched my old MP3 collection in years but... I know its there somewhere....I know I CAN go back any time when those services are down.

The issue is, I have never found a good way of making my collection available to me wherever I am. What I want is streaming, I want streaming to my phone, to my laptop, but I want it from my systems. I don't want it enough to really spend a lot of time on it, but, that is what I would prefer in an ideal world.

Re:"Own" the music? (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370877)

I am so glad no one has gotten to the point of trying to build business models around breathing.

Actually, in at least one way, they have [] .

Re:"Own" the music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370901)

I am so glad no one has gotten to the point of trying to build business models around breathing.

Rule 34


Easier to just plug the phone into the car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370759)

It is much easier to toss the phone on the car's line in with Pandora running instead of dealing with rotating the songs on my Creative Zen so I'm not immediately getting bored.

Plus anyways, if a song my friends don't like comes on, Pandora takes the blame.

Hybrid online-only here, leaning toward streaming (1)

astrostl (2524450) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370761)

I use an Rdio subscription for most of my listening. When I really love something (or like something insanely cheap), I'll pick up the MP3s from Amazon.

A wise man once said (3, Insightful)

mccrew (62494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370775)

One of my favorite sayings is, "The more you own, the more you are owned." It's definitely a liberating feeling to not have to own and manage stuff, physical and virtual.

Re:A wise man once said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370841)

One of my favorite sayings is, "The more you own, the more you are owned."

It's definitely a liberating feeling to not have to own and manage stuff, physical and virtual.

You couldn't have mentioned this BEFORE I bought real estate? Jeez. FML

Ode to Janis J. (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370843)

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Re:A wise man once said (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371085)

One of my favorite sayings is, "The more you own, the more you are owned." It's definitely a liberating feeling to not have to own and manage stuff, physical and virtual.

I always thought it was...

"He who dies with the most stuff.....WINS!!"

This is okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370789)

...if people don't mind paying for music forever and relying on infrastructure
that could make them upgrade their devices whenever...

Owning is so much easier. I get to choose which device I listen to it on, too.

CAPTCHA = lights [how does this thing know!]

Radio (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370791)

If that's the case, then why not just go back to listening to broadcast radio? Isn't HD Radio at least as good?

Re:Radio (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370887)

Especially on stations that (still) have live DJs! There's something about someone in your geographic area talking to you over the airwaves while picking out music to broadcast that still makes me happy. I like that my local LPFM that you can only hear from 5 miles away runs ads for the tire store down the street and plays requests from people who work in the building next door, regardless of how questionable their taste might be.

Re:Radio (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370897)

HD Radio doesn't work well in a moving car.

Talk about an epic fail, morning and evening drive time is when stations make most of their money.

My HD radio does switch seamlessly between SD and HD if you are on the main channel. However, the loss of quality is noticable.

Re:Radio (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370907)

There are no broadcasting stations where I live, only narrowcasting stations all chasing each other trying to optimize $/hr ad revenue off the same set of top 40 songs, and about 5 stations in listenable range playing the same "conservative talk radio" shows.

Even the 80s/90s sorta-hard rock stations only have 40 to 50 song playlists and they rotate songs in and out extremely slowly.

Oh yeah, and finally broadcast "music" radio is at least 1/3 crummy local produced ads. At least the national streamers attempt to produce semi-professional ads. If it sounds like an old fashioned tape recorder held in front of a used car salesman, don't bother transmitting it, ok?

Re:Radio (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370917)

It's funny you should mention this because this is exactly what I do when I get bored with my 32G thumbdrive in the car. All of my music is on it but sometimes I want something else. That something could be Pandora. Although it can just as easily be the local radio stations.

Pandora and radio are for all of those bands and one hit wonders who's music I have always listened to but never paid for directly.

I think the communist journalist is reading too much into this situation. It's just radio and MTV all over again. Some stuff you just never bother buying. You just listen to it when it comes on the radio.

You never did own the music (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370793)

The distinction is less when you remember that you never did own the music itself - only a copy on a specific piece of media.

I still collect music files on my hard drive, but I'm much more liberal about deleting things I don't like than I used to be about throwing away a CD; the collection itself largely amounts to a collection of bookmarks, reminding me of stuff I once liked and may again.

It will go away (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370795)

If you rely on a streaming service to listen to your favorite music, it will go away. Music changes in popularity, and if your favorite music isn't popular anymore, they'll drop the license. Now you can't listen to your favorite music anymore.

Rely on streaming if you must, but when it bites you don't expect any sympathy.

Re:It will go away (1)

ongelovigehond (2522526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370867)

Assuming you still want to listen to the same music as before, it will probably still be available on file sharing networks.

Re:It will go away (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370939)

But if you're going to use file sharing networks, why bother streaming in the first place?

Re:It will go away (1)

ongelovigehond (2522526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371175)

Convenience. You have access to the entire library wherever you are, and whatever compatible device you're using.

Turn off the radio (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370797)

I stream stuff because I can get something worth streaming nowadays. Pandora has a surprising collection, and sucks far less than the local radio stations do. I've found a surprising amount of relatively obscure ska there.

That being said, I'm never going to delete my local music collection. I'd prefer my Pink Floyd NOT broken up by track or injected with ads.


One Man's Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370801)

I pirated music in the 2000's-2011 when I wanted to try music, I'd buy CD's I really loved. It worked out well, I got what I wanted to listen to.

The more new music comes out, the more I realize my taste changes. Rapidly. I used to LOVE Pink Floyd, now I find it rather dull. Streaming alleviates this cost of owning the CD, storing, etc. I'd personally rather stream, because, as long as the streaming provider has good music, I can: find music I never would have found, listen to what I want to when I want to, not have over the top costs in storage / purchase.

It rocks for me as a consumer.

Anyone concerned about loss of control? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370807)

Call me cynical, but I'm concerned about loss of control without an actual copy of the music I want. Just like with radio right now, I could listen to [insert popular song of the day] just about any time I want, but come a year or two down the road, and that might not be the case. Add 10 - 20 yrs to that, and the song may be virtually impossible to find. I know that was the case with a number of some of my all-time favorite CDs - it took a lot of work to track them down. I'd rather not "hope" that someone else is making them available down the road - I can make sure I always have them by keeping my own copy.

Re:Anyone concerned about loss of control? (1)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371245)

Agreed, especially when looking at some of the random bands I may have liked on MySpace back in the day who have simply disappeared.

Is this a video news release? (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370809)

Is this a video news release from the cell phone providers?

If their music is constantly available anywhere on any device, then 'what's the difference?,' ponders the article.

The difference is my bandwidth to my phones SD flash card is free, but my cell provider wants me to pay $50 per gig.

Hmm so I could rip a DVD that I own to my phone for free, or I could pay $ to download it over wifi, or I could pay $$$ in bandwidth charges to stream.

Also service sucks everywhere I go, so if I actually want to listen, rather than listen to buffering and pauses, then I need to download first.

It is a lot of work? (1)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370813)

"There is a certain relief with not having to own music. It is a lot of work," Really? Oh for crying out loud, here`s a razor blade. You`re obviously not ready for existence. What with walking and breathing and on top of all that having to BUY a song?

Music should be hard work! (0)

MeesterCat (926256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370833)

This to me signifies the decline in musical quality of late.

It's so easy to obtain (and by obtain I don't mean own) music now, there is no effort or desire required by the listener. And if the listeners don't have to try, then why should the artists.

*This may be a thinly veiled get off my lawn post.

Re:Music should be hard work! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370921)

When you learn to stop looking at record labels for music, you'll find there is high quality music, often made freely available by the artists. There is still challenge, and there is still quality, but the new challenge is in finding the quality amid the swill.

(This may be a thinly veiled "check out my youtube channel", but it isn't because I'm not one of the artists in question. You really don't want to hear my musical abilities.)

who do you trust? (5, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370847)

If you own your own fileserver, like files in particular format and tagged in just the right way, owning is the right option. You're trading the work of doing that yourself for the benefit of having your data the way you like it.

For a lot of people who either aren't capable of managing files or just not interested in doing that work, offloading music to "the cloud" or some streaming service makes sense - trading control for convenience.

I prefer the former option, but can understand the appeal of the latter.

A weighty subject. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370861)

The liberating part is the fact that I don't have to lug boxes of "content" next time I move.

Re:A weighty subject. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371075)

If you ditch the original packaging, there really isn't much bulk to "content" at all.

Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370891)

Streaming content and owning said content are not mutually exclusive. This seems like it's not a question of "stream vs. own", it's more a question of free (as in beer) vs not-free. The article itself mentions radio as an example, which is also "free", but you have no choice over programming. So we're left with "content you picked that you paid for" vs "content you picked that you didn't pay for."

The real question would be, "You can have this album two ways. Both are free. You can stream it for an indefinite amount of time (and the service you're streaming from may or may not be there next year), or you can have a free physical copy of the album. Something tells me that most would opt for the physical album.

Why not both? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370915)

Why is it one or the other? Just enjoy the ease of streaming (like watching broadcast TV to zone out) and enjoy your collection too (like picking a specific movie to watch).

Streaming quality I find isn't so good. I recently bought iTunes Match, and am enjoying the 256k bit rate / AAC quality. Honestly, I find Apple's 256k AAC rips sound better than my 256k VBR AAC rips off CDs. More punchy (greater difference between highs and lows).

Streaming is the new radio (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370927)

As long as I can remember, most people listened to music on the radio -- people who dominantly listened to purchased music have always been the exception.

When I was young (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370945)

Our primary source of music was the radio - it seems to me that was somewhat analogous to streaming. But we still bought our favorite records (look that term up on Wikipedia, young'uns) so we could hear them whenever we wanted.

Thing is, that's pretty much the same behavior I see with my daughter and her friends. They still buy music from artists they really like. I realize that's a small sample set; but the linked article doesn't really offer any evidence to support its main tenet other than interviews (which could easily be affected by selection bias) and the same vague statements about "record labels are in trouble" and "fewer people are purchasing music" we've been hearing for years. It just posits a new reason - the availability of streaming media.

As a matter of fact... a cynic might wonder about a pattern, and think this story could possibly have come from the same sources. Have there been any recent new proposals attempting to force streaming music providers to pay more money to the RIAA?

Over 40 and Streaming (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370949)

I keep a few favorites on my phone for when I'm driving and stream when I'm looking for something new to listen to. I have enough 3G dead spots around where I drive it's difficult to stream when I'm in my car. I mainly stream from LastFM and Pandora.

What surprises me is how little I miss my collection from my Ipod. I have 1 or 2 gigabytes of music stored on my phone, nowhere near the collection I kept on my 5th gen Ipod (which I have given to a friend)

One advantage of streaming is no more specter of the RIAA. It's somebody else's server, somebody else's problem.

I read a short scifi story on slashdot years ago.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370959)

About storing things on Hard Drives being illegal. I don't remember enough about it to google it(this was 10+ years ago) but one of the reasons was in this story set in the future everything downloaded as fast as a hard drive so why bother?

There's another answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371013)

Perhaps music since 1998 simply sucks too much to purchase.

I was told, once... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371031)

I once spoke to an elder, with a beard of white and an onion on his belt, who spoke of a certain 'amplitude modulation' by means of which he had 'streamed' music rather than owning it on one of the 78rpm vinyl-platter rotational media of the day....

The Subscription Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371117)

is actually not all that bad. I have a bad habit of buying an album and only playing it once or twice, depending on the quality of the artist. I am a subscriber to Rhapsody, which charges about 10 bucks per month and gives me the ability to listen to and download (DRMed, of course) all the music I want on my PC and a mobile device. There are other services as well, such as MOG, Rdio, etc. and their prices vary depending on the type of service you want. The benefit of such a service is that you're able to determine whether or not you'll actually listen to a band more than a few times before moving on to the next artist. Though I'm paying a monthly fee, this has actually saved me a significant amount of money over the last few years.

That being said, I still buy an album every now and then, such as Black Key's "Brothers". Even though I can listen to them whenever I want, I still need to satisfy the consumerist urge to own a great item. Rhapsody at least helps me avoid having to explain to someone why I own a Chromeo album.

Vinyl (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371149)

A lot of my friends have gone back to vinyl records for their music.

Admittedly, most of them are collector types to begin with. But I think they also like the whole physical/tactile engagement with the record. Also, I think playing your music from records tends to imply you've gone out and bought a record player, an amplifier, and a decent pair of speakers, rather than just playing it through whatever your PC came with.

I've thought about going that route myself. I find I don't have much connection with the music I listen to anymore. It's very rare that I get really excited about a new release.

It's because they're young (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371163)

Being young means not having been around a long time, so you necessarily won't have memories of failures. And it's a harder to see risks of failures, when your life isn't full of repeated experiences over the decades, of shit breaking all the time, to your disappointment.

"I think ownership is access, you don't have to have music on your local hard drive to own it,"

This is a person who hasn't had access problems yet, or who hasn't yet noticed existing access problems (limited music selection, limited client software selection, whatever).

Digital Collections (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371167)

I think a lot of people try to explain these things too rationally. I could be wrong, but in my mind it all comes down to the idea of "collecting".

See, when people used to collect records and VHS tapes and even DVDs, they didn't just want to listen to the music and watch the movies; they were amassing a collection. However you want to explain the psychology of it, it was pleasing to see your collection on a shelf. It was comforting to know that you were happy with your collection. You could say, "I have every Rolling Stones album ever," or whatever, and it was pleasing beyond the sum of the enjoyment you get from listening to each song individually. You even bought that one album you didn't like very much because otherwise, there was a hole in your collection. You'd think, "I have every Rolling Stones album... except that one. Well, I may as well get that one."

And that was part of where the music industry made its money. There were big hits that made a lot of money, but there were also a bunch of collectors amassing very expensive collections.

And then the whole thing went digital, and the idea of collecting has lost some of its luster. First of all, it's not something you can display on your shelf, so you don't get the satisfaction of having your collection also be a design choice in your house. At most, you might be satisfied when you go to sit through your computer, or as you scroll through your iPhone.

Secondly and perhaps just as importantly, the collection has lost its uniqueness. Sure, you may have every Rolling Stones album ever, but you can just copy it and give it to your friend, and now he has all of their albums too. So there's no status in it, and no accomplishment.

Aside from that, there's nothing personal in it. When you had physical copies, you might look at an old record and remember, "This is the first record I bought for myself when I was 16. I bought it with money from my first job. I listened to this exact physical record over and over until it started to wear out. Now there's a scratch in this one part of the song, and I know exactly when it is from memory, because I know this physical object so well." Now a song is some bits that get transferred from device to device, and are effectively identical to everyone else's collection of bits for that song.

So when you take away the aesthetic appeal of an actual collection, and you take away the uniqueness and the personal nature of it, there's nothing left but the listening. That's all people want: to listen to the music conveniently and cheaply.

No disc, no case, no liner notes, no thanks (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371211)

While I never succeeded in my efforts to learn to memorize who performed what, I did spend a fair bit of time pondering innovative album designs and illustrations (probably a part of why I'm a graphic designer now).

Sad that the faux newspaper of Jethro Tull's album _Thick as a Brick_ was reduced to type sized for a postage stamp for the CD version (and even worse that it retained the cut in the middle which had made it possible to fit on two sides of an album).

Will there be no nifty designs like Alice Cooper's _From the Inside_ (which integrated the album liner w/ the outer jacket via die-cut doors)?

Who will take up the mantle of Frank Frazetta to produce album covers like Molly Hatchett's first three albums?

Even if things like this move on-line (like the liner notes to Jim Croce's _Photographs & Memories_: [] ) it's an extra step, so fewer people will do it.

(who is still irritated that he had to import the soundtrack CD for _League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ since in the U.S. it was an Apple Music Store, online-exclusive)

Streaming is great, until it's not (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371241)

My problem with streaming is that things are always in flux. You never know which labels are participating with X streaming service, and even when they do, the contracts are being changed. If you're counting on your favorite song being available online for streaming in 6 years when you want to reminisce, it's a losing battle.

Looking at my YouTube favorites list, a whole bunch of videos are removed due to vauge "terms of use", "copyright claims", or "user deletions". It makes me wish I had been ripping them.

You Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371247)

Spot when done For architect0re. My More stable share. *BSD is

Music streaming (1)

SandyBrownBPK (1031640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371263)

Hmm... The Cloud as a jukebox?

Stream (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371271)

In the 70s, I had a tiny, portable, wireless music streaming device.

Just sayin'. It had many pre-categorized music data type channels, or "stations".

In fact, the DVD, the Blue Ray, there wasn't none of that crap back in 1970. We didn't know about a World Wide Web -- was a whole different game being played back when I was a kid.

Wanna get down in a cool way? Picture yourself on a beautiful day -- big bell bottoms and groovy long hair, just walkin in style -- with a CD player? No! You would listen to the music on the AM radio!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>