Slashdot Mirror
Music Streaming Sales Outstrip Digital Downloads For First Time (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this news, which might worry you if you'd like your music (or videos, or books) to be safely stored on your local PC, phone, or offline storage: Music streaming has surpassed digital downloads in terms of revenue, according to a report released by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Its 'News and Notes on 2015' review shows that music streaming in the U.S. brought in 34.3% of the overall revenue for the year – generating $2.4 billion out of a total $7 billion. If the numbers are accurate, streaming beat music downloads by 0.3%. While this growth is an encouraging result for those in the industry backing streaming services like Spotify and the new Apple Music, many remain unconvinced of its value. RIAA chairman and CEO Cary Sherman noted an 'alarming' disparity between the growth in the number of ad-supported streams, and the growth in revenues generated by these.
who cares, $10 a month i can listen to as many new releases or songs I haven't heard of as I want at any time that i want my music library peaked at 200 some CD's back in the day and most of them i would only listen to once a year. no value in buying music anymore for a huge collection
I disagree.
Not only do I not have a nearby place with live music, let alone playing the kind of music I want ... I want to be able to listen to music while I work, while I'm on a plane, while I'm on vacation, while I'm in my backyard while in my car, or hanging out with friends in my living room.
I also want a large amount of variety in my music, and have little interest in going to a live venue where I get gouged for cover, over-priced drinks, and leave with ringing ears. And, no, I don't want to hear yet another damned version of Mustang Sally by a cover band. I want to listen to music FAR more often than that, and I sure don't want whatever pop tune is going to play 10 times that day.
Why was the concept of owning music farcical? We had it for a VERY long time as a model, and for some of us it still works quite well.
Artists get paid far better from a CD purchase than a streaming play, and I have no fucking interest in having ads shoved in my face so some asshole can track me and try to monetize my listening experience.
Me, I buy CDs, rip 'em to MP3, and use them on all of my devices how I see fit, where I see fit, and when I see fit. Two or three times a year I buy 20-30 CDs (more if you account for multi-disk sets), rip 'em, put in my library and as much as possible try to play through my entire library through the year -- because I have big giant random playlists based on least recently played.
No ad company gets money when I play my music, no asshole can tell me the DRM has expired and I'm not allowed to listen to it, no analytics company can gather information about me when I play music, and I'm not dependent on an internet connection to re-download something I already own.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to avoid the corruption of the music industry is buy CDs from artists I like, or buy compilation CDs I like, let them get paid, and then never have them have any inputs on how I use my music ever again.
Sorry, for me buying a CD and ripping it to MP3 is pretty much the only way I can freely enjoy my music in the way I choose to listen to it without allowing someone to try to apply constraints or make more money off the purchase. It's a one shot deal, and then the recording industry is out of the picture ... and I'm not supporting artists I don't like.
No way I'm willing to hand control of how I play my music to anybody else, and no way I'm going to rely on the radio or live venues to provide all of the music and variety I choose. I'll take care of that myself, precisely by owning my own music library.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.