>Think about it. If you had unlimited cheap streaming access to any music anywhere in the world, what's the point in downloading? There is none.
Well, I did think about it. The point in downloading is that you then have a copy of the song. As others have mentioned, you can then play it anywhere, especially places where you can't "stream" it.
There's another reason to download as well. How do you stream a song after some marketing idiot has removed it from the site? When it's not available due to "shifting consumer demand" or because of "bandwidth issues"?
Slashdot Mirror
>Think about it. If you had unlimited cheap streaming access to any music anywhere in the world, what's the point in downloading? There is none.
Well, I did think about it. The point in downloading is that you then have a copy of the song. As others have mentioned, you can then play it anywhere, especially places where you can't "stream" it.
There's another reason to download as well. How do you stream a song after some marketing idiot has removed it from the site? When it's not available due to "shifting consumer demand" or because of "bandwidth issues"?
I don't need to save hard disk space that much.
I was wondering if anyone else noticed this. Pretty shoddy from the Times . . don't they refer to themselves as the "newspaper of record"?
This posting makes no sense? However, giving up (to name a few) pay-per-view, media organization, and plug and play would probably not be a Bad Thing.