I consider reliability to be a fundamental element of access. If I have music on my hardware, I can always play it. If other people are granting me access to download music from their hardware, I can play it whenever I have access to their hardware, up to the limits of whatever constraints they have chosen to apply to their service, which may include having to spend money or listen to ads.

Different people have different needs; I'd rather have a smaller collection of music I can count on than access to all the music which is encrusted with hassle and advertising.

Sure each to their own.

But I believe you will belong to a diminishing group of people who do so and nothing wrong with that.

Would you rather be in control of your life, or would rather it be at the mercy of the whims of a faceless corporation?

Sure each to their own.

Be in control of my life?

What do you mean? You are not in control of your life if you rent a car? An apartment? A set of Ski?

I mean that you are less in control of your music collection if it's in the hands of a company rather than if you own it yourself.

The fact a majority are happy with the current state of affairs doesn't change this. Your comment about "belonging to a diminishing group" is irrelevant?

And you have a much smaller music collection because you have to buy it all yourself to own it. So I am not sure what freedom it it you think you have that I don't? I can just buy it if i really want it but mostly it's available.

So it simply make no sense to talk about freedom in this context.

You are confusing two very different things.

Not sure when this turned into a dick swinging context but, let me explain: you don't "have" a music collection, by definition mine is bigger.

No by definition you own more than i do. But I have access to more than you do.

The difference is subtle but important.

I can listen to exactly the same music as you can and much much more.

Until the day said access is unilaterally revoked.

Or until the day your house burned down.

Guess who is most vulnerable?

I don't understand why you say access beats ownership.

Do you think this only about music? Or books? Or movies?

If so, do you apply it to other things in your life? Do you own a car, or do you only rent? How about your home? Is it better to rent, or buy a place to live? Clothes? Why buy a pair of jeans, when you could pay a monthly fee to have new jeans delivered to your house and return the (month) old ones?

For me, IMO, I would rather own my music, books and house, but rent my car and clothes.

Because access is something that can be cut off or denied.

And at the end of the day, as long as I can walk naked to my home listening to music and reading, I will always be happy.

Why own something if I instead can rent everything when I need it?

If I could I would rent everything. Some things I would rent for a long time others for a short.

But each to their own of course.

I would rent all that if it was as easy as Spotify, Google music etc.

Although a house is not comparable.

Except it isn't all the world's music. I have literally thousands of recordings that you can't stream, because they aren't available.

Now, it is quite likely that you have no interest in at least the vast bulk of those, because they're obscure bands from my youth, live recordings of acts you don't care about, experimental music from the 80s, etc.

But rental access to the RIAA machine is a far, far cry from "all the world's music".

As for access, well. To each their own. I subscribe to the cliche that if you don't own the substrate, you don't own the data, and it can go away against your wishes. Now, Spotify an friends don't seem to play games like the studios do with Netflix, but that's almost certainly a matter of a business environment that doesn't encourage it, not "dedication to serving music lovers" or whatever.

It isn't that I need to "own" music. I don't know what exactly that's even supposed to mean in a world of bullshit IP laws that make less sense daily. It is that bits on your own platter is the only way to ensure your own continued access. And again, maybe you don't care - maybe the menu is more important for you than the particular flavors on it. But I know I'm not the only one who likes listening to things that are utterly unavailable on any service, for streaming or "purchase".

Thats not what I am saying. I am saying that if you could I think it beats owning it.

I agree that a world in which absolutely everything ever recorded is available, and there is no risk of access ever going away, is superior to one in which I store my own bits, pay for my own disks, etc.

Let me know when we get there.

A lot of people repeating that line will change their tune when Spotify finally goes out of business in a couple of years time.

Streaming Music in the cloud is not going anywhere.

Not sure why that would change that?

There have never been as much access to music as there is today. It's a good thing.

Price conflicts. The streaming system is obviously worthwhile, but we haven't negotiated a price point where users, streamers, and artists are all willing to play ball.

At the moment, it seems like someone always has to take a loss, and the rationalization might be ugly.

Outside of Apple I'm of the opinion Spotify will be the only one that survives as competition. Tidal? Much more likely.

Besides, Spotify is playing ball with the record labels. As numerous articles are indicating though, the RIAA is out for blood on YouTube. That's going to be much more contentious in the future I'd wager.

And we will call this the golden decade of music access, as our children fetishize the 2010s

Yep it's only going to get tighter and tighter (legitimately so, IMHO).

Just like we fetishize the Napster era.

I'm sympathetic to this (well, if I trusted access to continue uninterrupted and offline), but for me we're nowhere near there yet.

Anyone with sufficiently unusual music tastes can't possibly get their content via 'access'. And that's not a high bar - even tame interests like EDM, jam, or jazz are completely unsolved via access in my experience.

Actually Spotify's numbers show that people listen to much more off-chart music when they only pay for access instead.

So there are many ways to look at this.

Sure, but the point is there are many off chart artists and tracks that I'm aware of, or own, that Spotify provides no access to. I've also found great underground albums by artists that one day went dark on Spotify. That happens all the time on all streaming services, especially YouTube. For obscure selection, the competitors to Spotify are even worse.

Overall access is still a ways out. Access is taken away as easily at it is given. Without ownership you lose the ability to ever share that experience you once had access to.

Sure but this IMO is greatly countered by the fact that because you don't have to buy the music you get to listen to way more music.

There are a lot of music that you would love but you aren't listening to because you don't know it exist. The chances of you experiencing that is bigger if you have access to more music without having to buy it.