Pre-Spotify and pre-bandcamp, getting music you could play on multiple devices was hard. Piracy was the only reliable way you could have the same songs on your walkman, your mp3 player, your phone, and your computer.

Bandcamp is nice, in that it offers DRM-free music in high quality, but Spotify offers raw, unadulterated convenience.

And Convenience is King.

Netflix is already seriously less useful than it was a few years ago now that more and more copyright holders are pulling their content and starting their own streaming services...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pledge_(film)

(There’s two DVD rips listed by the indexer I use but neither of them is the complete film, and no streaming service has it.)

https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/60004419

I found it using this:

https://www.justwatch.com/uk/search?q=The%20Pledge&content_t...

(This appears to be a recent change by Netflix where they list movies that can’t actually be viewed. Another example of a movie listed by Netflix but not viewable there is the documentary “The Wrecking Crew” - https://www.netflix.com/title/70105364)

This movie really doesn’t seem to be legally streamable. I found a supposed Bluray rip of it via TPB, and an HN reader emailed me links to a couple very poor quality DVD rips on various sketchy web sites, and there’s some even worse quality CD sized rips on Usenet. The physical media is no longer for sale, and I’m not sure it was ever released to BR, the torrent I found (and still transferring) notwithstanding.

(I know, I know, it's one of their least 'significant' movies -- but IMO it's their most fun and watchable one).

piracy is currently the most convenient way to consume content now that all the streaming services/labels want to fragment their libraries

I guess for someone starting from scratch, "what streaming service(s) should I should I subscribe to?" might be a difficult and paralyzing question to the point that the answer might be, "who knows, screw it, I'll just pirate everything".

I'm not sure. A friend watches shows on a pirate streaming site, even though they are available for free (but add supported, not that this matters with addblock) on a legal streaming site. It's just easier to always first check the site that always has the desired content available for that particular target audience than some try and error or even an additional google search.

But context matters. If you pay for a subscription, wanting to get the most "value" out of that makes sense psychologically (just like the other mindset... "already payed for that, who cares where i watch"). Also if you already got the necessary subscriptions and google always directly leads you to the latest weekly episode, starting there doesn't make a difference. One that's not the case (e.g. you can only watch ever other show an the high sea)... well, having to repeat the search on more than one site would certainly be more effort.

good thing there are piracy streaming sites with all the content then :p

all the properly licensed streaming services are about as and a little more convenient than 2004's piracy-scene was for me

the licensed music scene is top notch for me between soundcloud, shazam and spotify

just need to let youtube know that youtube music is never going to happen, and let the other guys know not to mess their things up

for music I only pay for spotify

and if spotify messes up in the availability, I rip the same song from youtube in HD and put it in my spotify library

I use Spotify to listen mostly to classical music, and I might want to hear something performed by 10 or 20 different performers. There is no way I could afford that by buying "songs" individually.

As a side note, Spotify treats classical listeners horribly, ignoring their requests (such as to show more of song titles, or search by label), which I do not understand, because these are the customers that would most likely pay a premium to get better features.

This is actually largely to do with what metadata they take and then how they present it. And it’s really tricky.

The metadata associated with classical music is generally speaking more complex than (say) a rock track. Until relatively recently there was not (IIRC) a clear format laid out in the DDEX standards (which are the metadata standards associated with delivering music and other media) for how you present the numerous different elements of metadata associated with a classical release. So it is a real mess.

I don’t think Spotify necessarily even takes the full metadata spec that you can associate with a classical release.

So for example: you may have a recording of the Allegro - which is the third (also written III) movement from Beethoven’s Symphony number 6 - also know as the Pastoral, also known as Op.68 or Opus 68 (and as the “Pastorale” in German) which is in the key of F major.

I need to be sure that the track I’m listening to is not the 4th (IV) movement which is also Allegro and definitely not the 1st (I) which is Allegro but not too much - Allegro non troppo.

Now - I want the version recorded in Austria by the Weiner Philharmonic conducted by Simon Rattle produced by Stephen Jones and released on Warner Classics. You however may well prefer the Decca version conducted by Erich Kleiber with the London Philharmonic (but not the London Philharmonia!) produced by Victor Olof. Or you may want the Kleiber-conducted version with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. How do you distinguish?

As you can see there are a whole load of different pieces of metadata on which people might search - and when it comes to classical repertoire these things really matter to the listener. The way labels try to address it currently on Spotify is to simply stuff as much as possible into the track title. Spotify now have some of this listed in the “song credits” but that is relatively recent. And the info on many tracks is far from complete.

There are some specialist classical services addressing this - but the problem is I would prefer not to have to subscribe to an additional service just for classical music when most of it is sort of available on my streaming service of choice.

So yeah. It’s a mess :)

This really doesn't take that much and it isn't an impossible goal. And yet Spotify wasn't able to implement these two things for years, even though people keep begging them to.

Amazon music downloads & Bandcamp downloads are even easier.

What’s not easy is needing to manage a subscription account, log in on multiple devices, and either manage caching music local to the device (and frequently needing to clear items out of the cache to switch with other items) or always use cellular data services to stream music.

I obviously cannot argue with massive consumer trends, but personally I do not understand how anyone thinks streaming services are more convenient. I cannot empathize with any use case where streaming would be more convenient.

Whether I’m discovering new music, sharing music, making playlists, or anything else, the absolute number one thing I need is the raw music files. Convenience starts & stops with that.

>For me, buying a physical disc

physically drive to a store, find the cd, purchase, etc. or buy online, wait days for it to arrive, etc.

>transferring the files to my computer

hook phone up to computer, extract files, load onto dropbox, and then finally have access

vs.

>manage a subscription account, log in on multiple devices

you literally click one button. that's all. And you login once and never again. no more difficult than logging into dropbox.

>either manage caching music local to the device

again, one button. on your spotify playlist / album there is a "download" button. click it. boom. done. listen all you want, without internet.

>absolute number one thing I need is the raw music files

you and about 1% of people. no one else does, hence why spotify is a billion dollar company and cd's are obsolete.

Somehow doing this with Dropbox is easy, but not with Spotify?

You can't imagine that it's easier to search for a new song on Spotify and play it immediately VS buying a physical disc, transferring the files to your computer, then transferring them again to each of your devices?

Just finding the physical discs is huge inconvenience

I want a radio experience, where some nice person somewhere else (or an algorithm, whatever) picks music for me. Bonus points if they don't come on after every song to tell me all about whatever. I'm not worried about the cost or inconvenience of using cellular data services to stream music, that's the primary reason I have a data plan.

I use a curated streaming service, but I can see the appeal of Spotify, because thanks to the mandatory licensing regime, they can literally stream any released music in a radio context; and having access to everything is amazing. When Launchcast was a thing, it's recommendation engine was pretty great, although they lacked depth in the genre's I want to listen to; I strongly suspect Spotify does too.

[1] https://www.di.fm/vocaltrance

Yet you seem to do it with Dropbox just fine... You make it sound onerous. The reality is it's a one-time effort of about 20 seconds for each device. Drop the hyperbole, it just makes you look silly.

> and either manage caching music local to the device (and frequently needing to clear items out of the cache to switch with other items)

How is "putting them into Dropbox or transferring them via VLC to each of my devices" materially different from "manage caching music local to the device (and frequently needing to clear items out of the cache to switch with other items)"? If you want to put music on a device that's already full, don't you have to delete something first whether you're transferring files manually or downloading them through Spotify?

> buying a physical disc, transferring the files to my computer, and either putting them into Dropbox or transferring them via VLC to each of my devices

is harder than

> Search for song, click "Play" on song

???

And let's not even get into backing up, keeping in sync, correct song metadata, etc.

If you honestly can't see how much easier the second thing is compared to the first, I would honestly go see a medical professional about it, because you're literally delusional.

This mindset is the reason why all software is terrible.

Also, it used to be 10,000 across 3 devices and bizarrely only 333 on each device (even if you only used one device)! I think they have since fixed that.

But couldn't you legally copy music between devices without being a pirate?

Also, surely nobody tried to have music for an MP3 player AND a Walkman. Those have got to be mutually exclusive, don't they? Even smartphones and MP3 players didn't exist together much.

I personally started paying for Spotify to help myself feel more ethical about my music consumption. And it is very convenient. Except I haven't ponyed up for the family price yet, so only one person in my family can use it at a time.

Since streaming became the norm, we've not made that amount in over 2 years. We get streams, but the amount you get is miniscule compared to a single sale.

Now if only MPAA and friends would listen...

Citation needed

My understanding is that total spending on recorded music is way down from heights in the 90's. I could be wrong though.

Eventually, this also helped set the stage for Napster, etc. The public didn't want to spend $15+ dollars for s single. And after getting too many one-hit wonders the public was glad to have it's needs met and were even happier when that was also form of revenge against the music industry.

The artificial peak of the 90's was also one of the reasons the music industry took so long to adjust to digital (read: a return to singles buying normalcy). They go so used to those revenues that they forgot what reality was like.

Cherry picking from the article from 2014:

> At the 1999 peak ... according to the music trade group International Federation for the Phonographic Industry, across the total 18-and-over population (both across many countries or individually within one), the average amount spent came to $28 per consumer.

Moving on:

> But that includes people who did not buy any music that year. If we look at just the consumers who bought music, they spent $64 on average that year.

> Another study by NPD Group in 2011 found similar spending, about $55 per music buyer per year on all forms of recorded music

Note, that's all forms of music.

> about $12 per iTunes account per quarter is spent on music, or about $48 per year.

The recent uptick is certainly interesting though.

Given the amount of music I listen to, if I was to buy the singles or full albums I'd be paying significantly more. If I was to buy on iTunes for $1.99 each song that I wanted to listen to now, I would've paid a lot more money than I do now through the subscription model. As I am not limited on price whenever I decide to listen to different music.