The topic here is DRM vs non-DRM'd media. It's orthogonal to the topic of physicality: you can have DRM'd physical media (think Google Nest) and you can have non-DRM'd digital media.

Switching back to the convenience of using digital instead of physical is a disservice to the discussion because it switches the focus on something that is totally unrelated and makes people believe that those who prefer non-DRM'd media are somehow reluctant to adopting streaming platform. I definitely see the convenience of it: I barely have any music files on my computer, I stream it all from Youtube or Soundcloud or Bandcamp. And like you I have spent MUCH more money on artists now that I can stream them than when I bought CDs. But when I want to get the files for offline use I know I'm in good hands because those platforms allow me to do it and have files I can use forever without ever reconnecting to the mothership.

So, to come back the initial point: yes we got scammed, because we didn't read the fine print. We didn't understand that DRM'd media is never bought, it's always rented. We switched from buy-it-for-life to subscribe-until-the-platform-dies

If you include modern piracy in with "digital", sure. If you only include legal offerings, absolutely not.

Even DRM'd physical media that doesn't use the network in any way to authenticate is way better than DRM'd digital media, which you can never truly own, and which exists at the folly of the service operator.

I have plenty of ebooks from Baen and Tor, and plenty of music I've bought from a variety of places, all in digital format, all without any DRM. It's not the "digital" part that's bad, it's the DRM part.

You're back to conflating the two.

But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the vast majority of people just don't consume enough to make an all you can eat offering work.)

As perhaps both cause and effect, there's probably also something of a generational shift in which ownership of stuff you can put your hands on may just not be as appealing to many younger people, especially if they're urban dwellers without a lot of space.

Really? I have tons of music ripped from CDs on my iPhone and I can trivially play that in my car. I have CD players in my car (which I never use) and attached to my stereo (which I rarely use). It's not that the ability to play CDs (or rip them and play them) has been diminished but a lot of people prefer to just use a streaming service.

I'll grant that many people don't have a CD player even on their computer any longer but you can buy one for not much money online and have it in a couple days if you want one.

Are you suggesting that it's a simple and convenient thing to do for the public?

As another commenter said [0], you can buy and own media without ever touching a physical medium or waiting for the post service to deliver it.

I seem to remember at one point Apple was offering DRM-free music. This is pretty convenient for everybody. Yes, you have to buy it ahead of time and store it, as opposed to just streaming right away.

But it does seem quite easy to me. Go to the iTunes store, click buy, done. It may even sync automatically to your iPhone, so you can play it in your car, just as you would Spotify.

---

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26914754

Amazon's MP3 download store is DRM-free, but also, Amazon has an "Auto-Rip" feature that means often when you buy the physical music CD, they immediately give you the ability to download the MP3s for free. You get the real purchase of physical media, and the convenience of instant access.

Shoot, almost ten years ago I ripped my dad's CDs and put them all on a SanDisk mp3 player. He's almost certainly just using it as is.. I'd have to ask, but his music taste has been set for thirty years; he doesn't need to put anything new on it, ever.

All he needs to know how to do is unplug it from the stereo and plug it into the jack in the car.

What's hard here?

Automakers didn’t remove CD players despite people wanting them. They did it because enough customers were not willing to pay a premium to have the CD player. I would rather have a larger screen for CarPlay, and I’m betting most people who use streaming apps/MP3s would too.

CarPlay and touch screens generally are one of the worst 'innovations' that have happened in cars in recent decades, as far as road safety goes.

In the past, I would have a CD that had 5-10 albums on it, and could easily flip between them without taking my eyes off the road. I could glance up at the sleeve on my sun shade to find a different CD to switch to, and easily switch the CDs around and navigate the rest of the process by feel alone.

Now I have to pull over to change albums in a reliable (siri is unreliable and doesn't work with all apps) and safe manner.

It's an improvement as far as how much total music I have access to on any given journey. Does that convenience justify even one additional life lost as a result of a distracted driver? As a society, we have very loudly screamed ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY, which, like GP notes, is a real fucking shame.

Hmmm...

looks at old laptop

Hmmm...

looks at ipad, iphone

Hmm...Oh, I know!

looks at gaming PC

Nope. I don't have a disk drive on a computer and haven't for several years now. Sure, I could get one, but optical drives have been optional equipment for a while now.

But if you start by opening a streaming service and browse from there I don’t really think there’s any contest between the high-quality exploration and experience of eg Netflix vs the glorified spreadsheet browsing that is TPB and all the gotchas that go along with downloading random torrents...

In that way, Amazon Video is one of the most convenient platforms as it has more content than many other platforms, though you may need to pay a rental fee.

When it comes to convenience, for me unified access to the most content trumps most other issues.

And I think this is an incredible example of value that can be added to television. During an event you can watch live video footage from the main feed, any of the 20 cars on the track, or the pit straights. You can listen to team radios, commentary, or just engine audio.

What do you do when the show you want to watch is not on there? What do you do when it's a Hulu Exclusive? Or a Netflix show?

You know what I do? Search for 'movie/show name' + 'torrent' and I pull down the rip at 10MB/sec, and have it in a few minutes. Faster than signing up for another service, installing the app on all of my devices, connecting that app up to my account, adding my credit card, then paying for it. Then having to discontinue that subscription later when I decide there's nothing else on that service I want to watch. Then you realize, you paid for 1 month of service, just to watch one show... ridiculous.

Streaming is only convenient when you are already subscribed to the service. Otherwise piracy is much easier. Plus I don't get my fucking videos downsampled to 720p because I choose to watch in a web browser on a Linux box.

I like to be able to use my laptop to locate content and then watch it on a television. So my habits mostly include YouTube or TPB. With youtube I can queue a number of items into a playlist. For TPB, I just press the magnet and it appears on my television a short while later.

I mean I intend to continue paying for these services since I like the offerings. I just don't like using them. They're all ugly and annoying, and they each have their quirks I need to learn. Discovery sucks and searching is always slow and painful. I just don't care to deal with it.

Plus, every time someone mentions a show you have to have this extra little conversation about what streaming service it's available on. It's annoying and I really don't want to care.

Alan may want convenience of streaming a large library for a low price.

Barbara may want the conveniece of having physical media she can bring on her travels and play without an internet connection, or the ability to play it 20 years from now and give to her kids.

That is all fine, they are two different things

The scam is selling the rental of transient streaming service rental as if it had the attributes of buying physical media.

Apple and others are exploiting the familiarity and positive connotations of "buying a movie/album" to sell something that clearly lacks the same attributes. It is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and it is a scam.

You are not being lied to in the subscription model but it seems the digital buying isn't quite honest.

I would have convenience (more convenience than I have now, I argue). They could still have a cloud offering that only lasts as long as they feel like it.

That would be enough to make this lawsuit go away. So, no, it isn't that we are now buying convenience so we must bend our backs to their spying and control. We had both freedom and control in the digital music ecosystem for more than ten years.

Pretty inconvenient.

If we live in a world without physical media, some things will simply disappear forever.

Piracy is often more convenient than going through the hurdles of a legal purchase.

A fraudulent contract is not a contract.

We have been seduced into selling our rights down the river because we will sacrifice anything to this most pathetic of gods, Convenience.

I have been fighting in this war (anti-DRM/copyleft/etc) for decades, and peoples' susceptibility to convenience has always effectively thwarted any kind of counter argument.

We are fucking lazy and we should be ashamed of it.

Yes I am bitter, we could have had a world of power, control, and ownership at our fingers... a cornucopia of content on our terms... computers that well and truly serve us and not some wanterpreneurial, rent-seeking master... but it wouldn't have been as convenient.

And now zoomers, seduced by corporate sponsorships and the cozy fiefdoms of communities like YouTube or TikTok, have almost no concept of files or their utility, of the value of owning something detached from a profiteering cloud. They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them.

It is all complete, utter horseshit. We fought for a better world that nobody wanted because it wasn't as convenient

You’re blaming gen z for the world they were raised in? The oldest “zoomers” are about 25. You think they ran these companies for the last 20 years and made the decisions that got us here?

They have no problem enriching those who seek to exploit them because there is no other choice. Nobody actually wants this.

I read it as complaining that the work done defending the concept of digital ownership and absolute control of one's own digital space was for nought. The people coming of age in today's digital landscape were basically raised as prisoners inside of the rent/data-extracting walled gardens we have today.

Now it's easy gained, easy lost and so people don't care.

I just think software has made computing more accessible to people that don't know the fundamentals, which I think is a good thing. I don't think operating computers should be a gatekeeping exercise where you can't use it if you don't understand what machine instructions are, or c.

Not once will you figure out how to develop one without access to a traditional Desktop system, and an understanding of the fundamental underpinnings thereof. That's changing a bit now with some efforts in the FLOSS space, but it is roughly true today.

While there may be more developers now, I do not see a significant decrease in overall tech illiteracy.

Did you really need to reiterate yourself three times? Are you even really trying to participate in the conversation here are you trying to derail?