noteworthy wrote:
This is the wrong mental model. It's not about the volume of consumption. That's the the wrong metric. Trying to make direct comparisons to a direct-purchase model is not going to lead to insight. I'm not really interested in apples-to-apples comparisons.

Ok, I'll bite. Volume isn't the metric because it's not a measure of actual value. 1 hour of quality music is worth more than 10000 hours of garbage. Fair enough. So now I need to be convinced that the service offers me value in giving me access to more good music. As you argue, the lowered barrier to exploration makes it more likely for me to find good music and enjoy it. Of course, to some degree, especially for real music lovers, the search itself is valuable... we enjoy listening to and thinking about new stuff, even if it's not so good, perhaps.

I'm very interested in this notion. I've had to re-examine why, as you say, I don't feel the same way about music as I do about film (though I do own a couple hundred DVD's, it's not the ones I love the most, but rather the ones I'm most entertained by, which is a different thing).

My desire to possess music that I love is perhaps a sort of collectors instinct. The necessary outlet of my desire to catalog my explorations and keep what feels like a permanent record thereof. I'm incapable of treating music like a mandala, to be enjoyed ephemerally. Further, I like knowing it's there. The bits on that hard drive and the backup I know that I made, are comforting. The idea that I won't be able to listen to my music because, sometime down the road, some record label changes their license with the service is not one I can countenance.

Going forward, "portability" is not something that is "supported" or not -- it is the basic service. Any song, any time, any where, for a low flat rate.

It's that "going forward" that gets me. The possibility that my ability to listen is predicated on the availability of a digital network is even more nerve wracking than what I discuss above. Internet access is not the robust public service that, say, electricity is in this country. I don't have it everywhere. Ubiquitous networking is a noble dream, and I support it. When "Any song, any time, any where" happens, my mind almost certainly will change. For the moment, capacity in the US is a fucking joke, and I will not settle for shitty quality music so that Sprint can fit it over their barely capable network when I happen to want to hear music someplace that's not my house.

The day I get that Qwest commercial, for real, I'll be all over subscription. Until then, it's just a dream to me. An engaging one, but a dream nonetheless.

Of course, I'm leaving out all discussion of DRM, which changes the landscape somewhat, but probably in similar ways for any service model.

RE: DRM, Statutory Licensing, Broadcast Flags, and Satellite Radio