Buy An Album On Qobuz Multiple Times

[AnotherSpin]

I can buy a digital album for someone as a gift. For myself I see the advantage of Qobuz or any other streaming as not having to buy anything. Why burden yourself with owning something that is available at any given moment through a year's subscription? 

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

A. Because you don't know that it will continue to be available. I've seen albums, or specific versions of albums withdrawn. Sometimes replaced by inferior sounding versions.

B. Because streaming pays the artist a pittance. They make a lot more from fans buying a disc or a download. I can buy the download and also stream the music. The artist wins. 

 

A. When you "own" something (in fact this something rather owns you) you cannot be guaranteed that you will continue to own it. There are countless reasons beyond your ability to control that would effectively cease your ownership.

B. I have no idea exactly how the financial compensation of musicians is provided and I am not going to judge how fair it is or is it fair at all. I suppose it is none of my business.

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Sorry, none of that makes any sense. If I have physical or digital copies of my own and backups, I own it in every practical and realistic sense of the word. And almost for sure I will continue to possess it till I die. If that wasn't true, how would I still have recordings that are many decades old-and some don't exist at any streaming service and aren't available anymore in the market?

And "in fact" it owns me? Only your opinion, not in any way fact. Your POV isn't equal to fact. And as far as that goes, acc'd to your reasoning your streaming subscription owns you, too.

 

Your "countless reasons" have almost no real world impact and exist almost entirely in theory, but not in reality. Countless infintessimally  small/unlikely items still don't add up to much.

Yeah sure, if society totally breaks down and there is no electricity, my recordings won't be worth much. But then there won't be streaming either.....

 

It's only none of your business if you only look at the world in how it directly affects you, and not in how you influence the world. The streaming model is highly skewed toward large corporate profit and away from artists in comparison to older models. That makes it much more difficult for artists to survive economically. And for smaller record labels to survive. The way you consume music directly effects which artists survive and which recording entities survive. In other words, what type of art is available to you. 

The fact that you avoid thinking about it and remain in ignorant bliss is essentially just a cop out and a way of avoiding responsibility for your part in the system. Ignoring that doesn't change the reality. 

 

One can not influence a thing, but you are free to think whatever you please. Makes no difference anyway. BTW, I donated my LPs collection (several thousands) to the school I once attended, sold, and gave away my collection of CDs (about a thousand items). The same with a library of several thousand books. And with many other items I "owned" before. I feel a huge sense of relief now.

[AnotherSpin]

51 minutes ago, rando said:

AS s' diatribe riddled complaint against life itself is not unknown to me.  His stomping every flowering discussion is to be warranted against lest he resemble his shadow.  [..]

 

 

 

If this was an attempted personal attack, the attempt failed, sorry. I don't care who says what about me.

[AnotherSpin]

38 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps the more enlightened approach would to be destroy these items rather than simply transfering the burden of ownership to someone else. 👺

 

Not important for me anymore.