Why can't they offer both? For instance Bandcamp does. You can stream music if you don't want to download it, but you can as well back up your DRM-free copy which I always do. I only pay for music when such option is available.

> Then don't use a streaming service.

I see no correlation between streaming (convenience) and forbidding one to download what is streamed (DRM). I'm OK with first, but I'm not OK with second.

But streaming isn't convenience, it's the business model. At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them. Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel. That's pretty obviously not how the system is designed to be used.

For me it's convenience.

> At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them.

I don't really understand the concept of renting for digital goods. Since they can be duplicated practically at no cost, there is no practical reason to "take and return" approach (i.e. rent). Keeping your digital copy does not reduce any value for the service.

> Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel

That can easily be prevented by saying that you can't exceed certain limit of downloads for such service if you only pay per month, and not for each copy. But again, I see no reason why they can't offer an option to pay per copy and let you keep one.

Of course it does. If you listen to an album a lot, it would either cost you a one-off payment $9.99 to download it once during your subscription, or, if you can't download it, you'll have to pay $9.99 every month in order to listen to it.

Allowing users to download music permanently would absolutely affect the profit Google would make - let alone how difficult it would make their negotiations with major labels.

Renting makes sense when resources are limited, like with physical goods. Returning it removes the need to produce another one, and it also naturally makes renting prices lower. With digital goods it's artificial - there is no scarcity that should require returning it after usage. Making one return it and pay over and over for unlimited resource is simply a rip off.

Not necessarily. I might listen to one album very frequently, but also other albums, including new ones as they come out. In that case, I'll be paying $9.99 for streaming no matter what, so there's no need to buy the album.

Making one return it and pay over and over for unlimited resource is simply a rip off.

Yeah, it's a business. It's the entire model of the business. If you don't like it you are welcome to not use it.

I prefer to always have backup of what I buy. I don't want my digital library to disappear because some DRMed service will go bust tomorrow (and that happened quite a number of times already with various services in the past). It's one of the reasons I don't use such digital renting services.

> Yeah, it's a business. It's the entire model of the business. If you don't like it you are welcome to not use it.

Indeed I don't :) In general digitial renting is aimed at reducing ownership. It started with crazy EULAs, DRM and other nonsense "business models" that some "smart" suits devised just because they dealt with digitial and not physical things. So I support those who distribute DRM-free (whether it's music, books, games, video and etc.). It's a form of voting with one's wallet as well.