Keeping your digital copy does not reduce any value for the service.
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.
If you use it so often, it only makes sense to buy it and keep it, instead of paying the same thing over and over.
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.
If you use it so often, it only makes sense to buy it and keep it, instead of paying the same thing over and over.
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 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.
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.
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.