>>12926>i dont see why you would genuinely want to pay for musicSure, a lot of contemporary music was ruined by corporate lowest common denominator design. It's not worth paying for that, and it's probably not worth listening to it either.
Parts of the music market will disappear. Machine learning software will likely generate good enough sound for generic background music. It will get condensed into a cheap box similarly to other low cost commodity electronic goods. Today it takes a pricey workstation computer to do this, tomorrow it will be a tiny chip costing a thousand times less.
If you want good music you might want to pay as a means to influence what kind of music gets made to get more small scale good quality independent stuff. File-sharing solves the distribution part, it brings down the cost to near zero, which is important for small time independents, who can't roll out sales infrastructure. The part that is still missing is organizing production.
Big corporate is trying to monetize access, which is a very negative strategy that leads to a lot of hostility. First they fence off the music to keep people out and then they take on the role of gate keepers, who need to be bribed to let people through. It's very reminiscent of medieval market places where producers, merchants and customers alike had to pay a toll to the local baron to enter the market-place.
If we could find a way to monetize direction of sound, you'd pay to influence what kind of music your favorite musician, band, orchestra, etc composes and produces next. The insanity of access-control schemes would evaporate. And it would be a positive strategy, that doesn't require all that hostility and keeping people out.