XM Radio asking interesting questions

I own over 800 CDs that are collecting dust and don't match with the online services. I would actually rather rent the ability to tap into a vast library of music instead of just owning bits and pieces of what's available. It gives me more options and keeps my music library fresh. I want a flat all-you-can-hear model for subscriptions. I've been toying with the idea of Napster-to-go or Yahoo and this would be giving me the best of both worlds (my XM and my favorite songs). I'd pay the $10/month for this easy.

Call me a purist...I just can't consider "leasing" my music. Just because the RIAA can't sell CDs at $18.99 doesn't mean we should give our right to ownership of our music collections. Without sounding to cliche' I feel like my music collection is one of the only material posessions I have that possibly "defines" who I am. I don't think it should ever be rented from a corporation. I get my music legally and it would be a sad day if any part of my collection were held for monthly ransom.

A few months ago I finally got around to listening to "The Road Ahead" by Billy G. He kept going over subscription models for music... A nickel every time you listen to a song. $5 a month. Etc. It hurt my brain. I don't want to whip out an accounting ledger each time I want to groove man! So yeah, I think subscriptions are wack. For some it would make sense, but not for me. Last night my wife spent nearly $30 on iTMS to fill up her iPod mini. She is a total technophobe, and my personal litmus test for technology solutions. If she's "buying to own" her music, I'd say it's a popular bet. Oh wait, what's that most popular online music store out there? My music plays for sure indeed...

to add on to the end of #3, especially when the quality of the files are not the greatest. for example the itms, ill use it for buying the occasional rock song, but for more serious pieces and classical music i dont even think about using it.

I tend to disagree with comment #1. I have tried subscription services and personally can't stand them. My musical tastes are pretty out of alignment with the mainstream and having someone else keep my music collection for me just doesn't work. They hardly ever have songs I'm looking for and I just don't like the thought of having everything taken away from you if you don't pay your monthly fee. I am an XM subscriber though and I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea. I may be interested in it just so I can cheaply grab music on the fly, but for my main audio collection, I don't think I could ever go subscription.

This service sounds great -- but a touch pricey. Bring the cost down a little, and that sounds amazing.

I believe the future of music is indeed subscription, though I think most people won't pay more than 5 bucks a month for it. Mind you, if Nokia added 5 bucks to the price of their phones, they could afford to license most of music on the planet. Wonder when they will wake up to that?