Again, a temporary issue and one that happens quite infrequently, but if you already may have conflicting opinions on whether it's better to own or rent your music, this is certainly a valid point.

edit: mobile typos

From another perspective living in the US I'm pretty grateful that the power is super stable because so many things I rely on need power and they almost always work. In India it's common to have rolling blackouts so people are quite adapted to outages daily.

We've been conditioned to just accepting that random outages and corporate decisions can take things away from us, but it is a ridiculous proposition that only benefits the bottom line of the service providers. I understand that the "convenience" angle might be attractive to some, but personally I don't think it's worth the trade-offs.

And this is not just about music, or movies. It applies to all forms of data that we have collectively agreed can just live in the cloud, because the cloud will always be there and we don't have to think about it. Until one morning you find that the cloud is unavailable, and so is all your data.

Physical media is inconvenient in a lot of ways, but to me is still an infinitely better proposition than trusting a bunch of random companies to provide me with access to digital media.

Alas that's illegal in the UK

Sadly, the list of such sites seems to be shrinking with every passing year, and I've found many artists I'd like to support by buying their stuff, but they only offer streaming options. I've noticed it happens more frequently with artists that have been scooped up by a major label or one of its subsidiaries, unsurprisingly.

also, show me how my monthly subscription is divided up while you're at it.

Explain please, in what way do I not own the media I bought?

EDIT: responding to your edit:

> Now of course, technically, Warner can't go after your CD collection

and non-technically, what's the "subtle but important" difference here?