I like owning my media. The idea that I can pay Amazon/Apple/Google for a piece of media and they can subsequently yank it out of my library down the line because they lost their license to distribute it does not sit well with me. I imagine it doesn't sit well with alot of people, either.
Until the dominant form of distribution allows people to OWN their music, I believe that piracy will persist.
I enjoy going to art museums and experiencing visual art, but I never experienced the inclination to purchase any of it. Music to me is a lot like that.
But if you really liked a particular piece of art, you'd expect to be able to find a high-quality photo somewhere to put as a desktop wallpaper. Also, if you enjoyed a particular piece of art, you might be worried it gets taken down from exhibition and become no longer accessible to you. This could make you consider purchasing a reproduction, or finding that photo.
Music for most people is something to consume, not something to see once and maybe neither again. If you "own" the music, in the sense that you have the "physical" control whether you have access to it, then you can be sure to consum it whenever you want.
It's the difference between data and a physical item. I don't expect to own every physical item I view but I do expect limitless access to my data, especially if I've paid for it.
I don't draw such a strong lines between physical and virtual items.
Even in the case where you buy a song, you don't have limitless rights to it. It would be illegal, for example, to buy a CD and use a song from that CD in a television commercial. You don't own the song, you are purchasing the right to replay the song in some situations. DRM purchases and streaming services are remarkably similar deals.
As is often brought up on the internet, it's the distinction between basic freedom and freedom from consequences. When you buy a CD, you have the basic freedom to put it in any CD player, rip it, back it up, re-encode it, share it with your friends, or put it on your MP3 player. There would still be consequences if you were to use it in a TV commercial. With DRM you do not even have any basic freedoms.
I'm not talking about what's legal I'm talking about what's imo ethical. I should be able to copy my movies etc to whatever device I want and legal action should be taken only against me if I used it in a commercial way.
I share the desire to permanently own media. Amazon have been selling music as DRM-free mp3 files since 2008, though, so that option is already available from a legal, mainstream online shop.
I'm glad that Amazon sells DRM-free MP3s (although I imagine they only did it to remain competitive with iTunes). They don't do it with their eBooks, however. Any time I buy an ebook through them, the first thing I do is download it to my PC and strip the DRM via Calibre so that I have a DRM-free version should Amazon ever decide to yank the original again.
But in practice though it is quite expensive to build up a personal library of music, whereas services like googles provide you with a vast catalog (Googles, I find is quite comprehensive, I haven't checked other services) at a small fixed cost. Its like buying a book and renting it out of a library, for some books it may make sense to buy, where as for very many others it is better to rent.
Until the dominant form of distribution allows people to OWN their music, I believe that piracy will persist.