There clearly isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to this. But overall I'm glad to have so many options. I'll probably always keep a modest collection of music on CD and vinyl, because I like looking at album artwork and liner notes, and the tactile experience of loading a music player. I also like having a monstrous yet searchable library of MP3 files in a space so small it defies physics, tucked away out of sight but immediately accessible by just about anything that has a screen and plays through a speaker. And I like streaming because it introduces me to new artists that I otherwise wouldn't know about, and can get me to a song I really need to reference right away, whether I'd ever want that song in my personal collection or not. I find it interesting that, despite new technology, we as consumers can still choose from multiple traditional methods for acquiring and playing music. I sure wouldn't be so enthusiastic about streaming if it were the only option. But now we can go with whatever works for a specific need, and we sure couldn't do that 25 years ago. Something I suspected and just confirmed ==> streaming services do pay royalties, from revenue generated by advertisements and premium service subscribers. It would be tricky to try to compare their royalty rates with those paid by traditional outlets like FM radio stations, given the differences in play counts. But if nothing else, the current popularity and convenience of streaming essentially finished off the Napster era, which really was without any artist compensation at all.