On the other hand, there are fundamental differences between the scholarly and music industries that should be pointed out:

1) Authors are not paid directly for their work but are remunerated indirectly through the reputation they build by giving their intellectual content away for free.

2) The vast majority of readers do not pay directly for what they read. While faculty, students, and researchers are effectively taxed to provide funds for library subscriptions, they do not pay them directly out of pocket. For all intents and purposes, articles are free to them.

3) Libraries are not profit-making or even cost-recovery centers. They work on fixed budgets and aim to pay every last penny in their annual budgets or risk having some taken away in future years. Minimizing expenditures is not a financial goal of the academic library.

As a result, it makes perfect (and rational) sense for a subscription market to continue in spite of its “wastefulness.”

An iTunes model where articles are purchased by the drink does have a small niche market for industry and corporate libraries. Most academic institutions seem to be quite happy (if happy can be equated with persistence) with the subscription model, with interlibrary loan analogous to your copying albums on cassette tapes.