I'd rather have one good streaming service with everything on it than the dozens of crappy streaming services with their ever-shifting patchwork of available licensed content we have now. Rightsholders seem like a bigger problem than licensees to me.
Challenge is we ended up with one really bad streaming service but lots of capital slurping up all the licenses. In my ideal world, the regulator would prevent using exclusivity as a moat to prevent smaller operations competing.
Australia is a tiny market but before the big american companies bought them out, our local AnimeLab offering was one of the worlds best. If a new similarly oriented offering could launch and compete I’d love to see it, but sadly only pirate operations can do so, and are doing so effectively.
There's a reason it was law in the US that movie production companies couldn't own movie theaters: distribution should be required to be separate to ensure choice on the viewer side due to the inherent non-fungibility of entertainment media. In other words, if through copyright we grant a monopoly, then it's not a sustainable situation for the distribution to also be allowed to consolidate.
Ideally we'd have both benefits: many platforms each with (more or less) all the content, where they compete on consumer-focused streaming features rather than on their (transient) licensed content libraries. But right now we have plenty of "competition" yet it's all just a race to the bottom.
> many platforms each with (more or less) all the content
Which is what we have on the music side of things. You can choose Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music etc based on how their service works for you rather than what music you want to listen to.
Worth noting though, those monoliths themselves come with tradeoffs; artists don't earn shit for streaming, which is why the only way to really "support" one anymore is concerts and merch.
And don't get me wrong I love concerts and merch, but I'd rather people earn a reasonable living without needing to be on tour basically in perpetuity.
How much of this is actually new to the streaming era? Radio stations may have paid better per play/listener, but they had finite airtime and so fewer songs got played and fewer artists got paid. Physical media may have paid better compared to streaming the same songs once, but the media could be copied and replayed infinitely.
There was a lot of unrealistic hype that software magic could make everything between the consumer and the producer practically free, and that just hasn't happened and probably never will. Engineers need to get paid and infrastructure needs to get maintained too.
Respectfully you're looking at the wrong wing of the (old?) industry. Radio plays have never been a substantial revenue source, they have a lot more in common with streaming in that way, and in fact, many labels would use paid radio placement basically as a form of advertising. The tradeoff being, for the consumer, that the radio didn't play whatever they wanted; it played what was scheduled, with an occasional request from a lucky listener.
What streaming has cannibalized is album sales, which is the problematic aspect. The fixed price-per-month to access a vast library of music is a killer value prospect for the consumer, which is why Spotify et al have succeeded as they have. However, again, it's bad for the artists; they don't make shit. And I mean, think about the economics there and it'll become evident why: previously to access between 10 and 20 songs depending on the album costed you about $10-15, one time purchase, but it was yours for the life of the media. Now you're paying (if you're paying) about $15-20 per month to access all of the music ever. And yeah there's less cost, no printed CDs, no shipping, no retail markup, but come on, if you have 4 CDs in your spotify library and are on the most expensive family plan, which IIRC is about $30/month, you're already ahead by 50%. That doesn't bode well for the artist's revenue split.
We really need some sort of vaguely apples-to-apples comparison.
Looking only at CDs ca. 2005, which sold at about $15 each, an album that went platinum (1 million sales) would gross $15 million in retail, probably $10 million in wholesale, leaving about $1-3 million for the artist depending on contract terms. Estimates seem to put Spotify compensation at $3000 paid to the artist per million plays. So, you'd need somewhere between 333 million and 1 billion plays to get comparable revenue to a platinum album.
"Blinding Lights" by The Weeknd is currently the most-streamed song on Spotify at 5 billion plays [1]. That's roughly equivalent to a 5-15x platinum album from a single song and streaming platform alone; the record for most platinum album seems to be 34x platinum for Michael Jackson's Thriller [2], which had 7 songs that all were hits to some degree or another. Michael Jackson did a lot besides just record the songs; he also put out elaborate music videos and went on showy tours. All told, there are more than 100 songs with more than 1 billion plays on Spotify (in fact, the 100th is still above 2.4 billion plays).
So, I think, the situation has not really gotten worse.
> Looking only at CDs ca. 2005, which sold at about $15 each, an album that went platinum (1 million sales) would gross $15 million in retail, probably $10 million in wholesale, leaving about $1-3 million for the artist depending on contract terms. Estimates seem to put Spotify compensation at $3000 paid to the artist per million plays. So, you'd need somewhere between 333 million and 1 billion plays to get comparable revenue to a platinum album.
Solid comparison, and illustrates the issue pretty well I feel.
> "Blinding Lights" by The Weeknd is currently the most-streamed song on Spotify at 5 billion plays [1]. That's roughly equivalent to a 5-15x platinum album from a single song and streaming platform alone; the record for most platinum album seems to be 34x platinum for Michael Jackson's Thriller [2], which had 7 songs that all were hits to some degree or another. Michael Jackson did a lot besides just record the songs; he also put out elaborate music videos and went on showy tours. All told, there are more than 100 songs with more than 1 billion plays on Spotify (in fact, the 100th is still above 2.4 billion plays).
So then let's bear that out. I don't have the data on the Thriller album for for the sake of argument, we'll rely on a quick google which says it was about $8 in 1982. I'll use the same split you did (33% off for wholesale, about 30% of which went to the artist) so if we run all that down, with US sales being 35 million units. So $55.44 million went to Michael, if we assume all of that is true and correct, which adjusted for inflation would be about 184 million dollars.
We'll compare that to the Weeknd's streams for Blinding Lights. We'll put him on the high end of receiving a half a penny per play, that works out to about 30 million dollars, for as you point out, the highest streamed song on the platform.
It's still not quite a 1:1, unfortunately, but: Michael Jackson with 7 hit songs of varying popularity was able to shift 35 million albums for a personal profit of 184 million in 2025 dollars, versus the Weeknd, who with the most popular song on Spotify, made $30 million.
And it's worth pointing out here, these are both superstar heavy hitters. The story gets a lot worse for any artist not in that category.
> Rightsholders seem like a bigger problem than licensees to me.
completely agree - i think the gov't regulatory body should change the landscape to what film and cinema have; such that distributor of media cannot own and monopolize the broadcast rights on their own platform, and publisher of media be forced to sell/license at the same price to all distributors.
This way, a streaming service can always know and pay for a broadcasting license for _any_ media, and all media must be license-able for any streaming service (at the same price), thus no monopoly can exist under this system.
I tend to agree with this take - look at the book or music industry, where you can buy most media in each category on most platforms, with some exceptions.
Ideally, like music, we'd get multiple vendors offering downloads that are high quality copy of video that isn't DRM encumbered.
But currently, we don't get this, and the closest legitimate way (modulo the DMCA...) to get video as a file is to buy physical media and rip it.
Serious shades of Gabe Newell's "it's a service problem, not a pricing problem" around all of this.
