But then if you look at Spotify's earning report, they are losing money. A large percentage of the cost is music licensing. I think the solution is the streamin

But then if you look at Spotify's earning report, they are losing money. A large percentage of the cost is music licensing. I think the solution is the streaming services like Spotify either 1) comes up with more revenue streams 2) Raise prices on their core business, the subscription prices higher than $10 a month. If the second option is happening, I am sure we will get another HN discussion post, with some people complaining its too expensive. So we have to think, are we the consumer, by demanding that we want cheap "all you can eat" music subscription, we are hurting the musicians? If you think about it, $10 a month is two cups of Starbucks coffee. I drink more cups of coffee a month than that. And how much effort is it to make two cups of coffee and the coffee beans are industrially produced? Versus a musicians writing a song and perform the song? I claim the latter involves much more effort. Also lets remember how we ended up with the $10/month all you can eat subscription. Pirating, CD rips, online MP3 sharing, Youtube music videos, etc. The majority of the people don't want to pay for music anymore. I feel people are more likely to value a physical good. For example: I feel somewhat balanced for paying $5 for that Starbucks coffee because I get a physical thing in the end. In the early 2000s, the computer and internet was the new thing, not everyone used it, and it was a bit complicated. So using it made me feel like I am "smarter", more frontier chasing, more elite than others. And there were ideals like internet freedom, free access to information. And then when I discovered there is MP3s, copy and paste, BitTorrent and Napster, I felt like I have just been bestowed special powers. Through my "hard" work with computers, I gained the rights to listen to music for free. I actually felt I was righteous to download music from the Internet and listen to them. Had content locked behind a paywall, had to pay for that? It was against internet freedom, it was an outrage. Then I remember when Steven Jobs later came out with Itunes and every song is 99 cents. I felt, 99 cents? alright, it's only a dollar and really not that much. That was the first time I started to actually pay for music. But the music industry and musicians were outraged because Steve Jobs is making their work worth only a dollar. Job's point was that if you charge people more than 99 cents a song, people would just pirate. I agree with him. The later "all you can streaming" subscription came out with the competitive advantage being even cheaper than Itune's a dollar a song purchase scheme. But then everyone as the desire to seek for cheaper prices and better access. Maybe its just natural progression of things and we can't fault for that. Stakeholders have to adapt for change in behavior and landscapes. I believe the advantages nowadays for a musician is that "getting yourself known and advertise yourself" is cheaper than ever. And there are so many people out there that you can easily reach that even a niche artist can find audiences. Its much easier now to create a fanbase and consistently communicate and maintain a fanbase. And when you have a fanbase, you just have to figure out how to monetize that. Concerts, fan items, album sales, even sponsorship and advertisement, a Youtube channel makes you a lot of money already. Look at the amount of fans a Youtuber and TikTok star has and how much they earn money from the fanbase and popularity, they make a lot. Justin Bieber became a star on Youtube and that jump started his career. Lindsey Stirling became a star because of Youtube. Without the internet and "free access" to content the internet is providing, I don't think both will be as well known as they are now. Not sure if they would even stay as artists.