I think it's a complex issue but finding ways to extract value from products and services always is. I think that if you want to mirror the "old" status quo, s

I think it's a complex issue but finding ways to extract value from products and services always is. I think that if you want to mirror the "old" status quo, services like Pandora or Shoutcast stations should be treated similarly to radio: the company doing the streaming pays a license for the music (ASCAP, BMI, etc) but not per-song-per-listener royalties. That's how radio always worked and it was kind of like publicity for recording artists. There are two big differences now. Streaming services offer much more variety in terms of artists and songs so it's harder for content creators (and their funding companies, the music labels) to focus on the most profitable acts to push. Also, streaming has become very convenient so it is replacing the purchase of "hard copy" encoded material (CDs, etc) for many listeners. When it comes to on-demand services like Spotify, it's harder to claim that it's the same as radio. With radio, no matter how many independent and college stations you have, you can't just pick any song you want to hear and have it play immediately. At the same time, it's not the same as a CD. With a CD you pay $10 or $15 and that covers hundreds and hundreds of "listens". I have some albums that I've probably listened to a thousand times or more over the course of my life. If Spotify is equivalent to a CD, then how do you determine the cost of one listen? $15 for a 15-song CD I play 100 times works out to $1 per song or a penny per song per listen. Even with CDs, artists might only get pennies on the dollar for every CD sold with the label taking the rest to (supposedly) recoup the cost of production and marketing. If I'm essentially paying a penny per song per listen then the artist is getting a fraction of a cent per listen in this increasingly hypothetical situation, it seems to line up roughly with what they are making from Spotify. I'm not even suggesting that the radio/CD model is the best solution out there. It just seems like more of the same. The selling of recorded music has never really been all that profitable for label-backed artists and the ones who have made a good living that way are an anomaly in the history of the musical profession. Musicians historically made their money by either charging for live performances or being hired by some sort of benefactor to improve their status. Sounds a lot like selling concert tickets or licensing music for movies, TV shows, and commercials these days. I don't think it's ever been very profitable to be a professional musician and for better or worse, it seems that is not going to change anytime soon.