Proprietary distribution formats are always bad for consumers.
When CD was making its initial consumer push, one of the record company execs (don't remember which one) is reported to have said, "Why would we want to make our master tapes freely available for anyone to own, and possibly copy?" This was essentially correct, at least if the CD was mastered properly. With records and/or cassettes, consumers possessed less than perfect copies that would wear out, requiring new purchases. Digits made all that moot.
There was no streaming, but only FM (AM by that time had become drive to work happy talk entertainment, focused programming such as Spanish language oriented content, paid religious programming, or news-talk--nothing really serious music oriented). Of course with radio, the listener had no control over programming.
To preclude copying, record companies investigated anti-copy schemes (such as notch filters); that was said to have pretty much killed consumer DAT (although given its initial expense, and with its own hardware peculiarities, I wonder whether that format would have been readily accepted by most consumers?).
Now, with streaming, and pay as you go subs, the ball is back in the record company's park. Or whomever is in control of the streaming. I don't partake in streaming, but I presume one can record the streams? I suppose with subscriptions, programming is so convenient that no one is interested in doing that.
Do artists make any money on streaming? I recently read about a couple of artists wanting to remove their music from a streaming service, for some or another reason. My guess is that means they don't make any money with it. Maybe for artists it comes down to selling tickets for live shows, offering expensive t-shirts and selling vinyl LPs at the intermission booth. Possibly a minimal cut on concession sales? Touring can't be inexpensive.
www.soundandvision.com
