[aurizon]

This is OK, if the fees the streamers charge do not increase, thus they operate with lower margins - if they can. If they can not operate with lower margins, then they must pass the costs on in monthly fees, which will reduce subscribers and increase piracy. . They often call this the law of unintended consequences...QPP...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

[aurizon]

There is a complex relationship between the true artists and the 'labels'. Often the bulk of the cash gravitated to the labels, as many artists have complained. We have also seen the excess that some artists have fallen into, in terms of drugs, bad asset management etc. It makes sense that artists be properly funded AND protected by their own indulgence with the imposition of an annual income process as well as a pension fund - fully funded, not controlled by the labels, but also not controlled by the artists, and with an independant pension authority that can not be stolen from in some manner. This would protect them and ensure they would not end up prey to take tax evasion schemes that are disallowed and they end up in tax debts for life. This will require complex and well designed legislation (agreed by all players) and not prey to government, label or fund administrators. No label stock is allowed. The Teacher's Pension fund comes to mind. It is fully funded, run by the members in their tens of thousands who select how it is run, with legal advice and free of label conflict. The labels would hate this - they can fill the fund with paper shares and then bankrupt the shell and leave. Here are a few such self serving scandals by governments as well as company admins. https://www.google.ca/search?q=pension+scandal&oq=pension+sc...