[cblades]

I don't think the OC implied that musicians (or their agents) shouldn't have pricing authority, just that the market won't bear the prices they seem to want.

The moment a digital file exists, your competing price point is free. People can still pirate, and don't because of youtube and streaming sites. You don't have to think that's right or fair (I don't), but it's absolutely the reality.

[mrweasel]

Piracy doesn’t that viable anymore, it’s a lot more in convinient, especially for spontanious listing on a mobile device. Sure the price still need to be low enough, but not zero anymore.

Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.

[7786655]

It's inconvenient because no one has needed to make it convenient. Why would you, when YouTube is doing it for free?

If all music were wiped off of YouTube, you can bet it would become convenient. I believe there's already an app somewhere that lets you stream music using BitTorrent, throw in some onion networking for privacy, a better means of content discovery, and get more people uploading music, and you'll be off to the races.

[candiodari]

We all remember the time before Youtube, and how 15 years before Youtube Napster was vastly more convenient than anything that was offered. Not very convenient compared to Youtube, but still.

Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?

[Consultant32452]

I find it very inconvenient to purchase a song from Google on my Android device. Google prefers to push me towards buying their subscription service. I have to go through a few awkward menus to find and purchase a song.