[wwweston]

> how is it unethical for me to click on a Beatles video when they're all either dead or fantastically wealthy?

You're probably on the wrong track when your example happens to involve people whose level of success / compensation is so wildly outlier that they're not even representative of the top 10% (not to mention established under an entirely different distribution order). Of course marginal dollars don't matter as much in that case, let alone marginal pennies.

But they do matter quite a bit at the scale where people are within striking distance (above or below) of the transition point between making a living at music and not making a living at it. That's where ethics of supporting people whose work you apparently value would matter most.

There, YouTube's economics are also pretty unethical (from what I've heard their payouts are about half of Spotify and maybe adblockers make it worse). About the only saving grace is that everyone knows it's an essentially free show; no one is under the illusion they've participated in some kind of economically artist-supporting transaction when they watch a YouTube video, so those who feel some obligation on that front know they still need to do it. Spotify sometimes presents itself or is forwarded as a solution / alternative to piracy, giving it the veneer of an artist-supporting transaction when the more frequent reality is that its fractional nature pushes the point at which audience engagement can support artists economically up farther.