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.
Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.
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.
Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?
You mean release on https://bandcamp.com ?
Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.
I’m not sure what you mean. The musician can be a YouTuber making a living from Patreon and ads.
Sounds good. What if Google looks at that cost, and the revenue they make, and realizes they would lose money?
Isn't Google's next logic move to decide to not lose money? To not host that content?
They can decide how much they want. Not how much they get. Isn't it the same as with any service or product?
The problem is too complex to be solved by just reducing the labels cut. The price of records is driven down by a combination of piracy, overwhelming offer and the existence of streaming platforms.
Except government :)
What if you can’t put on concerts, like it’s the case right now, do your work then become worthless?
Honestly I think the issue is the record labels. The need to seriously reduce their cut and let the musicians keep the bulk of the royalties.
It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit. That seems to indicate, to me at least, that Youtube may not be the problem.