Sadly, I think you'll find the artists have a much less rosy view of that.

"We'll cut the people creating that art's earnings down to millicent's per stream and even screw them over on that, and we'll share all the profits equitably between the rent seeking middle men" doesn't really count as "works great" for everybody...

Isn't that how the music industry has always worked? The record labels have always screwed artists, except the biggest ones.

But anyway, it's better than getting nothing like it used to be :) Spotify and the like have really managed to stop piracy.

It s unfair to say that I think. First, an artist doesnt only work for money, there is an element of fame and love for the craft that is bigger than in other profession. Then, I mean, nobody forced them to sign a label and if there was a way to make the audience pay more they d have found it by now.

With a label "screwing them", they get more famous, practice the craft more often in front of more people, and get more money out of it.

Because let s be honest, what s the thing you can cut the fastest in your budget ? Movies, music and paintings. It s a difficult profession with a difficult billing. Labels help more than they screw, up to the artists to shop around for one that has good marketing for a cheaper fee.

Isn't that a problem of the respective companies taking too big of a cut, rather than method itself ?

"works great", maybe for consumer

... which is the person our governments should be optimizing for..

Isn't it in the consumer's best interest that the creator is also happy and well compensated as well and that a fair, competitive ecosystem of middle-men (distributors) exists?

Most of the money is going to middlemen tho. That's the problem.