Yes and no. Making music ubiquitous has been great for stomping out piracy but terrible for revenues. This isn't just a problem of underpricing. In the movies and TV space, all the studios found out that exclusive licensing makes more money because you can drag viewers from one subscription service to another. At the most extreme you have shit like the Disney Vault, which works because some creative work is worth more dead than alive.

If you were correct we would have stuck with everything being on Netflix and Spotify for $10/mo each because it keeps piracy rates down. In practice, while piracy rates have gone back up, they don't hurt the bottom lines of publishers as much as they've claimed[0], at least relative to how much they make from people buying multiple subscriptions. But the law allows them to continue crying crocodile tears about how much money they're losing from old sound recordings being on an archive site.

[0] In other words, one pirate copy is not one lost sale