No, that's because music licensing has been collected together into one or two monopolistic licensing schemes in every country. Most countries do it via a government agency, the US does it with BMI and ASCAP. It's actually kind of surprising the US hasn't broken up BMI & ASCAP with anti-trust, but they've got special dispensation just like the NFL.

Legislatures could bring in a compulsory licensing scheme for movies similar to BMI and ASCAP.

I am no expert on licensing schemes, but I've seen major artists like Taylor Swift remove their catalogues from Spotify and the like, which tells me they're not that compulsory when it comes to online streaming?

Taylor Swift has unusual market power.

CD's used to cost 20 bucks, artists used to make money on their sales.

Now they don't.

There are movies that "don't make money" because of shady accounting practices.

And I paid 100 bucks for cable for the same reason that you pay 100 bucks for internet now, lack of competition.

> while nobody puts tv/movies on youtube for free

There are plenty of people creating content on YouTube for what YouTube is willing to give them... and that isn't much. They have a working model because they keep creating content, not trying to squeeze every drop from the juice (over and over).

You might want to go back and look at the Paramount Decree. We would not be here if it was extended to streaming rather than allowed to expire.

    > music costs barely anything to create

I think you overlook the cost of studio time, producers, and A&R. Pop music is pretty expensive to make.

And yet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl6en1NPTYM