You are confusing "distribution" with "supply". Having lots of people making music is a different issue from having music freely available via youtube. Music has been pretty darn cheap to reproduce for decades.
Yes, availability of substitutes can diminish bargaining power of music rights holders, but I'm not convinced that's at all how we should interpret these numbers. I think this is more about market power and network effects of the middlemen (google, pandora, the labels, etc...)
I would be interested in the revenue split between rights holders and YouTube.
> Music has been pretty darn cheap to reproduce for decades.
in a sense yes, but it depends on what you refer to by 'cheap'. other factors like convenience, availability, quality, storage, etc. were often quite different.
it's one thing to wait around for your song and then tape if off an FM radio broadcast, another to just download some 'lossless'-encoded bits off the web at will.
> Music has been pretty darn cheap to reproduce for decades.
"Cheap" is relative. It is relatively "cheap" to copy tape or Vinyl. Now, we have digital files. Copying them is perfect and free. "Cheap" is infinitely more expensive than free.
Yes, availability of substitutes can diminish bargaining power of music rights holders, but I'm not convinced that's at all how we should interpret these numbers. I think this is more about market power and network effects of the middlemen (google, pandora, the labels, etc...)
I would be interested in the revenue split between rights holders and YouTube.