In regard to artist's remuneration. The most popular artists do just fine between streaming royalties and concert dates. The obscure and/or unknown artists likely do better with streaming vs. hard copy. For one they get far more exposure via streaming vs. cd/vinyl, Vast majority of these artists won't get promoted by a record company and it requires resources to produce hard copy. Nope, these types of artists have been advantaged by streaming, I have literally thousands of releases on my fav and play lists from artists I'd not even be aware of if only hard copy available. I have well over 3k cd's and that much or more vinyl, and the vast, vast majority of it is well known artists from the past. When I was purchasing hard copy there were enough past artists and contemporary artists I was familiar with to empty my pockets of money set aside for music purchases.
Now, I might agree that mid level artists may suffer streaming vs. hard copy. These artists may have profited more from hard copy vs. streaming, assuming streaming not available. Still, does the greater exposure that comes from streaming add up to more listens which means greater remuneration, and perhaps a greater chance of prolonging a career.
I'm a boomer, totally believe this is the golden age of music, I can now afford complete output of my favorite artists, and I get much more exposure to new music and artists!
Think about the average size of vinyl and cd collections, I 'd say my 3k plus cd, 3k plus vinyl is up there. And so, I have this relatively large collection, think about how few artists have benefited from my purchases, and how little money I've spent relative to the entire output of recordings ever made! Now , tell me who was getting rich from back in the bad old days when record companies ruled who got signed and promoted.