Mapman,
I wouldn't be so sure of a happy ending here. This is a very complicated issue and I'm more "familiar" than "expert" on the issues, but here's one ugly possible outcome:
While I'm not specifically defending Pandora's initiative, this industry (subscription music services) is facing an extreme economic squeeze in which AFAIK everyone is losing money. The small checks that artists receive are much more reflective of the same pricing pressure that these companies face (i.e. - no one wants to pay for music) than they are of any windfall profits. If no one can raise prices, they try to cut costs. Right or wrong, the alternative is commodity competition at uneconomic pricing.
The operative rule in this scenario is that "He who runs out of money last...wins."
In this case, that's almost certainly Spotify. These companies are all AFAIK held by small institutions partnered with entrepreneurs. Spotify, OTOH, is owned by a consortium of Sony Music, Warners, EMI, Universal, et al. Deep pockets and enough market power to easily absorb losses on the subscription side in the short run. If Spotify simply waits the other guys out and picks them off as they run out of money, the major labels will back into collective control of the subscription music business. While this may not be a terrible result, the opportunity for mischief is high. Imagine this meeting : "You want a record deal with Warners (or EMI or Sony, etc), you stream exclusively with Spotify."
That result will like benefit no one (especially the artists), except for the record labels.
Marty
