When really they are just after a free lunch :)
I'm sure most would just go onto pay content. And those currently on pay content anyway wouldn't see a difference.
He's asking: what if the guy making a youtube video of unboxing his new laptop couldn't use The Final Countdown as his soundtrack?
He still wants to upload his unboxing video. He still wants a soundtrack. What does he do? And what effect will that have?
There's no for-pay alternative unboxing video with a properly licensed The Final Countdown. And there's no for-pay system for him to acquire a license to The Final Countdown. The song isn't even the point at all. If there's any hassle involved in using it, he just won't. Not when he can just grab some JoCo and be done with it.
And if the creators do find and use permissive-license content, doesn't that necessarily erode the value of strictly-licensed content?
The reason why there's no system to license 'The Final Countdown' is probably that it wouldn't pay. I mean, come on! How many people would really watch a guys video unboxing his laptop? This is a nice for his handful of friends but the majority doesn't care, at all.
Even if you combine all the long-tail stuff, it's probably not worth the effort. IIRC Youtube is even unable to find advertisers for all this low-value long-tail stuff.
So, what will happen if this laptop guy uses some CC music? Nothing, I'd say. His friends will have forgotten it in a minute unless the track is really exceptional. And even if it's exceptional, that's one track in a few thousand.
Thus, the impact on stricly-licensed content will be very close to zero.
I'm all for banning copyright infringement!!