Rights holders or artists? It's not like the artists receive a lot for each CD sale.
I'm not saying the music industry can't provide a valuable service, but if there where any real competition they would be out of business a long time ago. IMHO, it might be better for "music" if they all went bust.
Myself, I'm just like the guy above me, I literally spent $0 on music for over a decade, until I got a Spotify Premium account about a year ago. I think there are many others like me.
However, it's not all gravy. Marginal cost services cannibalize a portion of the existing market. The degree to which this happens depends on the popularity of the service. It may a small percentage or in the extreme, every customer.
If Spotify remains relatively small and is kept in check, then it will likely be a net benefit to artists and labels as it costs them little to participate.
However, it's also a disruptive innovation at a radically lower price point. If the lion's share of the music market were to switch to Spotify or a similar service, the drop in revenues would not sustain the market since great content is labour intensive and expensive.
Which, for albums I love, tends to happen. Rubbish albums full of fillers, on the other hand...
http://musically.com/2011/11/18/a-genuine-freakshow-manager-...
“Streaming services are very “long tail”. It takes time for consumers to discover your music, add it to playlists, favourite it, and share it with friends. The longer a label is on a streaming platform, the more established they become, and the more time users will have had to discover their music. Users need to dig deep and it also helps if labels market their playlists.”