"The bright side is that eventually "content owners" stop being the major labels and become the actual musicians."

I keep hearing this, but I still don't buy it. Record labels do actually provide a service to artists- generating publicity, scheduling live performances, etc. Don't get me wrong, a lot of them are evil, but an artist is still at a distinct disadvantage if they are labelless. There's a reason why only bands like Radiohead made a splash when they went without.

I don't think the argument lies with whether or not record labels provide a valuable service to their artists, they do, but more if the value of their services will remain above their cost. When they were the only distribution game in town, it was a no-brainer as you either distributed through them or you didn't distribute on any meaningful level at all. Now that there are more and more tools and services available to artists that replace some, and possibly soon all of the labels' functionality, the question becomes at what point does their cost outweigh their value?

With distribution through itunes & amazon I wonder just how long the record labels' business model will be sustainable.

90%+ of the music I purchase is self published. (and incidentally, from searches I've asked friends to make, it appears most of what I listen to is missing from spotify.)