Yet streaming is at the center of an intense industry debate about the value of music. In perhaps the year’s most influential decision in the music business, Ms. Swift removed her catalog from Spotify, which has both free and paid versions — a model known as “freemium” — apparently because the company was unwilling to make her music available only to its paying subscribers.

Ms. Swift’s stance made her a hero to many musicians who have fretted over the low royalty rates generated through streaming. It also brought to the fore a long-simmering concern among record executives that services like Spotify and YouTube make so much free music available that consumers have little incentive to buy any.

That concern is driving the big record companies as they renegotiate licensing contracts this year with streaming services. Like Ms. Swift, many artists and labels want more control to introduce staggered release “windows” — withholding albums for a time from streaming’s free tiers, for example, to spur sales. In Ms. Swift’s case, that strategy seemed to work: “1989” had nearly 1.3 million sales in its first week, the fastest any record has sold since 2002.

Analysts worry, however, that placing too many restrictions on such services as they grow will turn away potential customers.

“The biggest near-term challenge will be fixing freemium,” said Mark Mulligan of the firm Midia Research. “There is a risk that freemium will get thrown out with the windowing dishwater, that the major labels will bow to pressure from their boards and from big artists to seriously scale back free streaming.”

Spotify, which is available in 58 markets around the world, is used by 50 million people, 12.5 million of whom pay, according to the company.