I'm having trouble grasping your moral theory on this one.
If a street musician makes huge tips, should they stop playing as frequently?
If a street musician gets tips from the same person automatically, regardless of what they play, should they stop playing as frequently?
Do you really think the drivel that gets the most airplay and earns the most money (top40) is really "the best" (most deserving of financial support) music on earth? And furthermore, do you really think that these top40 artists should just "take a break" and "give the little guys a chance"? Are they immoral to rake in fat stacks of cash-money-dollars for their low effort, unoriginal remixes and re-releases and remakes?
Here's another example,
If a retailer makes a lot of money, should they close their doors in order to give the other, smaller retailers a chance, and by doing so force their own customers to find alternative stores to buy their daily supplies?
If these "winners" do "take a break", is it virtually guaranteed that the "other" less popular options will "get a boost"?