He clearly doesn't understand what really happens on radio. New musicians essentially pay to be on it, indirectly of course (to circumvent anti-payola laws).
On Bebo/Myspace they get to promote themselves for free. It's a symbiotic relationship between artist and social networks.
he gave his argument point by point -- if you're going to make a counter argument to his whole piece, why not do a full counter-point?
"On Bebo/Myspace they get to promote themselves for free. It's a symbiotic relationship between artist and social networks."
And the big-name artists who are on the billboard 100 (and have millions of plays on their myspace pages) aren't getting royalties while myspace is making money on advertising -- that's the point he's making.
The value of Myspace is largely staked on the big-ticket musicians it has, while other sites like amiestreet do more to promote indie artists.
It's no different than Youtube making a deal with the major record labels to bankroll on all the unsigned musicians doing covers.
There's a balance to be sought here, and this guy seems to be an established musician, and for them, they are often getting the short side of the stick (even when the labels are suing web companies)
See the link I just posted. He is either ignorant of the economics of the music industry, or is willfully ignoring them to make a fallacious argument. I'd assume the latter.
The market seems to have already agreed that artist exposure is a fair return for online postings.
I don't think the author appreciates how valuable that world-wide, democratic exposure is. The artists may not receive any direct revenue from it, but it can greatly enhance real sources of revenue, like concerts and merchandising.
He clearly doesn't understand what really happens on radio. New musicians essentially pay to be on it, indirectly of course (to circumvent anti-payola laws).
On Bebo/Myspace they get to promote themselves for free. It's a symbiotic relationship between artist and social networks.