Sorry for the late reply, but after finally getting around to read the article I realized how correct Kerry56's description is. As a non-native, it more or less came across as a write-up on one subject: himself.
In some respect, I even find myself disagreeing with him as it is a little short-sighted.
â€œHow will the authors get paid?â€ is an utterly uninteresting question in a market economy. The answer is equally utterly simple: â€œby making a saleâ€. There is no other way, and there should not be any other way.
I beg to differ, some of it becomes interesting when the industry are more concerned about robbing artists, at same time having shares in the streaming market. What we in reality have is a 'head and tail" situation. Compared to physical release on CD, little work is done for the artist considering old releases, still they strive to hold on to the same piece of the pie as before and leave the artists to pay the price.
Going into the Taylor Swift case, it is easy to follow and so yes it is about freedom and liberty, definitively, but it is thus far also a question of securing the performing artist so to preserve a good recruiting climate where artists can flourish. If not, we will only create music carpenters and not true artists in the future.
Writing with only one aspect in mind on this subject is short-sighted as I see it.