Hard to believe. I have to believe that what he means is that the compulsory license is acceptable to the composer, even though the implication as written seems to be that the performer is getting paid by the radio station. Or did the “digital” get dropped from the “radio” part? Bad editing on the part of the NYTimes? The Royalty Scam
What’s at stake here is more than just the morality of the market. The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it.
The claim that sites such as MySpace and Bebo are doing us a favor by promoting our work is disingenuous. Radio stations also promote our work, but they pay us a royalty that recognizes our contribution to their business. Why should that not apply to the Internet, too?