The article itself argues that we consume music in a way that is fundamentally different from the way we consume television shows and movies, thus rendering the comparison invalid.
The entire argument only shows a lack of careful thinking on the matter.
We consume music many different ways.
Radio, pandora, on the tv, in the mall, in games, cd, gramophone on the disco, live music and so on.
You could as easily argue that the spotify model shows that access beats ownership. If anything the way the music industry want us to consume music is what is fundamentally different and out of date.
The article is so shallow and can only be on the front page of HN because spotify is is new in the US.
Humans are an explorative but economic species. When the cost of exploration goes down guess what goes up.
To look at it another way. I have, in my current library of music, listened to over 400 albums in the last 3 years. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've not paid for all of them. The heavily listened to favorites, I have, but not all. Even if Spotify quadrupled in cost... it would still be small compared to (400 * $5) or (400 * $10). Not to mention the value from offline playlist prefetching, sync-free mobile access, and access to the same library on all 3 computers and my mobile devices.