If musicians (etc.), overall, are unable to afford to produce, so everyone is, in general, short of music, then we need to address the matter somehow. But the article did not seem to prove that problem actually existed.
I fix:
Musicians (etc.), overall, are unable to afford to produce, so everyone will soon be, in general, short of music, so we need to address the matter somehow.
You said:
But the article did not seem to prove that problem actually existed.
The article went into great detail about how:
* Revenue to musicians is down industrywide over 60%
* The economic models that supposedly offset the decline in recording revenues are counterfeit, in that they were present before the drop in revenue, never accounted for the majority of most musician's revenue, and in many cases are equally susceptible to piracy. Specifically: this article states that bands earn less than $200/night for playing concerts.
* The studies that suggest the contrary are misleading, use cherry picked examples, and even in those cases discuss professionals earning less than managers at fast food chains.
* After a very brief period of opportunity for direct sales revenue on the Internet, musicians (not labels, musicians) got squeezed out of the picture by Facebook and Google - specifically: their audience has been captured by Youtube and Facebook and with it their opportunity to build customer relationships and conduct financial transactions with them.
* He knows professional musicians who are living out of their vans and eating out of dumpsters.
I'm trying to figure out how that last sentence of yours could not be willfully obtuse. The only explanation I can come up with is that you think he's baldly lying.