The article implies that if you just let anybody infringe on your copyright and play/use your work however they feel, it'll pay off in the long run because you gain exposure.
Seems like a _reasonable_ assumption, but I don't really think that PSY is a good example. They mention he's been hired to do ads for Samsung, etc, but is that really a feasible endgame for the majority of artists? Quite apart from the fact that 0.00001% are going to ever be _asked_ to appear in commercials, how many would actually want to? Not exactly a shining example of artistic integrity, is it?
I feel like they're kind of clutching at straws here, probably because articles like this are so popular with readers - have a browse through the comments to see how much everybody enjoys sticking the boot into the record companies.
Anyway, good for him. It's nice to hear that there are other ways to be successful, I suppose.
Seems like a _reasonable_ assumption, but I don't really think that PSY is a good example. They mention he's been hired to do ads for Samsung, etc, but is that really a feasible endgame for the majority of artists? Quite apart from the fact that 0.00001% are going to ever be _asked_ to appear in commercials, how many would actually want to? Not exactly a shining example of artistic integrity, is it?
I feel like they're kind of clutching at straws here, probably because articles like this are so popular with readers - have a browse through the comments to see how much everybody enjoys sticking the boot into the record companies.
Anyway, good for him. It's nice to hear that there are other ways to be successful, I suppose.