The premise of this article is a clear indication to me that the author of a work, not some corporate sponser, should hold copyright.
The music industry is complaining of piracy, not copyright infringement. They are "losing money" because people are duplicating their products, not because anybody is claiming the artistry of the works to be their own. Many of the artists were actually pleased by the existence of Napster, because it gave them exposure. It would've been different if people were pulling their songs down and shopping them as demos of their own work (copyright infringement by *my* definition), but people respected the musicians.
After years of escalating abuse from a corrupt industry, consumers have little respect for the RIAA. Is there any reason a CD should cost as much as a DVD? Has the music gotten better? Is it fair for companies like Sony to keep all rights to a song for longer than a writer gets for his/her words? No. It's otherwise because of strong, well-funded lobbying efforts, not justice.
Radio is a bad example of progress. Any benefits from compulsory licensing were diminished by payola, a disgusting practice created by the recording industry (which they now protest because it costs them too much). Now the RIAA is going after independent internet broadcasters to regain control of the airwaves. Long live music piracy; I have no sympathy.
An artist should produce because they are compelled to, and share because they want to. They should get credit (copyright), and if they can sell what they make, good for them. But the rhapsodists, those that pretend to own somebody else's work and gain disproportionate benefit from it, can be thrown out of the Republic for all I care.