Not that I agree with the artist not getting any of the money, but when the author of the article writes "The biggest losers when music gets pirated are, without question, the artists." you can tell he is a complete moron who doesn't actually understand the issues with piracy.
Yes, artists lose some from piracy, and its easy to use the artists as the victim card to argue against piracy, but piracy also helps artists in gaining exposure. This is why a lot of pirates justify their actions by saying "Oh I'll just buy merch at a show" or "If a band wants to make a profit they should go and tour more, live shows are where the money is now". Of course, these are both just selfish excuses but there is a kernel of truth to them.
The real losers in piracy are the labels, which is why the labels tend to be very anti-piracy at the musicians tend to, at worst, be like I'd rather you didn't pirate
. And that is because while musicians are doing what they do out of a love for music, and can make some profit off shows / selling merch, and so tend to be content for the exposure and the fact that fans want to listen to their record, labels don't have any other sources of profit. The formula works as follows; they sign a band, they put money into that band, and they sell that bands music to make more money so they can sign more bands. They probably aren't going to get much from tour sales, so they rely on people actually buying the music. And anyone who claims that what a label does is unnecessary and doesn't actually do anything for the band except take money, point out all the bands that have gotten really successful without the help of a label.
Now, of course, a lot of labels are not doing this out of a love for music, they are doing it because there is a ton of profit in music. And there is a ton of profit in lawsuits. And sharing the windfall with artists would mean less profits. But I don't think labels are inherently evil, they are just often run by people who are.