A new paper suggests that Spotify is creating a de facto slave labor market, e.g. how England had residents of cities like Manchester working for basically nothing in the early 1800s so they could ban actual slavery.

It name drops other sociology claims but doesn't add up. Ironically, the mechanism that the journalism student claims to despise, consumers promoting things they like for free, is exactly what he may want to benefit him; write an open access op-ed that seems to have a veneer of academic critical thinking in hopes people post it on Twitter so it gets a rewrite from a sympathetic journalist and then he can use that exposure to get a university job. NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute or whoever else hates the private sector and sells degrees to anyone willing to take out enough student loans.

Spotify is a streaming music service, where listeners enjoy songs and either listen to advertising or pay a premium fee, while musicians get paid each time someone listens. It's a win for everyone; musicians for 40 years have said they want everyone to be able to hear their music, and Spotify makes that happen, without poor people having to fork over $20 for an album to hear one tune.

Given its popularity, it was only a matter of time before a humanities student decided that Spotify needed some socialism to save artists from being popular.(1) Charles Owen hits all of the right buzzwords but the argument itself falls flat - it is no longer 1995, no one believes banning companies leads to more equality and lower cost. It has failed repeatedly, too many governments have tried, and they are all scrambling with inflation, high costs, and disgruntled voters. Even funnier, he claims that Spotify Wrapped - which gives users an elegant overview of their year in music - perpetuates Evil Corporate malfeasance because an easy recap of their year encourages users to share it with their friends, which only makes Big Corporations richer. 

It's like he watched "Team America" as a child and thinks the kooky left hot takes on economics are a roadmap. They're not. Spotify is giving the public what they want, and artists what they want.

Given his dislike of anyone getting anything for free while people who actually do something constructive get paid, he should see if Naomi Oreskes can hook him up with a job endorsing solar panels. 

(1) Owen says he is affiliated with "Metropolitan University" but they have no listing for him on their website so I can't like to him directly. Maybe he was there and still uses his old school email address while he tries to find a job.