I personally don't find fault in this, but it sort of weakens the argument that artists should give away their music by choice and make it up in concert sales when the music in question is composed of unlicensed tracks for which the original authors won't make a dime, regardless of the medium.
I'm not trying to make a big counter-argument. Just this point.
On the whole I'm not convinced that there is much value in retaining the horribly exploitive traditional model of the mega-powerful recording studio.
I just don't want to see such ideas become another form of discrimination against introverts. In many fields, introverts end up being placed at some disadvantage by extroverts who argue that they should simply "suck it up" and "put themselves out there".
Ultimately, I guess it's "survival of the fittest". In my perspective, however, too much of such attitude makes for an unhealthy society. (At which point, we have to get pissed enough to (meet and organize on Facebook, and) rise up and kill all the lawyers, etc., etc. ;-)
Basically, the musicians give out free CDs of their music, and make money on live concerts. They treat the free music as advertising.
This is true, if you look at it: the experience of listening to a live music concert is totally different from that of listening to it on a pair of cans. The social aspect of sharing a live event has a lot of value on its own; if the musicians can monetize it well, it's a good revenue stream. There's no reason why the 100-year old technique of "frozen music" be the only way to earn a living.