Two big stories dominate the industry headlines this week: technology giants like Google and AOL making steps towards blocking the flow of money to media pirates, and Thom Yorke taking his Atoms for Peace album off Spotify.
The latter has been a hot debate - where do you stand on the Spotify issue? Take the debate to the comments if you have an opinion.
Tech giants try to ban advertising on piracy sites
The dominant anti-piracy theory today is this: if you cut off the flow of money, the pirate kings will quit.
Every torrent site you visit will often have banner ads, and there's big money in it with the kind of traffic that these torrent sites pull. But some have questioned why companies like Google can't do more to take their ad networks off these sites and potentially stop piracy for good.
Now the major tech companies have taken action, with Google, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo among those who said they will start to remove ads if they're notified by rights-holders.
It's not ideal - this means that you as a rights holder needs to go and tell them about the piracy in the first place, but as you can imagine, it's not easy for these companies to track illegal pages either. Not that they'd make much effort to take down ads that make themselves money, but they can never admit to that if it were true.
Why is Thom Yorke protesting against Spotify?
While the above news about technology companies may be the most significant news today, the most hotly debated has got to be Thom Yorke's refusal to support Spotify and streaming platforms. He and producer Nigel Godrich took their music off the service this week, citing a lack of support for new music and favouring old major labels who get an unfair cut because of the size of their back catalogues.
"Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician[s] and skilled technicians. These things cost money if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973, I doubt very much if 'Dark Side...' would have been made. It would just be too expensive, said Godrich.
He went on to accuse the labels of having secret deals with Spotify which give them favourable royalty rates.
Their move has prompted every corner of the music industry to respond, including Spotify boss Daniel Ek, the company itself, and every self-professed commentator from across the blogosphere. Here's where people are divided: Spotify doesn't pay much today, but maybe it will over time. And when there are enough subscribers, that income will start to work for new music - at least, in theory.
But when you think about how the supply of music far exceeds demand available, there's always going to be losers - and if your music isn't truly great, it's going to find it hard to stand out against all the other good music.
Indie Labels Grab 34.4 percent market share
Great news for independent music: indie labels have taken a record share of the market with 34.4 percent, based on master ownership (not distribution - the majors would sweep the floor in that category).
Last year they were at 32.9 percent, so it's a good sign for indies. It might be a clue that the majors are investing less in new music, but overall a shift towards more variety from independent suppliers is a great thing for supporting a vibrant music industry.
What's your view on today's topics? Let us know in the comments.