This was an interesting piece to read, though I felt like the article was trying to make this practice waaaaay more sinister than it really is. I doubt that Spotify is allowing this practice merely to avoid paying the original, bigger named artists. Cover songs are kind of a tradition and are popular all over the internet. I mean, look at Youtube! They are everywhere, so it makes sense to see those same artists on Spotify.
I might be a bit biased about this, though. I don't think that cover-artists are third-rate at all. In fact, I can't tell you how many times I've hated a popular song, and then I stumble across a cover song, and I fall in love with it. It's really neat to see a song done one way, and then another person takes those same lyrics and gives it a unique twist. Like... They'll turn a pop song into a metal song. Or a rock song into an acoustic song. Or a song sung by a man, instead sung by a woman, or vice versa. It's neat because twelve different people can take one song and redo it - and it will suddenly be twelve vastly different songs. I love it. Most of the time, I enjoy cover artists way more than the original artists, because I love those unique twists, and I love seeing the creativity shown in those reimaginings. So personally, I'm really glad that Spotify allows the cover artists to make money off of those works, because I'd much rather listen to those versions than the original, 9 times out of 10. And if I get so much enjoyment out of an artist's track, I enjoy knowing that they are being compensated for it.
But I personally don't think it is some insidious plot to fuck over original artists.
Of course, I'm not sure about the legalities behind covering a song, and perhaps that is where the waters can get murky? Because I'm not sure about copyright and royalties, etc. I've just seen millions of covers being created, so it's hard to assume that it's totally illegal. But if an artist takes the time to record something amazing, and it sounds good and it sounds unique to me, I'll totally want them to get paid, and I'm always keen to see the little-guys make money too.
Definitely an interesting topic, though I kind of support the exact opposite of what the article is trying to argue. But I guess that's only to be expected, since I'm a cover-song addict! ^_^
However, I do agree that the silent-track thing is bizarre and i can't really see how that is allowed. But I don't really see how cover-songs are anything superbad.