Well, yes, you bought a copy on a device or a file or an optical object. Further, you have licensed the right to perform said copy in a number of ways for private listening, etc.
And in this way the semantics are confusing, because for most people, the content is the product. In their minds they just bought the music, and in a practical sense they own it. It isn't an issue until they distribute it in the wild, and it is this point at which they throw up their hands and cry foul..."who expects me to read the fine print?" Is copyright broken because people have misinterpreted it?
If the article is purely about how artists should exploit their own content to a greater degree, then yes, of course they should. But you've distracted many readers by worrying about how we define content vs product.
All that other crap brings more value to a good artist's music, not the other way around. I don't love an artist because of his tee shirts and lighters. It's his music that I pay for, and for most of them, it's the music they love to make a living making.
I could make a dig at DJs, but I actually know a few that value artists rather than cut down their craft.
This article has nothing to do with how music should be marketed/sold. It has to do with how people expect artists to just pump out great music for free. Then tell them to create a merch line to fund it. Ridiculous!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by roymond.