I saw a post on this and it was accompanied by a lot
of knee-jerk reaction from people, but I think it's being taken somewhat out of context. He's obviously referring to the (perceived, on his part) obsolescence of the net as a distribution mechanism for music, not
that the overall value of the internet is in any way, shape, or form moot. To a certain extent, I agree with him as it hasn't proven to be the cure-all for music distribution as it has oft been toted as, and there's a lot to be said for a lot of artists working on their own models to... well, get paid.
IMHO, as an exposure mechanism, it's turned into another MTV, Clear Channel, etc. scenario where if you're not marquee'd on the front page of Myspace Music, iTunes, etc., you're not moving your work... for all it's unlimited breadth, the scope is as narrow as many previous outlets as it's taken on the "Web 2.0" incarnation.
That said, I'll also criticize him here in toting that his model is somehow a realistic rebuttal... and add Trent Reznor and Radiohead to that stack, all
who've made alternative means of making money off their art, and declared those systems as some sort of answer.
It works for all the aforementioned as they were household names before
the internet thing blossomed. How the fuck that translates to artists who haven't even reached their own respective underground markets, let alone had a shot in every household in the world containing electricity is beyond me.
Take Prince's model, to distribute his CD in magazines (who benefit by having his face as a draw, and subsequently their advertisers paying out as gads of Prince fans buy mags to get his music): How does he expect anyone without legendary cred to even begin to implement that? Frankly, legacy artists finding ways to dodge the torrent/file share bullet doesn't exactly make for a business model for any musician who's not known, but might/will be over the next decade or more.
Until then, as underwhelming as the net is, its probably still one of the best bets.