In this article, Betsy Schiffman of Wired Magazine, sets out to find out why MP3 Blogs have yet to be targeted by the RIAA, subsequently she declares that these blogs could be a "win-win" situation for all parties involved--including Google.  An owner of a blog aggregator divulges that record companies contact them about promoting bands."  The owner goes on to say that he performs this service free of charge; Schiffman declares that MP3 blogs are not a moneymaking operation.  Many blogs run ads, but these only add up to 75 cents for each hour put into it.  These ads come from Google's AdSense program.  Google reportedly makes 1/3 ($1.45 billion) from AdSense in 2007 alone.

This article discredits the Guardian article's assertion that blog aggregators hurts  the music industry.  If labels are voluntarily seeking out these hubs in order to further their band's notoriety, than they can't be "killing music" because if these labels could avoid a middleman they probably would.  Also why is the RIAA so laissez faire about MP3 blogs? Could it have something to with the fact that both sides are making money, emphasis on the record labels?  They are getting free promo, while bloggers toil simply out of love.  Also could the influence of Google, who has just as many lobbyists as the RIAA, carry a certain amount of clout in the RIAA's unwillingness to act?

In a 2006 Rolling Stone article, it was stated that "geeks" can now make or break bands because of their tenuous hold on the "blogosphere." While these blogs often offer MP3s for readily available download (illegal), the presence of MP3 blogs "promotes progress," with their ability to critique, comment, and endorse up-and-coming artists. Moreover, the presence of blogs has made the Major labels middlemen instead of the culture dictators they once were.