No, I got that point. I just find it funny that the article completely glosses over the reason why artists license their work in the first place. Because the company they license it to is far more capable of making money off of their work and, in most cases, the artist will make far more money by licensing their work than they would by trying to make an indie film on a shoe string budget with their own resources. That was an option for Wolf, yet he thought licensing his work was his best option, why did he do that?

The article does touch on that (monopsony) but it is largely irrelevant to the main point of the article.