From the December 13, 1907 NYT:

The composers of music whose product is used in the "records" of self-playing musical instruments and talking machines, or phonographs, certainly have a fair cause for complain, if, as they assert, their music is "canned" for storage without their consent and without payment to them. If music is good enough, or popular enough, to be profitably used in these records, its composers are surely entitled to payment. Probably they could be protected by some other law than that relating to copyright.

Canned music, the term is Mr. Sousa's invention and an admirably expressive one, has been abused a great deal and made needlessly offensive. But all who have seriously thought about the self-playing piano and the improved phonograph know that they are effective instruments in the spread of culture. Appreciation of the best music is largely growing through their influence.

The sensitive virtuoso condemns them, and in so doing places himself with the mechanic who condemns modern machinery. As a matter of fact, they are helping to greatly increase the virtuoso's audience, for they are musically educating the multitude. Their manufacturers should not be permitted to do so, however, at the expense of the composers.

The argument of the Times is essentially the "sampling" argument used today in the context of digital music on-line, which suggests that some individuals who download a song on-line end up purchasing a legitimate copy of the work. Thus, whether "pirating" or "canning" music on-line provides a net benefit to all artists (or perhaps only certain artists) is an empirical question.

It seems the current writer's strike has much to do with the "canning" of television and movie productions and how much writers will be compensated from revenues generated through "new media." I am not sure the writers have the potential to enjoy the same "sampling" benefit as music composers, yet the parallel between old and new media and how compensation should be structured is interesting.