Led Zeppelin, Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band, the Beatles and others are established bands that are long since dead (even if their members live). The use of those songs (as that author asserted in his editorial, if you had read it) is to touch a reference point for wealthy baby boomers. The boomers did not first hear these songs in commercials, they heard these songs long ago and are instantly identifiable when they hear the ad. If it makes them look up at the tv when it is on, it is doing it's job.
No one who is buying Moby's sponsors' items ever heard of Moby or his songs before hearing them on a commercial.
Moby offered up all 18 songs for commercial use. Brian Eno did this sort of thing in the 1970s (he released an album of production music which contained an address on the back so the people could pay to use his songs from that album in films/tv shows/etc.). It was a widely used album but Brian Eno never claimed it was "art".
Today people who remix songs and DJ have been raiding old record vaults to find original albums of production music (largely from the 1960s and 1970s). Some find those albums to contain works of "art", others just think that they sound good; others recognize that the music may not be great but it is "vaguely identifiable" because it appeared in so many old movies and shows.
Is a song "good" just because you "heard it someplace" before? There are plenty of lousy songs that I have been subjected to (whether it is bumper music on tv/radio, riding in an elevator, waiting in an office or on the phone, etc.).
And this is different from what the advertiser hopes to do with a Moby song how? You seem to be trying to make the case that "back in the old days" artists didn't sell their songs to commercials. I'm saying that they probably would have in greater numbers if: A) Their had been the number and size of offers that there are today, and B) Radio had been as tigthtly formatted and exclusive as it is today. Moby's success in circumventing radio speaks for itself, as does Sting's.
As for your Van Gogh bit, I'm not sure what your point is, but I still maintain that Van Gogh would have like to have made some money in his lifetime by selling his paintings.
Finally, yes, lots of people like to paint in their backyards and never show anyone, or noodle around on a guitar in their basements, but the moment they start asking for money for it, whether it's at the neighborhood art fair, at the local bar, or on a national TV spot, they're engaged in a commercial enterprise.
I'm surprised at what an idealist you are. You should read some of Thomas Frank's stuff, particularly "The Conquest of Cool."