We may also see a sharper differentiation between what is published by established imprints and what is thrown out on the net for free, the latter being significantly devalued in the public’s eye.
I think we may be seeing this now, at least in music. I doubt that it will help the crafters--the writers, the editors, the songwriters, the playwrights, the musicians, the actors--to continue to earn a living in the long run. Seems like such discrimination would simply slow the inevitable “race to the bottom” inherent in the long-tail business model according to the viewpoint expressed in the article.
I am increasingly hearing about alternative models for musicians that involve live performance and sale of CDs, T-shirts, and similar items. Yesterday, I met the members of a traveling band. They are popular, but they don’t actually (over the long-run) make enough to cover all their expenses. So it seems that they are actually ‘paying to play’ and it is for them a relatively inexpensive and enjoyable hobby. Hope springs eternal. Musicians seem to be more susceptible than most to this thing called ‘hope’.
An associate of mine is a currently publishing popular author and reports that the advances are still slim, and the book-signings, conferences, interviews, and speaking engagements are part of the deal.
As usual, this is a most sobering topic.
As far as winning or losing “the argument that that piracy is stealing from the “artist.””:
Wouldn’t the ‘bottom line’ enforce reality?