Interesting how when the cost distribution falls due to technological change, no one (or hardly anyone) ever proposes that small portion of that should be shift

Interesting how when the cost distribution falls due to technological change, no one (or hardly anyone) ever proposes that small portion of that should be shifted to the artist / writer end of equation. I would be willing to argue that implicitly the average consumer has already pegged the monetary value of writer / artist's contribution as ~0 and that what people actually peg for value is entirely the physical product that is otherwise unrelated to what is encoded on or within it, which is why you get so many commentators who think purchase price should only ever solely follow the price of the media, whereas, on the production end, the writer /artist's cut has always been determined on the logic of what must be carved out of the price in relation to the production and distribution of that physical medium. So, in essence, when it comes right down to it, both capitalist rights holders and the consumer public, believe in a kind of pseudo slavery where what they want is produced with minimal to no financial impingement upon themselves (which, of course, only make evolutionary sense).