"New media" economics have been enlightening. It's been kind of a dump on ideas of openness, and its economic consequences. Here we are in a world where artist

"New media" economics have been enlightening. It's been kind of a dump on ideas of openness, and its economic consequences. Here we are in a world where artists don't really need a "label" or whatnot, for any of the legible reasons of the past. Recording is cheap. Artists reach audiences themselves (or via algorithm). No one needs to front a million dollars to press records or print books. The digital version of cable channels, or broadcast licenses are basically free and unlimited. In theory, it's totally open. Musicians can record music. Get it to audiences. DIY talk radio. DIY TV shows. It's popular. Obviously, monopolies control all the distribution channels... but I don't think the money problems stem from this. The problem is that a sufficiently open (economically) system does not generate much cash. Producers are commodified, their power totally diluted. The only way to make money is cutting exclusive deals with strategic advantage for a monopoly, aspiring monopoly. That serial show which will covert netflix users to amazon. The half dozen podcasts who cut a deal with spotify to help them "own" podcasting. The Beatles or Metallica, holding out for something similar. It's not a (simple) Competition Problem either. Yes, being open means more competition, but some still find large audiences. Youtube's ad sharing, spotify's streaming royalties, etc. These all pay pennies (or less) on the dollar like-4-like to old media. X number of viewers on TV can support a professional TV show. The same viewers and the same show on youtube cannot. The actual economic mechanics are different, but openness results predictably regardless.