The purpose of "copyfighting" and undermining traditional publishing via technology was to liberate writers from the establishment. Now it appears that the rea

The purpose of "copyfighting" and undermining traditional publishing via technology was to liberate writers from the establishment. Now it appears that the real end result is to make writers dependent on wealthy patrons or on the fickleness of the mob. The author of the article points out: > Many aspiring writers fantasize about the audience they’d find if interlopers like publishers and agents would stop coming between them and the reading public. Publishers, they complain, fixate too much on superficial assets like a mediagenic face or personality, influential connections, an established name or a promotional “platform” instead of just concentrating on literary merit. > To judge by what works on Kickstarter, however, democracy won’t offer any improvement. Those flashy garnishes are exactly what the public cares about. The most successful book projects have an already-established audience, an attractive creator, a high-concept premise and/or an affiliation with someone famous. Above all, as Rob Walker observed in the New York Times, a stand-out video presentation is crucial to sealing the Kickstarter deal. Every revolution eats its children. So it has ever been. So it shall ever be.