It speaks to me viscerally. I often find myself seething with anger that although I have paid what I consider unfairly high prices, (e.g. $77/month for satell

It speaks to me viscerally. I often find myself seething with anger that although I have paid what I consider unfairly high prices, (e.g. $77/month for satellite and some specialty channels Idon't watch but cannot escape, in order to watch Game of Thrones and the occasional filler program, and finding myself pirating the show anyway for ease of watching, and extra costs for producing amateur plays whose professional authors are long dead and whose rights are owned by an entity with no discernible purpose other than making more money) and and with the knowledge the money isn't supporting who I want it to support (i.e. the artist/creator), and having access restricted to free ad supported content because of where I live, which is as this article points out; insane. I feel as though we are still in the birth or staging period of the ideas that were conceived with Napster and the like. There is profit for all to be made in digital media and the phrase 'digital media' represents a far broader swathe of culture than people outside this type of community seem to realize. The profit lies in the value the product adds to the culture and intellect or distraction of the consumers and nowhere else. If someone is valued by society for their contributions then, like the artists of old, they will find themselves supported by the population in one way or another. Every other way to squeeze profit out of what is essentially non-human entertainment (i.e. once digitized the content can be recreated without another human adding any value to the work) is just a way ensuring that the less talented will continue to make less meaningful art at the expense of the whole society. What Napster, and by extension the whole internet, did was generate a source and medium through which the mass individual could self determine quality and be exposed to more genres and therefore the ideas of musicians than what was ever before possible. It's major flaw, legality notwithstanding, was that it limited itself to music. The same approach clearly applies to all form of media that can be reproduced. Clearly the repercussions of this way of thinking would destroy industries and create a new paradigm that the would will take some getting used to, if what I described were practically applied. Ultimately, I believe it will be resolved in a massive anti-trust case against the ever larger music labels/studios/cable giants/ISP's worldwide that will limit their monopolies and finally reflect the global nature of their industries. We are seeing the dawn of a global culture. One that will survive and change so long as the human race does. To place a monetary value on access to that culture is not sustainable and will not last. IMHO lol