I skimmed more and read less of the original article as I went along, but from what I got, it just seems like he's trying too hard to make a clean, academic arg

I skimmed more and read less of the original article as I went along, but from what I got, it just seems like he's trying too hard to make a clean, academic argument regarding the publishing industry. It's been around so long that it's full of exceptions, caveats, inefficiencies, and idiosyncrasies, not to mention the countless people wrapped up in it financially and psychologically, and this, I think, makes it too difficult to reason about as generally as he tries. My biggest beef, though, comes when he claims that publishers don't sell content. Of course they do, and if they didn't, why did he even bring up the price difference between Time and The Economist (is one printed on shinier paper? Probably, but that's not why anyone buys The Economist). Some of the price is obviously determined by the medium, too (just as in music sales), and of course countless other factors, and there's no reason to try to narrow it down to just one. When the method of conveyance disappears, everything will shift around a bit and make everyone uncomfortable (like it's doing now), but eventually settle down not far from where it started. These systems aren't static sets of rules being followed blindly by their executives, they'll adapt to fit their market. This whole thing seems weird. When did Paul get this faultily academic?