> We hope that a third world is what will emerge. That's a rather unfortunate choice of words. :P Joking aside, I feel like two issues are being conflated her

> We hope that a third world is what will emerge. That's a rather unfortunate choice of words. :P Joking aside, I feel like two issues are being conflated here. Art does have value, but translating that value into monetary results for artists is an age old problem, and not one that has suddenly propped up due to the accessibility of art. Art has been a trade funded by patrons, a past-time for the wealthy, a public service funded by the government, a religious service funded by the Church, a consumer item and increasingly as of recent, a free service in exchange for advertising/analytics. In all these forms, artists have been concerned about either their freedom of expression, their livelihoods or both. Monetizing art has always been difficult, and just because it has value doesn't mean people care enough to pay for the real stuff... they'll settle for what is available, familiar and fills the gap (one of a bajillion examples: The Monkees). Many things have value, research into climate change or lung cancer, space exploration, winter-prepping your garden... it doesn't mean that people (a) will pay for it (b) can pay for it.