I didn't know any of that either. But I was mainly struck by how comprehensively he attacked the arguments of those he calls 'freehadists.' I sit (uncomfortably) on the fence in these things; I think the current law on copyright is a disaster on wheels, but having spent years as a Starving Artist the problem of revenue for content creators is not an abstract one to me, and I can't bring myself to download copyrighted movies and music the way other people do. I used to buy a lot of media, now I compromise by renting it or opting for what's available on YouTube (where rightsholders have a reliable mechanism for asserting ownership of their IP if they feel an upload infringes upon them).

The bit that really pained me was his mention of John Perrry Barlow doing his schtick at the SF Music Summit. I was getting into the internet when the WELL was still in full swing and vividly recall Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace - what young digital idealist wouldn't thrill to such vaulting sentiments? Two decades later, the notions of elective citizenship and intentional nationality continue to fascinate, but not the notions that the ends justify the means and that the economics will take care of themselves.

I am very happy that the technological means of production have become so much cheaper; I have several synthesizers and related audio gear sitting on this desk I'm at now, and a great camera that allows me to shoot excellent video in HD - one handed. When I first learned my way around a movie set the cameras weighed 30 pounds and I had to use a tape recorder the size of a concrete block. Unfortunately, my technical mastery (or at least commercially viable skill) came at the same time that the market for the end product fragmented drastically - as the technology became cheaper, so the skills of people who were skilled in its use became massively devalued. We had another example the other day involving a photographer talking to a calendar publisher whose photo rights budget amounted to a mere $100. Now, I'm not really an entrepreneur, and I don't dispute that there are abundant commercial opportunities that I could have exploited and haven't; I'm hopeful that the increasing popularity of crowdfunding and the possible democratization of investment from the JOBS bill will facilitate capital-raising for small projects.

But the downside that Lowery so elegantly articulates here is that to succeed in the new commercial marketplace, a creative type needs to also be his or her own manager/marketer/salesperson/etc., to a far greater degree than before - and that means less time spent developing one's craft and creations. The old models of funding and distribution in the arts weren't totally fair, but they were predictable and relatively stable. If you were lucky and/or talented enough to get and exploit a few breaks, then there was a professional infrastructure within which you can find your own niche, whether as an artist or a technician. As the market for the end product has fragmented and revenue models have become obsolete, producers and publishers have become more risk-averse and increasingly channeled their funds to the surest prospects (which are often the lowest common denominator in creative terms). This naturally means fewer insiders willing to take the risk of financing and publishing an unknown prospect. And why should they, when people will bend over backwards and pay to have their films considered for inclusion in a film festival (most indies have neither the know-how nor the cash to sell their project at a film buyer's market, and film schools are in no hurry to teach them)?

It's not all bad, by any means. But it's not all good either; the old system provided extremely valuable mentoring and marketing utility to emerging creatives, and trial and error isn't a very efficient alternative.

Also interesting is this MetaFilter thread about the same post, though the first half is kind of Night of the Living Strawmen: http://www.metafilter.com/114955/Fool-me-once-shame-on-you-f...