So what does this mean? Should people not be able to charge for content? There's not a single yes or no answer to that question. People should be able to charge for content when it works to charge for content.
But by "works" I mean something more subtle than "when they can get away with it." I mean when people can charge for content without warping society in order to do it.
pg, I'd be really interested in hearing more about what (you think) this should look like.
Probably some kind of super DRM. Think OnLive or the new Diablo 3 where you need to be on the internet to play.
Obviously music cannot follow this model, meaning sounds themselves (in the context of the essay sounds are not so different from smells) will become un-ownable and the only thing left having any value will be live performances. Artists could still make a good living if they are any good at it. It would be the same as what we had a few hundred years ago before mass media, and the music industry would transform from a creative industry into a service industry.
Of course this is just my impression of what pg means, I don't want to put words into his mouth.
But by "works" I mean something more subtle than "when they can get away with it." I mean when people can charge for content without warping society in order to do it.
pg, I'd be really interested in hearing more about what (you think) this should look like.