Comment by mbesto

> When the means of production are easier, that changes the supply and demand curves. There's more supply and lower cost, but that opens the gates to larger and new work that hasn't been possible before.

Your correct, but you're conflating the "source and generation of music" with the digitization of distribution specifically to the RIAA's role. From your original point:

> > Where do you think these models will get the source data for these amazing generations? Doesn't matter one bit, just like mp3 and torrents didn't stop digital music.

I'm saying the two (production and distribution) aren't equivalent for the parties involved. The RIAA faced an existential criss with digitization because their purpose (license and distribute music) would cease to exist under mp3/torrents. The RIAA does NOT represent the artist and the threat here is about the artist. In fact, the RIAA would LOVE to do away with artists and find a cheaper means of production if the could...it means higher profit margin for them.

The OP's point was that the new wave of art has to originate from somewhere. The distribution partners don't care how it gets produced, they just want to own the distribution. The artists are now in a existential crisis, not the RIAA. The RIAA at least had a migration story; e.g. from physically printing vinyl, providing capital for music studios, etc. to becoming glorified lawyers and promoters in the supply chain. The artists do not. Hence, the parallel is inappropriate and doesn't capture the essence of the predicament, which is artists are in existential crisis with no clear migration path.