> The ad-based web economy had produced the current publishing dystopia in the first place and prevents the development of a sane business model.

Ah, the 'better business model' argument! A curious specimen, men often speak its name, but rarely agree how it looks or its habitat. Is it a donation model? Wait, no, that doesn't work. A paywall? Ah, but you want content for free. Philanthropist support? Oh, you don't like the conflict of interest. Micropayments? I suppose you have some cunning way of mitigating the transaction costs, without computationally expensive solutions like bitcoin.

Here's my proposition: post a model that is known to work, known to scale, for general purpose content, and you will have a startup on your hands. Otherwise - I ask you to withdraw your comment.

See Netflix, spotify. Those or others will come for content when ads are gone.

But then why haven't "Spotify for Journalism" projects ever worked? How does a business go from $2 per paper to 0.2c per article? Why are so many artists so unhappy with their meagre Spotify royalties? I think this falls under my "proven to scale" condition.

[In reply to the below - as we have reached the thread limit: there will _always_ be free competition. The problem is: without advertising, the only players left will be those with deep pockets, and deep interests to protect - the state, churches, oligarchs and political groups]

Because there is infinite free / ad-based competition crowding out paid services.

Regarding royalties: My understanding from school is that radio royalties are paid out by samplings from radio playlists. If you song was in the sample then you got paid, otherwise, nope!

Don't the current streaming tech pay artists per literal play? If so, wouldn't that mean more money to the artists since all plays are counted?

My understanding is a bit outdated now perhaps, but would like to understand better if someone knows better :-)