When the author chooses the distribution channel, the channel is essentially part of the asking price. People are then free to gauge whether or not the asking price is too high, and opt not to buy. Ultimately, the choice of distribution channel becomes determined by both parties, the buyers and sellers, by agreeing on a price.

On the other hand, if the consumers collectively decide to subvert this process and set the price at zero, where does that leave the author? Their message is "I'm going to take your work and pay you nothing for it. Get back to us when you can offer us a better deal than something for nothing."

Which option seems like a better system to you? Technology has made taking content and paying nothing for it a frictionless transaction. Many people here seem to believe that since technology has enabled it, or made it so easy, or made it so difficult to regulate, it therefore must be a natural right that we've had all along, but can only now fully enjoy due to the miracles of modern technology.

If some group on the supply side gains a monopoly, the government in theory steps in and regulates to protect the consumer from price gouging. This notion appeals to us, that when one party in the holds all the cards, they shouldn't use exploit that power to price gouge. Yet when the consumers suddenly hold all the cards, we turn a blind eye to imbalance in power.

I'm not saying that movie studios and record labels should be protected so that they can cling to old distribution methods. But expecting authors, or anyone on the supply side, to offer a price as good as free is not a reasonable expectation.