That is Paul Graham - programmer, entrepreneur and essayist.
He does a wonderful job over here questioning a fundamental pillar of modern media - the idea of whether people actually pay for content.
"...consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more?
Almost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant. Book publishers, for example, set prices based on the cost of producing and distributing books. They treat the words printed in the book the same way a textile manufacturer treats the patterns printed on its fabrics."
The logic isn't flawless. The Wall Street Journal is still charging for online news; most other outlets aren't.
Some content is worth next to nothing, some is very valuable. Smart media players are going to figure ths out. You could argue that the internet helped consumers get there ahead of them