I see several problems with this perspective (notwithstanding that there some truth to it on the subjective level).

Most notably, the majority of the payment for a physical book/CD/DVD/… has been for the “intellectual property”—not the physical manifestation. The variable cost of printing an additional DVD may be as low as a few cents (certainly less than a dollar, cover and packing included)—yet, this DVD may sell for 20–30 dollar. Even subtracting for variable cost for various forms of handling and transportation, it really is the digital content that matters.

(Your example with newspapers is harder to analyze, considering e.g. the large proportion of financing that comes from ads rather than newsstand payments.)

A few less important items are that it is easy and cheap to put digital content downloaded from the Internet into a physical form (caveat: the paper versions, unlike CDs/DVDs, may be “too different” from the store-bought products) and that libraries rarely store old papers in actual paper form, but prefered micro-fiche and (I speculate) today prefer computer files.

If I go to Target and buy a CD, or a DVD, or a book, when I plunk down my money, I have physically, a CD, a DVD, or a book. I have the container the lovely delicious digital bits are in. I want the delicious digital bits, but I need a container to hold them in.

In the case of the Internet, it contains all the luscious digital bits I could ever want. And although I may try to, I can’t keep them. I can’t go to Facebook, read what’s there, and take it with me. I can go back to Facebook and see a new Facebook. Every time. So why should I pay for something I use, but ultimately, can’t hold on to. I can keep a physical newspaper. Conceivably, I can keep every newspaper I’ve ever read (libraries still do) but that’s why it was only a nickel (when it was a nickel). I’m paying for some cheap paper and cheaper ink. The information on it was still free.

And that’s what we have now.

There is very little commons around these days.

It once included everything required for satisfying basic needs such as fresh water, grazing lands, wood fuel gathering and space for housing.

We once had cultural commons as well. Such as traveling minstrels, jesters, even in some cases preachers. These folk were compensated on a voluntary basis.

Once a rhyme, verse or hymn was introduced to a community it became a common good.

So chances are, whether we cause people to pay on the internet, or whether we don’t, there will be something interfering with artistic jobs just like there always have been, and with new technology, the world will begin to change and jobs will die and new jobs be reborn. That is Generation Virgo’s doing (Everyone age 34-58 are changing the workforce right now).

Besides, as the newspaper and magazine industry has proven – you can’t make money with online ads and support a vibrant content creation operation like a news room. Google and Facebook get away with it because they don’t create content – they aggregate the content of others.

If we want to have the internet be a vibrant and creative engine then there needs to be incentives for artists, writers, engineeers, designers, etc. to make money there.