Why is the NYT writing about this now? There really isn't any new information here that hasn't been rehashed hundreds of times over. In effect it all comes down to a question of what has value to people.
To take music for an example, a digital copy of a song has very little value when compared to something like a live performance which commands a much higher price. An artist bemoaning the economics of the digital world is like Dell commiserating about the decline in the average selling price of laptops because of the introduction of net books. If an artist, or anyone, is interested in making more money they should concentrate on making things people are willing to pay more for instead of complaining that people aren't willing to pay for what they want to produce.