The music industry parallel is a good one, I agree. I agree, too, that the web and digital publishing promise to open things up by democratizing the ability to publish, since now everyone owns a virtual printing press. A lot more will be “published.”

The ASCAP comparison is a little more complicated. There you basically had one gatekeeper struggling to hold onto its franchise against the encroachment of a new gatekeeper. You are certainly right that the new gatekeeper permitted new kinds of music to reach the public, an unambiguously good thing. But radio was a gatekeeper just the same, not the unregulated free-for-all of the web.

Digital publishing has much to recommend it, of course. I don’t mean to come off as a technophobe. The ease of getting your stuff out there certainly will generate a lot of quantity (and already has). The problem is earning a living from it. Radio actually broadened the market for recorded music, opening up new income opportunities for artists, especially blues and later rock musicians. The web may be doing the opposite for musicians and writers alike.

We’ll have to see how it all plays out.

During the 1940s the “quality” music publishers represented by ASCAP decided to boycott radio because they felt that radio was not paying them enough in royalties. ASCAP laughed when the radio stations responded by playing “Hillbilly” music.

Eventually, “Hillbilly” became rock-and-roll. The Hillbillies and rock musicians contracted with newcomer BMI to represent them to the radio stations for royalties.

No offense, but book publishers today are acting like ASCAP. They presume that they know all the talent “out there.” But the publishing industry personnel are inbred. They all tend to go to the same schools and know all the same people. If they, or someone they know, does not know you, then you are not worthy of being considered for publication.

The Internet has the potential to level the playing field just as radio did.