[Cerebus]

The problem goes beyond micropayments and into something a little more granular, as we marketers would say: unless you get a big tangible object as a keepsake, the purchase is not satisfying. If purchases are not satisfying, they need to be wrapped in dire consequence.

Consider the things you spend money on where you do not get a thing: insurance and taxes. On the former, you either content yourself with some hope of superior service, or you price-shop. On the latter, the pain is mitigated slightly through payroll deductions. With either, if you didn't live in fear of the consequences of non-compliance, you'd be tempted to try to go without.

Paying for content is the same story, and it's why there is no great moral anguish over theft from musicians with Napster. My wife sells her CDs at gigs, and she was recently told by one prospect that he'd check Napster first, and if her disc wasn't there, he'd come back and buy it. Pretty breathtaking.

Should the Onion's writers be millionaires? That's kind of like asking if a bicycle should be pink; the quality of content is in no way indicative of commerce. Hard to believe or argue in a world where everyone has a price tag, but true nonetheless. (And if you don't believe me, go watch Louise Brooks in "Pandora's Box." Widely believed to be one of the finest silent movies ever, and a flop at the box office in 1929. Which commerce was correct?)