This is a quite successful revision along the lines I proposed. By looking closely at the alternatives the first draft was not fully comfortable imagining, you have pushed your own thinking into new corners. That's learning for you, and for your readers.

Asking why people will pay anything when they could pay nothing is a good question, and should be taken seriously. Outside the realm of coercive distribution, there is much distribution. Will people pay Spielberg in advance to make films? Yes. Can he make his films on what people will voluntarily put up to have him make them? Almost certainly. What about the not-yet Spielbergs? Artists have always sought the work that would sustain them while seeking to do the work they sustain themselves to do. Not unlike lawyers, at their best, anyway. If we can perceive the extent to which the post-Edisonian businesses weren't actually made to solve the problems of artists, no matter what the form of their creation, we can see why artists' choices can be empowered and relied upon to explore the spaces in which creation can be made sustainable, without needing another change in the system of coercive distribution.