Digital music is infinitely reproducible, but that doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it. It is similar with articles. The author decides who can consume their art,
That word "illegally" is carrying some weight there. You only get to have those rules in law because the rest of us agreed to them in some sense. And in this particular case, the laws were created by powerful and wealthy media industries bribing politicians.
There's not some universal truth about fairness here. It's just a set of conventions where people with guns show up and lock you in prison if you bypass someone else seeking rent.
What?! How would that even happen? Unless you limit your definition of art to performing at salon events, that doesn't make much sense. Typically art is released into the world and at best the authors can get a bit of rent from the people who consume it (typically via a publisher), but they don't have any control over who the consumers would be.
I decide if I am going to go with a publisher, which publisher and what platforms.
What you label as "typically" has only been the case for the past ≈15 years.
Staying with your example of music or book authors - a musician or author might choose which distribution platforms they work with, but they don't have the ability to tell a particular shop to not resell their record/book, let alone to tell a particular "consumer" not to listen to it / read it.