The only part that I thought was weak were the last few sentences.

"But as I am discovering in my research, deviantART is constituted by a variety of people, with different aspirational trajectories, engaged in multiple practices, supported by different spheres of social activity. Thus, notions of material property in seemingly immaterial work are both diverse and conflicted. "

I actually think this portion is a bit redundant, generalized, and unnecessary. I think you already note on how diverse and conflicted opinions are on DA throughout the piece, and do not need to end with a reminder. Also I'd say the same words could be applied to other social networks and practices. As I see it kind of takes away the impact of the sentence before it.

"Wrestling with the boundaries between legitimate uses and theft then helps constitute what it means to have one's sense of self closely linked to creative practice."


To me is a much more interesting, relevant, and thoughtful statement, and serves as a stronger ending to the piece.
I like the idea that how you define art theft itself can somewhat define your artistic identity, and it is a good notion to leave on.

On a side note, I notice you stay away from mentioning fan art and how it constitutes to theft, in the piece. It would definitely complicate the discussion, and I wonder if this was done consciously.