Are we witnessing the end of Fine Art Printmaking?

Is unscrupulous competition ruining the art of fine-art printmaking? Or has it killed it already, with the motion that we are witnessing today is the tail flapping after the head is removed? Whatever the case, we're seeing the end of the fine-art print in the way we've come to understand it. It's being accosted on all sides by an insidious digital-copy industry that has taken over the language of printing and turned it into its own.
Digital revolutions have given rise to two important innovations that have an impact on printing. Let's start with the good news. Computers, clever image-creation/modification software and high-quality inkjet printers have enabled artists to create original digital images and print them with astonishing quality on a variety of substrates. This type of "digital prints," did not make it into the accepted definition of fine-art prints as original that was formulated by the French National Committee on Engraving in 1964. This was because they didn't exist in the early days, however today they have a legitimate claim to be considered to be fine art prints.
https://arte-shop.it
The 1964 definition stated:
Proofs in black and white, or in color, derived from one of several plates, created and executed totally by hand same artist regardless of the method employed, and with the exclusion of all photomechanical or mechanical processes will be considered to be original prints, engravings or prints or lithographs. Only prints that meet these qualifications are entitled to be referred to as Original Prints.
The drawback of this digital phenomenon is that this very same technology is being used by unscrupulous dealers to create high-resolution reproductions from original artwork, and then market them as "fine-art prints." Some of these operators have been knowingly breaking the canons of the centuries-old fine-art printing tradition. Other are simply ignorant. It's not always easy to distinguish which is which. In any case, there is no excuse for not following the tradition or for knowingly to break it.
No Moralizing, Neither Nostalgia
Respect for printmaking traditions is neither vapid moralizing nor luddite nostalgia. For more than 500 years of rich history, the phrase "fine-art print" has acquired the recognition of a trademark that applies to original works by artists. What these works of art contain could be subject to discussion but what they does not contain are reproductions of artwork regardless of the level of sophistication in the techniques used for copying.
What's at stake is the livelihoods of a multitude of contemporary fine-art printmakers . Their unique, hand-crafted original prints, whether made using etching tools or computers-are being unfairly undercut by dealers who, in a classical instance of dishonest and untrustworthy rivalry, refer to their inkjet copies by the name of "giclee prints" or even more slyly, "limited-edition giclee prints." As if the methods and terms used in fine art printmaking weren't already a bit obscure for the often-sophisticated art buyer as it is, digital sharp operators to confuse them further through the intentional appropriation of the language used in traditional printmaking. They'd like us to believe that this is simply trade. It's, in my opinion simply larceny.
This is not to say that there's not a legitimate niche in the market for inkjet and other art reproductions. No one in her right thinking would argue this. It's just that those reproductions aren't prints of fine art, any more than an offset art poster would be. While it's definitely printed, it's definitely not considered a "print." It is not true to say otherwise in order to sell digital reproductions at a premium price is a fraud and should be treated as such in markets, media and legal courts.