4 ms·

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluin

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluing the previous "Taylor version."

chejazi 6y ago
It's not like the "New Taylor version" will be valued completely independently of the previous "Taylor version." Her reputation underwrites the transaction; any transaction contributes to her reputation.
- gretch 6y ago
  Exactly. Doing this would 'dilute' her and the "new new taylor version" would be next to worthless
the_local_host 6y ago
If we're invoking theoretical possibilities, anyone can declare another piece of are to be the new version. I don't think re-recording albums for the purpose of attacking former business partners, who priced the intellectual property at roughly all the money that she had been paid in their previous arrangement, indicates a willingness to keep re-recording things.
paxys 6y ago
The entire point of the saga was that she wants to own the masters herself (which she does with the rerecorded versions), so she would be devaluing her own asset.
hnbad 6y ago
I thought this was kinda the point by comparing it to NFTs. NFTs can be trivially devalued if you derive the value from that attributed to it by the author of whatever it references. It's probably even truer for NFTs as often the NFT itself merely represents a JSON payload which itself references URLs managed by a third party and trusted to continue referencing the original work. Once that third party goes away, the reference chain breaks. The value is not only reliant on everyone agreeing that the third party "owns" (whatever this might mean) the "work" (whatever that might be) but also that the NFT continues to represent this ownership by proxy even when the proxy goes away. There's nothing stopping a new middleman claiming authority over the ownership of a work and issuing an NFT for it. But its value entirely hinges on a shared understanding that this claim is valid. Of course this would break down if an artist really did devalue earlier NFTs for the same work by issuing new ones because the value largely comes from the expectation that the non-fungible token's authority is also non-fungible, i.e. permanent.

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluing the previous "Taylor version."

chejazi 6y ago

It's not like the "New Taylor version" will be valued completely independently of the previous "Taylor version." Her reputation underwrites the transaction; any transaction contributes to her reputation.

gretch 6y ago
Exactly. Doing this would 'dilute' her and the "new new taylor version" would be next to worthless

the_local_host 6y ago

If we're invoking theoretical possibilities, anyone can declare another piece of are to be the new version. I don't think re-recording albums for the purpose of attacking former business partners, who priced the intellectual property at roughly all the money that she had been paid in their previous arrangement, indicates a willingness to keep re-recording things.

paxys 6y ago

The entire point of the saga was that she wants to own the masters herself (which she does with the rerecorded versions), so she would be devaluing her own asset.

hnbad 6y ago

I thought this was kinda the point by comparing it to NFTs. NFTs can be trivially devalued if you derive the value from that attributed to it by the author of whatever it references. It's probably even truer for NFTs as often the NFT itself merely represents a JSON payload which itself references URLs managed by a third party and trusted to continue referencing the original work. Once that third party goes away, the reference chain breaks. The value is not only reliant on everyone agreeing that the third party "owns" (whatever this might mean) the "work" (whatever that might be) but also that the NFT continues to represent this ownership by proxy even when the proxy goes away. There's nothing stopping a new middleman claiming authority over the ownership of a work and issuing an NFT for it. But its value entirely hinges on a shared understanding that this claim is valid. Of course this would break down if an artist really did devalue earlier NFTs for the same work by issuing new ones because the value largely comes from the expectation that the non-fungible token's authority is also non-fungible, i.e. permanent.