4 ms·

Uh, due to exponential discounting, $15 a month over infinite time adds up to a finite and not especially large amount of money. Think as much money as you'd ne

Uh, due to exponential discounting, $15 a month over infinite time adds up to a finite and not especially large amount of money. Think as much money as you'd need to have in the bank to receive $15 a month in interest.

dinkumthinkum 17y ago
I think you passed the point a few miles back. It seems like the issue is that this is really a ridiculous a verdict and the I think that the idea that the RIAA is happy about this really shows how little they understand about PR. Considering that their primary targeted demographics, I wonder if the RIAA should sue their lawyers and PR firms for malpractice!
swombat 17y ago
That's really just being pedantic about a humorous Penny Arcarde comic, though. Perhaps there are more important points to debate in this article?
- seertaak 17y ago
  > Since the music is DRMed, if you ever stop paying, you lose all your music. So? That's what Spotify does, and I have absolutely no problem with that. > It’s just a joke, but it makes a good point. How much is one song worth to you? How much is it worth to the author? How much is it worth to the recording industry? I don't see this relates at all about the howler ("point") regarding infinity dollars. In any case this is a confused mess passing for deep thought. How much is a song worth to you? However much you're willing to pay for it, I would have thought. How much is it worth to the author? However much he sold the rights to his music to the record industry for. How much is it worth to the music industry? Well, it's worth precisely the price they set for an album! > ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value and it can therefore be set to an arbitrary, insanely high amount of money. Another non-sequitor. My well-kept 1980s casio watch will never fully "lose its value". Would you like to buy it for USD 100,000.00, sir? And anyways, the claim can't be set "arbitrarily" high -- the law sets a limit of between USD 300 and USD 150,000 per song. It is impossible to know the financial damage wrought by making a song available on a P2P network. However, it worth stating two points: 1. It is the jury that sets the amount of damages per song, not the plaintiffs. This should have been obvious to anyone who had actually read the court case, as the author claims to have done. 2. While it is impossible to determine a precise value for the damages, you can make a reasonable, conservative estimate based on the expected number of times a song has been downloaded once made available on P2P, what the expected price of said download would be if it were effected through legal channels, etc. It's not going to be perfect, but this is far from being "arbitrary". Finally, the title of the article just reeks of demagoguery. Ever download a copyrighted song? You owe infinity dollars? Does the author take us for complete idiots? I frankly don't understand why there's this rush to defend a woman who repeatedly lied about her activities. She could have settled for a reasonable sum. She instead had the chutzpah to claim that she never even knew about KaZaA despite having written a paper about Napster (her conclusion: it was legal). She lied about the hard drive she handed in for depositions. She, simply put, doesn't have a foot to stand on. Defending her just makes the anti-copyright movement look like a bunch of loonies.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    My well-kept 1980s casio watch will never fully "lose its value". Would you like to buy it for USD 100,000.00, sir? The phrase "never fully lose its value" in this case means month-to-month value. Are you really still paying some amount every month for a watch you bought in the '80s?
    - seertaak 17y ago
      > The phrase "never fully lose its value" in this case means month-to-month value. Sorry; no. It presumably refers to the fact that music, in electronic form, can be copied arbitrarily and stored indefinitely, at no loss of quality. I don't see how the mode of payment, whether one-off or monthly subscription, is relevant at all. > Are you really still paying some amount every month for a watch you bought in the '80s? No, and irrelevant. See above. EDIT: It occurs to me that the poster might have meant the "value of the song seen on a month-to-month basis", in connection with the claim that this value never changes. This is of course a ridiculous claim; it is well-known that popular single in the Top 20 cost more than less popular singles. This could quite easily be factored into a calculation of damages.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        The "never fully lose its value" refers to DRMed pay-every-month schemes like the Zune: """ It reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic which mocks Microsoft’s Zune Pass, which offers unlimited selection of music for 15 dollars per month; since time never ends, this technically amounts to infinity dollars. Since the music is DRMed, if you ever stop paying, you lose all your music. It’s just a joke, but it makes a good point. How much is one song worth to you? How much is it worth to the author? How much is it worth to the recording industry? You can push arguments to favor each side, and ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value and it can therefore be set to an arbitrary, insanely high amount of money. """ So, in context, it's talking about month-to-month plans, not resale-of-copies value.
        seertaak 17y ago
- cousin_it 17y ago
  I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but Penny Arcade's "infinity dollars" line didn't attack the outrageous fines of the RIAA, it (unfairly) attacked Microsoft's price point which is actually very affordable. Then the linked article took that already faulty argument and made a faulty logical connection on top. Think about it: even if Penny Arcade had been right, what does Microsoft's pricing model have to do with the article at all? Unless you subscribe to the view that all bad things in this world are intimately connected: "Microsoft, DRM, RIAA, boo".
  - seertaak 17y ago
    Exactly, it was poorly argued, replete with falsehoods, non-sequitors, and generally just muddled thought. It was almost juvenile. I think the anti-copyright campaigners would be wise to distance themselves from this brand of "argumentation". It weakens the argument against copyright.
  - ggchappell 17y ago
    > I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. Good for you. (See also: http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intelle... )

dinkumthinkum 17y ago

I think you passed the point a few miles back. It seems like the issue is that this is really a ridiculous a verdict and the I think that the idea that the RIAA is happy about this really shows how little they understand about PR. Considering that their primary targeted demographics, I wonder if the RIAA should sue their lawyers and PR firms for malpractice!

swombat 17y ago

That's really just being pedantic about a humorous Penny Arcarde comic, though. Perhaps there are more important points to debate in this article?

seertaak 17y ago
> Since the music is DRMed, if you ever stop paying, you lose all your music. So? That's what Spotify does, and I have absolutely no problem with that. > It’s just a joke, but it makes a good point. How much is one song worth to you? How much is it worth to the author? How much is it worth to the recording industry? I don't see this relates at all about the howler ("point") regarding infinity dollars. In any case this is a confused mess passing for deep thought. How much is a song worth to you? However much you're willing to pay for it, I would have thought. How much is it worth to the author? However much he sold the rights to his music to the record industry for. How much is it worth to the music industry? Well, it's worth precisely the price they set for an album! > ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value and it can therefore be set to an arbitrary, insanely high amount of money. Another non-sequitor. My well-kept 1980s casio watch will never fully "lose its value". Would you like to buy it for USD 100,000.00, sir? And anyways, the claim can't be set "arbitrarily" high -- the law sets a limit of between USD 300 and USD 150,000 per song. It is impossible to know the financial damage wrought by making a song available on a P2P network. However, it worth stating two points: 1. It is the jury that sets the amount of damages per song, not the plaintiffs. This should have been obvious to anyone who had actually read the court case, as the author claims to have done. 2. While it is impossible to determine a precise value for the damages, you can make a reasonable, conservative estimate based on the expected number of times a song has been downloaded once made available on P2P, what the expected price of said download would be if it were effected through legal channels, etc. It's not going to be perfect, but this is far from being "arbitrary". Finally, the title of the article just reeks of demagoguery. Ever download a copyrighted song? You owe infinity dollars? Does the author take us for complete idiots? I frankly don't understand why there's this rush to defend a woman who repeatedly lied about her activities. She could have settled for a reasonable sum. She instead had the chutzpah to claim that she never even knew about KaZaA despite having written a paper about Napster (her conclusion: it was legal). She lied about the hard drive she handed in for depositions. She, simply put, doesn't have a foot to stand on. Defending her just makes the anti-copyright movement look like a bunch of loonies.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  My well-kept 1980s casio watch will never fully "lose its value". Would you like to buy it for USD 100,000.00, sir? The phrase "never fully lose its value" in this case means month-to-month value. Are you really still paying some amount every month for a watch you bought in the '80s?
  - seertaak 17y ago
    > The phrase "never fully lose its value" in this case means month-to-month value. Sorry; no. It presumably refers to the fact that music, in electronic form, can be copied arbitrarily and stored indefinitely, at no loss of quality. I don't see how the mode of payment, whether one-off or monthly subscription, is relevant at all. > Are you really still paying some amount every month for a watch you bought in the '80s? No, and irrelevant. See above. EDIT: It occurs to me that the poster might have meant the "value of the song seen on a month-to-month basis", in connection with the claim that this value never changes. This is of course a ridiculous claim; it is well-known that popular single in the Top 20 cost more than less popular singles. This could quite easily be factored into a calculation of damages.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      The "never fully lose its value" refers to DRMed pay-every-month schemes like the Zune: """ It reminds me of a recent Penny Arcade comic which mocks Microsoft’s Zune Pass, which offers unlimited selection of music for 15 dollars per month; since time never ends, this technically amounts to infinity dollars. Since the music is DRMed, if you ever stop paying, you lose all your music. It’s just a joke, but it makes a good point. How much is one song worth to you? How much is it worth to the author? How much is it worth to the recording industry? You can push arguments to favor each side, and ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value and it can therefore be set to an arbitrary, insanely high amount of money. """ So, in context, it's talking about month-to-month plans, not resale-of-copies value.
      - seertaak 17y ago
cousin_it 17y ago
I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but Penny Arcade's "infinity dollars" line didn't attack the outrageous fines of the RIAA, it (unfairly) attacked Microsoft's price point which is actually very affordable. Then the linked article took that already faulty argument and made a faulty logical connection on top. Think about it: even if Penny Arcade had been right, what does Microsoft's pricing model have to do with the article at all? Unless you subscribe to the view that all bad things in this world are intimately connected: "Microsoft, DRM, RIAA, boo".
- seertaak 17y ago
  Exactly, it was poorly argued, replete with falsehoods, non-sequitors, and generally just muddled thought. It was almost juvenile. I think the anti-copyright campaigners would be wise to distance themselves from this brand of "argumentation". It weakens the argument against copyright.
- ggchappell 17y ago
  > I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. Good for you. (See also: http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intelle... )