4 ms·

> 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,

> 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
  I don't agree. He certainly offers Zune Pass as an example, but his phrase is: "ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value". Are you suggesting that the meaning of "loses its value" derives from financial properties of the Zune Pass month-to-month plans? He says the claim can always be made. And the claim is that a song never fully loses its value. He can't possibly be basing deep inferences on the state of copyright law on Microsoft Zune Pass, can he? I don't know, maybe he is. In which case, I agree that the casio analogy wasn't correct.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    He's arguing law in a technically-oriented fashion, and thereby pointing out that if you can find even one example of a way that a song could generate revenue forever, then the song "itself" is infinitely valuable (which is also sketchy, economically, as mentioned elsewhere). All of this argument is ultimately pointless, of course, as corner cases do not invalidate laws, and the real root problem with everything related to such things is the confusion between sets and members of sets: they're both called "the song".

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
I don't agree. He certainly offers Zune Pass as an example, but his phrase is: "ultimately you can always claim that a song never fully loses its value". Are you suggesting that the meaning of "loses its value" derives from financial properties of the Zune Pass month-to-month plans? He says the claim can always be made. And the claim is that a song never fully loses its value. He can't possibly be basing deep inferences on the state of copyright law on Microsoft Zune Pass, can he? I don't know, maybe he is. In which case, I agree that the casio analogy wasn't correct.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  He's arguing law in a technically-oriented fashion, and thereby pointing out that if you can find even one example of a way that a song could generate revenue forever, then the song "itself" is infinitely valuable (which is also sketchy, economically, as mentioned elsewhere). All of this argument is ultimately pointless, of course, as corner cases do not invalidate laws, and the real root problem with everything related to such things is the confusion between sets and members of sets: they're both called "the song".