3 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoHe'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".