Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
you missed my 10 explanations and clarifications of that quote, including the text surrounding the original quote.
|
First, you don't have to be such a cunt. My post was 5 minutes after the one in which you 'clarified' the statement I quoted you on. There was no way for me to see it, so relax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
as far as capitalism, a digital copy, even ones you download for money on itunes do not have value, it's the network and transportation of a digital copy that has value.
|
Don't agree here. They're selling a file containing a song and a license to play said song. If you want to say that they're selling the access to a song, fine, but that digital copy provides you access to the song as much as network used to download it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
if a digital copy had value, then buying music on amazon that's drm-free would cost MORE than music purchased with drm. because purchasing DRM free music means quite literally that you intend to make digital copies.
|
Says who? If Amazon wanted to charge $50 per DRM free song I'm sure they could, but that wouldn't generate many customers. Doesn't it make sense that in order to increase their share in the online music market that they would offer things like DRM free music at prices comparable or less than Itunes. I don't think it has much if anything to do with whether or not a 'digital copy' has value.
How about this though. Suppose you really wanted and were willing to spend $1 on some new song and there happens to be two different digital formats to choose from. One in mono 64bit 24kHz mp3 and the other in stereo 24bit 48kHz WAV. Which would choose? They're both digital copies of the same master recording, one just happens to be much higher quality. The reason the second option is more valuable is because it reproduces the sounds in ways that are more accurate and true to the source. It doesn't matter that it's a digital copy. The value comes from the file's ability to reproduce something that you want.