Hacker News Reader

Comment by anileated | Hacker News Reader

Wearing out of the physical medium makes music more valuable, and your experience directly depends on perceived value.

Startup idea: DRM-locked audio files that can only be played once.

I have used in the distant past DRM music files that counted how many plays I had left, but I remember not much of it. I think it was a Nokia phone. Maybe WMA files with PlayReady DRM?

That’s an interesting point. At first glance, the difference is that DRM-locked audio is not your property (or at least it does not feel like that, due to copying being zero cost) whereas the physical medium being worn down is.

That makes sense from a psychological perspective. People generally don't take kindly to artificial scarcity, while natural scarcity (such as number of plays being inherently limited by an otherwise good-enough medium) is much more acceptable, and sometimes even valued.

An interesting anecdote that feels relevant is Wu-Tang Clan's album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which was only released as a single physical copy, and no accompanying download or streaming option. That's an extreme form of artificial scarcity, but that became a part of the artwork itself.

> Wearing out of the physical medium makes music more valuable

In what way? It adds an extra monetary cost to replace the playback medium, and an environmental cost to produce that medium, but does it actually make the music itself any more valuable?

I'll bite even though I don't feel the same as the parent. Imagine a long time ago when you needed performers to get any music at all. Listening to a great musician was an unique, perhaps once in a lifetime experience. Having a limited number of playbacks is similar, makes every instance of playing more valuable in the emotional sense.

But I agree ultimately with your environmental argument.

Yep, would definitely rather see a return of musicians than plastic cassettes.

> In what way?

The answer is in your next sentence. Cost = value.

In fact, the cost can even be infinite if you know that once its fully worn out no equivalent replacement can be obtained for any amount of money (often the case if that cassette/disc issue is no longer manufactured, or if you have an emotional attachment to a particular issue).

> The answer is in your next sentence. Cost = value.

Is it though? I think music had value before we invented money, and will surely continue to do so long after society has collapsed.

I mean cost in utilitarian economical sense, if you don’t use money there’s still cost.

The worn out music may no longer be produced, and may be unlikely every to be produced.

Even if it is produced again, that is a later edition and some people like to own the first edition.

My dad's old car (a 1978 Chrysler New Yorker - beautiful vehicle) has two Dark Side of the Moon 8-tracks in it. When I asked him why he had two copies, he told me "because I wore the first one out!"

Hell of an endorsement for an album!

I went to a latin jazz show this weekend, and Arturo Sandoval played the flower song, from Carmen. He improvised a few blue notes into the melody, it was subtle, and the effect was masterful.

I wishef that they could release to music to YouTube or something, because I'd love to understand the changes that were made to the music.

If they could release it as a limited-time piece, or limited play price, thena lot more people could listen to it.

I know, I know, it's just not that simple, piracy, enshitification, and all that. But it would be really cool to hear it like that again, and a temporary release from the venue would let a lot of other people experience it, and also maybe side step some copyright issues.

Or if they released it on a cassette, and we all collectively agreed that digital music sucks…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com