I do think that's incorrect, but there's a broader picture issue that makes this irrelevant: Why does it even matter?
You're misunderstanding the original argument. Of course it's possible to make some money for selling something that is free. Specially if you convince people that it's not free, and that you'll go to jail if you do otherwise. But what they mean with "there's no market value", is that it doesn't create any new value to the economy. It's just money changing hands. If you ask me for 5 bucks and I say "yes, of course, no need to pay me back", we didn't just magically create value in the economy because I payed you 5 bucks for nothing. The value in the economy is the same, that's just money changing hands.
If I pay money for a copy of a song, that's just money changing hands. It didn't add any new value to the economy. If I didn't pay money for that copy of the song. The song would still be there. No change in value.
Unless, of course, if you make the argument that music would cease to exist if we start sharing it for free. Which I would honestly rather not get into.
Piracy is a reality in app stores. But you don't see developers running around to sue people downloading pirated copies. That's because they acknowledged that these people won't pay them and focus their efforts on people who do pay them. Most of the apps even have free versions just so that users can sample they app and judge it for them selves before buying it. All these are adaptations to the environment in which they operate. Content industry on the other hand refuses to adapt.
I'm not sure what do you think is related in your analogy. Seems like two completely separate examples. The software industry adapted to depend less on copyright faster than the music industry. You don't see as much valueless copy selling in our industry anymore. Music should be following us, but they're slower to adapt than we are. Which is exactly the whole point of this discussion. What are you trying to say?
I do think that's incorrect, but there's a broader picture issue that makes this irrelevant: Why does it even matter?
You're misunderstanding the original argument. Of course it's possible to make some money for selling something that is free. Specially if you convince people that it's not free, and that you'll go to jail if you do otherwise. But what they mean with "there's no market value", is that it doesn't create any new value to the economy. It's just money changing hands. If you ask me for 5 bucks and I say "yes, of course, no need to pay me back", we didn't just magically create value in the economy because I payed you 5 bucks for nothing. The value in the economy is the same, that's just money changing hands.
If I pay money for a copy of a song, that's just money changing hands. It didn't add any new value to the economy. If I didn't pay money for that copy of the song. The song would still be there. No change in value.
Unless, of course, if you make the argument that music would cease to exist if we start sharing it for free. Which I would honestly rather not get into.