Basically in a course I am taking, I have to find global challenges and implications of a digital topic. So we turned to piracy in the end because it has been here for a while (and lets face it, I was biased and its my favorite topic.) and has its qualities and some drawbacks which need to be discussed in a topic like that. With the rise of streaming services and enshitification of most things we know of, Piracy has crawled out of the shadows and become less niche and more a valid option.
I would love if you all can give my some of your opinions on it. Any documentations, reads or articles and some valid points to help to discuss with my group (they are not all tech nerds …)
OFC we will discuss the issues of services today, why piracy has slowed with the rise of streaming services (and back up ahahah). We will discuss that piracy helps in a way to preserve data, culture etc. The good and the bad of it. Impact of piracy in the creative goods sector in sciences. What governments do to counter piracy…
So really any stat that is justified of course, any reasons to do so (is it more convenient?? Is it due to censorship in your country or limited access to information?? DRM ?? Monopoly no other alternatives??..)
I am open to all info and articles And thanks for your time too!
that is a very cool idea! but then how to counter the fact that money is needed to produce these things such as art, books etc Like dont we pay artists ? directly?
while digital property is really debated even believed that copyright for physical goods being copied to digital is no fair
so i could dig into digital intellectual property i will see what i can find
The production is a fixed one time cost.
Once that cost is covered, the rest is profit.
It is important and fair to cover the cost of production and also have some gains on top of that.
But at some point it switches to bringing ongoing profit for no ongoing work or effort.
Where that point lies axactly is open to discussion. But after it has been reached, it is surely not morally wrong to distribute that media freely. Ideally it would be legally required to turn it to public domain, which would increase competition, quality and creativity of the whole landscape.
Minor point, there’s energy, maintenance and hosting costs of on-going digital services as well as costs for continued development and improvement. For most digital goods though you’re right
tbf that is a great point I just now need to find a paper discussing that system ur describing. I never thought about that like that tbf but some issues arise like what is the production cost?? who determines that or moderates it? but again great idea i hope i can find some papers taking ur point to a more practical point (if it is employed somewhere or if u might have an example of such system that has been studied)
Some interesring reads that are related and could be a starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rival_good
https://maxkasy.github.io/home/files/other/ML_Econ_Oxford/digital_socialism.pdf
https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~rmartin/teaching/spring03/cs553/papers02/07.pdf
I will look at those too thanks!!! ☺️
Here in the UK (and elsewhere I’m sure) there is public funding for the arts. It’s recognised as being good for culture but that it also stimulates the broader econony. In that way it is treated as a public investment with expected public (and private) returns.
Thanks for the answer i will look more into that i did not know abt public art fundings !
Artificial scarcity is a crime against humanity. Piracy is the first aid. The solution would be a system that pays for the value produced anywhere in society, including when a copy is used to have fun or make profit. Movie makers would get paid more if they received good ratings from consumers. News Corp would get fined for destroying value.
That would be a great systeme tbf. Everyone wants that. But idk if in practice it can work. For news corps for example usually click baity reads earn more than genuine journalism which is sad abviously.
The system you propose for movies should be doable. More views, more reviews = more earnings. It is more like cinemas in a sense viewers pay with their money. But as comments said there should also be a limit of how much you earn. It should not be an awful pay but here is where more research is needed. And should become public after a while or whenever it fully covered costs and some revenue for whoever did it.
My only concern is that is this limit going to discourage people to produce movies, music etc?
It would require replacing the money system with a value production estimation and reward system.
I don’t support an upper limit for income. I want wealth tax and inheritance tax to prevent excessive accumulation.
Excellent thinking! You can of course directly transition into discussions about things like basic income and the requirements of society to cater to the basic needs of all its members before anything like economic growth can even be allowed, but it might be more useful to ask the following questions:
Because once you answer that question you know roughly how much public funds to allocate to art production. Depending on who you ask the answer might even be zero or close to zero.