1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
💰 Please help cover server costs.
here is the full subject for context: https://imgur.com/a/HmNaMIu
You have to choose one of 2 exam papers. Would you choose the second subject ? the one revolving around piracy denial that is.
My submission:
The hysteria surrounding piracy is a smokescreen for the real issue: the outdated and oppressive copyright regime. The software industry's revenue losses are a myth, and the notion that piracy kills creativity is a tired cliché. Piracy has always existed, and artists have always found ways to thrive. The software industry's failure to adapt to changing consumer habits and technological advancements is the real reason for their declining revenues. Meanwhile, copyright laws often benefit exploitative corporations, rather than creatives. By enforcing draconian anti-piracy laws, we're allowing copyright to become a tool of censorship. Instead, we should promote a more permissive approach to copyright, recognizing that sharing and collaboration are essential to a thriving cultural landscape.
nice essay. I'm curious for your input on this: you're a software creator and you want to monetize your software, how is this achievable under piracy ?
To borrow heavily from the ideas of Glyn Moody (grabs free copy of one of his books here), I would first address what I believe to be a false premise.
The question assumes that piracy is a fixed reality, and that the goal is to find ways to monetize software despite its existence. But what if we flip that assumption on its head? What if, instead of trying to fight piracy, we design business models that make piracy irrelevant?
The software industry's failure to adapt to the realities of the digital age is a stark reminder of its own inertia. For too long, it has relied on a broken business model that treats customers as mere consumers, rather than as active participants in the creation and dissemination of value.
Instead of trying to prop up the concept of artificial scarcity, the industry should be embracing the abundance of the digital realm. This means recognizing that software is not a physical product, but a flow of information that can be easily copied and shared.
One approach is to focus on providing services and support around the software, rather than just the software itself. This could include offering subscription-based models, where users pay for access to regular updates, security patches, and expert advice. It could also involve creating communities and ecosystems around the software, where users can collaborate, share knowledge, and contribute to the development process.
Another approach is to adopt open-source principles, where the software is freely available, and revenue is generated through customization, integration, and consulting services. This not only reduces the incentive for piracy but also creates a more collaborative and transparent development process.
Ultimately, the software industry needs to stop fighting the tide of technological progress and start embracing the opportunities it presents. By doing so, it can create new business models that are more resilient, more equitable, and more aligned with the values of the digital age.
What Botaflika intends to do scares me he like Abdulfatah El sisi the mexican president
hhhhhhhhh Boutaflika is dead my brother, nowadays it is Tebboun the president of Algeria
Here's my mildly diplomatic answer that'd probably get tossed:
Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there's a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.
This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they'd have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.
It's not only price. I don't agree that spotify has the right to a monopoly in music sales. Neither shall youtube have it for videos or adobe for image editing.
There is a market imbalance and the only protest that's left for me is to pirate content.
I would ask how it is theft when I’m prevented from buying media from other countries. I can’t buy Romanian movies or Swedish books. It’s illegal for me to give them money. Where is the theft here?
Why?
Why what? They don’t want my money, and I can clone it without harming anyone. Is it theft?
Why can’t you give them money legally?
I just can’t. They are European countries and when I try to create an account to buy something, I am informed that I can’t create an account from another country (which should be illegal nowadays but they don’t seem to care).
There are laws to allow someone buying Romanian stuff from France, but they don’t care. I know it’s a niche thing, but if they refuse customers, they can’t complain about piracy.
Weird, but I agree, if they won’t take your money fuck em
Haha, yeah, that's why I said it's my diplomatic answer, as it doesn't utterly reject a capitalist framework.
Neither does my statement reject capitalism. I reject the monopolies. There is not really a competitive market. It may or should be a natural monopoly but there are means to produce competitive markets but they are not yet implemented.
Capitalism does not exclusively mean monopolies. Recap: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4][5] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, economic freedom, profit motive, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor and the production of commodities.[6][7][8][9] In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
Unrestrained capitalism will always trend into monopoly. Capitalist-first democracies espousing "free market" historically never properly regulate their markets, resulting in this state, and the rhetoric all tends to place the market above the people, hence copyright being perverted into arcane lifetime-plus ownership schemes with fingers into everything. Meanwhile, culture is commodified and restricted from those who create it.
I know we aren't arguing different viewpoints; only choices of words.
Sigh... Back to my FOSS life without AAA gaming with my son in another country...
It would be easier to pass by 'what had been argued as" qualifier in front of "justified." I'd also add something about people who discriminate against different socioeconomic groups as being uncultured, while gatekeeping culture.
You are being tested on your comprehension of the text given, not asked for your opinion on piracy and copyright.
yeah, not asked about opinion, straight up asked to denounce piracy
Artificial satellites? Just for fun, I'm interpreting that as fake communication satellites, so:
'Unlike traditional communication satellites, artificial communication satellites are not launched into space via costly rockets using environmentally unfriendly propellents.
Instead, Artificial Satellite Systems (or ASS) make use of artificial intelligence to communicate via Frequency Adjusted Radio Tower Systems (known as FARTS).
FARTS allow for rapid, ASS to ASS communication. Additionally, Multiplexed Over/Under The Horizon' allows for increased speeds if ASS to MOUTH is enabled.'
Absolutely hilarious but technocally the term is correct as we have 1 natural satellite.
Yeah, I realised that, but couldn't resist it for the lols.
I think it could score a perfect zero by both not correctly comprehending and being offensive to whoever had the misfortune of marking it.
So it's morally fine for assholes to pay money and buy up rights to creative works and deprive people of enjoyment just because their imaginary concept of ownership trumps ours?
I've got no idea what your exam is but why does it provide the answer (aka notes) to the question?
It's incredible that you shall not discuss it but actively denounce it. What idiot wrote this? Please denounce him.
It's an exercise in reading and writing, not an opinion question. They want to see that you can understand the text given, and write on a given topic.
What the fuck are these arguments.
I don’t think they’re talking about the Somalian kind of pirate here boys…
But reading that text like they tell you to do, is kind of an exercise in futility if you choose topic two. (the benefits of artificial satellites in telecommunications) I'd be angry at that point.
I'd probably straight up fail because I'd write something about how I, myself, am a recording and gigging musician; have multiple albums out, releaased under a CC BY-NC-SA license, we have given copies out gratís and told people to just make copies for others; and how we are all pro piracy.
The funny thing is that there is no money in the music industry for most bands. Especially underground stuff like NYHC.
The reality is that the only ones that potentially don't make as much money are the upper echelon who are already making millions. Even that out so the touring bands get their dues, and we can talk about how every dollar helps them go from struggling to actually living off their craft without having to work full time. 🌵
Write about how satellites are good because they can be used for piracy. P: