Spotify is one of my favourite subscription services in the world. Even as a poor, struggling student, I still pay a monthly fee to Spotify to give me access to their content. Now if someone offered me the content of Spotify, with the same quality and ease of use as the Spotify app I would snap it up in a heart beat. But the fact of the situation is that that isn’t a possibility. The fact that Spotify charges its customers mean that they can afford to pay bigger artists to have their music on the Spotify site, it also means they can upgrade there app both on the phone and on the computer, making it easier to use and offering better features to its customers. If Spotify didn’t charge for its content, not only would they loose out on money, so would the artists who’s songs we listen to on there. This would ultimately effect the music industry, lesser known artists would be making any revenue from there songs so wouldn’t be able to make a career and bigger artists would stop letting Spotify use there music, effectively making the fact that it is free obsolete. Who wants a free music streaming service if none of the music you want to listen to is on it. Free music streaming would ruin small artists careers, annoy big artists and stop them supply there music and ruin the point of having a free music service.
The internet may seem to be the source of any information that one possibly might want to learn. However, even in our digital age, printed or online books are the main source of professional knowledge.
Consider the world, where all the books exist under a Creative Commons license. As an advantage, we would be able to learn anything for free. Potentially, this would increase the amount of educated people in the world, help the employability and elevate the level of life.
If universities had all their learning materials under a CC licence and available to the public, we could achieve greater equality between social classes. In this case, everyone would have the equal access to education, since now not everyone can afford to pay expensive tuition fees.
However, this image may be too idealistic. The Internet provides a fair share of information, sources to learn various skills and gain professional knowledge (free online courses, for example). Nevertheless, many people go online only for entertainment. The availability of knowledge does not necessarily mean people will make use of it.
I believe that the society found a fair compromise between having strict regulations and providing the population with fair access to knowledge. There are multiple free sources of educational materials, as well as tuition loans to help the population with fees and scholarships for talented people and those who are willing to go extra mile to receive an education.
There are plenty of sites, two that I can think of in particular but will not name, that are ran solely on the premise that they offer shows that are not available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu.
Often times when you Google “*insert show* watch online”, at the bottom of the findings is something like this…
The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act – long story short – in the lamens terms of Wikipedia “It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works”.
Regardless of this act, there are multiple sites that allow you to watch television shows without the permission of the distributors of the content. I guess my question is, how are they are able to shut down a few links without shutting down the source sites for the illegal content?
There definetly should be stronger laws and regulation for the amount of TV that you can watch online illegally and how easily you can find it. The outcome may be that people aren’t able to watch the shows, but it would in turn cost a lot less damage to the revenue and intellectual property of the people making the shows. Or even, the possibility of the creation of a sight that does this legally could be made if the illegal ones were stopped given that so many people watch their television online now.
When the word ‘copyright’ is mentioned, the first thing that always springs into mind is music. We live in a creative society, with content being created on a day-to-day basis – sometimes free, sometimes paid. Music surrounds us, and there may be many times where we’re completely unaware if the source of our listening habits is legal.
PRS is an society that licences organisations to play, perform or make copyright music available to the public, making sure that the creator is credited fairly with the correct royalties. The organisation deal with the majority of music that you hear in a public place.
Every business that plays copyrighted music must pay for the licence, because effectively, they’re benefiting from playing that music. The licence depends on the type of business, the bigger the shop premises, the higher the licence fee – I’d assume this is the case due to the number of consumers.
But, is it right that businesses have to pay to play music? Of course, this is purely a matter of opinion and the creator of the music may have a completely different opinion to the consumer. Copyright is effectively put in place to ensure creators reap the full rewards for their work. Hence, YouTube taking down videos that contain copyrighted music. However, no one goes to a shop to listen to music. If anything, the business may promote the music resulting in more sales for the artist…
Amazon Prime is only fully available to members who pay for it (£79 per year for most people). Although members can access the Amazon website for free, people can pay and get a few extra benefits.
A few of these extras include unlimited next day delivery on almost all items sold on Amazon. It also allows the members to use Prime Video, Prime Music and access to e-books with no extra cost. There is also the offer for students – to get Amazon Prime for a cheaper fee.
If Amazon Prime was available under the Creative Commons Licence, then regular users would not have an advantage over customers who do not use Amazon as much. The movies, music and books would also be more available, which means customers would not see the use of paying to view or listen to the content. It would also not be the aim of what Amazon have with Prime. They aim to make a profit out of it, which means going under the CC licence would not enable them to make a profit, only by having adverts, which would then mean consumers would not use Amazon Prime.
Disadvantages of having stricter accessibility on Amazon Prime than Netflix, for example, is that people may (if they haven’t already) find a way to view the content without paying the fee which would obviously involve breaking the law.
Sites such as Hulu and Netflix both let people view shows while paying a monthly fee. However, you must have an account in order to use the sites. The difference between the two is that Hulu airs current TV shows the day after a new episode comes out.
Lots of people prefer using Hulu and/or Netflix instead of watching actual television, because they can watch whatever show they want, whenever and wherever they want.
In order to make this possible, these companies buy the rights to air these shows on their sites. They negotiate prices and are able to air shows and movies for a certain amount of time. For movies, they are not allowed to air them until a certain amount of time after the movie has been released in theaters. This is to ensure that the movie companies benefit from profit as much as possible while it is still new.
These companies require very strict copyright laws to ensure that first, they do not get into trouble for infringement of copyright law, and second to ensure others to not break the law while using their sites.
The companies do however lose money because people share their accounts with friends, and therefore people can view the shows for free. The companies are well aware of this, however they cannot do much about it. If these companies decide to put stricter restrictions in order to prevent this, they would probably end up losing customers because people would be unhappy about the changes. This is why I believe they should just keep restrictions as they are instead of strengthening them.
Have you found there are many no sound or picture flip videos on YouTube? These mainly because they want to avoid the automatic YouTube Content ID monitoring. In order to protect copyright, YouTube created a strong weapon name Content ID. So, what is the Content ID? How Content ID works?
YouTube Content ID includes two functions named VideoID and AudioID. Respectively, They have the feature comparison of video and audio whether it is the infringement or not. YouTube Contend ID uses Heat map to compare the video and audio. Therefore, if something which is not completely same to copyright copy, for example, people directly film the video by their phone, it can also be found and detected. These Copyright owners use Content ID to search and identify the content on YouTube very easily.
Content ID can compare copyright library with each uploading video at the same time 24 hours a day. As long as the copyright owner gives a copy of the file to YouTube, the copy will be included the copyright library, and then search for matching data. Copyright owners have four actions. Firstly, they can mute audio that matches the music or blocks the video from being viewed, and add some advantages to against it, tracking the viewership of the video to make the statistics