For this blog post, I thought it would be interesting to compare content which is restricted by strict copyright laws and that which is more freely available to share and edit through a creative commons license.
Music is under strict copyright laws.
Tidal is an American music subscription service on which the content is under strict copyright and cannot be accessed (i.e. streamed) without purchasing a subscription. On the service, artists upload content which is specifically for the service and therefore it is illegal to have access to the content without a subscription service. The purpose of this is to ensure that artists are paid fairly and fully for their intellectual property. This differs from a streaming service like Spotify, which allows audiences to stream content without a subscription (although they do have to listen to adverts between songs). Comparably, iTunes is a site where audiences must purchase music to listen to it. It is illegal, therefore, to download music which artists are selling if you have not paid for it, from example downloading illegally online. However, SoundCloud is a music service whereby audiences can upload content as well as download and share content legally. This has benefits for content creators who want to share their material and appeal to new audiences, as well as audiences who get to listen to music that they enjoy for free. If this were under the same copyright laws as the previous services, all users of the site would lose out.
Other content is available under Creative Commons Licenses.
Wikimedia Commons (the multimedia repository of Wikipedia) allows its users to upload and edit content on its pages. All content is available under a Creative Commons License meaning audiences can contribute to and develop ideas – the main advantage of the license. Compared to copyrighted books, audiences are unable to contribute to ideas in the same way (unless they properly reference) as this could be seen as plagiarism. Perhaps is copyright laws on books were less strict then academic research and theories could be better explored and advanced.
Do you agree with the use of copyright in these cases?