US Netflix vs UK Netflix

For the past few years Netflix has become a fundamental part of watching TV and films without the use of a TV. Critics and analysts have fallen over themselves to proclaim how revolutionary streaming services are.

After a month of using Netflix I decided to download a proxy onto my browser to see what content other countries and was annoyed to discover that UK user have been somewhat backhanded by copyright.

This however is not the fault of Netflix. After the resurgence of its business many of Netflix’s rivals were quick to snap up the streaming right for programmes and films available on the US Netflix.

Netflix has tried to rectify this issue by offering more money than its rivals like Amazon Prime however some companies are holding back on jumping into bed with Netflix as it still has ongoing problems like the proxy example used above. Also Netflix users can share their accounts with friends and family meaning they miss out on capitalising on an unpaying audience. While this is good for many users who don’t want to pay for the service (like my older sister *ahem*), Netflix has encouraged users to share their accounts. From the perspective of the companies that Netflix is trying to court, this is a risky move as it means Netflix and said companies could lose out on substancial funds.








Spotify is an app where people can keep up-to-date with the latest chart music, make their own playlists and discover new music with their ‘browser’ option. This allows them to view playlists and songs which are most suited for them. Spotify charges their subscribers £9.99 per month, this allows them to listen to their music with no advertisements and they will also be able to listen to their music offline.

Primarily, student access the free version off this app. However, they would not be able to skip songs and have to listen to the advertisements when listening to their music. There is controversy with artists that do not agree with Spotify’s regulations as they do not think that people should listen to their music for free. Such as Taylor Swift, who does not allow any of her music to be streamed on Spotify as she thinks her fans should pay it as she thinks it is unfair on the fans that have paid for her music.

Taylor Swift is not the only person Spotify have had issues with about streaming their music. There have been issues with other artists such as Prince and Jason Aldean. Since the launch of Spotify, they have had the reputation of being untrustworthy as they have broken infringement laws and have been severally fined for not paying artists their correct loyalties.

The interruption of  constant adverts is a good way to make people want to pay for Spotify. Buying the Spotify reduces the number of people committing copyright via YouTube converter and other media platforms.



To be honest with you guys i dont see any point of all this licence on music and movies anymore seeing as there are so many other ways to listen and watch the latest stuff.
IMG_0258-970-80Apple music is a new app which was launched last year. it is another music streaming app that provides hand-pick songs, artists and albums based on what you listen to and like. although there are a variety of online music apps such as sound cloud, spotify, tubidy and Youtube, apply music provides you with the latest hit when exactly when they come out. the app gives you three months free trial before you subscribe to paying £9.99 a month.

Creative Commons licence allows the app to showcase new music in comparison to sound cloud and tubidy which does not have a CC licence which means that people can stream for free and even upload there music for others to share and list yen to it. to be honest from that its even arguable whether apple music is even necessary as in today’s youth generation, no body really buys albums or even videos for that matter, we all just wait for one of these music apps to upload it first.

I’m sure most of us have heard of putlocker, it is an online website that allows free movie streaming, it does not have a a creative commons licence as it provides illegal streaming of movies which we all love (lets not lie to ourselves). Nowadays noone want to pay for cinema tickets just but your popcorn and stay in the comfort of your own home.


download thanks for reading guys 🙂

YouTube and the CCL

YouTube is probably the most well known of sites which allows you to listen, watch and upload free content such as music and video. However just recently YouTube has introduced a copyright detecting mechanism called the Creative Commons License, too the annoyance of me and others who love free music.

Basically all music/videos that have not paid the fee set by YouTube or have infringed  copyright laws in some way were deleted from YouTube. So all the free music I was lapping up has gone.

To use materials you have to ask for authority or pay the fee, which is something like ten dollars a month. This was created to prevent people from making a profit of a piece of music or video which isn’t theirs, so this means that YouTube would gain a greater a profit and so would those who did the work. Online TV programmes YouTube doesn’t adhere to regulators like Ofcom or the Watershed adding more freedom to uploadable content – which is one of YouTubes greatest attractions and advantage over its competitors.

The obvious advantage of YouTube using the Creative Commons License is that money or recognition goes to the rightful owner or producer.

A big limitation for me is that I can’t listen to everything anymore, sad times.

Cover it yourself, copyright on covering music

As we change the way in which we interact with the world around us, may find it hard to get noticed within this new digital age. However thanks to the power of the internet and more importantly YouTube. People are able to become more noticeable. Take for instance Justin Bieber who shot to fame after uploading videos of him covering songs. But surprisingly what he did is actually illegal. Well it is but it depends on who you ask. Most blogs and news centres say it is illegal however there isn’t anything really written down about it.

But why is it consider illegal to cover a song. After all nearly all YouTubers do it to show their passion for their music as well as their love for the musician. However record companies don’t see it that way, they see it as a breach of copyright which could lead to a court order. So what can we do to prevent this from happening? Well it will only be possible when record companies acknowledge that the YouTubers are doing it to show off their skills and their love for their music. Not to be used for making money.

Despite all this it is very rare for someone to be penalised against a record company for covering a song. This is because of the amount of YouTubers and YouTube videos covering music. To attack one person isn’t fair unless you target all of them at the same time. If YouTube did do this and took down all the song covered videos they would loss so much of its audience which would result in the site closing down. So financially it wouldn’t be suitable for them to do that. So in all it will be hard for YouTube to copyright every single YouTubers who covered at least one song. If they did do it, in effect they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of focusing on covering songs, they should focuses on people who are downloading music off YouTube instead of buying it. This should be the focus as you are effectively stealing.

Overall copyright with music in YouTube is such a hard area to cover since it has so many politics involved which would result in the downfall of YouTube.



Just stream it.

Most of you would know Netflix as the movie-streaming website which has over 75 million subscribers as of January 2016. Did Netflix even exist before it started streaming in 2007 in the United States? the answer is yes, it did. Netflix started as an American DVD-by-mail service in 1998 – this means they used to send out films on DVD for their subscriber’s one DVD per time, if you posted the DVD back, you get the next one on your watch list. 

In August 2010, Netflix reached a five-year deal worth nearly $1 billion to stream films from Paramount Pictures, Lions Gate Entertainment and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. So the copyrights of the movies on Netflix is not even Netflix’s to control or change. The thing about Netflix is, we already share it with family and friends which is bad for the company but good for us. 


Truthfully, it’s not that hard for any of us to stream movies for free on other sites (which is illegal), however people still prefer to get a Netflix account and a subscription, moreover Netflix strives to produce original content whether it’s a series or a movie, and it’s usually labelled “A NETFLIX ORIGINAL. 

The advantages of Netflix ar that it’s easy to use, ton’s of movies and series to watch (original and un-original), not that expensive, multi user account. The limitations however; not ALL the movies and series are on there, not available in all countries (until recently), even “NETFLIX ORIGINALS” can be found and streamed online for free. 


So what do you think about Netflix, isn’t it technically sharing the copyrighted content (movies and series) of other companies such as Warner Bros and Lions Gate Films with the company’s consent ? and how do you think the future of streaming will be? will we still be subscribing to websites like Netflix? or will we all just stream movies for free and share them in 1080p HD like we share Facebook videos.

Itunes – Free Kesha?

Music amongst my peers has always been a hot topic, everyone does compile their own collection and build it over the years. However, a lot do it differently than others do. As for my part, I have always been an advocate for paying for my music. I believe – as a creative artist myself – that if you choose to create content in order to make a living, it should be protected and therefore be paid for if you choose to make this your full-time job.

My go-to platform to download my songs is iTunes, as it is easily accessible and has a huge, diverse portfolio. As purchases for physical copies declined, iTunes stepped in an transformed the market – also might have accelerated the decline of physical copies. However, it has done a good deal at protecting the copyright for artists and pay them their fair share.


If iTunes would significantly loosen the copyright licenses, it would probably initiate the decline of content being produced. In order to produce content and to afford even just the most simple needs, some sort of compensation is crucial. As sad as it is sometimes, no money, no motivation in proceeding to produce content. Despite these limitations, stripping the money factor away from the music industry could also have it’s advantages. We probably all have heard about Kesha’s lawsuit against Dr. Luke and Sony. A lot of money is involved and where money plays a major role, it’s best friend ‘greed’ is just around the corner. Under a Creative Commons licence the music industry would most likely be a friendlier place, giving artists more creative room to express their artistry. The amount of content would, as a result, decline as artist would make their creative job a hobby on the side.

What do you think would be the consequences?