Accessing Creative Products

Introduction

All creative products such as music, movies should be free for everyone on the internet because it will provide the artists or authors with a platform to market their works to a broader audience. The amount of content that is created consumed and exchanged online is increasing with each day across the world because the internet has provided a democratized access to the distribution and creation tools.

Creative content involves not only music and videos but also documentaries, e-books, and audiobooks among others.

The Internet has provided a more natural way to access both current and previous content including that which was released a long time ago through downloading from the internet instead of purchasing it from the online stores.

This has raised a debate whereby people have come up with different opinions on why they think such creative content should be freely accessible on the internet or instead paid for by the consumers. Equality, marketing, and passion are some of the reasons as to why people think music and videos to be precise should be made freely accessible on the internet.

Discussion

In the entertainment industry, musicians can be compared to people working in offices or any other places whereby they receive their salaries at the end of every month. It is, therefore, reasonable to have musicians release their songs and get paid once for their work. For example, they get paid for their work to appear on different platforms such as YouTube, waptrick, tubidy and many others.

They also get paid to have their music played on televisions and radio stations. However, some of these artists restrict people from downloading their content from these platforms, yet they have been paid. Besides, the more times a song or video is watched by viewers, the more money they make like on YouTube. It is also unfair for one to keep earning for work that was done ten years ago with each passing day.

It is, therefore, time to have copyright laws made somewhat for the average person in the society. The same way other workers are paid should be similar to how artists should earn despite it being their original work. Internet should be used as a place to advertise creative content which will make the listener or viewer more interested in watching live performances. Artists receive money from live concerts, advances as well as royalties for their work. They therefore already earn enough from these activities and placing their work for free across the internet will win them more viewers.

Limiting viewers on the internet through payments will cost them the number of followers which means when they organize for live performances few people will attend, and they end up earning less money. In most cases, people prefer seeing content first before deciding on whether they should pay for it or not. For example, in movies there are always trailers that are free for everyone to watch before deciding on purchasing the film" this similarly applies to musicians and live concerts. Internet should, therefore, serve as a marketing platform which will increase their popularity and thus should be accessed free. It is claimed that a real artist produces work because of love and passion and not because of the money they intend to make out of that.

Therefore it should be made free because it is more of a hobby than a career. Besides, societies are plausible in such a manner that it is easier for them to appreciate an artist who is willing to display his work to the people freely. This will also create a good reputation whereby people will view the artist as someone whose intention is not to source for money from the people but rather improve their talent. Free creative products also will provide a platform for the artists to get reviews from their followers which will enable them to adjust where necessary. Despite free access to creative products being termed as a way to provide equality, good marketing and a display of passion, a few individuals think people should pay to access the products.

This is because, despite the fact that it is their original and creative work, they also cater for things like intellectual property rights, copyrights, trademarks, and many other costs incurred in producing and owning the work. They provide for such licenses to prevent their work from piracy. It is thus fair for people to pay a little amount to access such content. Also, despite earning from the number of viewers watching and listening to the materials from different platforms, a certain amount generated from the number of viewers goes to the owners of those platforms thus they end up earning less. With the claims that artists create a lot of money from live performances, there are other expenses that come with such concerts that they have to cater.

For example, they need to hire sound systems, pay for the performance venue among other costs. Therefore creative content should not be made freely accessible on the internet.

Conclusion

The Internet has different ways of operations and for the creative content, accessing it for free has its advantages and disadvantages. Free access will provide equity to the local citizens who also are working and receive payments every month. The open access is advantageous to the artists and authors because they will earn more audience who will be willing to pay more to watch them perform live in concerts. Besides, successful artists are driven by passion and thus should be ready to display their work free to their audience.

However, despite the reasons for accessing creative content open, it should not be made free across the internet because the owners of those works spend a lot of money in both producing and having the work displayed on different platforms, thus the need to generate profit..

Did you like this example?

764

32