The only aspect of an open content form of license associated with Spotify is the ability to share and redistribute, even still this form of redistribution is not entirely precise. The share option allows users to post songs and artists to friends via social media or through the product itself. The media may be listened to through the public ‘share’ however it is not transferrable from that point. Spotify appears to share its media with other forms of technology however the “sharing” we witness is more accurately categorised as a loan. Spotify loans the media to the technology of the user’s choice to “share” with friends; however the media is fixed unable to download or relocation. In a sense Spotify already allows its users to appreciate the technology in an open content form of licensing however with high restrictions. For Spotify to completely forgo their current form of licensing and consent to an open form of licensing would mean the media could be taken from the technology and shared, downloaded, copied, remixed, without any monitoring of Spotify or the permission of the artists and owners. Thousands of individual copyright laws would be broken and with ease thanks to the expanding database of Spotify
Spotify abides by the copyright laws of the USA and by extension so does its users. “Spotify’s products may be subject to U.S. export and re-export control laws and regulations,” (Spotify Terms and Conditions, March 2014). Intellectual property becomes an issue here as the copyright laws for artists of different countries may vary. However Spotify claims they respect the rights of intellectual property owners, and if the owner feels their copyrights have been infringed they may submit a notice to Spotify’s copyright infringement department online or through post.
Spotify is tied up in copyright laws from countries, artists, owners and even copyright laws to protect itself. Its rights are in place to protect thousands and to change its licenses to open forms of licensing would most definitely disadvantage the technology. However adapting its licenses in the past has benefited the company greatly from its reported $4.4 million loss in 2008(Johan Nylander, 2009) when the free Spotify was only available by invitation, to its growing community and database through an adapted open licensing.
Nylander, J. 2009. “Spotify doubled its loss last year” The Swedish Wire, Stockholm Town, Sweden, accessed; 19/03/2014 http://www.swedishwire.com/business/751-spotify-doubled-its-loss-last-year
Spotifyama, 2009. “Twitter on Spotify”(image 1), Spotify, accessed; 19/03/2014http://news.spotify.com/us/2009/08/26/spotify-0319/
Spotify. 2007. Edited March 2014 “Spotify Terms and Conditions of Use” Spotify. Australia PTY, accessed; 19/03/2014 https://www.spotify.com/au/legal/end-user-agreement/