There is a problem today that copyright materials, such as music, films and books are freely available on the internet with the result that the owners of works lose money. Do you feel that this is a good or bad thing?
There is a discussion on whether or not it is a good thing that the access of copyright materials to be free on the internet, which is not profitable for their owners. I believe that this situation has both benefits and drawbacks.
On the one hand, free availability of copyright materials can be beneficial for newly talented artists who nobody knows them. People usually do not spend money on works that they do not have enough knowledge about their creators, for example, the singing style of singer, the author’s writing style and the level of person’s talent to act in the film. For many people it would be rational to see the works of such beginner artists once, after which according to their interest and criteria make a decision whether or not to buy those artworks. Many people cannot blindly trust on artworks and should be sure that they do not waste their money. I believe that free access of copyright protected material can be a good chance for new artists to introduce themselves and become in center of attention. This condition can help them to be on the public eye after a while and sell their future works to compensate for their previous costs. I also believe that even professional artists should let users have free access to a bit part of their new works to have a convenient purchase. This is because there is no guarantee that all works of one artist can be acceptable.
Regardless of some advantages of free copyright materials mentioned above, it can be said that this distribution has several disadvantages that I mention the most important one. We have to consider that one of the reasons of creation of such limitation is that copyright allows the creator to derive economic profit from their works. This financial incentive not only can reward the artists ‘efforts but also can encourage the production of new and divers works. However, by providing free access of such works, it is naturally artists lose their motivation to continue their works, as they do not find their job rewarding and something that can help them to meet their ends. In this situation artists will hurt and they feel frustrated, as they cannot earn enough money to compensate for the cost of equipment must be rented or bought. Also, many individuals misuse this situation and copy free works just because they have had easy access to them.
In conclusion, in my view, it would be better the decision of whether or not the copyrights materials to have free access on the internet is left to the owners of works in order to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of such activity according to their status.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 26, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
There is a discussion on whether or not it is a good thing that the access of c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 506, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...r interest and criteria make a decision whether or not to buy those artworks. Many people cann...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 63, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...iew, it would be better the decision of whether or not the copyrights materials to have free a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, so, while, for example, in conclusion, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 55.0 24.0651302605 229% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2164.0 1615.20841683 134% => OK
No of words: 453.0 315.596192385 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7770419426 5.12529762239 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.20363070211 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57804134755 2.80592935109 92% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 176.041082164 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461368653422 0.561755894193 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 663.3 506.74238477 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.4762184668 49.4020404114 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.294117647 106.682146367 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6470588235 20.7667163134 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05882352941 7.06120827912 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177924611789 0.244688304435 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683709772632 0.084324248473 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0343404759643 0.0667982634062 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134600447289 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.015524716848 0.056905535591 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 50.2224549098 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.4159519038 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.58950901804 95% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.