5 ms·
"Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car?" 1. No. 2. No. 3. What "artwork" on my clothing? E
by Endy 10y ago
"Do you pay for DVDs? Pay to see movies? What about the artwork on your clothing, or the design of your car?"
1. No.
2. No.
3. What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Occasionally I'll be really wild and do something in plaid!
4. Don't have a car and I won't support the consumer vehicle industry. I use mass transit, thanks.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago> What "artwork" on my clothing? Everything I have is for work, white or blue collared shirts. Wow. That's depressing.
- Natanael_L 10y agoWhy? The only clothes I use with prints are ones with imagery from my favorite games, the rest are just single colored or have simple patterns. Some people like it that way!
- kaoD 10y ago> imagery from my favorite games How is that not artwork?
- Natanael_L 10y agoThe actual point was that they represent at most 10% of my wardrobe.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoNo, that's fine; nothing wrong with that. I just thought it was unfortunate to own nothing but work shirts.
- Nullabillity 10y agoWhy would I want to pay extra to be a walking ad for someone else's brand?
- TeMPOraL 10y agoI design my own t-shirts. I like them to deliver my own message. Custom t-shirt printing industry is godsend.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago"Artwork" does not imply "brand logo." For that matter, most of my shirts don't have artwork--I like casual button-downs for everyday wear; but I look for striking colors, interesting fabric patterns, etc. I'm not pushing any personal style in particular, but it's a shame if there's nothing in your closet but work clothes.
- ehnto 10y agoYour shirts were at some point designed by someone even if they have no artwork. The point is that creatives are involved in many facets of life that are not always obvious, and they are exerting man hours to create those things. Most of the time the creatives are paid up front, such as a car designer. But for music that's not the case, so the money to pay for their man hours has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is gigs, merchandise and royalties. The system is sometimes convoluted but eventually the money comes out of the consumers pocket. The point I'm trying to make is simply that at least some of those dollars should make it back to the creator. In theory that's what copyright is designed to make happen. I don't have as much of a problem with people getting stuff for free, they probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway. It's more about those who are making money off the artist without giving any back, and you could argue that Youtube does that if a musicians music is available for free and they are generating indirect revenue from advertising across the site. If I know I can get a song on YouTube, I'll hit their home page, get an advertisement, then go to the song. They have profited from hosting the song in that example. They don't advocate or allow it, but it happens and the artist gets nothing for something while Youtube gets something for nothing.
- rwmj 10y agothe money to pay for their man hours has to come from somewhere Actually no, it doesn't have to come from somewhere. It's quite possible that we'll go back to a world where musicians aren't generally paid, except for a few who are paid up-front by rich patrons. That's pretty much how it was until the 20th century.
- whiddershins 10y agoIf it doesn't come from somewhere, it doesn't exist. When you write that it doesn't have to come from somewhere, you are just arguing that costs (time/money) will be born by the musicians themselves. Basically a donation to society. The other option being they stop making music.
- pessimizer 10y ago