[ SECRET POST #2112 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2112 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #302.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

From what I've seen, that's not the impetus. Artists typically give music away for free because exposure (which ultimately leads to tickets sales) is worth more to them than the very little they'd receive from album sales. Also, some give it away for free because they feel they've earned enough and no longer care.

What I'm getting at is that you seem to have a problem with this model. If the creator of a piece wants to distribute it for free, then isn't that their right?

[(Anonymous)]

You cannot deny that it leads to people thinking "Why pay for this when I can get it free?" about most everything.

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that an action potentially leads to some people agreeing with something with which one disagrees is not sufficient reason to not do it.

This entire discussion revolves around artists receiving proper recompense for their art. Why should the definition of "proper recompense" not lie with the artist? If an artist doesn't feel that s/he should be paid for some particular creative act, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with that -- just as there shouldn't be anything wrong with another artist feeling that s/he should be paid for the same act. The "impression" that some people will get is immaterial. It's the artist's work, and they can do with it as they please.