Shirt.Woot

Is this a mad dash to cash in on traffic?

Wait, are you telling me that if I can get a thread on reddit popular enough I can finally get my reprint of Ink-topus?

Challenge accepted, I will get over to reddit as soon as I am off work. It is blocked here....

adamselby wrote:Is this a mad dash to cash in on traffic?

Well, Woot is a business and I see no harm in re-printing a great shirt. Why not?

Oh noes! Woot is going to get rich off of making a lot of people happy.

I saw some of the Reddit comments about people planning on reprinting the design themselves – made me a little worried. Thank you so much for doing this, Woot! :-)

Dang, I would rather have Exercise: Some Motivation Required again. I did snag the hoodie version when it came up though!

agingdragqueen wrote:I think part of the reason we wanted to is because so many people in the thread were trying to find ways to print it themselves. This way- it actually benefits the artist (and is legal, but that's a different issue).

I just skimmed through the thread, and I see what you mean. Several people are talking about "How can I rip this image." Better to have them coming here and getting it legit and allowing the designer to get commision than have dozens of crummy (and illegal) knock-offs popping up out there.

Is this to where the Internet culture has devolved? "I'll just make a copy" is the norm anymore?
Well played on the interception Woot, there's a lesson in there somewhere I'm sure.

j5 wrote:Is this to where the Internet culture has devolved? "I'll just make a copy" is the norm anymore?
Well played on the interception Woot, there's a lesson in there somewhere I'm sure.

I don't think that is really fair, think of it this way, someone said "Hey cool shirt, where can I buy it?" Did some quick searches and discovered it was no longer for sale so they tried other avenues to get the shirt, whether it is designing it themselves or having it printed elsewhere.

It is woot's business decision to offer shirts for as long as they sell, have you ever wanted to buy anything at all that was no longer made? Do you believe things like 3D printing should not be allowed to continue?

I wasn't saying it's a bad thing that Woot is re-printing the design. I was just noting how unusual it is.

adamselby wrote:I wasn't saying it's a bad thing that Woot is re-printing the design. I was just noting how unusual it is.

Now, we have an option, Start a thread on reddit for a reckoned shirt and make it to front page. I'm sure there will be many that say, "I'll print it myself", then BAM, you get the woot print

AA blank makes it sweeter.

killerorca wrote:I don't think that is really fair, think of it this way, someone said "Hey cool shirt, where can I buy it?" Did some quick searches and discovered it was no longer for sale so they tried other avenues to get the shirt, whether it is designing it themselves or having it printed elsewhere.

It is woot's business decision to offer shirts for as long as they sell, have you ever wanted to buy anything at all that was no longer made? Do you believe things like 3D printing should not be allowed to continue?

One or two copies of unavailable shirt won't make much dent on Woot / artists account. But it's still stealing of Valor's art.

killerorca wrote:I don't think that is really fair, think of it this way, someone said "Hey cool shirt, where can I buy it?" Did some quick searches and discovered it was no longer for sale so they tried other avenues to get the shirt, whether it is designing it themselves or having it printed elsewhere.

It is woot's business decision to offer shirts for as long as they sell, have you ever wanted to buy anything at all that was no longer made? Do you believe things like 3D printing should not be allowed to continue?

how about this scenario:
I can't get "Nightmare Before Christmas" because Disney has "vaulted" it, but my buddy has the disc, so I'll just rip it and burn my own.
Now, if Disney were Woot, they'd say "hey, hey, there's demand for this here thing, and our silly vaulting does nothing, so let's just make it available for purchase and make some jack"
Unfortunately, Disney isn't Woot, and there's the lesson.

3D printing falls in a different category. I can make my own mock up of something and print it, but if I take someone else's patented or copyrighted CAD of an object to print at home, that's a violation. If someone makes a CAD available for free or purchase to be used in a 3D printer, then that's fine too.

Aw yeah! V&V fan here. Congrats Priscilla. Good lookin out woot!

chennai8 wrote:One or two copies of unavailable shirt won't make much dent on Woot / artists account. But it's still stealing of Valor's art.

If you would permit, lets take this into the realm of what-if? Suppose this conversation is about some famous artwork, say a Van Gogh, now there is no way for the artist to benefit at all. Is a museum selling reproductions, t-shirts, mousepads, etc. of starry night stealing? Can you steal what cannot be bought? Not everyone can have a copy of starry night.

I hope Threadless doesn't find out; a user came up with the idea 7 years ago:

http://www.threadless.com/product/287/Heroes_In_An_Art_Shell/tab,guys/style,shirt

j5 wrote:how about this scenario:
I can't get "Nightmare Before Christmas" because Disney has "vaulted" it, but my buddy has the disc, so I'll just rip it and burn my own.
Now, if Disney were Woot, they'd say "hey, hey, there's demand for this here thing, and our silly vaulting does nothing, so let's just make it available for purchase and make some jack"
Unfortunately, Disney isn't Woot, and there's the lesson.

3D printing falls in a different category. I can make my own mock up of something and print it, but if I take someone else's patented or copyrighted CAD of an object to print at home, that's a violation. If someone makes a CAD available for free or purchase to be used in a 3D printer, then that's fine too.

Your examples highlight 2 different problems.

For the disney movie it is artificial scarcity, at some point they will b re-released so you can wait to get it. Or you could also rent or just borrow the movie there is no real need to make a copy other than to have it, but lets take it one step further and use a real life example. Currently there are a large number of movies that for whatever reason have not made the jump from VHS to DVD and most likely never will. Now is it wrong to digitize a tape based copy and keep it, how about to redistribute it? It seems like no one involved is interested in selling the movies again as they have not brought them over to DVD, so who exactly is being hurt by this?

Your 3D printing qualm is trickier as it deals with both trademarks and copyrights. Firstly, copyrights do not apply to physical objects, see the entire fashion industry, sure they apply to books and films but those are essentially a conveyance of ideas/creativity. Now the files themselves may be copyrighted, but what if someone designs and object from scratch? Obviously if they start selling it and competing with an existing company, no one is selling 3D printed iPhones yet but it isn't far off, there is definitely a problem. However, printing for your own use, and printing things that are not manufactured by someone else should be in the clear.

I'll admit I am into the concept of 3D printing, since it is basically the first step towards replicators in the future, talk about a shake-up. I highly recommend these articles on the subject.

Also sweet 3D robots!

uhohitschellie wrote:I hope Threadless doesn't find out; a user came up with the idea 7 years ago:

http://www.threadless.com/product/287/Heroes_In_An_Art_Shell/tab,guys/style,shirt

Just to clear up this matter, that particular Threadless tee came out before my time on there and I hadn't seen it, so it was coincidence (I guess sometimes people come up with the same ideas!). My design was up for voting on Threadless' site, and I was told by a Threadless staffer that they were actually considering printing my version too – but then decided to pass. So I took it to Shirt.Woot who decided to print it.

Hope that makes sense! I definitely had no intention of ripping anybody off, and believe that my design looks different enough to not be in danger of any copyright infringement. Being accused of copying someone else's design is kind of a designer's worst nightmare :-/

Either way, a big thanks to Shirt.Woot for picking this one up... twice!

I just want to say thanks for reactivating this shirt. Not only did I buy one, but my friend that I showed it to ordered one as well. I have also already ordered one other shirt because I came to the site today looking for this and will def buy many more in the future, so I would say it was worth reactivating. Keep up the good work!

valorandvellum wrote:Just to clear up this matter, that particular Threadless tee came out before my time on there and I hadn't seen it, so it was coincidence (I guess sometimes people come up with the same ideas!). My design was up for voting on Threadless' site, and I was told by a Threadless staffer that they were actually considering printing my version too – but then decided to pass. So I took it to Shirt.Woot who decided to print it.

Hope that makes sense! I definitely had no intention of ripping anybody off, and believe that my design looks different enough to not be in danger of any copyright infringement. Being accused of copying someone else's design is kind of a designer's worst nightmare :-/

Either way, a big thanks to Shirt.Woot for picking this one up... twice!

you should really go add watermarks to your designs on your website.

Congrats to the artist! I just saw a guy wearing this shirt at the grocery store this weekend; your art is taking over the world!

valorandvellum wrote:Just to clear up this matter, that particular Threadless tee came out before my time on there and I hadn't seen it, so it was coincidence (I guess sometimes people come up with the same ideas!). My design was up for voting on Threadless' site, and I was told by a Threadless staffer that they were actually considering printing my version too – but then decided to pass. So I took it to Shirt.Woot who decided to print it.

Hope that makes sense! I definitely had no intention of ripping anybody off, and believe that my design looks different enough to not be in danger of any copyright infringement. Being accused of copying someone else's design is kind of a designer's worst nightmare :-/

Either way, a big thanks to Shirt.Woot for picking this one up... twice!

The gist of the 2 shirts may be the same, but yours is far better. Congrats on the reprint.

Oh My Gookie! !!! This was my favorite shirt for a long time, I would always get comments on it and alas it was stolen out of my car this past Xmas. Thank you REDDIT, thank you WOOT, and A BIG THANK YOU TO MY GF SARAH WHO MANAGED TO FIND IT AGAIN!!!

Congrats V&V!

oo, are we talking about the ethics of piracy?

The key to ethical pirating is devaluing things to the point where they're still desirable, but for less than any monetary amount. (This is strictly talking about cases where the information can be transmitted as 1's and 0's.) e.g., "I want this album, but not enough to pay a single penny for it."

Thus, there're two cases when it comes to piracy:
• The "Dire Pirates" would've bought the item if it weren't freely available.
• The "Painless Pirates" would not buy the item for any cost under any circumstance.

Painless Piracy isn't stealing because theft necessitates loss. There is only hypothetical loss when a willingness to pay is circumvented. In the case of the Painless Pirates, there is no harm, only benefit, so it's A-okay!


I don't know how this applies to shirts but it's fun to talk about.

btw I really like this shirt. I don't think I could pull off wearing it, and it would've been cool if it looked a little more like Revolver, but congrats on the reprint!

killerorca wrote:Your examples highlight 2 different problems.

For the disney movie it is artificial scarcity, at some point they will b re-released so you can wait to get it. Or you could also rent or just borrow the movie there is no real need to make a copy other than to have it,

No, my analogy is quite similar, but as it is an analogy, too much analysis will break it. The shirt was unavailable due to artificial scarcity. At some point, it COULD have been reissued (and was, see?) If someone wished, they could borrow one to wear, no need to have your own.

but lets take it one step further and use a real life example. Currently there are a large number of movies that for whatever reason have not made the jump from VHS to DVD and most likely never will. Now is it wrong to digitize a tape based copy and keep it,

Nope, that's fair use.

how about to redistribute it?

Yes, this is a violation of copyright law

It seems like no one involved is interested in selling the movies again as they have not brought them over to DVD, so who exactly is being hurt by this?

As you are not the holder of the right to copy the property, you cannot distribute it. The loophole is that you (probably) can give a digital copy to someone who also has the VHS tape, as it is nearly impossible to govern this.

Your 3D printing qualm is trickier as it deals with both trademarks and copyrights. Firstly, copyrights do not apply to physical objects,

Copyrights apply to designs. You can copy a Vuitton bag ("swap meet Louis"), you can copy an AC Cobra (Factory Five), but you can't present those copies as the real thing.

Now the files themselves may be copyrighted, but what if someone designs and object from scratch? Obviously if they start selling it and competing with an existing company, no one is selling 3D printed iPhones yet but it isn't far off, there is definitely a problem.

See above. In many cases, physical designs are protected by patent law, not copyright law. The rules are very different.

I'll admit I am into the concept of 3D printing, since it is basically the first step towards replicators in the future, talk about a shake-up. I highly recommend these articles on the subject.

Also sweet 3D robots!

In my stint as an engineer, I've done many designs that have been Rapid Prototyped, and have seen many many "bootleg" object files for RP machines. Mostly the machinists run them off and distribute as gifts to friends/family, so nothing new there, it's just that with the advent of "Desktop RP" (3D printing) it's coming to the general public.

Exciting times.

Cool design V&V! Congrats on the reprint!

aeidein wrote:The key to ethical pirating is devaluing things to the point where they're still desirable, but for less than any monetary amount. (This is strictly talking about cases where the information can be transmitted as 1's and 0's.) e.g., "I want this album, but not enough to pay a single penny for it."

Thus, there're two cases when it comes to piracy:
• The "Dire Pirates" would've bought the item if it weren't freely available.
• The "Painless Pirates" would not buy the item for any cost under any circumstance.

Painless Piracy isn't stealing because theft necessitates loss. There is only hypothetical loss when a willingness to pay is circumvented. In the case of the Painless Pirates, there is no harm, only benefit, so it's A-okay!

...what? This doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe some clarification?

profbrendan wrote:...what? This doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe some clarification?

He's saying that if you wouldn't pay money for something, it's ok to steal it.

profbrendan wrote:...what? This doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe some clarification?

Let me link a picture to explain what he's trying to say, Professor

It is theft if the creator doesn't get any profit and they otherwise would have done.

Mavyn wrote:It is theft if the creator doesn't get any profit and they otherwise would have done.

Tell that to all the people buying posters of van gogh's starry night from museum gift shops that they are stealing, also feel free to tell the museum, none of that money is ever seen by his relatives.

killerorca wrote:Tell that to all the people buying posters of van gogh's starry night from museum gift shops that they are stealing, also feel free to tell the museum, none of that money is ever seen by his relatives.

Starry Night is public domain. The Rat Is Our Patron isn't.

killerorca wrote:Tell that to all the people buying posters of van gogh's starry night from museum gift shops that they are stealing, also feel free to tell the museum, none of that money is ever seen by his relatives.

Your example doesn't really apply here. Starry Night was painted in 1889 and is now in the public domain, so anyone can sell it. However, I would assume that there are probably members of Van Gogh's extended family that would like to have gotten a copyright extension when they had the chance in order to still receive royalties for those sales. EDIT: Ninja'd by cdrewlow!

I understand what chennai8 is saying with the picture explanation (I'm a visual guy, what can I say). There is indeed a difference between theft and piracy, however to me it's more an issue of semantics. Piracy and theft still revolve around the same thing: getting something without paying the creator or distributor for it. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say I've never pirated an album or a movie, though I will say that if the thing I want is available to purchase I'll buy it.

There are plenty of people who've weighed in on this. Jonathan Coulton wrote an awesome blog about it here when MegaUpload was taken down, basically saying that piracy was not a concern of his because it exposes more people to his music and encourages more live show attendees. (However, I bet if a really good impersonator started touring and began to draw THAT money away, Jonathan might change his mind.) Nevertheless, one of his best paragraphs:

Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There’s your anti-piracy plan. The big content companies are TERRIBLE at doing both of these things, so it’s no wonder they’re not doing so well in the current environment. And right now everyone’s fighting to control distribution channels, which is why I can’t watch Star Wars on Netflix or iTunes. It’s fine if you want to have that fight, but don’t yell and scream about how you’re losing business to piracy when your stuff isn’t even available in the box I have on top of my TV.

I agree with that. I suppose you could argue that Woot chooses to approach that territory by making their shirts limited edition and non-perpetual, but then again you could also argue that the limited nature of Woot shirts (or any other similar brand) is part of the appeal.

I DON'T like the idea of a person getting ahold of anyone's shirt artwork and just getting it printed on their own, because to me that just feels dirty and wrong.

The internet has made it so the ideas of limiting consumption are constantly challenged. There has indeed always been some form of piracy, but the entitlement attitude of "I want it so I'm going to take it" seems far more prevalent now. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with piracy 100% (duh, I've done it too) because it's too complex to be all-in or all-out, and things keep changing all the time.

TL;DR Piracy is bad or maybe good.

profbrendan wrote:
I understand what chennai8 is saying with the picture explanation (I'm a visual guy, what can I say). There is indeed a difference between theft and piracy, however to me it's more an issue of semantics. Piracy and theft still revolve around the same thing: getting something without paying the creator or distributor for it. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say I've never pirated an album or a movie, though I will say that if the thing I want is available to purchase I'll buy it.

Well said, i merely linked the pic, which i found interesting. I'm all for Artist's right, as it's their hours, even days of work that results in good art.

Hey do you guys sell your shirts on ebay or amazon ? I'm trying to buy this shirt of your site but there is a error every time i try using my paypal account ..helppp!!!

cdrewlow wrote:Starry Night is public domain. The Rat Is Our Patron isn't.

True, but in 100 years "The Rat Is Our Patron" will still be copyrighted due to laws that didn't exist when Starry Night was created.