Ratte said:
I'm only putting the words in your mouth that you're using. If they taste bad, don't use them.

Artists aren't hurting themselves over a site restricting access to content you should already be paying to view. Those who want to pay can do so, those who don't can find something else to touch themselves to on lonely saturday nights.

Wowee, logic.

You two are giving me cancer


Textrix said:
What about the 3 month patreon rule? Is that DNP now too?

It kinda sucks you purged what was already posted, is that including CDs that were uploaded?

As an aside, what if an artist disappears/retires, does their portfolio become able to be uploaded? Surely there should still be a time when works go from protected to public (10 years?).

I think its the right decision moving forward with the site/'company' though.

Edit: what about user translated works?

Well, copyrights expire eventually... so for commissioned works, 70 years after the artist dies, it's fair game.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

Hope this helps! *laughter*


AnotherDay said:
It seems more like he's making the point that in two years no one's going to buy two year old furry porn regardless of where it is or isn't available for free.

Another rather valid point I saw brought up that wasn't addressed was when artists die or disappear. Artists, especially in this community, have been known to just randomly go into DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING mode and nuke their artwork where ever they have the ability to do so and then totally fall off the face of the planet. Now this is one "archive" that they don't have to even worry about any longer because now it won't even attempt to fulfill its purpose.

Hey, on that note, why not just make it so ONLY artists can upload their own stuff, huh? Let's go and delete all the stuff not uploaded directly by the artists. I mean, it's only fair, right? How much of this stuff hasn't been uploaded with permission or even without the artists knowing about it? Probably a good 80% of what's left, no doubt so it seems like a good idea to me! /kappa

This website is the most popular furry archive because it's been the largest and because art from decades past have been safely housed here, regardless of what happened to the artist. Now? It sure does seem like the administration is on its way to turning this from an archive and into a crap version of Fur Affinity where artists have all the power and anything perceived as negative by anyone gets deleted or hidden by the artists.

This move won't bring back most, if any, of the DNP artists that claim to have DNP'd for this reason and other artists will find other excuses to DNP in the future, assuming they even care for a reason so I find there to be just no point in this move now, seems more like you're just harming your own credibility as an archive by willfully removing this stuff. IT's gone from "Oh, they'll get it eventually" to "Don't bother with that place, it doesn't even have anything good."

I agree to this the hell even patrion is banning accounts that sell pornographic drawings. all of them...... :0


i'll reply to a few posts in this thread, but i just want to point out that 8chan is throwing a hissy fit right now. i'm guessing one of you guys did this?


Ratte said:
I'm only putting the words in your mouth that you're using. If they taste bad, don't use them.

Bullshit you aren't. People have no issue with the art being "taken away". What people have an issue with is the "logic" and "rational" behind it. But hey, strawman harder.

Ratte said:
Artists aren't hurting themselves over a site restricting access to content you should already be paying to view. Those who want to pay can do so, those who don't can find something else to touch themselves to on lonely saturday nights.

When you're entire career as a pr0n artists relies on "getting as much attention and eyeballs as possible", yeah, less exposure kinda dings you over.

Also, more to the point, none of the admins seem willing to touch on Patreon question. Seriously, people are willing to just give money straight to artists so they can make art.


Shadowsoffate42 said:
I agree to this the hell even patrion its banning accounts that sell pornographic drawings all of them

Is the Internet finally putting a end to all this,porn? Huzzah!


CloverTheSaboteur said:
You two are giving me cancer

Neat.


TheTundraTerror said:
Bold mine. Sorry, but in the real world, things only have value if other people think so. I can inject paint into my rectum, assblast all over a canvas, and say it's worth $50.

See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not. However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take a copy of it home for free anyway.

If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

CloverTheSaboteur said:
Guys why don't we just move to FA now? At least on Fa you can actually earn money for your hard work. At this point the staff is just enslaving the artists now and inb4 NotMeNotYou responds to this comment:

You realize artists put hard work into there art and they can't be rewarded? Wtf People will go to other websites if this keeps happening, you guys are turning into nazis

A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this, I assume less than that will be deleted for the same reason as time goes on. If you think we're nazis because of this I'd like to remind you that we've deleted many, many times that amount for quality reasons.


NotMeNotYou said:
See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not. However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take it home for free.

If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this, I assume less than that will be deleted for the same reason as time goes on. If you think we're nazis because of this I'd like to remind you that we've deleted many, many times that amount for quality reasons.

e621 go home your drunk.


Ratte said:
I'm only putting the words in your mouth that you're using. If they taste bad, don't use them.

Haha. Using snark to hide the fact you don't have a valid point and are coming to a hasty generalization of what they're actually saying instead of actually considering what they're really saying.

Ratte said:
Artists aren't hurting themselves over a site restricting access to content you should already be paying to view. Those who want to pay can do so, those who don't can find something else to touch themselves to on lonely saturday nights.

I don't know about that. I've personally discovered through this site alone artists that I've commissioned as well as artists I know for a fact my friends have commissioned exclusively due to the paid content that was here because it was easy to find and access so we didn't have to go digging to see their best stuff. I can only imagine the amount of other people that've done the same. It's good to see more than just random sketches or to be able to see full on comics from certain artists in order to gauge just what they actually are capable of, even if it's from two years ago.

Ratte said:
Wowee, logic.

You're just full of snark today, huh?


It pains me to admit that it is the right thing to do.
"My mind is telling me no but my body... my body's telling telling me yes."

treos
Blocked
1 month ago
2016 animated_skeleton bandanna bone cel_shading dry_bones glowing glowing_eyes gradient_background hi_res itoruna mario_bros nintendo scalie simple_background skeleton solo toony undead video_games

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: Itoruna
Date: August 16, 2016

so, e621 has joined the anti-piracy fight...an entirely futile battle that will never fully be won. and on a site like this, it's a given such a rule would lead to drama.

oh and as for the "entitlement" argument... i guess that means luxuries such as art and video games and other stuff are only meant for the priveleged, rich, few of society.

for those of us without money to throw at such things we're just supposed to shut up and deal with while living boring, lame, lives with little to no entertainment. yeah...we're SO entitled because we try to get things the rich can afford despite not having enough green for such things.

i've heard so many anti-piracy arguments over the years and just about every one of them is like listening to the speaker talk with a steady stream of brown shit gurgle out of their mouth while they try to make those their talking to feel bad and ashamed at what they've done.

well, the internet provides and there's almost always other sites we can find this content at. :P piracy is one thing never has nor will be fully stopped or prevented no matter what anyone does.


NotMeNotYou said:
As for the Brazil thing, I'm aware of that, but that is not something we can influence. It's also not relevant, if you're miffed at capitalism in general please run for election as a politician and change how the economy works.

i think that's the crux of the issue right there then: how one is aware of the fact that the majority of users on this site cannot afford to pay for content, and how the majority of Internet users worldwide have no way to pay for content, and yet one is restricting the redistribution of this work because... it hurts sales that literally would have never existed in the first place.

what other users have posted is absolutely correct: one cannot claim to be an archive of work and then artificially restrict which work deserves to be posted on that archive. i argued in the past that i would appreciate if more extreme content would be removed, but that's just out of politeness and good taste and other subjective things.

the objective value of e621 is that is provides so much history and so much great work to so many people at no cost to them, even refusing donations to the site, and to take away a reasonable rule, if also a flawed rule, is to take away one of the pillars that have kept the site operating up to this time.

not even having a discussion about this policy before implementing it has left a bad taste in many users mouths, even those silent lurkers who usually don't post on the forums, especially with the removal of thousands of pictures in an instant. who would agree to such wide-sweeping changes without so much as a courtesy post? who asked for this?

and the argument about capitalism has no bearing on this site, where there are hundreds of thousands pieces of artwork that require no money whatsoever to browse and download. there's nothing capitalistic about work being available for free.


TheTundraTerror said:
Bullshit you aren't. People have no issue with the art being "taken away". What people have an issue with is the "logic" and "rational" behind it. But hey, strawman harder.

Crying about pay content getting removed is still crying about pay content getting removed. Piracy even after two years is still piracy. That is the long and short of the logic behind the decision. Just because other sites willingly host pirated content doesn't mean we have to as well.

TheTundraTerror said:
When you're entire career as a pr0n artists relies on "getting as much attention and eyeballs as possible", yeah, less exposure kinda dings you over.

Also, more to the point, none of the admins seem willing to touch on Patreon question. Seriously, people are willing to just give money straight to artists so they can make art.

People just ripping your content (see: piracy) is probably not going to help your business. Plenty of artists post public versions of their content or have some kind of public content in general. I have also seen many that have monthly wrap-ups on Patreon to release the previous month's images to the public.


NotMeNotYou said:
See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not.

Sure, but it doesn't mean it's worth the price they're asking for it. Whoever owns the rights to all those LucasArts games could put each of them on Steam for $60 and, sure, some people will buy it. Doesn't mean it's worth it, though.

NotMeNotYou said:
However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take it home for free.

Yes, I can, because art doesn't have any intrinsic value to society. It doesn't provide any role or need that humanity as a whole requires. Art is purely self serving.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

You're right, I can get something else I think is worth it. And guess what? There's more than enough for me to do without.


fewrahuxo said:
i think that's the crux of the issue right there then: how one is aware of the fact that the majority of users on this site cannot afford to pay for content, and how the majority of Internet users worldwide have no way to pay for content, and yet one is restricting the redistribution of this work because... it hurts sales that literally would have never existed in the first place.

what other users have posted is absolutely correct: one cannot claim to be an archive of work and then artificially restrict which work deserves to be posted on that archive. i argued in the past that i would appreciate if more extreme content would be removed, but that's just out of politeness and good taste and other subjective things.

the objective value of e621 is that is provides so much history and so much great work to so many people at no cost to them, even refusing donations to the site, and to take away a reasonable rule, if also a flawed rule, is to take away one of the pillars that have kept the site operating up to this time.

not even having a discussion about this policy before implementing it has left a bad taste in many users mouths, even those silent lurkers who usually don't post on the forums, especially with the removal of thousands of pictures in an instant. who would agree to such wide-sweeping changes without so much as a courtesy post? who asked for this?

and the argument about capitalism has no bearing on this site, where there are hundreds of thousands pieces of artwork that require no money whatsoever to browse and download. there's nothing capitalistic about work being available for free.

Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.


CloverTheSaboteur said:
Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.

it's already out there, isn't it? i think the drama this sudden rule change causes outweighs the also theoretical harm of having the work of artists archived by nobodies. also, when did the e621 admins become white knights about this sort of thing? i always thought they had these rules because they would get sued otherwise, not because of a moral imperative.

TheTundraTerror said:
Yes, I can, because art doesn't have any intrinsic value to society. It doesn't provide any role or need that humanity as a whole requires. Art is purely self serving.

this hurts me deeply because a lot of things i like don't have any value to society, but i can see where you're coming from.


fewrahuxo said:
i'll reply to a few posts in this thread, but i just want to point out that 8chan is throwing a hissy fit right now. i'm guessing one of you guys did this?

That 8ch thread makes me kek.

I don't use 8chan but here is my reply because I am pretty sure they are watching this thread.

>warns no one

So the site doesn't get killed with mass downloading, because we knew people would do it.
Ever see those "save it before it is deleted!" people? For every one of those, there are 10 others who save it without saying that.

>enforces mass banning

No one is being banned or warned. Since this is a rule change, only the images are being deleted. However warnings will be issued for people uploading such content after this rule was updated.
If you get impacted by the dreaded negative upload limit, contact staff and it will be corrected.

>if it was pay at any time, it's DNP

Unless it's copyright expires or the artists makes it publicly available.

>except when it's free
>except when it's pay

wot

>doesn't consider deceased artists who agreeed with the 7 year ago rules

Dead men tell no tales.
They never signed a legal agreement, we must assume they did not know of e621. If someone has had the copyright passed to them and they file a DMCA or sue e621, it will not legally stand in court that "we assumed they agree'd to that rule".

>showcases a continued lack of brains and flick of the wrist type decisions that pull the rug out from everyone

This rule was discussed with staff, it was a group decision and was ultimately decided that it would be best for the site legal wise, as well as artists.
Lots of stuff is discussed and thoroughly thought out before we do rule changes like this.

edit: kek i knew it.


Ratte said:
Crying about pay content getting removed is still crying about pay content getting removed. Piracy even after two years is still piracy. That is the long and short of the logic behind the decision. Just because other sites willingly host pirated content doesn't mean we have to as well.

Cool, more strawmans. How many times do I have to say that my issue is with the logic and reasoning before it gets through to you?

Ratte said:
People just ripping your content (see: piracy) is probably not going to help your business. Plenty of artists post public versions of their content or have some kind of public content in general. I have also seen many that have monthly wrap-ups on Patreon to release the previous month's images to the public.

Hey, remember when the EU commissioned and suppressed a half million dollar, 300-page study that found piracy didn't hurt sales?

Reda said:
"With the exception of recently released blockbusters, there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales,"


AnotherDay said:

Another rather valid point I saw brought up that wasn't addressed was when artists die or disappear. Artists, especially in this community, have been known to just randomly go into DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING mode and nuke their artwork where ever they have the ability to do so and then totally fall off the face of the planet. Now this is one "archive" that they don't have to even worry about any longer because now it won't even attempt to fulfill its purpose.

Was this e621's purpose? An archive? I've been here 8 years or so. Never got that vibe.

Hey, on that note, why not just make it so ONLY artists can upload their own stuff, huh?


How would one do this, technically?

This website is the most popular furry archive because it's been the largest and because art from decades past have been safely housed here, regardless of what happened to the artist. Now? It sure does seem like the administration is on its way to turning this from an archive and into a crap version of Fur Affinity where artists have all the power and anything perceived as negative by anyone gets deleted or hidden by the artists.

Again, I don't think people come here because it's an archive of furry art.

This move won't bring back most, if any, of the DNP artists that claim to have DNP'd for this reason and other artists will find other excuses to DNP in the future, assuming they even care for a reason so I find there to be just no point in this move now, seems more like you're just harming your own credibility as an archive by willfully removing this stuff. IT's gone from "Oh, they'll get it eventually" to "Don't bother with that place, it doesn't even have anything good."

I'd wager that most people coming here aren't that deep into the fandom to be involved in this kind of drama. They just like looking at furry smut. And the world keeps cranking out artists. Those that won't post here are easily replaced.


TheTundraTerror said:
Cool, more strawmans. How many times do I have to say that my issue is with the logic and reasoning before it gets through to you?

And the logic was explained. Your dislike of the explanation doesn't make the explanation less of one, nor does it negate the rule change.

TheTundraTerror said:
Hey, remember when the EU commissioned and suppressed a half million dollar, 300-page study that found piracy didn't hurt sales?

Does that magically mean we're obligated to host pay content? The previous rule was an arbitrary one that was put in place back when things like art CDs and other hardcopies were distributed. Since that isn't so much the case anymore, the rule was changed to better reflect on the change of times and means of distribution.

You are all losing out on a tiny fraction of a percent. Surely you'll find some way to survive.


Helo 8ch! I'm also janitor! I lurk there sometimes! Remember that furaffinity still sucks most!

I'm actually bit dissapointed in this reaction for this change, overall this is move towards making the site more friendly to both creating and consuming parties.

Just as reminder that majority of the content that is being posted on the site is already freely distributed, so there won't be much actual change to the amount or quality of the content. This has been one of the reason why I have been vividly sourcing and swearing on those who do not source properly. Artists could already use our takedown system to get rid of their paid content to begin with and there has been even free artwork which has been posted here without permission and then takedowned years later because artist wasn't aware of it being distributed here.

The paid content that are posted here are usually mirrored from other piracy sites already, especially dojins seem to have tons of websites dedicated just for that. Only thing I personally was thinking was the insanely old, only physically released content, because there are some especially multimedia content which haven't survived so well before the massive online storage spaces. Then again, enforcing same ruling does sound much better. If I learned how to pirate nintendo roms as elementary schooler, I'm almost certain that grown adults can learn to pirate their furry pornography if needed.

We can still host paid content, but this still needs explicit permission from the artist directly at which point they most likely release the stuff publicly anyway. If artists have put monetary value on the work they have produced and it's work I want to consume, then it means I have to put money on the table and if the amount is too high, I can choose not to pay it, instead of whining that why can't this specific site host it for free instead.

BlueDingo
Privileged
1 month ago
2016 5_fingers anthro black_fur black_hair black_nose black_topwear bust_portrait clothed clothing cute detailed digital_media_(artwork) dress_shirt elegant fangs flower front_view fur grey_eyes grey_topwear hair holding_flower holding_object inner_ear_fluff jacket jamesfoxbr male mammal necktie pattern_clothing plant portrait rose shirt short_hair simple_background smile solo star_eyes striped_clothing striped_shirt suit waistcoat white_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 2
User: jamesfoxbr
Date: October 29, 2016

treos said:
oh and as for the "entitlement" argument... i guess that means luxuries such as art and video games and other stuff are only meant for the priveleged, rich, few of society.

for those of us without money to throw at such things we're just supposed to shut up and deal with while living boring, lame, lives with little to no entertainment. yeah...we're SO entitled because we try to get things the rich can afford despite not having enough green for such things.

Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

CloverTheSaboteur said:
Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.

Well, duh.

NotMeNotYou said:
A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this

When you say "purged", do you mean they're deleted from the server?

treos
Blocked
1 month ago
2016 animated_skeleton bandanna bone cel_shading dry_bones glowing glowing_eyes gradient_background hi_res itoruna mario_bros nintendo scalie simple_background skeleton solo toony undead video_games

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: Itoruna
Date: August 16, 2016

i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

I don't like it, but it's really the best decision e621 should have made in this situation. No matter how you look at it, its hard to defend against it, it's piracy, illegal, and it hurts probably one of the poorest content creators: artists. It's another discussion entirely about artists who never release their work outside of, say, Patreon or something, but if they never release it but still keep it available, they can still profit off of it. Most artists realize that it's better to not do this and release DNP things all the time, so I don't think we REALLY lost much here.

The only thing I perhaps disagree with on this ruling is that we still lose out on a lot of things that are just very obscure and had limited runs and can barely be found in a consumable state. If you want an example, have a look at my pool 'Love Berry' before it's deleted, its the perfect example of a japanese comic that had a limited, physical run simply because it's a derivative of pokemon copyright, so the artists couldn't put it online and sell it on Booth, for example, or else get copyright strike'd

In the case of this ruling, works like this would truly be lost forever. Thankfully, not all sites do this, so it's easy to find it again, but so many doujinshi is probably lost to time all the time unless someone who bought it comes out of the woodwork and uploads it. I heard from a well known doujinshi translator that the artists generally do not like us foreigners uploading and translating their work as piracy, so yet, the ruling still is fair to them, but it's just hard to accept that so much good work gets limited runs and releases and because they have nowhere to go, they just get lost forever.

Kind of sucks, you know? I wish there was a 'line' to be drawn where it was acceptable to post work that nobody can make money off anymore, but this is probably the best way to handle it anywho, after all. Who can say what the artists want to do with their old work once it's gone? If they really want it online, they'll post it themselves, hopefully.


BlueDingo said:
Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

i think you need to look up the differences between theft and copying, because i don't think hosting content on a website is simultaneously depriving the artist of their ability to use that very same content.

also, fuck poor people, am i right? they shouldn't have a right to enjoy the same things rich people can at no cost to them.

Pendraggon said:
No matter how you look at it, its hard to defend against it, it's piracy, illegal, and it hurts probably one of the poorest content creators: artists.

funny enough, there's no difference between what's morally right and what's legal. for instance, slavery, segregation, and so on were all legal.

the administration also failed to show that artists are directly being deprived of profits as a result of hosting their work on another website.


Daneasaur said:
You also completely ignored my statement on deceased artists.

So I did, we will honor their wishes based on what our correspondence says. But beyond that do we even have deceased artists affected by this? Neither James M. Hardiman nor Doug Winger had any art of theirs deleted.

Daneasaur said:
Why stop there? All commissioned images should be banned since they are paid content. Same with filled out YCH images since we didn't pay for it and they are indeed pay-to-complete content.

By definition alone commissioned works aren't commercial works. This might be different in some parts of the world outside of the US but at least in the US the distinction is very clear on that.

treos said:
i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

I am unsure, but as I've said in the OP if your upload limit is negatively affected by this we will increase it for you again.


Ratte said:
The previous rule was an arbitrary one that was put in place back when things like art CDs and other hardcopies were distributed.

Yeah, because digital quality is eternal, eh?


treos said:
i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

If you are hit with the dreaded negative upload limit during this, contact a administrator and it will likely be reset.


BlueDingo said:
Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

"Wait, what do you mean pirates don't just pay for things they can't pirate?!"