NotMeNotYou said:
Except not. Your logic is flawed and dismisses the opinions and wishes of other people for your own benefit. A lot of artists have complained about this rule in the past, and still do. It is not up to either of us to decide for other people how they're allowed to earn their money. Many of those artists have elected full DNP status because of our 2 year rule.

Your opinion boils down to that the artists should be happy that their content is being pirated because it means it's good. If it is good, why is it not good enough to pay for it?

I don't disagree with that line of logic, but wouldn't it be better to deal with it on a case-by-case basis instead of an overarching rule banning all content regardless of the creators actual wishes? I don't disagree with the removal of content if it's recent, paywall and especially if the author bids it's removal, but it seems that this sort-of broad rule serves only to include those cases that fall in between, where the artist either isn't around anymore to make such a decision, collect pay for it, etc. I'm probably just misunderstanding the rule, though.

I don't see all of the backlash as whining that it'll be harder to pirate content now (although a hearty chunk of it is)-- It seems to have a genuine concern for older works that might be lost from the site due to this rule mixed in there somewhere.


ikdind said:
A rough guide to the new rules, as I understand them:

Is the artist DNP?

▼ Yes

The art is DNP.

▼ No

Did you have to pay money for it?

▼ Yes

The art is DNP.

▼ No

Did you pirate it?

▼ Yes

The art is DNP.

▼ No

Post it!

This "flowchart" should be on a wiki page somewhere. Hell, it should probably be on the original post.


Fifteen said:
This "flowchart" should be on a wiki page somewhere. Hell, it should probably be on the original post.

I thought it was at least a creative use of the section tags. :3


Heteroxon said:
So if somebody's art has been somewhere which you had to pay for it, and is later posted on FA for free (by the artist), nobody else other than the artist can get the art from that page & post it here?

No, at that point it is free for all to upload. The important part is that the artist themselves has to release it for free initially. It can then be posted to us by other people.

skelitor120 said:
I don't disagree with that line of logic, but wouldn't it be better to deal with it on a case-by-case basis instead of an overarching rule banning all content regardless of the creators actual wishes? I don't disagree with the removal of content if it's recent, paywall and especially if the author bids it's removal, but it seems that this sort-of broad rule serves only to include those cases that fall in between, where the artist either isn't around anymore to make such a decision, collect pay for it, etc. I'm probably just misunderstanding the rule, though.

I don't see all of the backlash as whining that it'll be harder to pirate content now (although a hearty chunk of it is)-- It seems to have a genuine concern for older works that might be lost from the site due to this rule mixed in there somewhere.

We should be honoring the wishes of the creators, even after their death. Once the content flips over into the public domain we'd be willing to host it again.


NotMeNotYou said:
No, at that point it is free for all to upload. The important part is that the artist themselves has to release it for free initially. It can then be posted to us by other people.

Well I was going crazy because I thought you meant that when something was on a paysite, it was DNP "Forever". "Forever" implied to me that it would be that way FOREVER, and that posting it on sites for free wouldn't change that. I was lost in confusion towards the fact that if it'd be forever, then the paradox strikes right when you said it'd be for free once it was posted for free, going against the whole "forever" thing.

In other words; I overthought this whole thing WAY too fucking hard.


Heteroxon said:
Well I was going crazy because I thought you meant that when something was on a paysite, it was DNP "Forever". "Forever" implied to me that it would be that way FOREVER, and that posting it on sites for free wouldn't change that. I was lost in confusion towards the fact that if it'd be forever, then the paradox strikes right when you said it'd be for free once it was posted for free, going against the whole "forever" thing.

In other words; I overthought this whole thing WAY too fucking hard.

666th Forum Post! Lol

No, but really, sorry for overthinking it.


Here then is a legitimate concern I have: when hidden content becomes public domain who will un-hide it? How will they know to un-hide it?


'Admins' is certainly the answer to the first question.
Probably they would be prompted by posters, with evidence of the artist's year of birth. Evidence of year of death might be a lot harder to get, so standards might need to be relaxed.

I guess that leaves the question of who would care enough to bother to prompt admins, given length of current copyright terms. I certainly don't know the answer to that.


savageorange said:
Probably they would be prompted by posters, with evidence of the artist's year of birth. Evidence of year of death might be a lot harder to get, so standards might need to be relaxed.

I mean, if I tried to post something that had been made public and found out that the same md5sum already exists and has been deleted, I would certainly start with a Dmail to an admin, mod, or janitor with the public URL and, if available, the md5sum and/or post ID that had been deleted.

I'm not really worried about that case, though, because most likely the publicly released image is going to have some form of compression applied to it (because posted to tumblr, FA, or something) that nudges the md5sum so it no longer matches previous postings.

As for works expiring copyright--- in the U.S., within our lifetimes, that's basically going to be "never". Assuming an average human lifetime of 80 years, assuming the average work is done by a 30-year-old artist, something produced today would be in copyright until 2137 (life of the artist plus 70 years).

I'm not really worried about that case, either, simply because it's well beyond any point where I expect to be alive.


Well, yeah. They were asking about public domain (which is specifically about copyright, it is not the same as 'publicly viewable')[1], though, so I presume they were in fact concerned about the latter case.

If you were uploading a publicly accessible file, then it seems reasonably clear that the link itself could be evidence, depending on how obviously official it is.

[1] It should also be noted that the idea of 'public domain' is not universally recognized, so in practice I believe it's possible for a work to neither be copyrighted nor public domain.


Mmm, it is a shame about the limited doujins and old art which is a good lesson to save what you like (and back it up). As for the whole piracy thing, i think that the "E621 will not pimp out pirated porn to you any longer" is acceptable attitude\conclusion.


BlueDingo said:
Let's go back to some previous posts.

How do you propose that this site make money without ads?

There are several ways.

But the easiest is to ask for it. Like Wikipedia does.
Will the site make a fortune, I don't know. But SOME people absolutely will give.

imagoober
Privileged
16 days ago
2016 ambiguous_gender anthro cacomistle camo clothed clothing diesel_wiesel english_text half-length_portrait hat mammal meme portrait procyonid reaction_image ringed_tail shirt shrug simple_background smile solo text

Rating: Safe
Score: 26
User: Manabu
Date: August 22, 2016

Some will give, but enough to make a difference? This thread alone has more than a few examples of people who want furry stuff but don't want to pay for it.

Munkelzahn
Privileged
16 days ago

Acolyte said:
There are several ways.

But the easiest is to ask for it. Like Wikipedia does.
Will the site make a fortune, I don't know. But SOME people absolutely will give.

And the easiest way to answer a question is to say "there are several ways" and then only mention the "easiest" one.
Let me add one that isn't as "easy", but it's all the rage now:
JavaScript(tm) cryto-currency miners

KnotCoin(tm) - mine while fapping to animal genitalia!


Munkelzahn said:
KnotCoin(tm) - mine while fapping to animal genitalia!

Can I trade it for art? I could be talked into setting up a mining rig in that case...


NotMeNotYou said:
Greetings!

This time we have a rather large rule change to announce: Going forward any pay content1 will be permanently DNP without exception2.

Two things I'd like to toss out in the void of the internet here.

1: One word: Copyright. I fully understand this move and why you are making it. Saving your ass from the long cock of the law. It sucks to see so much stuff get deleted, but hey look on the bright side, we all can still get a butt ton of nice (and not so nice) pictures all conveniently packaged in one lovely blue site.

B: I don't want to pay for porn because I can find more than I'd ever need for free legally, so if the porn that is paid for gets taken down, I'm not really gonna notice or care and I'll not seek out their work (I won't premeditate seeking it out on sites that offer pictures for free. A lot of the pay to view stuff I've seen has not actually been searched for, but browsed through while I look for other, random stuff). This is for those artists who have ALL of their works pay to view. If they have a any amount for free but some to pay for, then that is smart on their part and there is still a chance (however small) that I might pay or comm their work. Oh well, no skin off my back.


All of this keeps reminding me to ask this: what happens for artists whom have made their paid content DNP as the condition for Conditional_DNP. Should they remain C-DNP, since their C is now mandatory across the site? It seems fairly redundant to keep the implication, but at the same time not going to try to predict the future of this rule.

How I see it is that the C-DNP they have is always fulfilled: so long as they do not post their paid content, therefore making it free content, we cannot upload it regardless of if they are C-DNP or otherwise. This would make their C-DNP no longer necessary, unless they change the condition or explicitly grant posting privileges for their paid content. So, they are no longer C-DNP on grounds of redundancy, or they change the condition (in theory, not to limit).

▼ to list the artists:

Munkelzahn said:
And the easiest way to answer a question is to say "there are several ways" and then only mention the "easiest" one.
Let me add one that isn't as "easy", but it's all the rage now:
JavaScript(tm) cryto-currency miners

KnotCoin(tm) - mine while fapping to animal genitalia!

BD isn't my client. I get paid to ferret out methods of monetization.
So I gave him a basic answer to make my point.
If you love complexity so much, why not map out in detail how to hijack users CPU's for mining cryptocurrency?


wolftacos said:
If it's hosted in the US, then it follows US law. I don't see the point in what you're saying. Just because it's hosted in one country doesn't mean it has to allow EVERYTHING the country allows.

It doesn't matter where the founder of SoFurry comes from, but if they own the site and don't want swastikas and cub porn on it, then they are well within their rights to ban swastikas and cub porn.

The point is, if the website owner has no exact knowledge of the laws of the server country and which cross-border rights apply he will not act according to the laws of the country where the server is, but according to those in his home country and if it is only for Security is. If he does not know that the Austrian authorities can not punish him for what is on the server (website), then he will act as he does and set up rules as if they could. Remember that most websites do not have a law office.

Another point is advertising. In a closed e621 thread someone asked why more and more picture pages forbid pictures of minors. The answer of, for example, Xbooru: As long as we rely on advertising revenue, we must follow the rules of other judges. If such material is on the page, then the customers jump off, or the advertising partners prohibit such material. Therefore, it does not matter if the country of the server allows it, the website owner follows other rules.

▼ German - Deutsch

]
Der Punkt ist, wenn der Webseiten Besitzer kein Exaktes Wissen über die Gesetze des Server Landes hat und welche Grenzüberschreitenden Rechte gelten wird er nicht nach den Gesetzen des Landes handeln wo der Server steht, sondern nach denen die in seinem Heimatland gelten und wenn es nur zur Sicherheit ist. Wenn er nicht weiß das die Österreichischen Behörden ihm wegen dem was auf dem Server (Webseite) ist nicht bestrafen können, dann wird er so Handeln und so Regeln aufstellen als könnten sie es. Bedenke das die meisten Webseiten keine Anwaltsabteilung haben.

Ein anderer Punkt ist Werbung. In einem geschlossenen e621 thread hat mal einer gefragt wieso immer mehr Bilderseiten Minderjährigen Bilder verbieten. Die Antwort von zum Beispiel Xbooru: Solange wir auf Werbeeinnahmen angewiesen sind, müssen wir uns nach den Regeln anderer Richten. Wenn solches Material auf der Seite ist, dann springen die Kunden ab, bzw. die Werbepartner verbieten solches Material. Daher ist es auch in dem Fall egal ob das Land des Servers das erlaubt, der Webseiteninhaber richtet sich nach anderen Regeln.


Heteroxon said:
You make it sound legitimate, but this is going to ruin e621, and you'll all be wondering why so many people are saying "fuck this shit" and abandoning this site for ANY other one WITHOUT absurd commustic rules.

I think capitalism is better. In communism, if I'm not mistaken, everything belongs to everyone. If I'm right in the statement, you should rather wish for communism, because then there would be no such restrictions as this and the 2-year rule.

▼ German - Deutsch

Ich denke Kapitalismus trifft es besser. Im Kommunismus gehört, wenn ich mich nicht irre, alles allen. Wenn ich bei der aussage Richtig liege, solltest du dir den Kommunismus eher wünschen, denn dann gäbe es solche Einschränkungen wie diese und die 2 Jahres Regel nicht.


Finally, some more motivation for pirates to make and maintain torrent packs. Was getting tired of browsing through ~5 sites to find new pictures from some artists.
I'm pretty sure we will see a lot of new content packs soon.


I would opt in for a crypto-miner for E621, as long as the load isn't high enough to make my GPU fans spin up much.


I'm really getting tired of people whining that they can't get content for free that the artists put time, effort to make with the expectation that it is to SELL, not to GIVE away.

For those that object to E621's new policy, GO TALK TO A FUCKING LAWYER about how copyright works because it's obvious to me here those people just don't get it, and don't want to because the law is such an inconvenience to them.

The only way they'll understand is if the law comes around to smack them upside the head and remind them why their personal whims and whining do not trump the law.

If I'm not mistaken, E621 resides in the us, and there for MUST comply with american laws on copyright. Regardless of where it actually is, it still has to comply with that nation's equivalent, and there usually is a simple equivalence across the globe in that regard.

For those that want to complain, try creating something to sell and then having someone just take it without giving you money. after all, it's on the net, so therefore it must be free, right?

(( sorry for the typos, but at this point I am more than a little mad. So you grammer nazi's can go FK off. ))


whiskeyfur said:
If I'm not mistaken, E621 resides in the us, and there for MUST comply with american laws on copyright. Regardless of where it actually is, it still has to comply with that nation's equivalent, and there usually is a simple equivalence across the globe in that regard.

IANAL/TINLA, I am just a rando on the internet who happens to have an interest in certain parts of law, but: under the DMCA, e621 probably has an affirmative defense for hosting copyrighted material, because its content is submitted by its users instead of being curated by staff. However, this protection would only apply until the rights holder requests a takedown.

The thing is, affirmative defenses suck, because someone can always challenge it in court. Good lawyers will decline to litigate matters where they are unlikely to prevail, but bad lawyers will just do whatever the client asks, and to hell with the odds.

In that sense, it always behooves e621 not to push the boundaries of the law and its protections, and to curry goodwill with the community of artists that create the material it profits from.

It's also possible that, after consulting with an attorney experienced in these matters, e6 was advised to make this change, since the "2 year rule" probably created an argument that the site knowingly and willfully hosted copyrighted material without authorization, reducing their safe harbor protections. I like e621 and would really like to see it not die in a lawsuit.


for a time this site has become for the most part boring with the dnp shit, and thousands(and i mean THOUSANDS) of great pictures have dissapeared because of it but now, not even waiting? hahahahaa, well, gotta find another place for my furry needs, , i though i could live without the dnp artists and all but this has become too politically correct

is pretyt sad hoenstly, and i wont try to convince anyone to back on that, do whatever you want, also, yeah i have adblocks for this site too so yeah, no revenew for you either


NotMeNotYou said:
Greetings!

This time we have a rather large rule change to announce: Going forward any pay content1 will be permanently DNP without exception2.
The 2 year rule has been a relic since the site's original founding back in '07, and was mainly justified to provide an option to have content from art CDs available beyond their original sales windows. CDs age, get damaged or lost, and are only available in very small production runs so it was kind of understandable, if a bit dick move, to provide a mirror so that content could be kept available for everyone once those CDs are no longer being sold.
However, since then we have seen the advent of widespread broadband, cloud storage, cheap website hosting, Patreon and subscription based pages and a sharp decline in the sale of furry artwork on a physical medium.
If artists are selling something in recent times it's almost always done through a service that is for far longer available than manually burned CDs, and usually not limited to a specific amount of sales either. All of this means our rule is causing problems to artists trying to earn money off of their hard work.
As the largest furry archive basically every furry knows of us and most people know how to search for things. By us hosting paid content, even if it's just slightly older one, we directly cut into people's ability to earn money.

With all this in mind this change is most likely going to upset a lot of people, and it won't prevent piracy either, but we still feel it is the right thing to do.

To keep consistent with this change we have purged all old paid content we could find. If you know of any paid content still lingering then please report it so we can delete it as well. If we have accidentally deleted things that are freely available then please report those as well so we can restore them. If your uploading limit has been drastically affected by this, let us know and we will fix it as well.

If you have any questions feel free to ask them below.

Beyond that, I will be going through the DNP list and fixing entries up as required. Since the paid content is now universally DNP a bunch of conditional DNP statuses are no longer needed.

1 - "Pay content" is used to describe all pay-to-view and commercial works where either an admission fee, subscription fee, or a copy has to be purchased in order to view it. This goes for both physical and digital products / works.

2 - Obviously if any content has been released for free later it will stop being DNP from that moment forward.

Out of curiosity... Doesn't that decrease advertisements for artists? I understand it's their choice, but I feel like they jumped the gun a bit. I've noticed some art on here is "private" and can't be seen by general members. Why not set up a system so they can continue to have their art here and have a pay to view kind of system, where the artist sets up a portfolio (restricted pool), sets a price to buy images in it or the whole thing? It increases their revenue, increases your revenue, increases the amount of images this site gets, and over all makes everyone happy in the sense that if they want to see it so badly, they can pay for it instead of going to a source that may not respond well to their OS. I know you guys are resourceful enough to pull it off. It's just a suggestion though, it's your website, not mine, I'm just trying to find a way to get everyone happy, get artists paid rightfully, and keep this site well maintained through any way possible, even if it is through income. Thank you for taking time to read this.

Waba
Member
15 days ago
2016 ambiguous_gender avian conditional_dnp cute day fakémon feathered_wings feathers feline feral fluffy flying mammal outside owten pawpads pokémon_uranium ratte red_eyes simple_background sky solo wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 21
User: NotMeNotYou
Date: August 18, 2016

windblade said:
for a time this site has become for the most part boring with the dnp shit, and thousands(and i mean THOUSANDS) of great pictures have dissapeared because of it but now, not even waiting? hahahahaa, well, gotta find another place for my furry needs, , i though i could live without the dnp artists and all but this has become too politically correct

is pretyt sad hoenstly, and i wont try to convince anyone to back on that, do whatever you want, also, yeah i have adblocks for this site too so yeah, no revenew for you either

One of the douchiest responses I've seen yet


Ray_Clocks said:
Out of curiosity... Doesn't that decrease advertisements for artists? I understand it's their choice, but I feel like they jumped the gun a bit. I've noticed some art on here is "private" and can't be seen by general members. Why not set up a system so they can continue to have their art here and have a pay to view kind of system, where the artist sets up a portfolio (restricted pool), sets a price to buy images in it or the whole thing? It increases their revenue, increases your revenue, increases the amount of images this site gets, and over all makes everyone happy in the sense that if they want to see it so badly, they can pay for it instead of going to a source that may not respond well to their OS. I know you guys are resourceful enough to pull it off. It's just a suggestion though, it's your website, not mine, I'm just trying to find a way to get everyone happy, get artists paid rightfully, and keep this site well maintained through any way possible, even if it is through income. Thank you for taking time to read this.

This seems like a sensible and excellent idea to me. But restrictions and effort and laws and rules and staff and problems and money handling. I'm sure there are other reasons why it won't ever happen, yet those are definitely the biggest ones.


Ray_Clocks said:
Why not set up a system so they can continue to have their art here and have a pay to view kind of system, where the artist sets up a portfolio (restricted pool), sets a price to buy images in it or the whole thing? It increases their revenue, increases your revenue, increases the amount of images this site gets, and over all makes everyone happy in the sense that if they want to see it so badly, they can pay for it instead of going to a source that may not respond well to their OS. I know you guys are resourceful enough to pull it off. It's just a suggestion though, it's your website, not mine, I'm just trying to find a way to get everyone happy, get artists paid rightfully, and keep this site well maintained through any way possible, even if it is through income. Thank you for taking time to read this.

It wouldn't be a good idea, last thing we need is having people enter their credit card info into the site. I don't even think there's any other furry art sites that do this, it's just too much work to have such a feature as the site is just isn't built for that.

You'll need a complete overhaul for the site and we don't even have a dedicated developer. Hiring additional staff and new hardware to upgrade and maintain the site would just place financial burden to the site owners. Last I heard we were just piggybacking on the extra profits made by Bad Dragon, so essentially we are being kept alive by 13.5" silicone dragon dicks.

For that you have sites like DLsite where they can have a pay-to-view system and protect the copyrights of content creators through legal means.


Ray_Clocks said:
Out of curiosity... Doesn't that decrease advertisements for artists? I understand it's their choice, but I feel like they jumped the gun a bit. I've noticed some art on here is "private" and can't be seen by general members. Why not set up a system so they can continue to have their art here and have a pay to view kind of system, where the artist sets up a portfolio (restricted pool), sets a price to buy images in it or the whole thing? It increases their revenue, increases your revenue, increases the amount of images this site gets, and over all makes everyone happy in the sense that if they want to see it so badly, they can pay for it instead of going to a source that may not respond well to their OS. I know you guys are resourceful enough to pull it off. It's just a suggestion though, it's your website, not mine, I'm just trying to find a way to get everyone happy, get artists paid rightfully, and keep this site well maintained through any way possible, even if it is through income. Thank you for taking time to read this.

Same reason F-List can't accept money, we host porn, CC Companies get their panties in a wad if we host specific fetishes(EVERY OTHER FETISH IS OK THOUGH BECAUSE WE KNOW THATS THEIR FETISH).

TheGreatWolfgang said:
You'll need a complete overhaul for the site and we don't even have a dedicated developer. Hiring additional staff and new hardware to upgrade and maintain the site would just place financial burden to the site owners. Last I heard we were just piggybacking on the extra profits made by Bad Dragon, so essentially we are being kept alive by 13.5" silicone dragon dicks.

Most of the staff here is unpayed volunteers. :v