TheTundraTerror said:
You know that people use this site to find artists to commission (aka give them money) and that Patreon (that topic you keep seeming to avoid) exists to support artists? I mean, a lot of artists get paid via Patreon and they seem to be doing pretty well despite offering the art people "pay" for for (fuck you, English) free. I mean, Kabier was doing pretty well on Patreon despite releasing her comics for free.

I avoid Patreon as a topic because I don't know what the issue is supposed to be. If something is behind a reward tier it's paid content. If something isn't behind a reward tier it's free content and free to be posted here.
The fact that people lock specific versions of their art behind a paywall is a thing they can do. If at some point something goes from behind that paywall into the public then we will host it as well.

fewrahuxo said:
you know, reading a lot of these posts make me realize the fundamental disconnect between e621 administration and the users they claim to support. i would like it very much if this site not go the way of FurAffinity and end up being a situation where admins make decisions arbitrarily and with no user input whatsoever, changing rules on a whim without so much as prelude.

the only way such a situation like this can occur is if e621 has no idea what it's doing and has no plan for the future, just doing things and seeing what happens for no real reason. it would be nice to have a roadmap or a mission statement, or really anything at all so these decisions don't come as a complete surprise to so many people.

The reason for the decision is in the OP. Liability, our desire to ensure we stay running, and the desire to support the people who actually create our content in the first place.

Artists are users as well, and sometimes when there is an imbalance in privileges we need to restore that balance.

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

BlueDingo said:
Are you suggesting that there is no free entertainment? Or that everything that can make you happy costs money? Or that not having paid things causes suffering?

simply pointing out how this world primarily revolves around 2 things: greed and how much of X currency you have.

and if you don't have enough of X currency then the world says F YOU! this particular case doesn't have anything to do with greed but still revolves solely around money.


fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

The persistence of the website overall.
2500 pieces of art is a fraction of the content. If removing it mitigates problems down the line, then heave ho.


treos said:
simply pointing out how this world primarily revolves around 2 things: greed and how much of X currency you have.

and if you don't have enough of X currency then the world says F YOU! this particular case doesn't have anything to do with greed but still revolves solely around money.

Whose money is more important? Yours or the artists? Should we help the artists to earn an income doing what they like doing, or should we help you save money by facilitating piracy?

I'd rather support the producer so they can keep producing, than the consumer who can simply consume something different.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

Because it's always been this way?? I don't mean in the way of not allowing dnp no matter what, but I mean in having a stance on not allowing dnp before two years. The reason they had this rule be two years instead of forever in the first place is because most content could legitimately become lost forever. Now that this isn't the case, they changed the rule to make it so artists could decide when they want their paid content to show up here. (Which most usually do, by the way.)

You have to remember that you don't have a right to see this art if the artist didn't want it being seen for free. If you do think that, then you're acting very entitled. Because you have to remember it's now artists fault for not posting their art for free. All e621 has done is remove itself from that process to give more power to the artists.

Knowing that, I don't understand why you, most likely a consumer and supporter of furry art and artists, are arguing that we, not the owner, creator or holder of an artist's artwork, should control how they distribute their artwork and affect their livelihood, do you seriously think that? If you do, then go annoy the artist who doesn't release their art for free, because all that's changed now, is that e621 has removed itself from the equation and gave all the power to the artist.


TheTundraTerror said:
Piracy is an issue of accessibility. Once Spotify got it's ass to Canada, never pirated an album. Once I got converted to the cult of Steam, I never pirated a game... except one. SWAT 4. Which I bought on GOG when it was finally released digitally.

That is really big factor yes. That's why I kinda like patreon as it has made it much easier to give money to artists and other content creators outside furry fandom, including websites and personalities - and especially like it when content is already free regardless if I choose to support them or not.

TheTundraTerror said:
Most creators who use Patreon tend to release anything to patrons first, then post it publicity like a day or two later.

Some do keep stuff like PSD source files and ultra HD stuff behind higher tiers and give them only to paying customers and this is pretty much understantable. Again, it's their content, some artists choose not to give those out even if they do not have any patreons or similar, many commissioners keep highest quality variations private.
But it does seem like free stuff is still usually viewable without the "is this for ants" effect and majority seem fine with it, which is one reason why many don't even seek out to pirate the content in higher quality after it's being published freely.

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

Gee, I wonder when I can get games for free directly from steam, because right now, I have to buy everything and that's not that much privileges that I could have.

Reading all of your arguments feels like you are trying to make some sort of example to make your argument seem allright, even though in reality it's not that great. You're not a troll?


Ouch! Right in the upload limit.

I kinda prefer this simpler rule.


Arkham_Horror said:
Ouch! Right in the upload limit.

I kinda prefer this simpler rule.

Let us know if it hurts too much and we'll increase it again.


Well, looks like I'm now moving to a site that isn't shit. Sadness.


NotMeNotYou said:
I avoid Patreon as a topic because I don't know what the issue is supposed to be.

Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

NotMeNotYou said:
If something isn't behind a reward tier it's free content and free to be posted here.

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is images that are only available for people who pay the artists before being released publicly 1-2 days later.

NotMeNotYou said:
The fact that people lock specific versions of their art behind a paywall is a thing they can do. If at some point something goes from behind that paywall into the public then we will host it as well.

Okay, but what about all the stuff that's been available here for years? Stuff that's already been made available to the public? Apple cart's been well turned the fuck over at this point.


Woah, woah, what kind of strawman piracy debate has this thread devolved into?

People! Regardless of your personal stance on privacy, e6 is still a fairly large and well known public website, meaning they still need to play by the rules because they're notorious enough to get sued.

I find it just as sad to see good art get taken down from here as anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that artists have a right to earn money from the art they make. If you want to put that art up on 4chan so that people get to "fuckin' save" it before the thread sinks and it gets deleted, there's not much anyone can and will do to stop you. E6 is not that, and the bigger it gets, the more (from what I've seen) the people in charge of it realize that they can't pretend not to hear when artists want to keep some of their stuff off from their site.

Debating about whether or not poor people should have the right to watch all the porn or a specific subset of free porn, or whether people should be allowed to name their own price for whatever they make won't change that uploading illegal copies of any content is against the law, and when you make it big, you can't afford to break the law.


TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

If it's released for free then it's now free work and you're able to upload it. That's not a real problem.

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

feathereddragon said:
Well, looks like I'm now moving to a site that isn't shit. Sadness.

So this site is now shit because of a change that has had no effect on you yet? Of your 1456 favourites, none were affected by this.

Edit: Oh, and before someone accuses me of posting a faulty link...


Fifteen said:
People! Regardless of your personal stance on privacy, e6 is still a fairly large and well known public website, meaning they still need to play by the rules because they're notorious enough to get sued.

I mean, the DNP list exists for a reason. So long as any takedown requests are fulfilled in a timely manner, e621 keeps it's safe harbor status.


TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is images that are only available for people who pay the artists before being released publicly 1-2 days later.

Okay, but what about all the stuff that's been available here for years? Stuff that's already been made available to the public? Apple cart's been well turned the fuck over at this point.

I've addressed this in my original post in the very last (albeit tiny) sentence. Once something is released to the public it is no longer paid content and free to be posted.
I don't know how else to word it to make it easier to understand.


NotMeNotYou said:
Let us know if it hurts too much and we'll increase it again.

Will do! I think this change cut my limit by about half. Ironically the higher limit was most helpful when posting lengthy doujin.


TheTundraTerror said:
I mean, the DNP list exists for a reason. So long as any takedown requests are fulfilled in a timely manner, e621 keeps it's safe harbor status.

So you're arguing that content from paid sites shouldn't be DNP unless artists specifically file a takedown against it and ask for conditional_dnp?


what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.


NotMeNotYou said:
I've addressed this in my original post in the very last (albeit tiny) sentence. Once something is released to the public it is no longer paid content and free to be posted.
I don't know how else to word it to make it easier to understand.

Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".


fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

I think it's generally pretty safe to assume that if you're asking people to pay you money for something you've made, you generally don't want people to upload it for free elsewhere.

No? It's all logical fallacies, huh? Whelp, go home, guys, we've got our winner right here.


Fifteen said:
I think it's generally pretty safe to assume that if you're asking people to pay you money for something you've made, you generally don't want people to upload it for free elsewhere.

No? It's all logical fallacies, huh? Whelp, go home, guys, we've got our winner right here.

you haven't directly addressed my argument, but okay, go home if you want.


fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

For someone who tries his hardest to sound profound you fail to grasp a lot of things. This is about exactly what it says in the OP: The artist's income. You know, the thing I talked about from the beginning. Their income isn't the least affected by mirroring their free content here. By allowing easy access to their paid content we very much throw a wrench into their income.

And in case they don't want their art here we offer the single most efficient and simple takedown procedure on the entire internet as far as I am aware and I had to file quite a few DMCA requests with other pages.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

fewrahuxo said:
you haven't directly addressed my argument, but okay, go home if you want.

hey, you never addressed my argument, plus, in response to your argument, e621 listens when people don't want their free art on the site, it's called a takedown request.

I desperately hope you are trolling.


fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

Has anyone recently claimed that uploading without permission isn't bad?


TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".

Officially released by the artist, of course. Just because something has been pirated and distributed doesn't mean it is actually free.


NotMeNotYou said:
For someone who tries his hardest to sound profound you fail to understand a lot of things. This is about exactly what it says in the OP: The artist's income. You know, the thing I talked about from the beginning. Their income isn't the least affected by mirroring their free content here. By allowing easy access to their paid content we very much throw a wrench into their income.

Citation needed. I gave proof of my claim that piracy doesn't hurt artists. Also, take a look at all the artists on Patreon who don't seem to be hurting for cash after releasing their paid work for free mere days after releasing to paid users only. It's not 1985 anymore.

NotMeNotYou said:
Officially released by the artist, of course. Just because something has been pirated and distributed doesn't mean it is actually free.

Okay, but if the copyright holder doesn't take any action, couldn't that imply that said holder is complicit?


TheTundraTerror said:
Citation needed. I gave proof of my claim that piracy doesn't hurt artists. Also, take a look at all the artists on Patreon who don't seem to be hurting for cash after releasing their paid work for free mere days after releasing to paid users only.

despite multiple requests for evidence that the absence of this rule causes direct harm to artists, i have yet to see any. it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the majority of users in this thread, perhaps because they know they don't have any that passes muster.

i am also disappointed i am being called a "troll" for being one of the only ones in this discussion to care about a minimum standard of rhetoric. may God forbid i care.

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

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, but if the copyright holder doesn't take any action, couldn't that imply that said holder is complicit?

Or they don't know yet and may very well take action once they do.


TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

You do realize that nothing about definition of paid content has been changed with this rule change, only that the time has been extented from 2 years to public domain.

Paid content is determined with that you have to pay to see the content from original source, not content that has been paid to create.

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".

DNP can still be overwritten by permission of the artist of course. If there are artists or paysite which is fine with us hosting their content, they are free to inform about this and we are more than happy to host the content at that point.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

It's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

We just go by assumption that the uploader has gotten permission to post the content. Enforcing this would however be near impossible, because of the amount of users uploading content all the time would now require us to manually ask for proof of the permission with every single post. With paid content it's much easier as if there's no possible free source where the content could've come from, then it's most likely paid.

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, but if the copyright holder doesn't take any action, couldn't that imply that said holder is complicit?

So uploading artist artwork on website, which is hosted on country that don't have to respect DMCA, suddenly makes everything free game?
Or what BlueDingo said, internet is pretty big place, so artists may not be aware of where their content is uploaded and like what have happened here many times in past, artists are willing to use takedown once they realize their whole gallery has been mirrored here without them knowing - even if they were sharing the content freely.