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

Well, if you ignore the fact that e621 is one of the largest and well known archive sites in the furry community. Sure.


fewrahuxo said:
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'd personally say that it's common sense that some people would prefer that people pay for the content that they put behind a paywall, but you're perfectly free to refute that. It'd be interested if you could ask some artists and see what they have to say on the matter.

TheTundraTerror said:
Well, if you ignore the fact that e621 is one of the largest and well known archive sites in the furry community. Sure.

As if every artist keeps track of every incoming post.


Strikerman said:
I'd personally say that it's common sense that some people would prefer that people pay for the content that they put behind a paywall, but you're perfectly free to refute that. It'd be interested if you could ask some artists and see what they have to say on the matter.

Yeah, and my mother said it's "common sense" that you'd catch a cold doing outside during the winter without a coat.

Strikerman said:
As if every artist keeps track of every incoming post.

If you're going to be snarky, at least try and make sense because I have no idea what you're talking about.


TheTundraTerror said:
Yeah, and my mother said it's "common sense" that you'd catch a cold doing outside during the winter without a coat.

Is the implication that my line of reasoning is incorrect?

TheTundraTerror said:
If you're going to be snarky, at least try and make sense because I have no idea what you're talking about.

It was a simple statement of fact.


Strikerman said:
Is the implication that my line of reasoning is incorrect?

You're strawmanning. The issue is "does it actively harm artists?". In that respect, the answer is no. I have given proof that it doesn't. Give me an actual study that shows it hurts artists.


TheTundraTerror said:
You're strawmanning. The issue is "does it actively harm artists?".

A strawman refers to someone creating an imaginary and/or clearly prepostorous opposition for the sole purpose of mocking it. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on what part of my original comment is a strawman.


Strikerman said:
I'd personally say that it's common sense that some people would prefer that people pay for the content that they put behind a paywall, but you're perfectly free to refute that. It'd be interested if you could ask some artists and see what they have to say on the matter.

it's also common sense to assume the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around us, instead of the other way around, because that's what our senses tell us. it has taken evidence to prove these assumptions wrong, and without evidence, any assumption is meaningless. it's basic science, and without science, it's hard to say that anything is true, including "common sense" assumptions.

if i ask artists what they have to say i'll get a lot of negative responses, because artists aren't sophisticated in the judicial and economic areas that this copying discussion touches on. in addition they are likely to have an emotional investment in their work, and so are highly likely to be biased in the discussion of their work, no matter on what topic. as a result i am likely to get a minority of artists who are actually educated enough on the topic to produce interesting opinions, because as we all know opinions have different worth depending on who says them.

i would, however, trust someone like tysontan, with their knowledge of copyright and free culture, to contribute to this discussion. the distinction being there aren't many artists who can say anything that would prove the impetus behind the original post, as per the concerns of my previous paragraphs.


Strikerman said:
A strawman refers to someone creating an imaginary and/or clearly prepostorous opposition for the sole purpose of mocking it. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on what part of my original comment is a strawman.

Holy fuck, I just said what.

It's the part where we were talking about if any of this hurts artists and you start going off about "common sense" and "what artists prefer" instead of showing me any proof or evidence that it does harm them.


fewrahuxo said:
if i ask artists what they have to say i'll get a lot of negative responses, because artists aren't sophisticated in the judicial and economic areas that this copying discussion touches on. in addition they are likely to have an emotional investment in their work, and so are highly likely to be biased in the discussion of their work, no matter on what topic. as a result i am likely to get a minority of artists who are actually educated enough on the topic to produce interesting opinions, because as we all know opinions have different worth depending on who says them.

i would, however, trust someone like tyson_tan, with their knowledge of copyright and free culture, to contribute to this discussion. the distinction being there aren't many artists who can say anything that would prove the impetus behind the original post, as per the concerns of my previous paragraphs.

I know that valuing an opinion just because a majority of people holds it is an appeal to popularity and a logical fallacy, but at the same time, it seems a bit disingenuous to completely dismiss anyone who doesn't have the proper education or experience. After all, they're the ones whose art we're discussing and whose behaviour we're speculating about, so all of their thoughts hold some weight, no? Even if it's solely for the purpose of criticizing their arguments, I think it'd be worth listening to what everyone has to say.

TheTundraTerror said:
Holy fuck, I just said what.

It's the part where we were talking about if any of this hurts artists and you start going off about "common sense" and "what artists prefer" instead of showing me any proof or evidence that it does harm them.

I was just interjecting with my personal opinion. I didn't say that it was backed up with hard, empirical data. I am aware that my comment did not add much, and I apologize for that. However, that still does not make it a strawman argument.


Strikerman said:
I know that valuing an opinion just because a majority of people holds it is an appeal to popularity and a logical fallacy, but at the same time, it seems a bit disingenuous to completely dismiss anyone who doesn't have the proper education or experience. After all, they're the ones whose art we're discussing and whose behaviour we're speculating about, so all of their thoughts hold some weight, no? Even if it's solely for the purpose of criticizing their arguments, I think it'd be worth listening to what everyone has to say.

Okay, but what do the winds in Scotland have to do with the price of rice in China? Show me proof or pipe down.

Strikerman said:
I was just interjecting with my personal opinion. I didn't say that it was backed up with hard, empirical data. I am aware that my comment did not add much, and I apologize for that. However, that still does not make it a strawman argument.

I don't care about your opinions. Everyone has opinions. It's my opinion that

[THIS INSULT ONLY AVAILABLE TO GOLD MEMBERS]


TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, but what do the winds in Scotland have to do with the price of rice in China? Show me proof or pipe down.

I know you're making an absurd comment to mock my own, but I genuinely don't understand your point.


Strikerman said:
I know you're making an absurd comment to mock my own, but I genuinely don't understand your point.

Of course you don't. I don't give a shit what people "think". It's what you "know" and you're ability to back it up with proof. This creationist-tier "just look at the world around you" doesn't fly with me.

inb4 "are you saying I'm a creationist"


Strikerman said:
I know that valuing an opinion just because a majority of people holds it is an appeal to popularity and a logical fallacy, but at the same time, it seems a bit disingenuous to completely dismiss anyone who doesn't have the proper education or experience. After all, they're the ones whose art we're discussing and whose behaviour we're speculating about, so all of their thoughts hold some weight, no? Even if it's solely for the purpose of criticizing their arguments, I think it'd be worth listening to what everyone has to say.

that's a fascinating assertion because the site has never catered directly to the whims of artists outside of the DNP list, instead operating under the terms of waiting for an artist to complain if they don't like something, and it seems that model has worked just fine.

now it seems the administration is creating a blanket ban on the posts of certain works under the guise of helping those artists out when it seemed the previous two-year embargo did just fine at the stated goals. laws made for no reason tend to be bad laws, and i do not want this site to become a bad site through its bad laws.

i would assume any opinions in favour of this rule would be a mile wide but an inch deep: when asked about such a rule, it's likely most artists would be in favor of it, because that's just common sense, right? however, if asked to say anything intelligent about the rule, it's likely 95% of them wouldn't be able to. so if we're taking a simple opinion poll, the opinions would turn out to be unsophisticated and so would have to be heavily discounted.

TheTundraTerror said:
Of course you don't. I don't give a shit what people "think". It's what you "know" and you're ability to back it up with proof. This creationist-tier "just look at the world around you" doesn't fly with me.

inb4 "are you saying I'm a creationist"

careful. forceful opinions are pleasant to write but are very unpleasant to read.


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. It's not 1985 anymore.

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

fewrahuxo said:
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.

The study raises some interesting questions but I it's barely representative of anything. If you actually read the paper you can see they admit to having an error margin of 45%. This means the study is about as conclusive as a badly weighted coin throw.

On the other hand, this study would be an interesting starting point to build up on, but it badly needs refinement on the methodology to actually get that error margin down.

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

Consent doesn't work like that. It's their decision to release something for free, not someone else's.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

fewrahuxo said:
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.

I think you may find the answer to your own arguments if you actually considered the argument that I made to you that you decided to just ignore because it basically destroyed your argument. You're delusional, and I don't think anyone should actually be listening to you because of the fact you seem to think you are entitled to the content that artists will not so graciously give for free to you.


on my opinion it was fine the way it was,if the artist was against it they could just put their art or paid stuff on DNP,even if it was 2 years old(DNP is DNP)

if DNP stuff wasn't a thing then it would be a whole different matter

E6 is also almost a time chamber,LOADS of old things are here,along with that old,unavailable paid comics/art that not even the artist remember


Pendraggon said:
I think you may find the answer to your own arguments if you actually considered the argument that I made to you that you decided to just ignore because it basically destroyed your argument. You're delusional, and I don't think anyone should actually be listening to you because of the fact you seem to think you are entitled to the content that artists will not so graciously give for free to you.

please reiterate the argument that destroyed me, because i don't feel particularly destroyed.

NotMeNotYou said:
The study raises some interesting questions but I it's barely representative of anything. If you actually read the paper you can see they admit to having an error margin of 45%. This means the study is about as conclusive as a badly weighted coin throw.

i don't think basic statistics misinterpretation is enough to discount the entire study, seeing as your cited statistic only applies to one particular section of the study: section 7.7, about literature and not any other content, well within an acceptable margin of error. i have not seen anything in the executive summary that would cast into doubt the veracity of the rest of the material, and in fact the summary states "In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of
displacement of sales by online copyright infringements."


NotMeNotYou said:
The study raises some interesting questions but I it's barely representative of anything. If you actually read the paper you can see they admit to having an error margin of 45%. This means the study is about as conclusive as a badly weighted coin throw.

Okay, where is that located because I'm not seeing where they say they have a error margin of 45%.

NotMeNotYou said:
Consent doesn't work like that. It's their decision to release something for free, not someone else's.

It's also their responsibility to be the ones looking out for their own copyright. If they can't be fucked to do so much as a reverse image search, it's clear they don't give that much of a fuck.


fewrahuxo said:
that's a fascinating assertion because the site has never catered directly to the whims of artists outside of the DNP list, instead operating under the terms of waiting for an artist to complain if they don't like something, and it seems that model has worked just fine.

now it seems the administration is creating a blanket ban on the posts of certain works under the guise of helping those artists out when it seemed the previous two-year embargo did just fine at the stated goals. laws made for no reason tend to be bad laws, and i do not want this site to become a bad site through its bad laws.

Would they have changed the rule for no reason, though? I know the administration hasn't been very transparent on this (for arguably good reasons, based on what I've read), but they've already had a list of over 2000 posts ready to delete, so they've probably been piling up takedown requests on 2+ years old paid content for quite some time now, and now decided that this was starting to become a problem and adjusted the rule in consequence. You could still say it's a bad rule, but I seriously doubt it was done for no reason.

I'm just as much in the dark as anyone else, though, this is just how I see it. Dunno if mods can back me on this.

i would assume any opinions in favour of this rule would be a mile wide but an inch deep: when asked about such a rule, it's likely most artists would be in favor of it, because that's just common sense, right? however, if asked to say anything intelligent about the rule, it's likely 95% of them wouldn't be able to. so if we're taking a simple opinion poll, the opinions would turn out to be unsophisticated and so would have to be heavily discounted.

Well, the logic here is "if the artist has posted the piece on a publicly accessible website, then it's declassified". IMO, it's not a bad rule of thumb : don't post what you can't source.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

fewrahuxo said:
please reiterate the argument that destroyed me, because i don't feel particularly destroyed.

Sure, I was kind of considering quoting my original argument anyway but I thought you could've just gone back and looked at it, guess I was wrong.

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?

Pendraggon said:
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.

You didn't even respond to it, and yet you have the gall to tell other people you read your own arguments, jeez man.


erschi said:
on my opinion it was fine the way it was,if the artist was against it they could just put their art or paid stuff on DNP,even if it was 2 years old(DNP is DNP)

Then it becomes an opt-in/opt-out issue. Would it be preferable to assume that artists don't really care if their paid art gets posted unless they come here to complain, or to assume that art that's still behind a paywall shouldn't be hosted on a free booru unless a free version has already been made available by the artist?


TheTundraTerror said:
It's also their responsibility to be the ones looking out for their own copyright.

This is the case with trademarks but not copyright.


TheTundraTerror said:
You're strawmanning. The issue is "does it actively harm artists?". In that respect, the answer is no. I have given proof that it doesn't. Give me an actual study that shows it hurts artists.

You cited an article about a study. Did you actually read the entire study? Just curious. There are a few flaws in using it to justify piracy of art produced by small-time artists. First of all the study doesn't cover this specific topic, and considering the large variation in displacement rates (-38% to +24%) for the different kinds of media involved, this is absolutely relevant. We simply do not know what kind of effect piracy might have on small independent artists.

Here's another problem with using this study to apply it to small-time artists- scale. Books had a -38% displacement rate, meaning that 38 legal transactions are replaced for every 100 books pirated. For a large publisher, this isn't going to be significant. But most artists do not have the audience size to be able to shrug this off as easily. It's very similar to the ethics of selling fan-merch of a massive IP like Pokemon or Zootopia vs selling fan-merch of a small webcomic where fan-merch can become significant competition for official merch.


Pendraggon said:
You didn't even respond to it, and yet you have the gall to tell other people you read your own arguments, jeez man.

actually i've read your previous post and thought about it, but i felt it would just be a reiteration of things i've already said and would descend into me being a twat. my basic opinion is that in the age of the Internet where anything can be distributed for free and forever, a scenario which would be paradise in the material world, it strikes me as incredibly selfish for anybody to artificially restrict this paradise.

it seems the only arguments in favor of artist's rights - and therefore against user's rights - comes from either legality (we'll get sued) or morality (let's all be polite). i understand the first argument, but then it contradicts the site's entire existence of uploading copyrighted works. the second one is irrelevant because i don't know the artist personally and have no obligation to respect their wishes.

you can call this point of view delusional or entitled if you want, but the practicality is that there's no real reason to restrict the redistribution of artist's work beyond being polite. the artist's loss of profit cited seems to have been pulled out of nowhere by somebody, and even on the generous assumption that there is an actual loss, that seemed to have been solved by the two-year time delay.


fewrahuxo said:
please reiterate the argument that destroyed me, because i don't feel particularly destroyed.

i don't think basic statistics misinterpretation is enough to discount the entire study, seeing as your cited statistic only applies to one particular section of the study: section 7.7, about literature and not any other content, well within an acceptable margin of error. i have not seen anything in the executive summary that would cast into doubt the veracity of the rest of the material, and in fact the summary states "In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of
displacement of sales by online copyright infringements."

And the very next sentence: "That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect."
If you actually go to 7.7 and read it in its entirety you'll see that the study finds that if it has an effect, it's going to be a negative one (again, everything has a huge margin of error for every media type). The only exception is games where the only things being displaced are free games, thus there's a net increase in sales since the only "sales" lost are ones that are free anyway.

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, where is that located because I'm not seeing where they say they have a error margin of 45%.

Chapter 7.7, starting at page 148.

TheTundraTerror said:
It's also their responsibility to be the ones looking out for their own copyright. If they can't be fucked to do so much as a reverse image search, it's clear they don't give that much of a fuck.

Many places don't honor DMCA requests, or make it a pain in the ass to deal with. It's not the artist's fault if they get stonewalled by other pages.


regsmutt said:
>considering the large variation in displacement rates
>Books had a -38% displacement rate
>Relays that to general "artists"


NotMeNotYou said:
And the very next sentence: "That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect."

i was aware of the sentence, but once again this is basic science and using this statement to assume a negative effect is to fall into the negative proof fallacy.

i would like to read the entire thing though i feel i would need a whole day to process this behemoth. given how reading these things are for academics, something i'm not, i would only be able to misinterpret it as well as the next person.


Well, whatever. It's not like I can't already find every single Hardblush comic with a simple Google search.

:^)


TheTundraTerror said:

Nice try but no. We can't assume what the displacement rate is for artists. I used the rate for books as an example because it's a number that we know. The point is not that art has a -38% displacement rate, since you have trouble with this for the third time I'll state that we don't know what the effects would be for art, it was that loss for a large company is less significant proportionally than the same loss for an independent artist.


TheTundraTerror said:
Well, whatever. It's not like I can't already find every single Hardblush comic with a simple Google search.

:^)

and i think this is pretty much the crux of the argument right here. it is well established that any notion of copyright on the Internet is irrelevant in the face of billions of instances of infringing materials, with hundreds of thousands of instances being shared every single day, and that the death of copyright, and therefore of the artist's imaginary right to control of their work, is just a few generations away.

when we live in an age where we can simply type in "watch [movie]" and be able to see that movie instantly no matter who's providing it, it's a golden age. the same for the works of artists who have decided to hide their work under a paywall and cut off their main source of exposure: their own work. you can find it anywhere.

i'm sure if the administration simply said "we don't want to get sued" and left it at that, it would be an understandable rule. but when we bring bum morality into the discussion, it just becomes a messy discussion.