Dythul said:
well ya, but what about the lower resolution image that IS publicly available from the artest that would have been deleted once the higher res "paywalled" image was posted. was the lower res image restored or not? because if I never see the low res image how am I going to know the image exists at all? If I don't know the image exists I can't throw my money at the artest.
(edit: well can't/won't)
(edit2: to what exan said)
well I hope the posts where restored :) )

I've restored them as I found them, but chances are there may be a couple I missed. As always we can restore them so if something is found just let us know and we'll fix it.


fewrahuxo said:
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.

I'd argue that despite the idea of permanence on the Internet being substantiated, it isn't infallible. File hosts shut down, servers go offline, decade-old webpages just don't load properly sometimes, and I don't even want to get into what's going on with Flash. It depresses me.
Going back to Notmenotyou's argument about the original purpose of the 2-year rule, art CDs were specifically cited as a medium in which there was a real risk of a work being lost for good, because their distribution was so limited.
The problem with removing the rule is that, I feel, this risk is still relevant and encompasses other forms of physical media as well. The vast majority of doujinshi published never get released in a digital form, and in many cases the window for purchasing them is restricted to one convention or event. (As an aside, the term doujin can refer to any sort of self- or similarly independently-published work, which often does include art CDs. For example, Dr. Comet would be considered a doujin artist since he distributes so much of his work through CDs) Some are digitally distributed, but Comiket only gets bigger every year, in both summer and winter.
A lot of doujins never get shared online, even illegally, since it's so difficult to even obtain a copy to pirate in the first place, and the sorts of sites that they get uploaded to don't have much permanence either. I used kemonono.net a lot when it was still up, and losing it still stings since a lot of work posted there never got uploaded anywhere else. When dealing with works for which the original source can't be reliably accessed, it's favorable to have them backed up on as many sites as possible, because only a handful of people who view them will think to share them, and as time goes on, a work might get truly forgotten, lost in the maelstrom of internal server errors and domain squatters.

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?

We don't need to. E621 is a cornerstone of the furry art community now, pretty much everyone uses it for at least something. Any time a rule or policy gets changed, you can bet that plenty of eyes will be on the admins.


7 pages of whining, and management being reasonable. Talk about your first-world problems.

This decision may be a bit unfortunate, in that there may be a little less free content available to us, yet if an artist wishes to expand their fanbase, they will likely release limited, or previously embargoed (paywall) content. This has been happening with artists for some time now, and has led to me now pledging to (currently) three artists on Patreon; I love the fact that I have access to superior HD versions of art posted here, and new content from my artists I enjoy.

Fifteen said:
a (good) rule of thumb: don't post what you can't source.

Some may not like the decision, yet consider this: you are not entitled to unlimited free artwork; if an artist wishes to put content behind a paywall, it is their property, and their right.

E6 admins are trying to do the right thing, and I am impressed by the level-headedness presented here by Nimmy.


well this has helped killed any and all desire I may have had for supporting an artist that has things behind a paywall.

do you understand that administration team? you have direct proof that this move has actually harmed any support an artist would receive from me as if i do support an artist i enjoy the fact that people who can not will also receive the same content as I years later.

if this rule can't be removed I'd like to ask the admins to have an easy to access list of artist who carry a timed DNP agreement for paywalled content.

Mdf
Member
1 month ago
adelaherz anthro beverage book bookshelf brick caldraken claws clothed clothing cup dragon electricity fire fireplace food furgonomics hi_res horn hornband inside lightning looking_at_viewer male mantelplace membranous_wings robe scalie solo steam table window wings wooden wooden_floor

Rating: Safe
Score: 92
User: Cat-in-Flight
Date: February 02, 2016

Well, this was a fun 140-minute read, all for me to figure out that of 16k favorites, only one post got deleted... Oh well, I'm jumping in with my thoughts anyways.

NotMeNotYou said:
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?

If it's good and I truly like it, I'll buy it. I've seen more than my fair share of movies online a few weeks after their release that I ended up purchasing a digital edition of. If I don't like something I perceived I would have liked (title covers, names, judging a book by its cover etc) then I didn't lose anything aside from a few hours worth of time and the creators of the movie lost out on a movie ticket.

Acolyte said:
2500 pieces of art is a fraction of the content. If removing it mitigates problems down the line, then heave-ho.

AnotherDay said:
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 is actually a step that I fear could be taken one day. If an artist says on their post not to share or re-upload it anywhere else without permission, and they find something here that they weren't supposed to....

To be completely honest, I would actually endorse this type of policy. If we're all about artists rights like we claim to be, then lets not just do a little bit of good, let's do A WHOLE FRICKING LOT of good and make this a rule. We could have another rank of people alongside janitors / privileged people that we could call "Alarm Bells" that would go out and inform artists that their artwork was reposted on e621.net and either let the artist file a takedown personally or do it for them with proof.

I'm curious as to how this might drive traffic.

treos said:
money first, above absolutely ALL else, even happiness and entertainment. they'd rather you suffer and be bored for your entire life if you can't pay for it.

Money above all else... that almost sounds like... capitalism!! Run for your lives guys, the world is ending, I mean it this time!!!1

fewrahuxo said:
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.

I couldn't help but read this and think of what happened to that one site that Varka used to host and then just completely scrapped after hearing a word of something unsavory. Was that unsavory stuff even proven true by the way?

I'll just point back to my fear that I had mentioned in that second/third quote duo from earlier.

NotMeNotYou said:
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.

In situations like this, I think of the group of people getting the short end of the stick, in this case, the 'lesser' fortunate users that can't afford such paywalls. In the end, though, it's all really simple in how it boils down between artists and their fans which I think I saw along some lines earlier in this topic. Supporting an artist is all well and good, but I'm looking out for number one in this relationship, me. If I'm stuck between funding an artist who probably doesn't even know me, who I'll never meet, and who will undoubtedly never know my (user)name, they're going to take a quick back seat once more important things start coming up.

If I'm supporting the artist and not looking out for my own needs, I'll eventually die or be unable to access a means to support that artist. Without me, there is no money, and without the money, there is no artist.

Also, I'd like to hit upon the whole "starving artist" thing while I'm at it. To keep it short, there is no such thing. If you're an artist that makes a living sitting on your rear with a pad and pencil and your stomach grumbles because your stuff is too cheap for you to make your day-to-day living, or its just too expensive and not enough are buying it, you might want to reconsider your priorities and get an actual job and, you know, get up at least. You're already a person talented in art, stop making fifty buck commissions at eight hours apiece and get a graphic designers job. Instead of suffering minimum wage, go out and be a productive member of society and make twenty-three an hour instead of being a bump on a log.
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/27-1024.00

fewrahuxo said:
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.

Here's a commercial from a few years back. If artists could learn anything from this, it's that once you post something online, you relinquish any and all control over it. It matters not the legal jargon you put in front of it, there's always someone unscrupulous who will make off with it without a reason to care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOUu1fldBbI

Only one post in my favorites was deleted, yup. Oh, and just know that while we might have our issues, I avoid FurAffinity like the Black Plague. Seeing some of the things I've seen on here (a certain scaily pair that I use to admire, no longer) hasn't helped things.

imagoober
Privileged
1 month 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

NotMeNotYou said:
We've used the wording "paid content" for years to denote any form of pay-to-view content.
But I'll see if I can come up with a wording that would help squash ambiguity.

Good luck with that. It's sometimes amazing even to hardcore cynics how desperately some people will look for some loophole to abuse for their personal benefit, even if they have to manufacture ambiguity out of whole cloth.


Seems an extremely inconvenient rule when it comes to stuff like old Doujinshi that has long gone out of print, but whatever there's other places to be a freeloader (not always by choice, Canada is a bitch to get anything lewd into). Digital sale stuff I can understand for sure, especially when still available. People keep mentioning Patreon... By all means if you want it go to the Artists page and pay up.

On that note I see a pool deleted, which has a source that appears to be from an Arist's preview: Pool 4686

I'm going to guess this started with the dlsite takedown that happened recently, but I could be totally off base.

Zest
Member
1 month ago

That's okay, I didn't like finally reaching an upload limit of 100 anyway... I'm okay with that being almost halved. It's not like fanlated Japanese comics were my main export of uploads T_T

But I do agree that the 2 years was arbitrary to begin with, and believe it's only a good thing we're finally respecting the control artists have over their own works. Though wouldn't applying things like the lifespan rule be difficult, to track down whether an artist is actually alive? And things like the 70+ year rule misguided for international works (i.e. falling out of the very American Copyright Term Extension Act)? Pragmatics aside, this is a step in the right direction. Very futile with many other outside sites (for those that are upset of lost content, just google them lol), but still an appreciated act of good ethics.

RIP takaki kyou's Trouble and Monochrome series, and RIP kinoshita-jiroh's Mekko Rarekko series. Would've never found you and had my heart shattered a million times if it wasn't for the efforts of fan translators and uploaders to image boards like e621. Even though I already have you saved locally, you will still be missed here.


Lemme hop the fence a bit and try to be somewhat neutral and appeal to the points made by both sides.

I think a lot of the anger and upset in this thread is directed at the wrong place and the wrong arguments are being made. It's easy to be so reflexive and simply react to what the admins have decided to do, but I don't believe it's at all the right place to rest your woes. There are a lot of good arguments to be made about how artists use platforms like Patreon, but ultimately the truth is as stated by Sharp Coyote: it's their property and their right.

That doesn't mean that many artists out there don't use predatory tactics to entice people to buy into their paywalled art club, or that some artists hide an unreasonable amount of things behind unreasonable reward tier prices. Or even that such tactics have just become so normal and mainstream that honest artists use them just because they've become a standard, or by extension that all implimentations of a certain manner of distribution are equal or were created with the same intent.

For example, there's a difference between:

  • Artist A who uploads the vast majority of their work to a public venue, like FA or e621, at reasonable quality and not too long after it was originally made. But they do have a Patreon where they release PSD versions of their content, WIP sketches, early access of maybe a few weeks or a month, and maybe entitle their higher tier patrons to monthly art of their choosing.
  • Artist B who uploads very little substantial content to any public venue other than heavily cropped, censored, and/or low resolution teases designed to entice people to pay to see the full artwork. Their patreon has very high prices, they purposefully draw several versions of each piece with increasing levels of nudity and lewdness that you would need to pay even more to view. They don't upload WIP sketches, they don't give discounts on commissions, their price of admission grants seemingly nothing but access to normal artwork at a respectable resolution.

It's up to the people who consume the produced content to decide whether or not the prices for access are reasonable and worth the money, and to decide if any given artist has respectable and decent business policies regarding their artwork. It's absolutely inevitable that in a fandom where money is commonly exchanged for art, that some artists out there will be driven entirely by profit motive and greed and use platforms such as Patreon to gain their income. If nobody thought the goods were worth the price, they wouldn't sell and there would be no business. That's how economics works. If the community decides that any given artist out there isn't worth their cost, that should be justice enough.

And there most certainly are people out there who engage in nearly all of these tactics and still make truckloads of money. It's fair to see that as an injustice, but it doesn't necessarily make it okay to steal it. Note that I say "okay" rather than "right"; I'm not trying to touch upon the ultimate morality of the act but rather the objective fact that it is still not allowed to happen by the person who owns what's being stolen. Otherwise it wouldn't be stealing. And no matter how you feel about the morality regarding piracy, the ultimate fact is that it's inevitable and will happen. Whether that's "justice" is debatable, but whether that makes it okay for anyone to host that stolen content is not.

But the entire point of this is that while these arguments are good and deserve to be discussed, it's WHOLLY outside the realm of what's happening here, right now, in this thread. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how unreasonable the prices for content become, it is that artists right to charge that much for it. It's their work, their content, and their decision. And this site is not some transitive database hosted in a country with different laws that can, should, or will host that content if it was stolen. That's the final word that needs to be said about it, one that the admins and other staff have said multiple times now.

Grievances about how some artists out there perform their business and sell their creations are understandable, and it deserves to be talked about and discussed. But nothing changes the fundamental fact that those artists have the right to do whatever they want with their creations, and e621 does and should abide by how the copyright owner allows their copyrighted content to be distributed. Piracy is massive, strong, easy, and inevitable. But that doesn't mean any given site out there should become a hive for it, especially when they're as big as e621.

I think I just got the longest post in here but it's already become a rant thread anyways. Hopefully I haven't misspoken but I rest my case.


I fully concede that you, as a website, must obey the law. That is why I will not judge you for the decision you made. I WILL judge you for the ideas and justifications other than Jonney Law breathing down your neck that you have presented thus far, as I believe it is important to discuss these things for our community and the platform of the internet to mature.

NotMeNotYou said:
I have a counterargument: Why do you feel you're entitled to free stuff, and why do you feel you get to decide that some people should not be compensated for work they make and are able to distribute digitally?

If you want some form of proof: Check out how many people actually donate to mod creators on Nexusmods. The answer is basically nobody donates anything, ever. People consume without giving back. There are also other numbers from various developers that tracked how many people paid for their programs, and how many pirated them without ever paying. The numbers are against you in every case.

The situation with nexusmods is different in several ways:

1. Specifically with the 2 year rule, paid content by definition has already been paid for. Especially with Patreon, any art the subscribers get to see has already received adequate compensation or the artist wouldn't have drawn it in the first place seeing as Patreon works on a monthly basis (i.e. Patrons on Patreon pay to see content created AFTER they have subscribed, not to see the content that existed BEFORE.) The 2 year rule gave artist 24 months of subscriptions to make money off of any 1 art piece or comic. Modders, on the other hand, never got to charge even 1 person for their work, much less 2 years of it, before it was put out to the community. Why? Because you can't ask for donations to a piece of software people haven't tried yet, and to ask for payment upfront would assume a standard rate to base price drops or increases in (i.e. they wouldn't be mods at that point, they'd be 3rd party DLC.)

2. Artist set up patreons to earn money to help them pay bills and survive the time necessary to make art pieces. The 'industry' or community expects artist to charge for work in some regard, even if only by the person who commissioned it, thus artist going into the 'field' have a healthy expectation to be compensated for their work. Modders, on the other hand, go into making a mod knowing full well it's going to be free for others to use. The precedent of the community or 'scene' has never been for profit and although the donation situation is very sad, anyone going into modding thinking they could make money is delusional at worst, dreaming big at best. Where as anyone going into furry art thinking they could make a living or at least help make a living has solid ground to base such thought on, as there are many examples of successful artist. While smaller than most people think, the chances of you making even a modest living off of furry art are magnitudes higher than attempting the same with modding.

3. While I argue that modding is art in its own right, mods depend on software they have no legal relationship to. You don't need a VHS copy of Digimon to find and jerk off to Renamon porn. If you're using a mod, you already paid an admission price to use it, even if the modder sees none of that, unfortunately. Charging for work done on another product sold for profit is in most cases illegal. Art on the other hand doesn't depend on anything other than the artist's inspiration, even if that inspiration is a pre-existing IP. Asking art 'consumers' to pay for access is asking them to pay once, where as asking a gamer to pay for a mod is asking them to pay twice to play the same video game a different way. Psychologically, that's MUCH harder to overcome. (e.g. charging once to gain access to a piece of furry smut, then charging a smaller fee to see an edit someone did of the same piece.)

4. Historical precedent favors the selling of art, where as all 3 attempts in the video game industry thus far to charge for mods has failed; 2 of those attempts never even got started where as the third attempt confirmed everyone's fears and even those defending it initially IMMEDIATELY turned as soon as the particulars were revealed. If you are going to compare 2 things, make sure that there was a point in time where the 2 could even be remotely similar in potential. Comparing the tragedy of people not donating to mods to an over exaggerated plight of furry artist, smut or no, isn't even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to automated orange peelers. Ultimately it's insulting to the modders who get literally nothing to be used as a platform so furry artist who make money can get on their soap box a bit easier.

5. Finally, there is evidence to support the plight of modders. There is no evidence, so far, to support the accusation that the 2 year rule was hurting artist in ANY way. So far the justification (other than the legal one) has merely assumed that the artist were suffering because of it. if all the other data, anecdotes aside, is anything to go on, piracy indeed helps more than it hinders when there is an eventual time limit on its exclusiveness. So far, all film producers, game publishers, musicians, and writers have depended on the fallacy that piracy always has and always will lead to lost sales, when there is no such evidence even by detractors to support such a claim. It's assumed, not unjustly though, when reading the definition of piracy. There is a hint of logic to that at first, but beyond that assumption, there's nothing to back it up.

fewrahuxo said:
what's stunning about your decision is you haven't produced any evidence that uploading paid work to e621 directly correlates to a loss of income for the artists who produced the work.


Yeah uh, this decision will mean a drastic decrease in the viewership of certain artists, as well as a good increase of actual piracy and less traffic going to e621 and more to other sites

bad decision I say


him57 said:

Comparing the tragedy of people not donating to mods to an over exaggerated plight of furry artist, smut or no, isn't even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to automated orange peelers. Ultimately it's insulting to the modders who get literally nothing to be used as a platform so furry artist who make money can get on their soap box a bit easier.

I don't have any counter-argument but thank you so much for saying this. You make a very good point

Pyke
Member
29 days ago
2012 ambiguous_gender bed bedding blanket blue_eyes cute eeveelution feral hi_res looking_at_viewer nintendo open_mouth pawpads pokémon pokémon_(species) shadow solo tartii vaporeon video_games watermark

Rating: Safe
Score: 154
User: Chef_Red
Date: February 19, 2014

I'll definitely go subscribe to some patreons and buy a few Bad Dragon dildos now. Thanks guys


This entire thread and rule is cancer to the maximum

Seig heil everyone!


An excellent initiative to further the development of IPFS. The age of centralized internet is coming to a close, peer to peer websites are at hand. Hoist the uBlock and reel in the favorites, laddies, we've got a new booru to be buildin'. The long arm copyright laws is about to reach its limit, because where we're going, there will be no admins. There will be no "intellectual property". There will only be our site, our peers, and our freedom. Anchors away!


Colonel_Kernel said:
An excellent initiative to further the development of IPFS. The age of centralized internet is coming to a close, peer to peer websites are at hand. Hoist the uBlock and reel in the favorites, laddies, we've got a new booru to be buildin'. The long arm copyright laws is about to reach its limit, because where we're going, there will be no admins. There will be no "intellectual property". There will only be us, our peers, our porn, and our freedom. Anchors away!

Remember the 0.2%!

Almost nobody in that thread vouched for IPFS. Maybe Freenet is a better option?

treos
Blocked
29 days 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

sure would be nice if i were rich. then i wouldn't have to worry about any of this OR deal with people going after me for trying to see things JUST because i don't have enough money.

sure sucks to live in a world where one of the single biggest controlling factors is how much money you have. :/

if you have enough money then you can get or do just about anything but if you don't then you're pretty much nothing and trying to get or do ANYTHING without said money makes you a criminal and entitled.

yep, such a great world... sorry for existing and being too poor to afford things.

i just wish people would stop trying to sound all high and mighty because they have the money to throw around when talking down to those who don't. as if having more money than others somehow makes you better than them. more well off maybe but certainly not better than them.


treos said:
sure would be nice if i were rich. then i wouldn't have to worry about any of this

You have to worry about not seeing a small selection of long-forgotten (2 year old) posts anymore?

More content is being uploaded here every day than a reasonable person should be reasonably looking at.

treos said:
yep, such a great world... sorry for existing and being too poor to afford things.

#bootstraps #MAGA

BlueDingo
Privileged
29 days 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:
yep, such a great world... sorry for existing and being too poor to afford things.

If you're diet doesn't consist mainly of baked beans and instant noodles, you're not too poor to afford things.


treos said:
sure would be nice if i were rich. then i wouldn't have to worry about any of this OR deal with people going after me for trying to see things JUST because i don't have enough money.

sure sucks to live in a world where one of the single biggest controlling factors is how much money you have. :/

if you have enough money then you can get or do just about anything but if you don't then you're pretty much nothing and trying to get or do ANYTHING without said money makes you a criminal and entitled.

yep, such a great world... sorry for existing and being too poor to afford things.

i just wish people would stop trying to sound all high and mighty because they have the money to throw around when talking down to those who don't. as if having more money than others somehow makes you better than them. more well off maybe but certainly not better than them.

You can go and pirate nintendo games, even if nintendo fansite doesn't host the games for you.

Funny thing with money is that people as mass choose how much something is worth. If games did cost whole months salary, nobody would be buying them - if artist asked for ridiculous summs of money just to see their artwork, nobody would be giving them any money hence why many patreon tiers start from $1/month. I have minimum wage job, but I'm still able to buy all the entertainment I'm consuming and give tips on patreon monthly. Of course I cannot compare that to everyones life situations, when I was studying I did pirate content pretty regularly, but again, please refer to first sentence. Just because you yourself justify illegal actions yourself, doesn't mean that store owners need to see it any other way than you taking money out of their pocket.

Lance_Armstrong said:
#bootstraps #MAGA

...#gamergate #selfie?


It's really nice to know that the mods are thinking about artists who are trying to make a living, or even just a decent income, from their art.

It's too bad for the people that are going to die from Exclusive Furry Porn Deficit though.


Welp, that's it for me, then. Paying for art made by people for fun is just silly.

So many of them pretend that they're going to make a career of drawing pictures. Sorry to crush dreams, but they don't have any rights once it goes online. Nobody gets prosecuted for art theft online, and if they do, it's only for "real art", painted by real artists, on canvas.

Stop trying to White Knight whiny teens who think they have rights online because they have awful social lives in real life, and are trying to make up for it online. You're embarrassing yourself.

I'm done with this site, off to U-18. Bye.

TonyLemur
Former Staff
29 days ago
2012 alpha_channel arm_support border canine cute female feral fox happy jungledyret_hugo mammal open_mouth rita_(jungledyret) simple_background solo table tonythefox_(artist) transparent_background

Rating: Safe
Score: 30
User: TonyLemur
Date: July 22, 2012

The thing most people against this rule don't seem to grasp is that while you may have your personal reasons to pirate art, e621 is not obligated to facilitate that.


"The law is easy to break therefore it shouldn't exist." Billions of shoplifting events occur, might as well tell stores to get over it

Raenlin said:
Welp, that's it for me, then. Paying for art made by people for fun is just silly.

So many of them pretend that they're going to make a career of drawing pictures. Sorry to crush dreams, but they don't have any rights once it goes online. Nobody gets prosecuted for art theft online, and if they do, it's only for "real art", painted by real artists, on canvas.

Stop trying to White Knight whiny teens who think they have rights online because they have awful social lives in real life, and are trying to make up for it online. You're embarrassing yourself.

I'm done with this site, off to U-18. Bye.

Good riddance. I cannot imagine what kind of upbringing produces someone so disrespectful and entitled. God forbid anyone give a shit about artists who create works they like. Those namby-pamby creative types don't deserve a fucking cent if ya ask me! They should have a real job like mopping floors instead of giving us things that we like. Why should artists expect money? Based on my arbitrary definition of what constitutes a "fake job that people should only do for fun," creative types should accept that they are an inferior class to burger flippers and taxi drivers and have nowhere to go unless they do something else.

TonyLemur
Former Staff
29 days ago
2012 alpha_channel arm_support border canine cute female feral fox happy jungledyret_hugo mammal open_mouth rita_(jungledyret) simple_background solo table tonythefox_(artist) transparent_background

Rating: Safe
Score: 30
User: TonyLemur
Date: July 22, 2012

To build on what I said earlier, if you have your reasons and justifications to pirate art, that's on you. But don't expect this site to do it for you. That's a lot of entitlement.


now that the administration has been blasted by all sides on multiple websites, how long until this rule change will be reverted?


DelurC said:
I don't. It lowers the range of influence for the artist.

Buddy getting "exposure" doesn't mean shit for dick. I mean, just look at how poorly the games journalism industry handles not paying writers.

A unique comparison but one that holds ground. The artist in question will release some free content for sites like this and link up his patreon for the paid stuff, and if they don't do that they'll learn that's the market and do it that way eventually.

In the meantime we shouldn't cut into someone's profit for "exposure" reasons because well..Given an inch and someone will run fucking miles.


him57 said:
I fully concede that you, as a website, must obey the law. That is why I will not judge you for the decision you made. I WILL judge you for the ideas and justifications other than Jonney Law breathing down your neck that you have presented thus far, as I believe it is important to discuss these things for our community and the platform of the internet to mature.

The decision was mainly aimed at helping artists, it does close a couple can of worms on our side, but those were already dealt with before anyway. This is the equivalent of just putting them from the corner of a cupboard someplace else so they're less in the way.

him57 said:
The situation with nexusmods is different in several ways:

Of course mods have differences. Find a similarly well reported issue that is better comparable and we will be able to compare to that instead. Until then mods based on other people's IPs aren't that different to fan art drawn and sold off of other people's IPs.

him57 said:
5. Finally, there is evidence to support the plight of modders. There is no evidence, so far, to support the accusation that the 2 year rule was hurting artist in ANY way. So far the justification (other than the legal one) has merely assumed that the artist were suffering because of it. if all the other data, anecdotes aside, is anything to go on, piracy indeed helps more than it hinders when there is an eventual time limit on its exclusiveness. So far, all film producers, game publishers, musicians, and writers have depended on the fallacy that piracy always has and always will lead to lost sales, when there is no such evidence even by detractors to support such a claim. It's assumed, not unjustly though, when reading the definition of piracy. There is a hint of logic to that at first, but beyond that assumption, there's nothing to back it up.

Except what artists have reported, except what the study with the amazing margin of error found for every media type that isn't gaming, except what the logic says of listening to all those people in this thread of being unwilling to pay even a penny to anyone.

But the thing that is far more important is very simple question. Who gets to decide how or if an artist is allowed to make money off of their work?
If artists want to play with piracy and hand out free goodies (as most of them are already doing, mind you) then that is their decision. It is not up to us to decide this for them.

fewrahuxo said:
now that the administration has been blasted by all sides on multiple websites, how long until this rule change will be reverted?

If you think this drizzle is anywhere close to blasting I have very bad news for you. This rule will stay.


With piracy becoming an increasingly bigger topic for political agendas worldwide i believe a side had to be chosen at some point.

Both have their own unique ups and downs. The advantage we may get as a site is that we gain the option to improve our standing even further with a wider variety of artists in the near future. I see options for development here.

2 steps forward one step backwards people that's how life works.


NotMeNotYou said:
If you think this drizzle is anywhere close to blasting I have very bad news for you. This rule will stay.

Said the tyrant to the peasants.