plsignore said:
Was anyone actually profiting off of 2+ year old paywalled content? Is anyone actually benefiting from this rule change?

Congratulations: you've stopped 'pirates' from 'stealing' ancient images that no one was paying for anymore (not because it was on e621, mind, just because it was old) and doesn't negatively impact the artist (some of whom are dead or awol) in any meaningful way.

But you've done nothing to stop the "bad" piracy. People are still going to get through paywalls and patreons and steal that content. It just won't get posted to e621 because... it was already against the rules and wasn't posted here anyway.

And in exchange, you pissed off the users and killed some very valuable archiving. GG

It's not for us or the e6 admins to decide what's profitable to the artists and what's not. It's already been said time and time again on this thread that just because piracy is possible doesn't mean websites have to make it easy for everyone to illegally acquire content.

Peekaboo
Contributor
29 days ago
ambiguous_gender anthro canine chair drugs fox fur lol_comments looking_at_viewer mammal nightmare_fuel oddly_cute orange_fur plushie real sitting solo source_request stoned stoned_fox taxidermy uncanny_valley unknown_artist what_has_science_done where_is_your_god_now white_fur why

Rating: Safe
Score: 81
User: meanwhile
Date: December 03, 2012

I'm guessing this change will shift some user towards worse, "more open" sites, but I also understand why this rule is necessary. I don't really mind it that much.

Only thing that sorta makes me cautious is the potential issues with services like Patreon.


Fifteen said:
It's not for us or the e6 admins to decide what's profitable to the artists and what's not. It's already been said time and time again on this thread that just because piracy is possible doesn't mean websites have to make it easy for everyone to illegally acquire content.

Copyright law is an anachronistic relic that's mostly only there so Mickey Mouse can keep an iron grip on his empire, so I don't really give a shit what it says is illegal (and neither did e621 until just today for some reason).

No one is benefiting from the new rule. Not the artists, not the users. That's what I care about.


plsignore said:

No one is benefiting from the new rule. Not the artists, not the users. That's what I care about.

If you really cared about people benefiting, you'd realize you're wrong. Just because there's very few sales after two years for most artist doesn't mean there's none for any artist. The more popular an artist is, the more profit they'll still get even several years later.


Daneasaur said:
They will purge it. They will purge it all because "it's piracy". You know ,despite cub central being free to view if you were a member, but it required membership and mike never "gave you permission" if you could post it here.

As I said, commissions will go, filled out YCH will go, all japanese will go (all made for profit and 99% is part of a larger doujin/book), and so on.

This place will have the guts torn out of it and the admins are drunk on this power trip they are getting.

Notice how they didn't inform anyone? How they didn't ask anyone? Notice how they are fighting tooth and nail now that the internet and very userbase they claimed to be in support of is biting back?

They made a bad move that undermined one of the foundations of this site. They either backpedal to recover SOME face and artists who don't want their art here can get on the DNP, or the admins will double down and then people will be outright afraid to post anything here.

Haven't about a dozen people explained why they didn't inform everybody? You are either ignoring the thread here or your skull is denser than lead.


the quality of arguments from people in favor this rule change is extremely low compared to the arguments from people against. all i seem to read is ad hominem attacks, claims that someone is entitled for caring about a website that they frequent often, and a lack of actual reasons as to why this rule is a good one, instead arguing in favor of an imaginary morality play for non specified "artists" that they don't know personally.

there remains, after hours of discussion, a stunning lack of evidence that this rule is needed, its effects are tangible, and artists stand to actually benefit from this ruling from what is now a defacto dictatorship that cares not for the squabblings of its subjects.


fewrahuxo said:
the quality of arguments from people in favor this rule change is extremely low compared to the arguments from people against. all i seem to read is ad hominem attacks, claims that someone is entitled for caring about a website that they frequent often, and a lack of actual reasons as to why this rule is a good one, instead arguing in favor of an imaginary morality play for non specified "artists" that they don't know personally.

there remains, after hours of discussion, a stunning lack of evidence that this rule is needed, its effects are tangible, and artists stand to actually benefit from this ruling from what is now a defacto dictatorship that cares not for the squabblings of its subjects.

Just like with PC game problems, those who have everything working fine usually don't say much anything, it's only those who have issues who are talking and usually very vocal about it.

As majority of the artwork posted here are publicly available and free, I'm certain that regular uploaders won't have issues with this rule change as it effects them in no way.

There's no need for evidence that the rule was needed, similar to like there is no evidence for why it needed to be 2 years to begin with. The "evidence" provided againts this change have been pretty much boiling down to users wanting free content, which there already is 99.8% of the site, so just like with PC game problems...


fewrahuxo said:
the quality of arguments from people in favor this rule change is extremely low compared to the arguments from people against. all i seem to read is ad hominem attacks, claims that someone is entitled for caring about a website that they frequent often, and a lack of actual reasons as to why this rule is a good one, instead arguing in favor of an imaginary morality play for non specified "artists" that they don't know personally.

there remains, after hours of discussion, a stunning lack of evidence that this rule is needed, its effects are tangible, and artists stand to actually benefit from this ruling from what is now a defacto dictatorship that cares not for the squabblings of its subjects.

What evidence would suffice for you?

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

Don't worry. All the people bitching about the change and threatening to leave because of it will still be here next week masturbating to the exact same porn they were before, and half of them will forget that the change even happened.


The way I see it is that e621 is beginning to outlive its use. It will most certainly be useful for now, in that we can still come here for the free stuff, and eventually, once a peer to peer booru like hydrus comes along we will be able to simply write a script that rips everything off this website continuously and then also add the pirate and dnp content to the new booru and there wont be a darned thing anyone can do about it. Now I don't pretend like intellectual property is actually a physical, irreplacible object that can atually be stolen, but e621 is genuinely covering their asses pretty well by doing this. Because this website is based on http it is run on centralized servers that can be shoah'd at any time by silly authorities that think they can control the pure anarchy of the internet. I can't really blame them for much other than not having the balls to dabble in a little bit of piracy anymore, so there's only one solution to all of this. That is to help build the booru of the future, where it will be a true bastion of archival and collection of all art, pay or no, ancient and new. To see what I mean, take a scroll through that 8chan post about this whole fiasco.


fewrahuxo said:
the quality of arguments from people in favor this rule change is extremely low compared to the arguments from people against. all i seem to read is ad hominem attacks, claims that someone is entitled for caring about a website that they frequent often, and a lack of actual reasons as to why this rule is a good one, instead arguing in favor of an imaginary morality play for non specified "artists" that they don't know personally.

there remains, after hours of discussion, a stunning lack of evidence that this rule is needed, its effects are tangible, and artists stand to actually benefit from this ruling from what is now a defacto dictatorship that cares not for the squabblings of its subjects.

I know more than a bunch of artists personally, every argument from people against this change is that they want free stuff, and ad hominem attacks against staff are rampant outside of e621.

It's also interesting how you think this rule change was needed, it wasn't. We changed it because it's the right thing to do, plain and simple. The reason, at its core, is our desire to be less of an asshole towards the people who create the content we host.

If it comes as a surprise to you that we value the creators of our content more than people wanting free stuff at any cost you should reevaluate how you think of other people, and the values you place on the people around you.

The fact that so many people are so vehemently against losing free stuff they shouldn't have had in the first place is the only proof required that this was a good rule change.


Has anyone made the argument for that vintage stuff that was on a limited run CD system way back when? Im curious if thats also been removed.


fewrahuxo said:
the quality of arguments from people in favor this rule change is extremely low compared to the arguments from people against. all i seem to read is ad hominem attacks, claims that someone is entitled for caring about a website that they frequent often, and a lack of actual reasons as to why this rule is a good one, instead arguing in favor of an imaginary morality play for non specified "artists" that they don't know personally.

there remains, after hours of discussion, a stunning lack of evidence that this rule is needed, its effects are tangible, and artists stand to actually benefit from this ruling from what is now a defacto dictatorship that cares not for the squabblings of its subjects.

I don't know if we've both been reading the same thread, but most of the people against this change have held arguments mainly along the lines of :

e621 is an archive, it shouldn't delete content

If we can pirate the same content from elsewhere, there's no reason for e621 to remove it

There's no proof that publically posting 2+ years old art would mean a loss of revenue for the artists

Data copy isn't really theft, therefore it's ok

If artists want to overcharge for their art, people should have a right to distribute it for free

If artists disagree, they can just opt-out via the DNP list

The laws regarding copyright and intellectual property are flawed, therefore it's ok for us to disregard them

Please let me know if I've missed any.

All of those have already been addressed as invalid reasons to go back on that change, and accusing one side of using low quality arguments, ad hominem and only defending artists indirectly, while in the same breath calling the administration team a "defacto dictatorship" is downright hypocritical of you.

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

Mario69 said:
Just like with PC game problems, those who have everything working fine usually don't say much anything, it's only those who have issues who are talking and usually very vocal about it.

As majority of the artwork posted here are publicly available and free, I'm certain that regular uploaders won't have issues with this rule change as it effects them in no way.

There's no need for evidence that the rule was needed, similar to like there is no evidence for why it needed to be 2 years to begin with. The "evidence" provided againts this change have been pretty much boiling down to users wanting free content, which there already is 99.8% of the site, so just like with PC game problems...

the ONLY thing the anti-piracy side seems to really care about is defending the monetary gain of others while attacking and shaming those who DO pirate content for free. this is no different when it comes to video games, movies, or whatever else. it is always the exact same thing in the end regardless of the form of media.

that's pretty much what the anti-piracy argument comes down to. well, that and calling pirates "entitled" but that's just an idiotic and pointless argument at this point that neither proves nor does anything. aside from pissing people off...and causing yet more drama.

BlueDingo said:
Don't worry. All the people bitching about the change and threatening to leave because of it will still be here next week masturbating to the exact same porn they were before, and half of them will forget that the change even happened.

uh huh... things might quiet down but i doubt everyone is gonna just up and forget a sudden crackdown on piracy out of nowhere.


Boo!

It's the right thing to do, and that's not debatable. The only exception raised with any real merit is the doujin angle, where deletion can strongly impact preservation.

If pay content is no longer available from official sources that benefit the rights holder(s), which is quite hard to prove in itself, should this rule still apply? Probably, but protecting the exclusivity of a retired product only tenuously supports the rights holder(s). For buyers, purchasing from a limited run is often treated as an investment for future resale. The latter aspect can only realistically be applied to physical products, but the former does extend to digital sources.

Having said that, I am a user. I use selfishly. Anything that negatively affects my ability to use hurts me. Even so, I've accepted lately that E621 has an overabundance of content that I like, yet I will never get around to consuming all of it because I can't remotely break even with the post rate for new content that I like. Thus, I have access to more here than I can or will be able to use, conceivably. Yet that knowledge does not sate me. Intellectually, I am comforted, which does nothing for my hunger for more; intellect notwithstanding, hunger and want still produce anxious discomfort as motivation. Hunger provokes use. A user will always want more, the most possible, and then strive for more. This insatiability yawning to infinite is gluttony.

Reason doesn't matter when your role as a user doesn't allow you to feel whole, not for long anyway. Here, users rationalize their wants to maintain the self-deception of righteousness rather than face the bitter truth of their base nature. Entertainment is a reward cycle where you play yourself. It is never enough, until you find your cycle broken.

Any impediment to desire hurts, even when the resulting deprivation is infinitesimal. This still hurts.

▼ out, out, brief outrage

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

TL;DR People always complain when you take something away.


treos said:
the ONLY thing the anti-piracy side seems to really care about is defending the monetary gain of others while attacking and shaming those who DO pirate content for free. this is no different when it comes to video games, movies, or whatever else. it is always the exact same thing in the end regardless of the form of media.

that's pretty much what the anti-piracy argument comes down to. well, that and calling pirates "entitled" but that's just an idiotic and pointless argument at this point that neither proves nor does anything. aside from pissing people off...and causing yet more drama.

A few people also brought up morality.


Fifteen said:
All of those have already been addressed as invalid reasons to go back on that change,

actually none of those points have been satisfactorily addressed and as far as i'm aware many of those subjects have been dropped by those who have lacked an interest in arguing against them.

every point you have quoted all create a great body of evidence that this is a very bad rule, and in the absence of systemically dismantling each and every point, the reasoning for the rule is exceptionally weak when compared to the reasons against.

in fact, it seems to me all those quoted points are insightful enough to call into doubt the entire dogma of policing the Internet for content you don't like. copyright laws are demonstrably flawed, copying is demonstrably not the same as theft, and artists already have several avenues to stop the unauthorized copying of their work to the point where this is a redundant rule, especially given that e621 very much is an archive and has an obligation to keep it an archive and not selectively choose what types of high-quality materials it chooses to archive.

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

Strikerman said:
A few people also brought up morality.

bah! purely subjective terms like that are among the single most annoying things to argue about regardless of what side of a topic you take.

abadbird said:
It's the right thing to do, and that's not debatable.

and this right here is a prime example of that. right and wrong are also 100% subjective and are always debatable due simply to them BEING subjective.

terms such as these have no objective meaning.

what one person sees as "right", another can just as easily see as "wrong".

that kind of terminology helps nothing in an argument.


treos said:
the ONLY thing the anti-piracy side seems to really care about is defending the monetary gain of others while attacking and shaming those who DO pirate content for free. this is no different when it comes to video games, movies, or whatever else. it is always the exact same thing in the end regardless of the form of media.

that's pretty much what the anti-piracy argument comes down to. well, that and calling pirates "entitled" but that's just an idiotic and pointless argument at this point that neither proves nor does anything. aside from pissing people off...and causing yet more drama.

Have you ever worked somewhere and then been told you aren't going to get paid for it? It's basically the same.


treos said:
bah! purely subjective terms like that are among the single most annoying things to argue about regardless of what side of a topic you take.

and this right here is a prime example of that. right and wrong are also 100% subjective and are always debatable due simply to them BEING subjective.

terms such as these have no objective meaning.

what one person sees as "right", another can just as easily see as "wrong".

that kind of terminology helps nothing in an argument.

What do you consider right and wrong, then?


NotMeNotYou said:
Have you ever worked somewhere and then been told you aren't going to get paid for it? It's basically the same.

that's not close whatsoever to being the same. artists don't have a steady paycheck that's given to them by their employer every month, and nobody is literally taking that money out of their hand because they're saving a copy of an image to their hard drive.

for the industries of video games and music, 95% of all workers have no incentive whatsoever to stop free copying because they don't get paid based on how many paid copies are sold. those who do get paid based on copies are in the most elite groups of their respective industries, being shareholders, CEOs, and business proprietors. if you're asking me to show sympathy towards millionaires because i'm not helping them become billionaires, that's just nuts.

i think you should think long and hard about the points you're making, because it's really devaluing your position here. also the entire theory of capitalism, now that i think about it.


fewrahuxo said:
actually none of those points have been satisfactorily addressed and as far as i'm aware many of those subjects have been dropped by those who have lacked an interest in arguing against them.

every point you have quoted all create a great body of evidence that this is a very bad rule, and in the absence of systemically dismantling each and every point, the reasoning for the rule is exceptionally weak when compared to the reasons against.

in fact, it seems to me all those quoted points are insightful enough to call into doubt the entire dogma of policing the Internet for content you don't like. copyright laws are demonstrably flawed, copying is demonstrably not the same as theft, and artists already have several avenues to stop the unauthorized copying of their work to the point where this is a redundant rule, especially given that e621 very much is an archive and has an obligation to keep it an archive and not selectively choose what types of high-quality materials it chooses to archive.

*sigh*

e621 is an archive, it shouldn't delete content

It's not an archive, and content gets deleted all the time, most of the time far more trivial reasons than "The artist hasn't accepted to have his/her paid art made publicly available".

If we can pirate the same content from elsewhere, there's no reason for e621 to remove it

Mario69 said:
We aren't exactly stopping piracy here, but simply refuse to host pirated content. It's up to artists and creators to handle piracy themselves.

There's no proof that publically posting 2+ years old art would mean a loss of revenue for the artists

The burden of proof would be on your side for that one.

Data copy isn't really theft, therefore it's ok

I've answered that one to you directly, if you want to disagree with me on that one, say it.

If artists want to overcharge for their art, people should have a right to distribute it for free

If you want be sone internet Robin Hood, sure. Doesn't been e621 has to help you with this.

If artists disagree, they can just opt-out via the DNP list

Like the artists should need to worry about checking in here just to make sure their art doesn't get stolen.

The laws regarding copyright and intellectual property are flawed, therefore it's ok for us to disregard them

For you, maybe, for a legally registered website with ties to actual companies, no.

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

NotMeNotYou said:
Have you ever worked somewhere and then been told you aren't going to get paid for it? It's basically the same.

uh no... but then again, i still live with my aunt & uncle and any money i get from a monthly check (savings account iirc) goes to bills and necessities. within the past 2-3 years i've probably paid for maybe 5-15 video games and...that's about it as i do not have money to throw around at luxuries. >:( the rare few times i DO have enough, i use it to actually pay for something instead of pirating it.

and before you go and pull that "entitled" bullshit AGAIN. i WOULD pay if i had the money to pay WITH! but no, i'm poor and my wanting some forms of entertainment instead of living a life of boredom means i'm a criminal. i'm SO entitled!


treos said:
uh no... but then again, i still live with my aunt & uncle and any money i get from a monthly check (savings account iirc) goes to bills and necessities. within the past 2-3 years i've probably paid for maybe 5-15 video games and...that's about it as i do not have money to throw around at luxuries. >:( the rare few times i DO have enough, i use it to actually pay for something instead of pirating it.

and before you go and pull that "entitled" bullshit AGAIN. i WOULD pay if i had the money to pay WITH! but no, i'm poor and my wanting some forms of entertainment instead of living a life of boredom means i'm a criminal. i'm SO entitled!

It's not like the only available entertainment requires payment. There are plenty of free things out there.

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

Strikerman said:
What do you consider right and wrong, then?

depends on who you're asking and a list of other variables.

i have absolutely no problem with cub porn and see it as a harmless alternative (much like shota/loli porn, the fictional drawn kind that is) to irl pedo activities. right/wrong

anti-pedo people view anything even remotely linked to pedophillia as bad and think it should be banned no matter what, even if it DOES actually help things. right/wrong

there is no objective right or wrong to anything. same with morality, ethics, and good/evil. as i said, what one sees as good, another can just as easily see as wrong.

it's merely what the majority (in most cases) agree upon that gets accepted as one or the other.

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

fewrahuxo said:
artists don't have a steady paycheck that's given to them by their employer every month,

Neither do tradies. That doesn't mean you don't pay them.

fewrahuxo said:
and nobody is literally taking that money out of their hand because they're saving a copy of an image to their hard drive.

The end result is the same: Them not getting paid for the thing they made.


Fifteen said:
*sigh*

having to explain yourself is so hard, isn't it?

It's not an archive, and content gets deleted all the time, most of the time far more trivial reasons than "The artist hasn't accepted to have his/her paid art made publicly available".

the Wiki landing page, as edited by the Lead Administrator himself, states explicitly its mission is to archive work:

"Our mission: To archive the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork, regardless of content, for all those who wish to view it."

The burden of proof would be on your side for that one.

the persons who originally instituted this arbitrary rule change have the burden of proof of justifying their arbitrary rule change. extraordinary changes require extraordinary evidence, none of which has been produced.

I've answered that one to you directly, if you want to disagree with me on that one, say it.

you have failed to demonstrate that downloading an image - let's say with a retail price of $20 - is directly taking $20 away from the artist themself. nobody is obliged to spend any money on materials that can had for free, and the only argument against this practical truth is based on impractical morality, which is based on cultural norms and not objective truth.

artists who believe that downloading copies of their work equals lost sales are free to download millions of copies of their own work and watch in awe as they become a millionaire through the magic of copying. funny enough, nobody argues that not downloading artists work suddenly makes them rich.

If you want be sone internet Robin Hood, sure. Doesn't been e621 has to help you with this.

e621 is already distributing over one million copyrighted works, the vast majority of which without the artist's permission. its existence is very Robin Hood in that manner, and is just an instance of the Internet at work.

Like the artists should need to worry about checking in here just to make sure their art doesn't get stolen.

you keep using the word "stolen". i don't think it means what you think it means. once again, i am waiting for you to demonstrate how copying an artist's image is analogous to stealing real-world physical money from their person.

the site has always upheld, officially or otherwise, it's the artist's burden to opt out of having their content put on e621, and the system is extremely efficient. there is no reason to complain about the system, and to do so is being a white knight for people you don't know.

For you, maybe, for a legally registered website with ties to actual companies, no.

i have my doubts that a copyright-infringing company complacent in the distribution of copyright-infringing materials for several years is "legal".

Strikerman said:
It's not like the only available entertainment requires payment. There are plenty of free things out there.

"poor people shouldn't have access to the same privileges as rich people because they're poor."

we live in an age where anybody can have anything for free at any time. if you want to argue against reality, be my guest.


fewrahuxo said:
"poor people shouldn't have access to the same privileges as rich people because they're poor."

we live in an age where anybody can have anything for free at any time. if you want to argue against reality, be my guest.

That's not what I said in the slightest. That's like saying everyone should be able to own their own Lamborghini just because they want one, or everyone should receive every single game released for free just because they want all of them. Money is traded for goods and services.