This topic is locked.

[Rule Change] All paid content is now DNP forever.

In category: General

Greetings!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


damn, there goes my hoard of artwork i was waiting to age like fine wine.

leomole
Privileged
1 month ago
2014 anthro bottle bottomless cat chair clothed clothing computer desk feline fur girly headphones hoodie inside jailbird leaning leaning_back legwear liam looking_at_viewer looking_back male mammal reclining sitting smile socks solo tan_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 120
User: Onii-chan
Date: May 09, 2014

The loss of accessibility is a shame but I think this is the right decision.


What about the 3 month patreon rule? Is that DNP now too?

It kinda sucks you purged what was already posted, is that including CDs that were uploaded?

As an aside, what if an artist disappears/retires, does their portfolio become able to be uploaded? Surely there should still be a time when works go from protected to public (10 years?).

I think its the right decision moving forward with the site/'company' though.

Edit: what about user translated works?


leomole said:
The loss of accessibility is a shame but I think this is the right decision.

I don't. It lowers the range of influence for the artist.
(and not directly related to above, I pirated stuff and bought it later because I liked it. If I hadn't pirated, I wouldn't have ever saw it and as a result,would not have never bough it.)

Textrix said:
As an aside, what if an artist disappears/retires, does their portfolio become able to be uploaded?

No.


I love the people here complaining that it's now harder to pirate. The entitlement of the untalented is always so amusing.


WhimsicalSquirrel said:
I love the people here complaining that it's now harder to pirate. The entitlement of the untalented is always so amusing.

Wrong thread? I see nothing of the sort in here.


This is exceedingly flawed.

What about deceased artists? All artists who made the agreements and DNPs of specific content on this site 7 years ago were pretty freaking okay with it.

You're making a massive mess for no reason and removing a massive section of this database that is being claimed to be hosting quality works.

The two year situation was acceptable by the artists because, lets face it, two years down the road, people don't tend to care anymore.

You're only enforcing the act of piracy. People who want it NOW will get it NOW, and the two year lockdown was plenty to keep some people from doing so. With a forever ban on it, you're encouraging the piracy of new and old content alike.

This is like helping someone who is broke down on the side of the street by slashing their tires and driving off.


Daneasaur said:
This is exceedingly flawed.

What about deceased artists? All artists who made the agreements and DNPs of specific content on this site 7 years ago were pretty freaking okay with it.

You're making a massive mess for no reason and removing a massive section of this database that is being claimed to be hosting quality works.

The two year situation was acceptable by the artists because, lets face it, two years down the road, people don't tend to care anymore.

You're only enforcing the act of piracy. People who want it NOW will get it NOW, and the two year lockdown was plenty to keep some people from doing so. With a forever ban on it, you're encouraging the piracy of new and old content alike.

This is like helping someone who is broke down on the side of the street by slashing their tires and driving off.

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

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


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?

because artificially restricting the distribution of infinitely reproducible materials is upholding the fuck-you-got-mine mentality that online artists possess.

it's selfish to remove the actual benefit that your site's users get for the theoretical benefit that artists get.

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.


Jesus!

I understand the reasoning, and I'll admit I've always found the 2 year rule to be somewhat arbitrary, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd have liked to get a warning before deleting 1500 posts like that.


fewrahuxo said:
because artificially restricting the distribution of infinitely reproducible materials is upholding the fuck-you-got-mine mentality that online artists possess.

it's selfish to remove the actual benefit that your site's users get for the theoretical benefit that artists get.

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.

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.

Edit: It's also flat out closes a couple cans of worms regarding the DMCA, copyrighted content, and how we most certainly aren't licensed by most furry artists to host their commercial contents. But, you know, why would we want to comply with the law?

Fifteen said:
Jesus!

I understand the reasoning, and I'll admit I've always found the 2 year rule to be somewhat arbitrary, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd have liked to get a warning before deleting 1500 posts like that.

2500 posts. And that is exactly the reason why there wasn't a warning.


Consider this:
Avatar has been out for about 8 years now. That's more than 2 years, is it still OK to download off of plunderer dock?
The answer is no. Piracy is piracy, until it legally becomes public domains.


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.

2500 posts. And that is exactly the reason why there wasn't a warning.

So how old do posts have to be to be deleted?


Welp, a whole bunch of artists are going to get a lot less people seeing their work.

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?

Because there's no intrinsic value of smut. Also, nice strawman.
"Pirate only want free shit!" basically ignores the fact that people do not feel like drawn porn is worth the money people are asking. At that point, it's up to the sites/artists is question to make their offers worth the asking price or pound sand.


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?

artists don't automatically get compensation for their work by virtue of putting it out there, and users aren't entitled to tell them what to make. in the former case that's theft of the audience's money, and in the latter case that's slavery of the artist's talents.

the fact that their work is digitally distributed is reason enough share it far and wide. digital work, by its very nature, can have as many copies manufactured at zero cost to anybody who copies it.

an artist who creates work that can be copied forever should not be surprised when their work is copied forever. to rebel against this is to turn back the tide with a bucket.

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.

you can make numbers say whatever they want to the point of meaninglessness. anecdotal evidence from game developers mean nothing to me. in the first case, they have a confirmation bias and are likely to only seek out information that fits their worldview. in the second place, to imply that everybody who copied a video game was going to pay for that video game shows a special lack of understanding of reality.

i know a friend from Brazil, and the video game industry down there is not very good. nobody pays for anything because they're all too poor too. in fact, if you were to spend $60 on a piece of software instead of, say, food, you would be called a massive idiot, or barring that, rich as hell. to say that everybody should be forced to pay for luxury products, especially those products that cost $0 to manufacture, is a sign of immense privilege.

i wonder though why you bring up video games when they have nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of digital artists having their work copied? you do realize they are completely different industries?

i recommend the lead administrator of a site whose existence is based around the copying of other people's work not complain about users copying that work. edit: and the DMCA doesn't protect the site's administration from uploading copyrighted materials, so i hope no prosecutors notice the 934 uploads from the lead administrator. of course, if they do, i also recommend you have written permission for all 934 instances of copyrighted materials before the court case hits.


CloverTheSaboteur said:
So how old do posts have to be to be deleted?

Any age. Unless they have been released into the public domain, of course.


"Because there's no intrinsic value of smut."
"But I'm still going to bitch and whine because someone took some away from me."

The userbase wonders why artists hate it and so many hop on DNP.


NotMeNotYou said:
Any age. Unless they have been released into the public domain, of course.

ie, life of the artist+70 years

👏👏👏


NotMeNotYou said:
Any age. Unless they have been released into the public domain, of course.

Patreon Art Grave, e621 , Furry Fandom - 2017 (Colorized)


TheTundraTerror said:
ie, life of the artist+70 years



Patreon artists on here are fucked

(EDIT: damn now this site is turning to communism, we're all fucked)


This should apply to monetized YT videos too. It may be public but your site is taking away views that earn the creators money through non private means.


Ratte said:
"Because there's no intrinsic value of smut."
"But I'm still going to bitch and whine because someone took some away from me."

The userbase wonders why artists hate it and so many hop on DNP.

Don't put word in my mouth.

I don't give a shit if someone wants to take their ball and go home. I made it clear that artists are only hurting themselves and that it's the artist's job to prove why I should whip out my credit card when I can access plenty of high quality porn for free.


NotMeNotYou said:
Any age. Unless they have been released into the public domain, of course.

I'd be wary of using the term 'public domain' as just because an artist is uploading to FA or Pixiv doesn't mean that they are Public Domain. They are publicly avaliable, but the artists still own any copyright provided by being its artist. Basically if you don't own it and you cant use it to make money then it's not public domain.


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

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

It seems more like he's making the point that in two years no one's going to buy two year old furry porn regardless of where it is or isn't available for free.

Another rather valid point I saw brought up that wasn't addressed was when artists die or disappear. Artists, especially in this community, have been known to just randomly go into DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING mode and nuke their artwork where ever they have the ability to do so and then totally fall off the face of the planet. Now this is one "archive" that they don't have to even worry about any longer because now it won't even attempt to fulfill its purpose.

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 website is the most popular furry archive because it's been the largest and because art from decades past have been safely housed here, regardless of what happened to the artist. Now? It sure does seem like the administration is on its way to turning this from an archive and into a crap version of Fur Affinity where artists have all the power and anything perceived as negative by anyone gets deleted or hidden by the artists.

This move won't bring back most, if any, of the DNP artists that claim to have DNP'd for this reason and other artists will find other excuses to DNP in the future, assuming they even care for a reason so I find there to be just no point in this move now, seems more like you're just harming your own credibility as an archive by willfully removing this stuff. IT's gone from "Oh, they'll get it eventually" to "Don't bother with that place, it doesn't even have anything good."


CloverTheSaboteur said:
Patreon artists on here are fucked

(EDIT: damn now this site is turning to communism, we're all fucked)

i think the problem with communism is that there's too much scarcity. if one wants to come up with a form of communism where everybody gets all their food, their land, their houses... well, that would be paradise, wouldn't it?

funny enough that's how the Internet works for the most part. everybody gets whatever they want on here at no cost (aside from certain non-essential online services, of course). perhaps you could dismantle the Internet for being too communist?

and, you know, maybe the site itself, for freeing us from our class struggle esthetic burdens.


fewrahuxo said:
artists don't automatically get compensation for their work by virtue of putting it out there, and users aren't entitled to tell them what to make. in the former case that's theft of the audience's money, and in the latter case that's slavery of the artist's talents.

the fact that their work is digitally distributed is reason enough share it far and wide. digital work, by its very nature, can have as many copies manufactured at zero cost to anybody who copies it.

an artist who creates work that can be copied forever should not be surprised when their work is copied forever. to rebel against this is to turn back the tide with a bucket.

If this went past you let me reiterate that we're talking about commercial content. Content being produced and then sold by artists. We no longer host products intended for sale. The purchase has a monetary value attached to it because the artist says so. The only thing we have any say on is whether or not it's worth our money to buy it, or not.

If an artist eventually realizes a different venue or strategy gives a larger profit is up to them, it is simply not up to us to tell them what to do.

fewrahuxo said:
you can make numbers say whatever they want to the point of meaninglessness. anecdotal evidence from game developers mean nothing to me. in the first case, they have a confirmation bias and are likely to only seek out information that fits their worldview. in the second place, to imply that everybody who copied a video game was going to pay for that video game shows a special lack of understanding of reality.

i know a friend from Brazil, and the video game industry down there is not very good. nobody pays for anything because they're all too poor too. in fact, if you were to spend $60 on a piece of software instead of, say, food, you would be called a massive idiot, or barring that, rich as hell. to say that everybody should be forced to pay for luxury products, especially those products that cost $0 to manufacture, is a sign of immense privilege.

i wonder though why you bring up video games when they have nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of digital artists having their work copied? you do realize they are completely different industries?

i recommend the lead administrator of a site whose existence is based around the copying of other people's work not complain about users copying that work. edit: and the DMCA doesn't protect the site's administration from uploading copyrighted materials, so i hope no prosecutors notice the 934 uploads from the lead administrator. of course, if they do, i also recommend you have written permission for all 934 instances of copyrighted materials before the court case hits.

A digitally created and distributed product is compared to a different type of digitally created and distributed product.
I can't help you understand statistics if you think numbers are meaningless and are unable to show or demonstrate trends.

As for the Brazil thing, I'm aware of that, but that is not something we can influence. It's also not relevant, if you're miffed at capitalism in general please run for election as a politician and change how the economy works.

fewrahuxo said:
i recommend the lead administrator of a site whose existence is based around the copying of other people's work not complain about users copying that work. edit: and the DMCA doesn't protect the site's administration from uploading copyrighted materials, so i hope no prosecutors notice the 934 uploads from the lead administrator. of course, if they do, i also recommend you have written permission for all 934 instances of copyrighted materials before the court case hits.

The issue is far more finely grained than I am willing to explain to you. Suffice to say no content I uploaded will bring me trouble in front of a jury.


NotMeNotYou said:
If this went past you let me reiterate that we're talking about commercial content. Content being produced and then sold by artists. We no longer host products intended for sale. The purchase has a monetary value attached to it because the artist says so. The only thing we have any say on is whether or not it's worth our money to buy it, or not.

Bold mine. Sorry, but in the real world, things only have value if other people think so. I can inject paint into my rectum, assblast all over a canvas, and say it's worth $50.


Guys why don't we just move to FA now? At least on Fa you can actually earn money for your hard work. At this point the staff is just enslaving the artists now and inb4 NotMeNotYou responds to this comment:

You realize artists put hard work into there art and they can't be rewarded? Wtf People will go to other websites if this keeps happening, you guys are turning into nazis


TheTundraTerror said:
Don't put word in my mouth.

I don't give a shit if someone wants to take their ball and go home. I made it clear that artists are only hurting themselves and that it's the artist's job to prove why I should whip out my credit card when I can access plenty of high quality porn for free.

I'm only putting the words in your mouth that you're using. If they taste bad, don't use them.

Artists aren't hurting themselves over a site restricting access to content you should already be paying to view. Those who want to pay can do so, those who don't can find something else to touch themselves to on lonely saturday nights.

Wowee, logic.


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

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

You seem to forget the power your own DNP allows, such as the restricting of images posted to X website as being forever DNP while stuff uploaded to their FA is free to post.

You also completely ignored my statement on deceased artists.

But hey, what do I know?

TheoryAnon said:
This should apply to monetized YT videos too. It may be public but your site is taking away views that earn the creators money through non private means.

Why stop there? All commissioned images should be banned since they are paid content. Same with filled out YCH images since we didn't pay for it and they are indeed pay-to-complete content.

All manga and dojins are also to be removed because ALL of them are made with the intent to sell, so they should be removing those as well.

AnotherDay said:
It seems more like he's making the point that in two years no one's going to buy two year old furry porn regardless of where it is or isn't available for free.

Another rather valid point I saw brought up that wasn't addressed was when artists die or disappear. Artists, especially in this community, have been known to just randomly go into DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING mode and nuke their artwork where ever they have the ability to do so and then totally fall off the face of the planet. Now this is one "archive" that they don't have to even worry about any longer because now it won't even attempt to fulfill its purpose.

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 website is the most popular furry archive because it's been the largest and because art from decades past have been safely housed here, regardless of what happened to the artist. Now? It sure does seem like the administration is on its way to turning this from an archive and into a crap version of Fur Affinity where artists have all the power and anything perceived as negative by anyone gets deleted or hidden by the artists.

This move won't bring back most, if any, of the DNP artists that claim to have DNP'd for this reason and other artists will find other excuses to DNP in the future, assuming they even care for a reason so I find there to be just no point in this move now, seems more like you're just harming your own credibility as an archive by willfully removing this stuff. IT's gone from "Oh, they'll get it eventually" to "Don't bother with that place, it doesn't even have anything good."

This. e621 is on a lot of people's lists of "don't go there" because of the administration's constant switching around of rules. Word of this specific change has gotten out and NO ONE is happy about it because it's pointless and rips the guts out of one of the main reasons people go here.

There are tons of "vintage" images here that are defended to the death "because they are old".

But now rules from the same period in time are going to be ignored because... Artists don't want to add themselves to the DNP?

Pretty soon, this archive is just going to have stuff like this as it's legacy.

e621.net/post/show/317023