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.

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.

Ratte said:
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.

You two are giving me cancer

Textrix said:
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?

Well, copyrights expire eventually... so for commissioned works, 70 years after the artist dies, it's fair game.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

Hope this helps! *laughter*

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."

I agree to this the hell even patrion is banning accounts that sell pornographic drawings. all of them...... :0

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?

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

Bullshit you aren't. People have no issue with the art being "taken away". What people have an issue with is the "logic" and "rational" behind it. But hey, strawman harder.

Ratte said:
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.

When you're entire career as a pr0n artists relies on "getting as much attention and eyeballs as possible", yeah, less exposure kinda dings you over.

Also, more to the point, none of the admins seem willing to touch on Patreon question. Seriously, people are willing to just give money straight to artists so they can make art.

Shadowsoffate42 said:
I agree to this the hell even patrion its banning accounts that sell pornographic drawings all of them

Is the Internet finally putting a end to all this,porn? Huzzah!

CloverTheSaboteur said:
You two are giving me cancer

Neat.

TheTundraTerror said:
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.

See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not. However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take a copy of it home for free anyway.

If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

CloverTheSaboteur said:
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

A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this, I assume less than that will be deleted for the same reason as time goes on. If you think we're nazis because of this I'd like to remind you that we've deleted many, many times that amount for quality reasons.

NotMeNotYou said:
See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not. However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take it home for free.

If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this, I assume less than that will be deleted for the same reason as time goes on. If you think we're nazis because of this I'd like to remind you that we've deleted many, many times that amount for quality reasons.

e621 go home your drunk.

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

Haha. Using snark to hide the fact you don't have a valid point and are coming to a hasty generalization of what they're actually saying instead of actually considering what they're really saying.

Ratte said:
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.

I don't know about that. I've personally discovered through this site alone artists that I've commissioned as well as artists I know for a fact my friends have commissioned exclusively due to the paid content that was here because it was easy to find and access so we didn't have to go digging to see their best stuff. I can only imagine the amount of other people that've done the same. It's good to see more than just random sketches or to be able to see full on comics from certain artists in order to gauge just what they actually are capable of, even if it's from two years ago.

Ratte said:
Wowee, logic.

You're just full of snark today, huh?

It pains me to admit that it is the right thing to do.
"My mind is telling me no but my body... my body's telling telling me yes."

so, e621 has joined the anti-piracy fight...an entirely futile battle that will never fully be won. and on a site like this, it's a given such a rule would lead to drama.

oh and as for the "entitlement" argument... i guess that means luxuries such as art and video games and other stuff are only meant for the priveleged, rich, few of society.

for those of us without money to throw at such things we're just supposed to shut up and deal with while living boring, lame, lives with little to no entertainment. yeah...we're SO entitled because we try to get things the rich can afford despite not having enough green for such things.

i've heard so many anti-piracy arguments over the years and just about every one of them is like listening to the speaker talk with a steady stream of brown shit gurgle out of their mouth while they try to make those their talking to feel bad and ashamed at what they've done.

well, the internet provides and there's almost always other sites we can find this content at. :P piracy is one thing never has nor will be fully stopped or prevented no matter what anyone does.

NotMeNotYou said:
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.

i think that's the crux of the issue right there then: how one is aware of the fact that the majority of users on this site cannot afford to pay for content, and how the majority of Internet users worldwide have no way to pay for content, and yet one is restricting the redistribution of this work because... it hurts sales that literally would have never existed in the first place.

what other users have posted is absolutely correct: one cannot claim to be an archive of work and then artificially restrict which work deserves to be posted on that archive. i argued in the past that i would appreciate if more extreme content would be removed, but that's just out of politeness and good taste and other subjective things.

the objective value of e621 is that is provides so much history and so much great work to so many people at no cost to them, even refusing donations to the site, and to take away a reasonable rule, if also a flawed rule, is to take away one of the pillars that have kept the site operating up to this time.

not even having a discussion about this policy before implementing it has left a bad taste in many users mouths, even those silent lurkers who usually don't post on the forums, especially with the removal of thousands of pictures in an instant. who would agree to such wide-sweeping changes without so much as a courtesy post? who asked for this?

and the argument about capitalism has no bearing on this site, where there are hundreds of thousands pieces of artwork that require no money whatsoever to browse and download. there's nothing capitalistic about work being available for free.

TheTundraTerror said:
Bullshit you aren't. People have no issue with the art being "taken away". What people have an issue with is the "logic" and "rational" behind it. But hey, strawman harder.

Crying about pay content getting removed is still crying about pay content getting removed. Piracy even after two years is still piracy. That is the long and short of the logic behind the decision. Just because other sites willingly host pirated content doesn't mean we have to as well.

TheTundraTerror said:
When you're entire career as a pr0n artists relies on "getting as much attention and eyeballs as possible", yeah, less exposure kinda dings you over.

Also, more to the point, none of the admins seem willing to touch on Patreon question. Seriously, people are willing to just give money straight to artists so they can make art.

People just ripping your content (see: piracy) is probably not going to help your business. Plenty of artists post public versions of their content or have some kind of public content in general. I have also seen many that have monthly wrap-ups on Patreon to release the previous month's images to the public.

NotMeNotYou said:
See, I disagree with that in part. If you put a price on it, other people can decide whether it's worth the price tag or not, by either buying it or not.

Sure, but it doesn't mean it's worth the price they're asking for it. Whoever owns the rights to all those LucasArts games could put each of them on Steam for $60 and, sure, some people will buy it. Doesn't mean it's worth it, though.

NotMeNotYou said:
However, you can't just say that it's not worth the purchase, then take it home for free.

Yes, I can, because art doesn't have any intrinsic value to society. It doesn't provide any role or need that humanity as a whole requires. Art is purely self serving.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you think something isn't worth the money don't buy or consume it, get something different instead that you think is worth the money.

You're right, I can get something else I think is worth it. And guess what? There's more than enough for me to do without.

fewrahuxo said:
i think that's the crux of the issue right there then: how one is aware of the fact that the majority of users on this site cannot afford to pay for content, and how the majority of Internet users worldwide have no way to pay for content, and yet one is restricting the redistribution of this work because... it hurts sales that literally would have never existed in the first place.

what other users have posted is absolutely correct: one cannot claim to be an archive of work and then artificially restrict which work deserves to be posted on that archive. i argued in the past that i would appreciate if more extreme content would be removed, but that's just out of politeness and good taste and other subjective things.

the objective value of e621 is that is provides so much history and so much great work to so many people at no cost to them, even refusing donations to the site, and to take away a reasonable rule, if also a flawed rule, is to take away one of the pillars that have kept the site operating up to this time.

not even having a discussion about this policy before implementing it has left a bad taste in many users mouths, even those silent lurkers who usually don't post on the forums, especially with the removal of thousands of pictures in an instant. who would agree to such wide-sweeping changes without so much as a courtesy post? who asked for this?

and the argument about capitalism has no bearing on this site, where there are hundreds of thousands pieces of artwork that require no money whatsoever to browse and download. there's nothing capitalistic about work being available for free.

Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.

CloverTheSaboteur said:
Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.

it's already out there, isn't it? i think the drama this sudden rule change causes outweighs the also theoretical harm of having the work of artists archived by nobodies. also, when did the e621 admins become white knights about this sort of thing? i always thought they had these rules because they would get sued otherwise, not because of a moral imperative.

TheTundraTerror said:
Yes, I can, because art doesn't have any intrinsic value to society. It doesn't provide any role or need that humanity as a whole requires. Art is purely self serving.

this hurts me deeply because a lot of things i like don't have any value to society, but i can see where you're coming from.

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?

That 8ch thread makes me kek.

I don't use 8chan but here is my reply because I am pretty sure they are watching this thread.

>warns no one

So the site doesn't get killed with mass downloading, because we knew people would do it.
Ever see those "save it before it is deleted!" people? For every one of those, there are 10 others who save it without saying that.

>enforces mass banning

No one is being banned or warned. Since this is a rule change, only the images are being deleted. However warnings will be issued for people uploading such content after this rule was updated.
If you get impacted by the dreaded negative upload limit, contact staff and it will be corrected.

>if it was pay at any time, it's DNP

Unless it's copyright expires or the artists makes it publicly available.

>except when it's free
>except when it's pay

wot

>doesn't consider deceased artists who agreeed with the 7 year ago rules

Dead men tell no tales.
They never signed a legal agreement, we must assume they did not know of e621. If someone has had the copyright passed to them and they file a DMCA or sue e621, it will not legally stand in court that "we assumed they agree'd to that rule".

>showcases a continued lack of brains and flick of the wrist type decisions that pull the rug out from everyone

This rule was discussed with staff, it was a group decision and was ultimately decided that it would be best for the site legal wise, as well as artists.
Lots of stuff is discussed and thoroughly thought out before we do rule changes like this.

edit: kek i knew it.

Ratte said:
Crying about pay content getting removed is still crying about pay content getting removed. Piracy even after two years is still piracy. That is the long and short of the logic behind the decision. Just because other sites willingly host pirated content doesn't mean we have to as well.

Cool, more strawmans. How many times do I have to say that my issue is with the logic and reasoning before it gets through to you?

Ratte said:
People just ripping your content (see: piracy) is probably not going to help your business. Plenty of artists post public versions of their content or have some kind of public content in general. I have also seen many that have monthly wrap-ups on Patreon to release the previous month's images to the public.

Hey, remember when the EU commissioned and suppressed a half million dollar, 300-page study that found piracy didn't hurt sales?

Reda said:
"With the exception of recently released blockbusters, there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales,"

AnotherDay said:

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.

Was this e621's purpose? An archive? I've been here 8 years or so. Never got that vibe.

Hey, on that note, why not just make it so ONLY artists can upload their own stuff, huh?

How would one do this, technically?

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.

Again, I don't think people come here because it's an archive of furry art.

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."

I'd wager that most people coming here aren't that deep into the fandom to be involved in this kind of drama. They just like looking at furry smut. And the world keeps cranking out artists. Those that won't post here are easily replaced.

TheTundraTerror said:
Cool, more strawmans. How many times do I have to say that my issue is with the logic and reasoning before it gets through to you?

And the logic was explained. Your dislike of the explanation doesn't make the explanation less of one, nor does it negate the rule change.

TheTundraTerror said:
Hey, remember when the EU commissioned and suppressed a half million dollar, 300-page study that found piracy didn't hurt sales?

Does that magically mean we're obligated to host pay content? The previous rule was an arbitrary one that was put in place back when things like art CDs and other hardcopies were distributed. Since that isn't so much the case anymore, the rule was changed to better reflect on the change of times and means of distribution.

You are all losing out on a tiny fraction of a percent. Surely you'll find some way to survive.

Helo 8ch! I'm also janitor! I lurk there sometimes! Remember that furaffinity still sucks most!

I'm actually bit dissapointed in this reaction for this change, overall this is move towards making the site more friendly to both creating and consuming parties.

Just as reminder that majority of the content that is being posted on the site is already freely distributed, so there won't be much actual change to the amount or quality of the content. This has been one of the reason why I have been vividly sourcing and swearing on those who do not source properly. Artists could already use our takedown system to get rid of their paid content to begin with and there has been even free artwork which has been posted here without permission and then takedowned years later because artist wasn't aware of it being distributed here.

The paid content that are posted here are usually mirrored from other piracy sites already, especially dojins seem to have tons of websites dedicated just for that. Only thing I personally was thinking was the insanely old, only physically released content, because there are some especially multimedia content which haven't survived so well before the massive online storage spaces. Then again, enforcing same ruling does sound much better. If I learned how to pirate nintendo roms as elementary schooler, I'm almost certain that grown adults can learn to pirate their furry pornography if needed.

We can still host paid content, but this still needs explicit permission from the artist directly at which point they most likely release the stuff publicly anyway. If artists have put monetary value on the work they have produced and it's work I want to consume, then it means I have to put money on the table and if the amount is too high, I can choose not to pay it, instead of whining that why can't this specific site host it for free instead.

treos said:
oh and as for the "entitlement" argument... i guess that means luxuries such as art and video games and other stuff are only meant for the priveleged, rich, few of society.

for those of us without money to throw at such things we're just supposed to shut up and deal with while living boring, lame, lives with little to no entertainment. yeah...we're SO entitled because we try to get things the rich can afford despite not having enough green for such things.

Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

CloverTheSaboteur said:
Dude they didn't tell anybody about the rule cause everybody would archive their work.

Well, duh.

NotMeNotYou said:
A total of 0.2% of our content has been purged thanks to this

When you say "purged", do you mean they're deleted from the server?

i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

I don't like it, but it's really the best decision e621 should have made in this situation. No matter how you look at it, its hard to defend against it, it's piracy, illegal, and it hurts probably one of the poorest content creators: artists. It's another discussion entirely about artists who never release their work outside of, say, Patreon or something, but if they never release it but still keep it available, they can still profit off of it. Most artists realize that it's better to not do this and release DNP things all the time, so I don't think we REALLY lost much here.

The only thing I perhaps disagree with on this ruling is that we still lose out on a lot of things that are just very obscure and had limited runs and can barely be found in a consumable state. If you want an example, have a look at my pool 'Love Berry' before it's deleted, its the perfect example of a japanese comic that had a limited, physical run simply because it's a derivative of pokemon copyright, so the artists couldn't put it online and sell it on Booth, for example, or else get copyright strike'd

In the case of this ruling, works like this would truly be lost forever. Thankfully, not all sites do this, so it's easy to find it again, but so many doujinshi is probably lost to time all the time unless someone who bought it comes out of the woodwork and uploads it. I heard from a well known doujinshi translator that the artists generally do not like us foreigners uploading and translating their work as piracy, so yet, the ruling still is fair to them, but it's just hard to accept that so much good work gets limited runs and releases and because they have nowhere to go, they just get lost forever.

Kind of sucks, you know? I wish there was a 'line' to be drawn where it was acceptable to post work that nobody can make money off anymore, but this is probably the best way to handle it anywho, after all. Who can say what the artists want to do with their old work once it's gone? If they really want it online, they'll post it themselves, hopefully.

BlueDingo said:
Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

i think you need to look up the differences between theft and copying, because i don't think hosting content on a website is simultaneously depriving the artist of their ability to use that very same content.

also, fuck poor people, am i right? they shouldn't have a right to enjoy the same things rich people can at no cost to them.

Pendraggon said:
No matter how you look at it, its hard to defend against it, it's piracy, illegal, and it hurts probably one of the poorest content creators: artists.

funny enough, there's no difference between what's morally right and what's legal. for instance, slavery, segregation, and so on were all legal.

the administration also failed to show that artists are directly being deprived of profits as a result of hosting their work on another website.

Daneasaur said:
You also completely ignored my statement on deceased artists.

So I did, we will honor their wishes based on what our correspondence says. But beyond that do we even have deceased artists affected by this? Neither James M. Hardiman nor Doug Winger had any art of theirs deleted.

Daneasaur said:
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.

By definition alone commissioned works aren't commercial works. This might be different in some parts of the world outside of the US but at least in the US the distinction is very clear on that.

treos said:
i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

I am unsure, but as I've said in the OP if your upload limit is negatively affected by this we will increase it for you again.

Ratte said:
The previous rule was an arbitrary one that was put in place back when things like art CDs and other hardcopies were distributed.

Yeah, because digital quality is eternal, eh?

treos said:
i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

If you are hit with the dreaded negative upload limit during this, contact a administrator and it will likely be reset.

BlueDingo said:
Poverty is no excuse for theft. You can very easily live without luxuries of any kind and many forms of entertainment don't have a price tag anyway.

"Wait, what do you mean pirates don't just pay for things they can't pirate?!"

fewrahuxo said:
also, fuck poor people, am i right?

Being one of those poor people myself, yes.

TheTundraTerror said:
"Wait, what do you mean pirates don't just pay for things they can't pirate?!"

If they REALLY need it and all avenues of piracy have been probed, yes.
Why do you think pirates went after treasure? Can't steal everything.

fewrahuxo said:
i think you need to look up the differences between theft and copying, because i don't think hosting content on a website is simultaneously depriving the artist of their ability to use that very same content.

hadn't thought of that. how can digital piracy be considered theft when you're not actually stealing anything, you're simply copying it. by that logic, cloning could also be considered a form of theft in some way.

also, fuck poor people, am i right? they shouldn't have a right to enjoy the same things rich people can at no cost to them.

yep, that's how most anti-piracy people tend to feel from what i've seen over the years.

if you can't pay for it with money then you don't deserve to interact with it in any way.

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.

Acolyte said:
If they REALLY need it and all avenues of piracy have been probed, yes.

People who pirate usually (not always, but usually) had no intention or ability (not everyone wants a credit card) to pay for it in the first place. So, what exactly did you gain?

TheTundraTerror said:
Yeah, because digital quality is eternal, eh?

I can't speak on the rule because it was put in place sometime before I joined. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Huh, only 2500. Far less then I thought there would be.

Ratte said:
I can't speak on the rule because it was put in place sometime before I joined. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not the point, been when has that been the case?

treos said:
hadn't thought of that. how can digital piracy be considered theft when you're not actually stealing anything, you're simply copying it. by that logic, cloning could also be considered a form of theft in some way.

We're not the end consumer. If we host something we distribute it to others for consumption. That is the main issue. We help propagate a problem, and we simply don't want to do that anymore.
Also, printing more money devalues it, this ties into the same issue.

TheTundraTerror said:
People who pirate usually (not always, but usually) had no intention or ability (not everyone wants a credit card) to pay for it in the first place. So, what exactly did you gain?

Yes, this is true. I've pirated crap I've never used.
But for something I really needed, I've paid for. Even with cash.
I know a few other "pirates" who have done the same.

NotMeNotYou said:
We're not the end consumer. If we host something we distribute it to others for consumption. That is the main issue. We help propagate a problem, and we simply don't want to do that anymore.

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

treos said:
hadn't thought of that. how can digital piracy be considered theft when you're not actually stealing anything, you're simply copying it. by that logic, cloning could also be considered a form of theft in some way.

yep, that's how most anti-piracy people tend to feel from what i've seen over the years.

if you can't pay for it with money then you don't deserve to interact with it in any way.

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.

Try to share some ubisoft game online for free for others with your address attached to it and see what happens. I'm almost certain that company nor law see this in any other way than illegal copying of intellectual property and make you pay up so much that being poor doesn't describe it.

Thing is, I used to pirate games when I had small income. Personally I see this on acceptable level still, but nowdays I do have steady income so I will buy every single game I want to consume.

HOWEVER!
That does not make the action itself any less illegal and that does not mean that I have to share those games myself on my website to those who are poor.

There's so much lack of distiction of so many things in this thread it's insane.

treos said:
hadn't thought of that. how can digital piracy be considered theft when you're not actually stealing anything, you're simply copying it. by that logic, cloning could also be considered a form of theft in some way.

yep, that's how most anti-piracy people tend to feel from what i've seen over the years.

if you can't pay for it with money then you don't deserve to interact with it in any way.

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.

You don't "Deserve" entertainment or art. These are not peasants stealing bread after a week of having no food. Artists deserve money more than you or I deserve the fruits of their labor.

NotMeNotYou said:
We're not the end consumer. If we host something we distribute it to others for consumption. That is the main issue. We help propagate a problem, and we simply don't want to do that anymore.

speaking as the end consumer, i find it doubtful you simply decided to reverse a longstanding policy out of the blue with no outside factors as play. and also as the end consumer, there was a great deal of pay content - or otherwise conditional dnp i very much enjoy and have found many good artists as a result of that content, even having the dnp policy affect some of the work i have personally uploaded.

Also, printing more money devalues it, this ties into the same issue.

you're absolutely right. we need to restrict e621 to only have ten users online at the same time, because having more users devalues e621's membership.

Fenrick said:
You don't "Deserve" entertainment or art. These are not peasants stealing bread after a week of having no food.

spend a weekend in jail and see if you still think you don't "deserve" entertainment.

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

If you want to still show off artists, ask them if they're willing to make exceptions--For example, a Conditional DNP for "Two years after publishing." If an artist is okay with it, they'll let the site staff know.