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

Are you suggesting that there is no free entertainment? Or that everything that can make you happy costs money? Or that not having paid things causes suffering?

So what if we can't freely view art that was never intended to be viewed freely? If the artist wants to restrict their art to paying customers only, that's their choice. If they lose followers because of that, that's their problem. There's so much freely available art here that losing the paid stuff makes little difference to us. You're still gonna be able to find things you want to see.

treos said:
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.

But you have to remember that this is literally some artists livelihood. You can maybe justify (though i'm not saying to do it) pirating something like video games from super big companies that do not really need your money at all, compared to a small artist who is probably trying to turn their hobby into a job. And if it's on something like Patreon, and it never gets posted, then there is profit to be made by someone who pays to see it.

It's up to the artist to decide if they want their works to be interacted with, without paying money. Look at blitzdrachin, you can get his works early by paying, or for free by waiting. Your argument "they'd rather you suffer and be bored for your entire life if you can't pay for it." directly applied to ARTISTS in this case.

Look, I don't want to say this, but acting like you deserve to see paid artwork because "you suffer and be bored for your entire life if you can't pay for it." is very entitled. It's not YOUR RIGHT to see paid works for free. However, it's the artists right to post it and control how it affects their income. This isn't a robin hood situation you guys are making it out to be, where you make it available to the poor masses to consume, you're stealing from poor people for your own selfish gains when it comes to this :P.

AnotherDay said:

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.

For this reason, artists release free content along with their paid stuff. Their free work is a "loss leader" to drive clients into their shop, where they can hawk their paid work and get commissions.
If you just discovered the artist, what would you have dug for, anyway?

Mario69 said:
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.

Piracy is an issue of accessibility. Once Spotify got it's ass to Canada, never pirated an album. Once I got converted to the cult of Steam, I never pirated a game... except one. SWAT 4. Which I bought on GOG when it was finally released digitally.

Acolyte said:
For this reason, artists release free content along with their paid stuff. Their free work is a "loss leader" to drive clients into their shop, where they can hawk their paid work and get commissions.
If you just discovered the artist, what would you have dug for, anyway?

Or, you know, they just use Patreon because that's a thing.

fewrahuxo said:
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.

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.

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

Losing some pics on e621 is exactly the same as solitary confinement! You have internet. You are not deprived.

TheTundraTerror said:
Or, you know, they just use Patreon because that's a thing.

They can use patreon while also releasing free content, and releasing their paid content after a time period to supplement it. Look at blitzdrachin for a good example of this.

Fenrick said:
Being deprived of some pics on e621 is exactly the same as solitary confinement! You have internet. You are not deprived.

i'm sorry, i thought you were stating that we should simply abolish all forms of entertainment because none of us deserve it. that does seem to be the tone of your original post.

Pendraggon said:
They can use patreon while also releasing free content, and releasing their paid content after a time period to supplement it. Look at blitzdrachin for a good example of this.

Most creators who use Patreon tend to release anything to patrons first, then post it publicity like a day or two later.

TheTundraTerror said:
Or, you know, they just use Patreon because that's a thing.

I can also use ebay to sell my stuff, but hell, why not put up my own ecommerce site?
Not everyone wants to pay a middleman.

You need to update https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:rules .

Please note that paid content over 2 years old is acceptable to post if it doesn't break any other rules.

Acolyte said:
I can also use ebay to sell my stuff, but hell, why not put up my own ecommerce site?
Not everyone wants to pay a middleman.

ayy look shit

Patreon is no different than signing up to a paysite like Hardblush. Only difference is you can support the artists you like directly.

Seriously, you want artists to be paid but don't want to deal with a middleman? Patreon just streamlines things.

you know, reading a lot of these posts make me realize the fundamental disconnect between e621 administration and the users they claim to support. i would like it very much if this site not go the way of FurAffinity and end up being a situation where admins make decisions arbitrarily and with no user input whatsoever, changing rules on a whim without so much as prelude.

the only way such a situation like this can occur is if e621 has no idea what it's doing and has no plan for the future, just doing things and seeing what happens for no real reason. it would be nice to have a roadmap or a mission statement, or really anything at all so these decisions don't come as a complete surprise to so many people.

TheTundraTerror said:
Most creators who use Patreon tend to release anything to patrons first, then post it publicity like a day or two later.

i think i misunderstood your original post, i think we both agree that this is good :p

fewrahuxo said:
you know, reading a lot of these posts make me realize the fundamental disconnect between e621 administration and the users they claim to support. i would like it very much if this site not go the way of FurAffinity and end up being a situation where admins make decisions arbitrarily and with no user input whatsoever, changing rules on a whim without so much as prelude.

the only way such a situation like this can occur is if e621 has no idea what it's doing and has no plan for the future, just doing things and seeing what happens for no real reason. it would be nice to have a roadmap or a mission statement, or really anything at all so these decisions don't come as a complete surprise to so many people.

I hope you realize this is different, this is more e621 wanting to not be liable for anything illegal that gets posted here. It shouldn't be our decision in the first place because we don't own e621.

Pendraggon said:
I hope you realize this is different, this is more e621 wanting to not be liable for anything illegal that gets posted here. It shouldn't be our decision in the first place because we don't own e621.

i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

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. I mean, Kabier was doing pretty well on Patreon despite releasing her comics for free.

I avoid Patreon as a topic because I don't know what the issue is supposed to be. If something is behind a reward tier it's paid content. If something isn't behind a reward tier it's free content and free to be posted here.
The fact that people lock specific versions of their art behind a paywall is a thing they can do. If at some point something goes from behind that paywall into the public then we will host it as well.

fewrahuxo said:
you know, reading a lot of these posts make me realize the fundamental disconnect between e621 administration and the users they claim to support. i would like it very much if this site not go the way of FurAffinity and end up being a situation where admins make decisions arbitrarily and with no user input whatsoever, changing rules on a whim without so much as prelude.

the only way such a situation like this can occur is if e621 has no idea what it's doing and has no plan for the future, just doing things and seeing what happens for no real reason. it would be nice to have a roadmap or a mission statement, or really anything at all so these decisions don't come as a complete surprise to so many people.

The reason for the decision is in the OP. Liability, our desire to ensure we stay running, and the desire to support the people who actually create our content in the first place.

Artists are users as well, and sometimes when there is an imbalance in privileges we need to restore that balance.

BlueDingo said:
Are you suggesting that there is no free entertainment? Or that everything that can make you happy costs money? Or that not having paid things causes suffering?

simply pointing out how this world primarily revolves around 2 things: greed and how much of X currency you have.

and if you don't have enough of X currency then the world says F YOU! this particular case doesn't have anything to do with greed but still revolves solely around money.

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

The persistence of the website overall.
2500 pieces of art is a fraction of the content. If removing it mitigates problems down the line, then heave ho.

treos said:
simply pointing out how this world primarily revolves around 2 things: greed and how much of X currency you have.

and if you don't have enough of X currency then the world says F YOU! this particular case doesn't have anything to do with greed but still revolves solely around money.

Whose money is more important? Yours or the artists? Should we help the artists to earn an income doing what they like doing, or should we help you save money by facilitating piracy?

I'd rather support the producer so they can keep producing, than the consumer who can simply consume something different.

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

Because it's always been this way?? I don't mean in the way of not allowing dnp no matter what, but I mean in having a stance on not allowing dnp before two years. The reason they had this rule be two years instead of forever in the first place is because most content could legitimately become lost forever. Now that this isn't the case, they changed the rule to make it so artists could decide when they want their paid content to show up here. (Which most usually do, by the way.)

You have to remember that you don't have a right to see this art if the artist didn't want it being seen for free. If you do think that, then you're acting very entitled. Because you have to remember it's now artists fault for not posting their art for free. All e621 has done is remove itself from that process to give more power to the artists.

Knowing that, I don't understand why you, most likely a consumer and supporter of furry art and artists, are arguing that we, not the owner, creator or holder of an artist's artwork, should control how they distribute their artwork and affect their livelihood, do you seriously think that? If you do, then go annoy the artist who doesn't release their art for free, because all that's changed now, is that e621 has removed itself from the equation and gave all the power to the artist.

TheTundraTerror said:
Piracy is an issue of accessibility. Once Spotify got it's ass to Canada, never pirated an album. Once I got converted to the cult of Steam, I never pirated a game... except one. SWAT 4. Which I bought on GOG when it was finally released digitally.

That is really big factor yes. That's why I kinda like patreon as it has made it much easier to give money to artists and other content creators outside furry fandom, including websites and personalities - and especially like it when content is already free regardless if I choose to support them or not.

TheTundraTerror said:
Most creators who use Patreon tend to release anything to patrons first, then post it publicity like a day or two later.

Some do keep stuff like PSD source files and ultra HD stuff behind higher tiers and give them only to paying customers and this is pretty much understantable. Again, it's their content, some artists choose not to give those out even if they do not have any patreons or similar, many commissioners keep highest quality variations private.
But it does seem like free stuff is still usually viewable without the "is this for ants" effect and majority seem fine with it, which is one reason why many don't even seek out to pirate the content in higher quality after it's being published freely.

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

Gee, I wonder when I can get games for free directly from steam, because right now, I have to buy everything and that's not that much privileges that I could have.

Reading all of your arguments feels like you are trying to make some sort of example to make your argument seem allright, even though in reality it's not that great. You're not a troll?

Ouch! Right in the upload limit.

I kinda prefer this simpler rule.

Arkham_Horror said:
Ouch! Right in the upload limit.

I kinda prefer this simpler rule.

Let us know if it hurts too much and we'll increase it again.

Well, looks like I'm now moving to a site that isn't shit. Sadness.

NotMeNotYou said:
I avoid Patreon as a topic because I don't know what the issue is supposed to be.

Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

NotMeNotYou said:
If something isn't behind a reward tier it's free content and free to be posted here.

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is images that are only available for people who pay the artists before being released publicly 1-2 days later.

NotMeNotYou said:
The fact that people lock specific versions of their art behind a paywall is a thing they can do. If at some point something goes from behind that paywall into the public then we will host it as well.

Okay, but what about all the stuff that's been available here for years? Stuff that's already been made available to the public? Apple cart's been well turned the fuck over at this point.

Woah, woah, what kind of strawman piracy debate has this thread devolved into?

People! Regardless of your personal stance on privacy, e6 is still a fairly large and well known public website, meaning they still need to play by the rules because they're notorious enough to get sued.

I find it just as sad to see good art get taken down from here as anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that artists have a right to earn money from the art they make. If you want to put that art up on 4chan so that people get to "fuckin' save" it before the thread sinks and it gets deleted, there's not much anyone can and will do to stop you. E6 is not that, and the bigger it gets, the more (from what I've seen) the people in charge of it realize that they can't pretend not to hear when artists want to keep some of their stuff off from their site.

Debating about whether or not poor people should have the right to watch all the porn or a specific subset of free porn, or whether people should be allowed to name their own price for whatever they make won't change that uploading illegal copies of any content is against the law, and when you make it big, you can't afford to break the law.

TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

If it's released for free then it's now free work and you're able to upload it. That's not a real problem.

feathereddragon said:
Well, looks like I'm now moving to a site that isn't shit. Sadness.

So this site is now shit because of a change that has had no effect on you yet? Of your 1456 favourites, [b]none[/b] were affected by this.

Edit: Oh, and before someone accuses me of posting a faulty link...

Fifteen said:
People! Regardless of your personal stance on privacy, e6 is still a fairly large and well known public website, meaning they still need to play by the rules because they're notorious enough to get sued.

I mean, the DNP list exists for a reason. So long as any takedown requests are fulfilled in a timely manner, e621 keeps it's safe harbor status.

TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is images that are only available for people who pay the artists before being released publicly 1-2 days later.

Okay, but what about all the stuff that's been available here for years? Stuff that's already been made available to the public? Apple cart's been well turned the fuck over at this point.

I've addressed this in my original post in the very last (albeit tiny) sentence. Once something is released to the public it is no longer paid content and free to be posted.
I don't know how else to word it to make it easier to understand.

NotMeNotYou said:
Let us know if it hurts too much and we'll increase it again.

Will do! I think this change cut my limit by about half. Ironically the higher limit was most helpful when posting lengthy doujin.

TheTundraTerror said:
I mean, the DNP list exists for a reason. So long as any takedown requests are fulfilled in a timely manner, e621 keeps it's safe harbor status.

So you're arguing that content from paid sites shouldn't be DNP unless artists specifically file a takedown against it and ask for conditional_dnp?

what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

NotMeNotYou said:
I've addressed this in my original post in the very last (albeit tiny) sentence. Once something is released to the public it is no longer paid content and free to be posted.
I don't know how else to word it to make it easier to understand.

Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

I think it's generally pretty safe to assume that if you're asking people to pay you money for something you've made, you generally don't want people to upload it for free elsewhere.

No? It's all logical fallacies, huh? Whelp, go home, guys, we've got our winner right here.

Fifteen said:
I think it's generally pretty safe to assume that if you're asking people to pay you money for something you've made, you generally don't want people to upload it for free elsewhere.

No? It's all logical fallacies, huh? Whelp, go home, guys, we've got our winner right here.

you haven't directly addressed my argument, but okay, go home if you want.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

For someone who tries his hardest to sound profound you fail to grasp a lot of things. This is about exactly what it says in the OP: The artist's income. You know, the thing I talked about from the beginning. Their income isn't the least affected by mirroring their free content here. By allowing easy access to their paid content we very much throw a wrench into their income.

And in case they don't want their art here we offer the single most efficient and simple takedown procedure on the entire internet as far as I am aware and I had to file quite a few DMCA requests with other pages.

fewrahuxo said:
you haven't directly addressed my argument, but okay, go home if you want.

hey, you never addressed my argument, plus, in response to your argument, e621 listens when people don't want their free art on the site, it's called a takedown request.

I desperately hope you are trolling.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

Has anyone recently claimed that uploading without permission isn't bad?

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".

Officially released by the artist, of course. Just because something has been pirated and distributed doesn't mean it is actually free.

NotMeNotYou said:
For someone who tries his hardest to sound profound you fail to understand a lot of things. This is about exactly what it says in the OP: The artist's income. You know, the thing I talked about from the beginning. Their income isn't the least affected by mirroring their free content here. By allowing easy access to their paid content we very much throw a wrench into their income.

Citation needed. I gave proof of my claim that piracy doesn't hurt artists. Also, take a look at all the artists on Patreon who don't seem to be hurting for cash after releasing their paid work for free mere days after releasing to paid users only. It's not 1985 anymore.

NotMeNotYou said:
Officially released by the artist, of course. Just because something has been pirated and distributed doesn't mean it is actually free.

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

TheTundraTerror said:
Citation needed. I gave proof of my claim that piracy doesn't hurt artists. Also, take a look at all the artists on Patreon who don't seem to be hurting for cash after releasing their paid work for free mere days after releasing to paid users only.

despite multiple requests for evidence that the absence of this rule causes direct harm to artists, i have yet to see any. it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the majority of users in this thread, perhaps because they know they don't have any that passes muster.

i am also disappointed i am being called a "troll" for being one of the only ones in this discussion to care about a minimum standard of rhetoric. may God forbid i care.

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

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

TheTundraTerror said:
Understandable. We fucking only told you multiple times that work funded by Patreon counts as "paid work" despite many artists who use Patreon then releasing this "paid work" for free onto FA. So, according to your rules, those images can't be added to e621 because they were once only for people who paid for it.

You do realize that nothing about definition of paid content has been changed with this rule change, only that the time has been extented from 2 years to public domain.

Paid content is determined with that you have to pay to see the content from original source, not content that has been paid to create.

TheTundraTerror said:
Okay, you talk about stuff posted publicly being fair game. Okay... by who?

I mean, plenty of pay sites have known about e621's 2-year rule and seemingly allowed older works to be hosted here. By (at most) keeping silent about said works being posted here, one could make the claim that the image is now considered "public".

DNP can still be overwritten by permission of the artist of course. If there are artists or paysite which is fine with us hosting their content, they are free to inform about this and we are more than happy to host the content at that point.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny about this thread is that, out of all the people arguing in favor of this awful, arbitrary rule, none of them have suggested that it's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

so the white knights in this thread are willing to listen to some of an artists wishes, but not all of them, thereby confirming that they don't really care about artists at all and instead care more about their own flawed point of view. makes you wonder what the bother is.

It's a bad idea to upload free copies of an artist's work without their permission.

We just go by assumption that the uploader has gotten permission to post the content. Enforcing this would however be near impossible, because of the amount of users uploading content all the time would now require us to manually ask for proof of the permission with every single post. With paid content it's much easier as if there's no possible free source where the content could've come from, then it's most likely paid.

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

So uploading artist artwork on website, which is hosted on country that don't have to respect DMCA, suddenly makes everything free game?
Or what BlueDingo said, internet is pretty big place, so artists may not be aware of where their content is uploaded and like what have happened here many times in past, artists are willing to use takedown once they realize their whole gallery has been mirrored here without them knowing - even if they were sharing the content freely.

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

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

fewrahuxo said:
despite multiple requests for evidence that the absence of this rule causes direct harm to artists, i have yet to see any. it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the majority of users in this thread, perhaps because they know they don't have any that passes muster.

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

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

As if every artist keeps track of every incoming post.

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

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

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

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

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

Is the implication that my line of reasoning is incorrect?

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

It was a simple statement of fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy fuck, I just said what.

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

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

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

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

TheTundraTerror said:
Holy fuck, I just said what.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[THIS INSULT ONLY AVAILABLE TO GOLD MEMBERS]

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

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

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

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

inb4 "are you saying I'm a creationist"

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

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

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

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

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

inb4 "are you saying I'm a creationist"

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

TheTundraTerror said:
Citation needed. I gave proof of my claim that piracy doesn't hurt artists. Also, take a look at all the artists on Patreon who don't seem to be hurting for cash after releasing their paid work for free mere days after releasing to paid users only. It's not 1985 anymore.

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

fewrahuxo said:
despite multiple requests for evidence that the absence of this rule causes direct harm to artists, i have yet to see any. it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the majority of users in this thread, perhaps because they know they don't have any that passes muster.

i am also disappointed i am being called a "troll" for being one of the only ones in this discussion to care about a minimum standard of rhetoric. may God forbid i care.

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

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

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

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

fewrahuxo said:
despite multiple requests for evidence that the absence of this rule causes direct harm to artists, i have yet to see any. it seems to have been conveniently ignored by the majority of users in this thread, perhaps because they know they don't have any that passes muster.

i am also disappointed i am being called a "troll" for being one of the only ones in this discussion to care about a minimum standard of rhetoric. may God forbid i care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fewrahuxo said:
i don't understand why you, a user of e621, are arguing for less privileges for the users of e621. what do you have to gain from this line of rhetoric that has you defending a decision that only serves to go against your interests as a user?

Pendraggon said:
Because it's always been this way?? I don't mean in the way of not allowing dnp no matter what, but I mean in having a stance on not allowing dnp before two years. The reason they had this rule be two years instead of forever in the first place is because most content could legitimately become lost forever. Now that this isn't the case, they changed the rule to make it so artists could decide when they want their paid content to show up here. (Which most usually do, by the way.)

You have to remember that you don't have a right to see this art if the artist didn't want it being seen for free. If you do think that, then you're acting very entitled. Because you have to remember it's now artists fault for not posting their art for free. All e621 has done is remove itself from that process to give more power to the artists.

Knowing that, I don't understand why you, most likely a consumer and supporter of furry art and artists, are arguing that we, not the owner, creator or holder of an artist's artwork, should control how they distribute their artwork and affect their livelihood, do you seriously think that? If you do, then go annoy the artist who doesn't release their art for free, because all that's changed now, is that e621 has removed itself from the equation and gave all the power to the artist.

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

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

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

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

This is the case with trademarks but not copyright.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7.7, starting at page 148.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:^)

TheTundraTerror said:

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