Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

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.

Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.

ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

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

Mario69 said:
You can go and pirate nintendo games, even if nintendo fansite doesn't host the games for you.

ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

The fact that something will not work with 100% success is not an excuse to abandon any principles and make content creators hate your site.

TheoryAnon said:
Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.

That's a completely different issue that'd require its own set of rule changes if it ever gets addressed . The issue comes from the intended ads not running on the video when it gets seen elsewhere, and from people not properly crediting the original creator. It's not behind a paywall, though, so it's not part of the issue at hand.

lurkingfox said:
This might be already buried somewhere in the middle of the thread but, a question of clarification of how this works in practice: It's *copyright holders* may take down *their own* work regardless of time? Meaning, users won't be speculatively taking down work just because, say, hi-def versions were on a patreon years ago, yes? Simply being paid content at some point isn't enough to delete things (as the content may have been released later), but the copyright holder needs some claim or "Do Not Redistribute" or the like?

The way you formatted your question makes it bit hard to understand. This is one reason why I hate debating on hard topics as non-native english speaker there's bound to be words that I have hard time understanding and constantly needing to re-translate sentences...

The definition of paid content has not changed at all, so that means we still consider paid content to be something that during time of the upload you have to pay money to see. If the content or HD/alternative version of the content is being released freely by artist later on OR if artist gives explicit permission for us to have the content, at that point we can host the content.

Artists, commissioners, character owners, copyright holders, etc. can at any time for any reason request takedown of their work, regardless if it was free or not.

ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

There's so many misconceptions going on right now and this seems to be one of the biggest. We aren't exactly stopping piracy here, but simply refuse to host pirated content. It's up to artists and creators to handle piracy themselves.

TheoryAnon said:
Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.

This one is actually whole seperate topic to discuss and I have asked this much earlier already myself. We have been accepting youtube videos no matter how old they are, so those weren't considered to be paid content even before this rule change. Another topic being webcomics.

Because if the content can be viewed without payment, it's not considered as paid content, so youtube content has been free game. However we do not allow webcomics to be posted and the main reason there has been exactly that - we don't want to steal traffic and ad revenue from them. It does become bit more cumbersome because of seperate scenarios, as some artists only use youtube to host their video content without monetization while others monetize it, but have seperate NSFW version unmonetized elsewhere, etc.

Feel free to open seperate discussion for this one if you want to.

E: damn, so slow at writing so got ninja'd on both, but at least my thinking was same way.

Mario69 said:
The way you formatted your question makes it bit hard to understand. This is one reason why I hate debating on hard topics as non-native english speaker there's bound to be words that I have hard time understanding and constantly needing to re-translate sentences...

The definition of paid content has not changed at all, so that means we still consider paid content to be something that during time of the upload you have to pay money to see. If the content or HD/alternative version of the content is being released freely by artist later on OR if artist gives explicit permission for us to have the content, at that point we can host the content.

Artists, commissioners, character owners, copyright holders, etc. can at any time for any reason request takedown of their work, regardless if it was free or not.

Sorry, I was probably unclear. Suppose something was paid at some point but is now unavailable from any source - is that still assumed to be paid content? Does someone need to "prove" there was a free release before it became unavailable? I guess I'm wondering if there is a difference between paid -> free -> unavailable and paid -> abandoned -> unavailable, and how to tell the difference in practice after a couple years.

Mario69 said:
E: damn, so slow at writing so got ninja'd on both, but at least my thinking was same way.

That's me, the @Fifteen minutes ninja! ;)

Besides, you'd already answered #2, figured we might as well just start quoting previous posts for people who (understandably) skipped the last 6 pages.

I like threads like these which make our "most concerned" users crawl out of the woodwork.

For those who are neither content creators nor commissioners, I do wish all your concern for e621's well-being would be channeled into things like:

• sourcing
• tagging characters
• doing literally anything other than bitch when a post you MIGHT have fapped to gets deleted.

Seriously, where is all this outrage coming from? Some of you are posting from accounts that had zero activity before this thread; are those alt accounts? Like, holy shit, I know FurAffinity is the metaphorical SO who's abused you to the point you think you can never love again, but we are not that admin team. No one's going to ban you just for having an opinion; we only care whether or not you express yourselves civilly.

e621 is not going to crumble over this decision. I was under the impression every other furry booru was riding on our coattails, seeing as we're the site who puts in the work while everyone else uses bots to mirror us.

If anyone wants to keep pirating, no one's forcing you to stay here. Wade through all the other sites with zero enforced tagging policies and lax standards. Put some effort into getting your free fix. Garbage dump sites for garbage scavenging users.

And when they get DMCA'd to hell, lmao, at least you downloaded it like a good boy. Your collections of terabytes of porn will surely score you cool points. All this concern for artists and garnering appreciation for their work yet no one seems to want to give that concern and appreciation to them directly.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

treos said:
iirc there's actually some good things we have now thanks to piracy but no one cares about that when discussing the topic.

still wish people would stop with that stupid "entitlement" argument though. i've never once made any claim to being entitled to anything yet the name calling and accusations of such never end. all because when anyone hears the word piracy, the first words to pop into their mind seem to be criminal and bad. followed by attacking and shaming anyone who does the act of piracy while completely ignoring any and all potential good that could come from piracy.

doing that is more a matter of spiting them (with just a touch of protest) than anything at this point. them and every other publisher and/or dev that continues to push increasingly anti-consumer practices but that's more a topic for the video games thread so we can continue that over there if you want.

Anyone who uses the "entitlement" card in an argument has no argument. It's a buzzword to throw you off of the actual topic and is a non argument, especially when it comes to entertainment.

Entertainment IS entitlement; you either get what you want or you take your business elsewhere.

e621 is not food, water, air, heating ,etc. it's entertainment, and when it stops entertaining, I pick up my stuff and leave.

If I no longer have an incentive to be here, well then I'll stop being here.

I'm just hoping the mods/admins can see how this is not the correct pathway to take.

If not, oh well.

Daneasaur said:
Anyone who uses the "entitlement" card in an argument has no argument. It's a buzzword to throw you off of the actual topic and is a non argument, especially when it comes to entertainment.

Entertainment IS entitlement; you either get what you want or you take your business elsewhere.

e621 is not food, water, air, heating ,etc. it's entertainment, and when it stops entertaining, I pick up my stuff and leave.

If I no longer have an incentive to be here, well then I'll stop being here.

I'm just hoping the mods/admins can see how this is not the correct pathway to take.

If not, oh well.

How necessary is paid content to your entertainment?

Well this is sad news.

I always thought the 2-year rule was a relatively mature way to deal with the practical nature of a niche online art community and a more rational stance that sat between the "anything goes" of various chans and the "to the gulag with you" fanaticism of fchan (is that site even still relevant? Hopefully e621 doesn't burn out for the same reasons.)

Maybe a better solution would have been to increase it to 3 or 4 years (an eternity in Internet time)? It's impossible to keep up with all the paywall hidden content (you don't know what you don't know...), so I had just accepted that I might miss out for a couple of years until it made it's way here. I've even joined a couple of Patreons for people after seeing their older paid content here, but I guess that won't happen anymore since I literally won't know what I'm missing.

e621 had more or less become a one-stop art shop for me, but I guess not anymore.

Wow people are overreacting to this, and using godawful arguments.

If artists feel they aren't getting enough exposure with this rule change, they can just release their paid art publicly after however many years. This same logic applies to a ton of other arguments - the power is in the artist.

Now, personally, do you know what I think ought to be done? I think we - and by that I don't mean e621, or even furries, but we as a culture - should have a system wherein an artist can choose to sign up such that upon their death all of their works become public domain immediately.

There's probably some way to do that now, but it would be a substantial amount of effort.

Anyway, if you guys want to actually do something proactive, we ought to create and promote such a list among furry artists. Put your name on a list to have all your works released upon your death.

Still, on topic, I think this is a good rule change, and honestly I can't see the people complaining as anything but entitled.

Scakk said:
I should also mention that artists taking stuff down for seemingly no reason is the bane of my existence.

Artists have been able to take down their art from the site for any or no reason for as long as I can remember:

https://e621.net/static/takedown

Mdf said:
Under that assumption are we also going to implement 'one rule up, two rules down'?

Now that is a policy I can get behind. Please implement, Dear Leader Nimmy.

TesticleMallet said:
Does this mean if an artist that has paid content dies we can never post their work here?

Not never.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

Creative works such as drawings are copyrighted automatically even if you don't publish them. Registration is optional but makes it easier to prove claims in court. It seems to cost $35. Registration can be done under a pseudonym. Your work is copyrighted even if your real name is unknown and you don't register the work. You will see why that is important a few lines down.

Copyright protection might not last as long as the author's life plus 70 years:

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

If it was commissioned, I say it lasts 95 years, or a little sooner if the artist dies within the next 25 years. If the artist never reveals their identity, 95 years. The worst case scenario would be an artist who publishes non-commissioned art, and lives until longer than 2042. Their art would be copyrighted until at least the year 2112.

If that sounds bad and stupid, join with others who are trying to reduce copyright length instead of increase it again in the digital age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plsignore said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What evidence would suffice for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e621 is an archive, it shouldn't delete content

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know if I've missed any.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few people also brought up morality.

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

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

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

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

Strikerman said:
A few people also brought up morality.

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

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

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

terms such as these have no objective meaning.

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

that kind of terminology helps nothing in an argument.

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

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

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

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

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

terms such as these have no objective meaning.

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

that kind of terminology helps nothing in an argument.

What do you consider right and wrong, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*sigh*

e621 is an archive, it shouldn't delete content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifteen said:
*sigh*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything? Last time I checked, food, housing and thousands of other things weren't free.

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

if that Lamborghini was a complete 1:1 clone of somebody else's Lamborghini, the original owner had no obligation to my use of that Lamborghini, and I managed to obtain my own copy of this Lamborghini without inconveniencing anybody else, then i would absolutely expect a Lamborghini, because getting a Lamborghini seems like an easy and convenient thing to get.

the same for every game ever made, because having a copy of them all - even the rare ones that nobody knows exist and all the gold copies with the source code that nobody ever gets to see - would be a great thing for everybody with the privilege to receive every game ever made. funny enough, that scenario exists today, thanks to the magic of the Internet.

and so long as we're talking about things i'd like to copy, i would enjoy copying the essentials of life, such as food, clean water, clothing, and a good home. but i guess i'm not allowed to clone those because it would put all the bakers, tailors, and real estate agents out of business, and i'm absolutely allowed to die if it means preserving their business.

the only reason we have money at all is because things are scarce. things, however, on the Internet are not scarce. therefore they have no intrinsic value, and are therefore worthless. artists are free to charge for whatever services and material goods they want. their digital goods, however, are immaterial.

BlueDingo said:
Anything? Last time I checked, food, housing and thousands of other things weren't free.

i thought you could intelligently infer i meant anything online, as opposed to the real world where things are still obviously traded for currency. you're not exactly proving yourself capable of an intelligent discussion if all you have to contribute is niggling.

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

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

And once again, what does this site and its rules has to do with your personal life situation? Why would someone trying to monetize their work care about your personal problems?

We are not stopping you from pirating and if you do want to pirate, there are other channels which should even be more dedicated for this as we have had two years rule as well as DNP/takedown system since forever already. So all you are doing right now is fighting for really small amount of content you should be paying for, just so you wouldn't need to do any extra work to aquire them, so of course people would say that you are being entitled at that point.

fewrahuxo said:
the only reason we have money at all is because things are scarce. things, however, on the Internet are not scarce. therefore they have no intrinsic value, and are therefore worthless. artists are free to charge for whatever services and material goods they want. their digital goods, however, are immaterial.

Just about everything is valueless until we inscribe value onto it. The scraps of paper and metal that we use for trading don't have any intrinsic value, they're just the proxy we use for convenience. The insinuation that something entirely loses its value if it is given a digitial form is both arbitrary and entirely subjective.

fewrahuxo said:
i thought you could intelligently infer i meant anything online, as opposed to the real world where things are still obviously traded for currency. you're not exactly proving yourself capable of an intelligent discussion if all you have to contribute is niggling.

So you're one of those "everything online should be free because it's online" people. You are aware that online goods and services are traded for money too, right?

Also, changing what you meant after getting called out and insulting the intelligence of the one who called you out is very poor form.

Mario69 said:
And once again, what does this site and its rules has to do with your personal life situation? Why would someone trying to monetize their work care about your personal problems?

and on that note, why should i care about somebody monetizing their work if my personal problems directly contradict their non-essential moneymaking operation? i would think that using the Internet to gain free access to everything on an equal plane as everyone else would be one of the only bright spots in a poor person's life.

We are not stopping you from pirating and if you do want to pirate, there are other channels which should even be more dedicated for this as we have had two years rule as well as DNP/takedown system since forever already.

if the previous rule worked out so well, why change what wasn't broken? this just further erodes the already strained relationships between the administration and the common user.

So all you are doing right now is fighting for really small amount of content you should be paying for, just so you wouldn't need to do any extra work to aquire them, so of course people would say that you are being entitled at that point.

arguing about the principle of a thing is enough even if the practical effects are small. you should be happy that people are struggling against such a poorly thought-out rule, because it means they actually care about the direction the site is heading in.

i would like to also state i have yet to see anybody explain what they mean by being "entitled", beyond it just being a snarl word devoid of any actual content.

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

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

Did I miss the creation of a furry artist conglomerate like the RIAA is for music?

Art is a craft, it can be learned and picked up like any other. The artists invest their time, skill, and materials into creating a product, then sell that product. Distributing such a product for free directly cuts into the artist's ability to sell it.

Also, your entire argument about the company CEOs is an incredible straw men, most furry artists are independent, their income goes directly to them after taxes and transaction fees. By supporting your local furry porn creator you support them directly, not some evil corporate figure.

fewrahuxo said:

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

You already got the justification more than once. The fact that you don't want to agree with it because it inconveniences you doesn't make it any less valid.

fewrahuxo said:

i would like to also state i have yet to see anybody explain what they mean by being "entitled", beyond it just being a snarl word devoid of any actual content.

The belief that things should be free for people to consume because they can do so otherwise, or with different content. The belief that creators don't deserve money purely because "it's digital content that can be copied for free without loss to the creator". The belief that your feelings are more important than those of others.

NotMeNotYou said:
Art is a craft, it can be learned and picked up like any other. The artists invest their time, skill, and materials into creating a product, then sell that product. Distributing such a product for free directly cuts into the artist's ability to sell it.

what's funny is every artist i have ever known started making art before they knew they had the ability to sell it. as it turns out, most people create art because they like to, not because they are directly profiting from the endeavour. you have once again failed to show that "distributing such a product for free directly cuts into the artist's ability to sell it", expecting me to just believe you on that front.

You already got the justification more than once. The fact that you don't want to agree with it because it inconveniences you doesn't make it any less valid.

a justification without evidence is as good as an outright lie. in fact, you explicit admit the rule change won't set out to accomplish the aims you would like it to:

"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."

The belief that things should be free for people to consume because they can do so otherwise, or with different content. The belief that creators don't deserve money purely because "it's digital content that can be copied for free without loss to the creator". The belief that your feelings are more important than those of others.

this is once again a morality play that relies more on emotions rather than any actual fact. if you are admitting that "digital content that can be copied for free without loss to the creator," then your argument is finished, because this rule is made to enforce a literal non-issue.

free things should absolutely remain free for anybody to enjoy, because to allow free things to stop becoming free simply because you say so is to ruin one of the greatest human innovations that have ever existed. there is no evidence to support this brand of artificial scarcity, and it strikes me as incredibly selfish to stop people from enjoying things that can be enjoyed, one again, for free, simply because you say so.

but the practicality is, once again, that you will never be able to stop the fundamental way the Internet works in all its infinitely free glory, and so i wonder what the bother is in arguing against it.

People still don't seem to get that e621 is not making a hard anti-piracy statement or trying to stamp out art piracy on the internet as a whole. They're just not doing your pirating for you.

fewrahuxo said:
what's funny is every artist i have ever known started making art before they knew they had the ability to sell it. as it turns out, most people create art because they like to, not because they are directly profiting from the endeavour. you have once again failed to show that "distributing such a product for free directly cuts into the artist's ability to sell it", expecting me to just believe you on that front.

Art directly created for profit versus art created for fun. People doing some things for free doesn't mean everything must be free.

fewrahuxo said:
a justification without evidence is as good as an outright lie. in fact, you explicit admit the rule change won't set out to accomplish the aims you would like it to:

"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."

We don't want to be part of the problem that is the distribution of commercial works, this rule change ensures that. There is no lie in this.

But please feel free to elaborate where I lied or mislead in my statement.

fewrahuxo said:
this is once again a morality play that relies more on emotions rather than any actual fact. if you are admitting that "digital content that can be copied for free without loss to the creator," then your argument is finished, because this rule is made to enforce a literal non-issue.

The initial creation of a product is not free. Just because you can make a copy for free doesn't mean the product came into existence out of nothing. You don't pay for the copy, you pay for the skill, time, and materials invested by the creator.

But sure, try to make this seem like an emotional argument.

TonyLemur said:
People still don't seem to get that e621 is not making a hard anti-piracy statement or trying to stamp out art piracy on the internet as a whole. They're just not doing your pirating for you.

Duct tape that quote to this thread and maybe the arguments going in endless loops comes to an end.

NotMeNotYou said:
But please feel free to elaborate where I lied or mislead in my statement.

you imply, first of all, that there is a problem in the distribution of commercial works, without any evidence and expect me to take your word for it. secondly, you also imply an understanding of the complete ineffectualness of the rule you have created, and yet enforce it anyway, in an act of bad administration that goes forward despite the objections of people who were not even in on the rule's discussion.

i think that the previous rule was doing just fine for preventing the non-problem you set out to solve, and changing it for no real reason strikes me as a particularly shady move, especially when nobody asked for this and the previous rule was already doing its job.

The initial creation of a product is not free. Just because you can make a copy for free doesn't mean the product came into existence out of nothing. You don't pay for the copy, you pay for the skill, time, and materials invested by the creator.

nobody goes to the movies for the "skill, time, and materials." they go to the movies to spend the next two hours in shock and awe: or, to put it another way, they go to the movies to see a movie.

we do not look at art for the "skill, time, and materials invested by the creator." all of that is incidental to the end product, which is being distributed in a format where anybody can share it in any way they so desire, for free. there is no reason not to have the end product for free, and any reasons given are subjective.

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

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

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

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

Yup, exactly.

fewrahuxo said:
you imply, first of all, that there is a problem in the distribution of commercial works, without any evidence and expect me to take your word for it. secondly, you also imply an understanding of the complete ineffectualness of the rule you have created, and yet enforce it anyway, in an act of bad administration that goes forward despite the objections of people who were not even in on the rule's discussion.

i think that the previous rule was doing just fine for preventing the non-problem you set out to solve, and changing it for no real reason strikes me as a particularly shady move, especially when nobody asked for this and the previous rule was already doing its job.

The previous rule was even more arbitrary by setting an arbitrary limit on the works and content of other people. The proof it's a problem has also been provided multiple times by both that study you so vehemently misinterpret and by the fact how everyone in here argues they're just going to get it from other places, instead of paying for it. The actual artists that have spoken about it and defended this change have also been dismissed by you because "they're too emotional to know what's good for them".

Your objections are self serving, your "moral high ground" is self serving, the fact that you try to cherry pick and impotently try to straw men my arguments is self serving, the fact that you dismiss every other voice against yours is self serving.

We're no longer pirating things for you, get used to it.

fewrahuxo said:
... this just further erodes the already strained relationships between the administration and the common user ...

I'd wager relations are strained between administration and only a small segment of users.

If a group of whiny, privileged members wish to become 'former members' because of this rule change, I believe you would be doing the rest of us a favour by your leaving.

It's quite annoying that the doujin argument is being drowned out by the piracy talk. Specifically stuff that is only sold in physical copy and is no longer for sale. I can't see how the removal of such from here helps at all.

Isn't preservation of such the main goal that e6 had when created?

rysyN said:
It's quite annoying that the doujin argument is being drowned out by the piracy talk. Specifically stuff that is only sold in physical copy and is no longer for sale. I can't see how the removal of such from here helps at all.

Isn't preservation of such the main goal that e6 had when created?

This is my personal consern of this along with old physical medium like CDs, however some have gave me counterpoints to this. Main ones are consistancy with ruling (everyting, instead of everything except this and that and those), language barriers (if I only speak japanese, it's really hard to find a button to file takedown on english website) and the actual sources for those things. With actual sources, I mean that whenever I do find dojins in here, they are usually sourced with one of three places and simply mirrored to here.

I have yet to encounter scenario where someone had scanned something directly here instead of getting it from another website to begin with - another website which has already downscaled and compressed the content.

A small amount of stuff relative to the amount of posts already on this site was nuked. yes, it's sad that old rare doujins are gone. It's not that serious. This will all be forgotten in a month.

Mario69 said:
This is my personal consern of this along with old physical medium like CDs, however some have gave me counterpoints to this. Main ones are consistancy with ruling (everyting, instead of everything except this and that and those), language barriers (if I only speak japanese, it's really hard to find a button to file takedown on english website) and the actual sources for those things. With actual sources, I mean that whenever I do find dojins in here, they are usually sourced with one of three places and simply mirrored to here.

I have yet to encounter scenario where someone had scanned something directly here instead of getting it from another website to begin with - another website which has already downscaled and compressed the content.

I think that unless it can be sourced to a digial location, physical sourced content should be allowed still.

The thing I mourn most is the doujin translations.

Question from an artist: What if I wanted to leak something for promotional purposes? Not trying to make a case because the opinions who oppose to this rule change don't mean shit to me. Just genuine curiosity.

Right, cause I'm sure companies (and individuals alike) will gladly release their images for free once they stop selling them - as I'm sure was already shown time and time again...

Do as you will of course, but I find this radical shift in policy yet another step in the wrong direction. You keep claiming this is suppose to be an archive, but so far many of the changes I've seen keep moving away from that; you seem to be taking the "gallery exhibit" route - here today, gone tomorrow. You should be finding solutions and ways to preserve the artwork for everyone once the other sources are unavailable, but this purge is definitely not going to help anybody, neither for short gain nor in the long run.

PimpNuttz said:
Question from an artist: What if I wanted to leak something for promotional purposes? Not trying to make a case because the opinions who oppose to this rule change don't mean shit to me. Just genuine curiosity.

Artists are free to be in contact with the staff and inform to allow content that would othervice fall under our DNP ruling. We should actually have more than couple artists we know that are completely fine with users posting content here, even if regularly this would require something like pledging on patreon.

PimpNuttz said:
Question from an artist: What if I wanted to leak something for promotional purposes? Not trying to make a case because the opinions who oppose to this rule change don't mean shit to me. Just genuine curiosity.

If you release something for free, for example to your patreon, that particular image is no longer considered paid content and free to be uploaded here.

Bueno, desde mi punto de vista es algo que no va a ser malo. Pero tampoco sera algo increíblemente bueno, porque al hacer esto harán que muchos usuarios se vean afectados por dicha regla. En resumen: Esta regla es buena para los artistas que se ganan la vida con su arte, pero afectara a muchos usuarios. Y se que probablemente nadie va a entender esto por estar escrito en español, así que en resumen para los que no entienden: It's a good rule, but it's going to affect some users

Nearly 300 replies with most of them negative toward the change in some way. But it's still "just a drizzle," right?

Yet, I digress. I, too, agree with many of the above that feel that things such as rare physical comics and the like should have been preserved. And this should have been done if only for the "this is supposed to be an archive" reason.

I mean if things are no longer even in print they really should be available here. Once they stop selling it they stop accepting monetary compensation for their product and, in such, it goes from being "pirating" to being archiving.

If you're going to make a huge blanket rule like this it cannot be simple. There *needs* to be exceptions for physical sourced content, that is, unless, you're throwing all pretenses of this being an archive out the window. 'cause if you're doing that then, hey, keep doing what you're doing.

I've had a ton of content I uploaded here be removed "because the quality is inferior".

Okay, so then I should only upload quality artworks.

And not just any quality artworks, but quality artworks of the highest resolution.

This is because this place is heralded as an archive of all things of non-human art. Deceased artists, old art of artists who quit, art of artists who said "i'm leaving forever!" and came back a week later...

This is why there was originally no DNP or restrictions on uploaded content.

Eventually a DNP was put in place, even special condition DNP, and there was a 2 year cooldown instated on pay content to appease artists. Artists could add themselves to the DNP so those works would never show up here, or even specify that certain works from certain websites were DNP forever.

So now... there is no 2 year cooldown, everything is gone forever if it was ever pay.

See, the thing is, on my hot contacts, I have about 4 websites off the top of my head I can go to and get anything I want the day it's released behind a paywall. I don't need a 2 year cooldown because I can get it, for free, the day it's released.

But I don't share these sites, nor do I advocate them. However, I have advocated e621 and their fair policies. I have told friends and artists how this place has had good posting rules and the very nice two year cooldown, of which artists like as generally, the want for [product] is mostly gone a month after it's been released, two years down the line is basically a non factor.

But now I have to go and tell them how the administration pulled the rug out.

I come here because I like to mingle, I like to help sort, and I like to help tag, and I like t help contribute to a great archive of all things furry.

I was (and am) against complying to artists who nuke everything and go DNP, but I didn't fight it when it kept happening here (such as with Strider Orion).

This I fight. This I am against. I still have access to all walks of art and don't have to pay a cent for it regardless if this rule change stays or doesn't, yet, I am against this rule change.

Put some thought into that.

AnotherDay said:
Nearly 300 replies with most of them negative toward the change in some way. But it's still "just a drizzle," right?

I count:

28-34 for the change (plus five staff members).
22-24 against the change.
14 with no or neutral opinions.

That's ~35% of (non-staff) responders against the change. If you don't count absent/neutral opinions (which isn't even completely fair), that's still only 46% of responders at best.

Daneasaur said:
Eventually a DNP was put in place, even special condition DNP, and there was a 2 year cooldown instated on pay content to appease artists. Artists could add themselves to the DNP so those works would never show up here, or even specify that certain works from certain websites were DNP forever.

Are you saying it's better if we say "fuck you, artists" and never delete anything?

Daneasaur said:
See, the thing is, on my hot contacts, I have about 4 websites off the top of my head I can go to and get anything I want the day it's released behind a paywall. I don't need a 2 year cooldown because I can get it, for free, the day it's released.

Good for you, I'm sure your pirating skills are top-notch. But it's not e621's place to be your source of pirated art.

Daneasaur said:
But now I have to go and tell them how the administration pulled the rug out.

So you have to go to your artist friends and tell them we won't be uploading their paid art anymore? I'm sure they'll be devastated.

Daneasaur said:
I was (and am) against complying to artists who nuke everything and go DNP, but I didn't fight it when it kept happening here (such as with Strider Orion).

Again, you'd rather us take the "fuck you, artists" stance? If you think that's the best policy I don't think this is the place for you.