October 2020's donation goal has been met. Thank you for your support!
close
Hello! Thank you for using yiff.party!

We hope you enjoy using it. yiff.party operates on a non-profit basis, and as such, all the server expenses are paid by our users. We don't want to run ads or infect you with crypto miners. We depend on users like you to keep the site running, and to preserve years and terabytes of amazing content—some of which is no longer available from its original creators!

Because of the nature of the site, many users are reluctant to donate. That's OK! yiff.party was created so everyone can enjoy the content we host without any restrictions or paywalls. But if you value the service we provide, and are able to, we—and our users—would be tremendously grateful if you considered making a donation.

Donation progress for October 2020

So far, approximately $400.00 has been raised out of our target of $400.00. We're about 100% of the way there! Please note: this tracker is updated manually—don't worry if your donation doesn't show up immediately!

yiff.party's server costs are due on the last day of each month. So, we need to meet this goal before 31 October!

How to donate?

At this time, yiff.party can only accept donations in numerous cryptocurrencies. Please select a currency below to display the relevant donation address.

Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum Classic (ETC)
Litecoin (LTC)
Why can't I donate through other means (eg. PayPal)?

Due to the nature of sites like yiff.party, it is very difficult to find payment processors who will accept clients like us. If we were to accept donations via PayPal, it wouldn't take more than a day for someone to submit an abuse report and get our account frozen. Until a viable way of accepting monetary donations becomes available, cryptocurrency will remain the only option.

There are many resources available on how to purchase crypto. For Bitcoin, check out bitcoin.org's page on buying Bitcoin for a list of methods. For beginner Bitcoin users, yiff.party recommends using an escrow service such as LocalBitcoins.

what if yp was hidden

undoReturn
asdf.jpg (27.9KiB, 612x341) save_alt

crazy idea. what if yp blocked indexing so it don't show up in search engines? paywallers can't cry foul if they dont know theyre being ripped, unless someone here snitches.

I remember the site being hidden at some point, but I'm not sure and also don't know why it isn't today

People will still find out, then spread the news because anti-piracy "web wizards" are just as clever as piracy web wizards. Always have been, always will. So in the end it'd only postpone the inevitable, if having any real effect at all (except lowering the sites exposure to "normal users", because its now hidden).

>>124747
>lowering the sites exposure to "normal users"
you say it like keeping the scrubs out, even if for a while, isnt a worthy pursuit. i remember sad panda, it wasnt much, but it kept a lot of idiots out and filled the threads begging for the password

>>124749
Even idiots know how to Google for "sad panda" though, surely. By "normal users" I meant users who aren't here to "grass" on the site or undermine it. Not those users who constantly spam individual request threads, if thats what you mean by scrubs.

if old yp was hidden, might be worth implementing again, just a month or two, to see what kinda benefits it'd get. lower traffic, server load, etc

>>125050
it should definitely be implemented.
i said this before on another thread, but here it goes again; i'm pretty confident artistfags would be significantly less butthurt about yiff if it wouldn't show up on google search right below their official links. yiff being this blatant about its existence is just "cheeky".

to give an example, there's a difference between a kid just stealing a candybar or two from my shop behind my back, and said kid doing the same thing in front of me, flipping me off while doing it, calling me a cunt, then proceed to set up a stall to sell said candybars just in front of my store.

>>125059
How long has this place been showing up in Google results?

>>125075
Quite long enough to make the artist to decide “emailing” thier HD 6K art to their pledgers. something should be done to pulled out the search result from google.

Umnn...Do anyone have any idea why and when does SSSnowy got banned from patreon. I just found out today...

I didn't even know yiff appears in searches. I have only known about it because one of my patrons reported it to me. I would even say, most probably find out about yiff the same way I did. With that said, I do think many artists would still be pretty irritated by this site even if it doesn't appear in search engines because YP is still technically stealing from them.

The site used to be hidden. If it stayed that way, contribution would flourish, the ecosystem would be more balanced, and the place wouldn't be shit.
Now? Everyone and their grandmother knows about it.
>>125161
Copied. We copied your work. Or piracy, whatever floats your boat artist.

The mini consensus is keeping YP hidden from search engines is a very good thing, so wtf is admin strutting this site out with its pants at the ankles, ass out to the breeze? times have moved on, maybe somewhere in the system you can just toggle the damn thing site-wide, instead of writing individual spiders.txt for each folder

>>125205
If we are in a court, I can understand the correction. But you can consider steal/stealing/stole/stolen/theft/thief/thievery as colloquial terms when it comes to copyright infringement. Just about everyone uses it that way, and typically the only people who correct it are those who are trying to deflect the point (cause they themselves are pirates), or those who are in a court case where using the correct terminology matters.

Heck even the word pirate/piracy is based off a word that involves robbery. Why do you think that is? Just a coincidence?

>>125206
Actually, the truth of the matter is there is no way to entirely prevent your site appearing on a search engine. You can really only set things up to tell the spiders to move on when they come across the site, but not all will heed those wishes. Plus, anyone who links to the site on another site will also cause it to appear in searches. I imagine the point in time when YP ended up appearing in some news articles a few years ago, along with patreon trying to combat against YP is what lead to it become more well known, and as a result of that appearing far more in search engines. In other words, the owner probably has very little to do with why it's more public now.

At least that is just my hypothesis on the matter based on running my own site.

>>125260
I will never understand this guy. He clearly is a regular user of the site, yet he comes here with this fuckin "holier than thou" attitude and tells people they have no right to "steal" stuff. He talks about deflecting when he has hardly ever pointed a finger towards artists. Those guys actually make money from their piracy. Nobody here does. What gives?

nord.png (3.3KiB, 275x183) save_alt

https://ouo.io/5Kat3C

x1000 NordVPN accounts

>>125205
Most online XXX artists are largely "fanartists" who copy licensed IP's (which is fine if you stop at that) and try to make money from their unlicensed redistribution of those IP's (which, like piracy, is obviously illegal: Copyright infringement). If all these artists who try to morally preach over here actually owned the content they draw & "rent-out access to" (as in "all these characters are mine, the world & all design elements are mine." etc) then I think they'd have a leg to stand on, but until they can link us to their Paysite pages and prove they're not operating illegally, then their credibility basically doesn't exist. Its one criminal complaining about another kind of criminal making a tiny dent in their bank balance. Career thieves trying to make non-profit thieves see the error of their thieving ways. Big deal.

>>125470
we were having a conversation here, and then you just jump in with your
>muh IP infringement
>muh rent-out access
>muh artists should prove their innocence to a nobody like me
blah-blah-blah... all just gross generalizations... the rest of your post is nonsense too, and your mickey mouse level of understanding of "copyright" laws is laughable. You're just a commie poorfag seething, and it shows. so fuck off.

>>125103
I thought they started doing that right around CUF became a thing.

>>125161
>because YP is still technically stealing from them.
How, when it's paying donors that contribute to the site?

>>125103
6K!?!? Unless the art is SUPER large scale and full of tiny little details (EG a 2x2 meter IRL scale pic with 100 characters shown in crisp detail, even when using a microscope) then thats just silly lol. Whos the artist and is his art huge & full of tiny details? Or is it medium detail small scale pics (as in 1-3 characters, closeup scale, often no backgrounds). IIRC I'm yet to see a single porn artist who actually has a reason to post at over 2000Px... If there was a Wheres Wally/Waldo style porn artist, thats when 4K would be sometimes necessary. But I've never seen anything like that :*(

>>125473
Is this the artists thought process? All critisisms of them making money from characters they don't own is just generalization. Everyone is beneth them and a poorfag. You know, calling people who can't pay for art "poorfags" is not how you convince potential customers to give you their money. You artists prove time and time again that you do not deserve to have any money thrown at you, especially with piss poor attitudes like that.

>>125276
>"He talks about deflecting when he has hardly ever pointed a finger towards artists. Those guys actually make money from their piracy. Nobody here does. What gives?"
Sure, if they are selling fanart, I disagree with that as well and have actually even got on artists about it. Like some selling merch of copyrighted characters. But if you are talking about patreon, then I entirely disagree. Just because an artist draws fanart and owns a patreon doesn't mean they are specifically making money off of that fanart. That isn't me saying, no artist does this, I am sure some do. But you would have a very VERY hard case in court trying to prove that money an artist makes on patreon is a result of the fanart especially if that isn't all they draw. It is more likely to be interpreted that people are paying for the artist's service, and early access or what have you and not the fanart. This is why there has yet to be a company to actually even try to sue, and the only company I could ever see trying is Nintendo.

But even if you don't want to accept that, let's just argue for the sake of it that you are correct and we consider it piracy. 1. Not all artists draw fanart, and yet you pirate them all the same. You act like some artists pirating gives you the right to pirate ALL artists. 2. At least an artist puts in work to create what they do. So I am more often than not going to give them a pass compared to those who just take and take and act like a bunch of snowflakes and believe they are entitled to all that work the artist puts in. So if you want to know the difference, it's that artists put in hard work and time. You do not.

>>125470
Read the above.

>>125478
>How, when it's paying donors that contribute to the site?
They pay for access for themselves, not the entire planet. Did I really need to explain that lol? They are redistributing something that doesn't belong to them.

>>125517
>You artists prove time and time again that you do not deserve to have any money thrown at you, especially with piss poor attitudes like that.
As if you would have ever paid in the first place. You already convinced yourself long ago that artists do not deserve money, and you are just using any argument you can to justify it.Artists being irritated by piracy is quite frankly, common sense and you have to be an idiot to not expect them to be at least a little annoyed by the entitlement that goes on around here. That's like you slapping someone and expecting them to not have an attitude with you.

You want artists to treat you well, while you are there treating them like shit. Go fuck yourself lol.

>>125276
>He clearly is a regular user of the site
Indeed, I am not so heavily against piracy that I would avoid a site like this (though I only use the forum). I am more against the justifications that people use more so than the act itself.
For example, a person who pirates and knows that it's wrong but does so cause they really don't have the money. I am all for it, and have no issues with that. In fact, these are the type of people who I actually recommend they use YP. My gripe is when a person acts like they are doing nothing wrong, or somehow believe the artist doesn't deserve to be paid. Or when they act like the artist doesn't have any justification at all being mad that their art is being redistributed elsewhere. In other words, for me ... it's the disrespect that bothers me.

I have even said in a previous thread of which the name shall not be mentioned, that I used to pirate too. But at no point in my life did I pirate because I didn't think it was worth the money or that there was some sort of justification for not paying when you could. I pirated because I didn't have the money. But the moment I did have the money, I purchased it. I even stick up for piracy when the context calls for it in such cases.

But I honestly see this site as being worse than typical piracy, especially with some of the justifications used. Cause you are not taking from larger corporations where any little bit lost is pretty much negligible. You are infringing on individual people of whom you have no idea what their life might be like and act like they don't deserve the support just because you as an individual don't think it's worth it. So then you decide to take it and redistribute it out of pettiness.

literallycrying.png (9.3KiB, 225x225) save_alt

>>125517
>"poorfags" is not how you convince potential customers to give you their money
AHAHAHAHAAAAA, did you seriously just called yourself a "potential customer"?!?... i'm literally dying here.

>>125567
>Cherry-picks argument
>Misses the entire point of the argument.

>calling anyone a poorfag during an international pandemic

>>125578
calling out your laughable bullshit is not "cherry picking"... also, you had no "argument", you were just seething at the very people who provide your entertainment. deep down, you know it very well that you act like an entitled brat, but you need a way to cope, to justify being a talentless little thief; well, cope more!
>>125579
you were a poorfag long before that... and you'll always be... again, cope more!

>>125530
>They pay for access for themselves

And they've chosen to exercise their right to share what they paid for. What's your point?

>>125841
>they've chosen to exercise their right to share what they paid for
there's no such automatic rights. What's your point?

>>125848
Now turn around and point that exact same argument at artists. See what they tell you about copyright and fair use.

>>125841
>And they've chosen to exercise their right to share
Assuming you don't live in some third world country. That only tells me you don't understand copyright law or are willingly playing ignorance. Seriously, try and use that same logic after purchasing a video game and then making copies of it and handing it out freely out in public, in fact do it right in front of a cop, I dare you. Let's see how much this "right to share" argument works for you when face to face with reality.

pika.jpg (131.3KiB, 1243x628) save_alt

>>125884
again with this gross generalization. one artist is stealing IPs, therefore all of them deserve to be shat on.
first of all, not all fan art is necessarily copyright infringement.
pic related: the one on the left is NOT copyright infringement, the one on the right IS (as it uses exact same art style, so it can be misinterpreted by people as "official" artwork)
second, what does this even have to do with someone taking art and re-distributing it willy-nilly without the artists' approval? i'm getting genuinely curious... are you actually this much of a retard who really can't grasp basic differences?
do you seriously have no idea about the laws of the real world and shit?
while do you cope so much? are you ashamed by what you doing?
like this other guy above me, i have no real problem with piracy, but i fucking hate cocky dindunuffin cunts. related example: >>125060

>>125908
>first of all, not all fan art is necessarily copyright infringement.
Technically all fanart IS copyright infringement, the difference however is in most cases companies allow it because it does not do them any good to go after their fans. The only time it really becomes necessary is when someone is making a profit off of their IP, claiming ownership of the IP, or presenting oneself as a representative of the IP or company. But ya, the term copyright is quite literal in its name. Whoever owns the copyright is the only person who has the right to copy and distribute.

It is also true that many artists don't understand copyright either. For example, if an artist draws a copyrighted character and it is redistributed off their patreon or any paid platform for that matter, they actually can't pursue any sort of legal action because they don't own the rights to the character. Attempting to pursue legal action would essentially insinuate that you are making money off of an IP you do not own. Patreon functions as it does and sort of side steps the whole copyright issue because technically no one is paying for fanart, they are paying for a service, or if you want you can describe it as them "donating" to the artist. But the moment the pursue legal action for fanart, that suggests otherwise.

>>125908
With that said, I do mostly agree with your points however. I also do think respectable people would understand the difference between straight up piracy vs an artist drawing some fanart. They might have a point if an artist only draws one specific IP and earns a living through patreon solely from doing that. But most artists don't do that. If they draw fanart, it's typically many many different characters owned by various companies. Meaning no company could make claim that their specific character fanart is what made that artist money on a "donation" platform, especially if the character was only drawn once or twice out of 100s of other drawings. It wouldn't even be worth pursuing. At least when an artist sells fanart prints or merch it's pretty clear cut as it's direct profit from that character and you can determine how much they owe based on how many sales they made off of it.

125884 just isn't a smart individual from what I can tell.

>>125967
>Technically all fanart IS copyright infringement
Meh, I can't wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I've chosen that picture on the left for a reason. Artists can borrow elements of other works, as long as the finished product is transformative enough. (There's also a consideration for "parodies", but let's not go there).
The one on the left is only becoming a TRADEMARK abuse if you're claiming that she's Pikachu®, or that your drawing is endorsed by Nintendo® or put said logos on the pic...
All your other reasoning after that first part is 100% correct however.

this site should've been on tor and ipfs since day fucking one but the admin is too retarded to do i t

>>126077
in theory i agree with you on using ipfs and tor, but i also think that would make this site unbearably slow... for starters a simple "no SE indexing" would be sufficient enough to make yiff's existence on the web not so blatantly obvious.

https://ouo.io/dCEBgY

>>125848
>there's no such automatic rights
>>125885
We fund the work the same way investors fund companies, but have fun telling yourself that.

>>126068
>Artists can borrow elements of other works, as long as the finished product is transformative enough.
I can assure you the one on the left isn't transformative enough. It's literally just a K-On character in a Pikachu hoodie. XD For something to be considered transformative it typically requires enough changes and sometimes for it to be outside of the original medium. For example, let's say someone took sheets of metal, gears, bolts, screws, etc and made like a steampunk scrap statue of batman. That is something that would likely fall under transformative.

>The one on the left is only becoming a TRADEMARK abuse if you're claiming that she's Pikachu®
I am hazarding a guess that you didn't know the character itself is a copyrighted character from an anime. She is Yui from K-On.

>>126108
>We fund the work the same way investors fund companies, but have fun telling yourself that.
No you don't. Others that invest typically have some stake in that company. Being a patron doesn't give you any stake. All you are doing is handing money over for a service or product created by that artist, and in other cases you are simply donating if you are not getting anything in return. Your argument here would be like suggesting that by paying for Netflix service, it means you have the right to copy the movies and share them since you are funding them. You are paying for a service, you are not an investor. Dumbass.

Come on dude, you seriously can't be this retarded ... you are trolling.

>>125050
this

>>126157
>No you don't.
That's not for you to decide, but keep telling yourself that.

>Others that invest typically have some stake in that company.
The artist's livelihood is enough of a stake for me; and since the works are intended for paying donors, we are free to do as we wish with them. The same couldn't be said had the same exact works been sold on places like Gumroad.

>All you are doing is handing money over for a service or product created by that artist, and in other cases you are simply donating if you are not getting anything in return.
What do you think happens when Netflix and such (since you keep going there) don't deliver? Note how your answer will not apply to creators on Patreon.

>Your argument here would be like suggesting that by paying for Netflix service, it means you have the right to copy the movies and share them since you are funding them.
No, because that doesn't fit the investor analogy as what appears on Netflix has already been produced (in contrast to what gets posted on Patreon for donors).

>>126447
>That's not for you to decide, but keep telling yourself that.
Of course not, it's called a dictionary. Has that never occured to you? Cause here is what the dictionary says for the word investor. "a person or organization that puts money into financial plans, property, etc. with the expectation of achieving a profit."

As you can see, by the very definition, you are NOT an investor. I didn't decide that, unless you think I wrote the definition for the word in the dictionary lol.

>The artist's livelihood is enough of a stake for me
That isn't what a stake is when we are talking investing. A stake is usually the investment, like stock. And you certainly are not an investor unless you are planning on make a profit. If you are just giving money for charity, that is called being a donator, not an investor. If you are buying a service or product that is called being a consumer. The fact this needs to be explained to you is pretty sad. How old are you?

>>126447
>What do you think happens when Netflix and such (since you keep going there) don't deliver? Note how your answer will not apply to creators on Patreon.
Obviously they lose customers. And it does apply to patreon, you lose patrons when you don't deliver. If you are talking a lawsuit of some type, then I hate to break this to you, but as far as I am aware there isn't any precedents on the matter. You probably could sue a creator for not delivering if you feel it's worth suing them over. Unless you can point me in a direction that says otherwise, your point here just doesn't work.

I actually think it's funny you decided that creators are capable of getting away with not delivering when there is nothing suggesting that. It's just no one has sued for it yet. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

>No, because that doesn't fit the investor analogy as what appears on Netflix has already been produced
It fits the analogy just fine, Netflix produces their own series quite often. Still doesn't give you any right to copy any of it. Doesn't matter who produced it or when. You don't own the copyright just cause you paid for a service or donated. Use your fucking brain.

>>126548
>you are NOT an investor
>>126108
>>We fund the work the same way
>That isn't what a stake is when we are talking investing.
Tell that to the people who's names sometimes appear in a creator's work. For that matter, tell that to those who care enough about an artist's well being to donate in the first place.
>If you are just giving money for charity, that is called being a donator, not an investor.
The same logic is why your Netflix references are moot, but at least I have the fortune of operating on a mere analogy.
>>If you are buying a service or product
>implying

>>126551
>Obviously they lose customers. And it does apply to patreon, you lose patrons when you don't deliver.
Except creators don't have the same type of obligations Netflix (for example) does. Even so, donors seem generally understanding whenever artists have a good reason for not being able to produce content for a bit. Otherwise, it's good to see that you're catching on, but it doesn't end there:
>If you are talking a lawsuit of some type, then I hate to break this to you, but as far as I am aware there isn't any precedents on the matter
Breach of contract doesn't need precedent to make it a well known tort.
>It fits the analogy just fine, Netflix produces their own series quite often.
Which customers only get to see after episodes have been fully funded and produced. If you're actually familiar with Patreon, you're then familiar with how donors get to actually see the production happen. Thus, your Netflix obsession doesn't fit the investor analogy.
>You don't own the copyright just cause you paid for a service or donated
Who do you suppose artists produce content for, if not the donors? We don't need the copyright (and artists don't always have it).

>>126774
>Tell that to the people who's names sometimes appear in a creator's work. For that matter, tell that to those who care enough about an artist's well being to donate in the first place.
That still isn't called investing in the context of which we are talking about it. The context in which we are talking about it is based on this comment made "We fund the work the same way investors fund companies". This is just factually false. You might be invested in something, but that isn't the kind of investment we are talking about here. If we are talking investing in the same way a company does, then no ... that isn't what a patron is. (although to be frank, even if you were an investor it doesn't necessarily mean you own any copyrights within the company anyway.)

>Except creators don't have the same type of obligations Netflix (for example) does.
Says who?

>Even so, donors seem generally understanding whenever artists have a good reason for not being able to produce content for a bit.
That's because most people are not stupid and have a basic understanding of the world and life in general. Even companies delay things, this isn't exactly unique to artists. And just as a company is obligated to eventually deliver, so is the artist. Again, I am pretty sure the only reason we have yet to see any sort of lawsuit over it is because it's not worth it, not because it can't be done. Plus, as a consumer even if it's not worth suing over, you have plenty of power, just stop supporting them.

>>126774
>Breach of contract doesn't need precedent to make it a well known tort.
Wasn't my point. You are making the claim that the artist doesn't have any sort of legal obligation to deliver. And I am saying you don't know that because there has never been a case where a lawsuit occured. That precedent has yet been set. I would argue however, that most courts would rule in favor of the consumer if the artist did not deliver. As this is typically the way most court cases go when a consumer doesn't receive a product that was promised.

Plus, consumers also have buyers protection in most cases where they can request a chargeback, and unless patreon (patreon handles chargebacks currently) can prove the artist delivered, that chargeback will go through. On top of that, if an artist receives tons of chargebacks, they will likely be removed from the platform at some point. To be frank, you as a consumer have plenty of power to make sure an artist's obligations are met.

>Which customers only get to see after episodes have been fully funded and produced. If you're actually familiar with Patreon, you're then familiar with how donors get to actually see the production happen. Thus, your Netflix obsession doesn't fit the investor analogy.
Whether you see the production or not doesn't change anything in the analogy, so I don't quite understand what you mean. Explain to me how seeing the production occur, makes a difference. You can't just claim it does without explaining why.

>>126774
>Who do you suppose artists produce content for, if not the donors? We don't need the copyright (and artists don't always have it).
You really don't seem to understand the way copyright works. You are correct that artists do not always own the copyright. For example, if I draw Superman, I cannot legally claim to own the copyright on that drawing. The one who does own the copyright is DC Comics/Warner Bros. You as a patron do not own any part of it unless the artist is drawing your own original character.

This means, that while yes ... an artist may not own that copyrighted piece of artwork of superman, it doesn't then mean you as a patron have the right to copy it. You don't. In most cases however, an artist can't do anything about it if you do copy it since they don't own the copyright. DC is the one who would have to, and let's be frank ... that's not going to happen over fan art lol. It might happen if say you purchased a digital deluxe edition of a game and decided to share all the exclusive artwork that comes with it publicly. Then you are likely to get DMCA's by the company.

So to reiterate, at no point does being a patron EVER give you a copyright to any of the work produced by the artist, unless it is your own character. And btw, even if it's your own character, the artist themselves still retain part of the copyright assuming you are the one who gave them permission to draw your character. The only time this isn't really the case is if there is some sort of contract or agreement made prior on who will own full ownership of that specific piece. It's why when a company hires an artist, there is typically a contract associated with it about how they own everything you draw for them while you are working at that company.

>>126774
Also, since you don't like my Netflix analogy. What about early access products like video games? A consumer pays, they get to see it through the production just as a patron gets to with the production of the art. Yet someone who pays early access doesn't just magically own any form or part of the copyright. It doesn't make any difference at all.

>>126801
>>That still isn't called investing in the context of which we are talking about it
>what is an analogy
>Says who?
The creators themselves, who merely describe what their donations go toward.
>That's because most people are not stupid and have a basic understanding of the world and life in general. Even companies delay things, this isn't exactly unique to artists.
The circumstances are: Companies can be sued for non-delivery of promised goods or service, whereas artists have no such liability exposure when they get sick or have a personal emergency or crisis to deal with. As you've basically noted, artists don't lose donors under circumstances that would get companies into a lot of trouble.

>>126802
>You are making the claim that the artist doesn't have any sort of legal obligation to deliver. And I am saying you don't know that because there has never been a case where a lawsuit occured.
That's because they don't conduct themselves in a way to make breach of contract claims possible.
>To be frank, you as a consumer have plenty of power to make sure an artist's obligations are met.
What obligations are you referring to?
>Whether you see the production or not doesn't change anything in the analogy
Actually it supports the analogy in that "investors" get to see what their money is going toward.

>>126803
>>126804
>>126774
>We don't need the copyright
Let's try that again, shall we?

>>126804
>What about early access products like video games? A consumer pays, they get to see it through the production just as a patron gets to with the production of the art
You mean we get to review the source code and pre-release assets, and have direct access to the developers, in the same way we get to see WIP content and download source files on Patreon?

I figure if yp (heh, why pee. get it? Cause... anyway) was hidden, we wouldn't have a ton of board spam, derailed keyboard rants and venomous libel, and more QA from the creator of the site.

Though, as the saying goes, it's double edged. As then, we wouldn't have as many creators on the site and would be quite barren of any versatility, variety or vivaciousness.

It would quite literally be just yiff, like many have said it was like, when the site was private. So, it would be a regression, of sorts.

>>127024
>The creators themselves, who merely describe what their donations go toward.
Just because a creator claims to not have any obligation doesn't make it true. If your source is the creators, then you are just as stupid as they are if you believe them.

>Companies can be sued for non-delivery of promised goods or service, whereas artists have no such liability exposure when they get sick or have a personal emergency or crisis to deal with.
Again, you literally have not even proven if this is true or not. And you even just said your source is the creators themselves who claim this. That's not a good source. That's like a company telling you they are not liable and you actually believe them. No, if you are operating as a business in the US or any country who has these sorts of laws, you are liable if you do not deliver. It doesn't matter if you are an artist making money off of patreon. Anyone can sue them if they feel it's worth the effort and time to do so.

So let me reiterate this for you. You are just plain wrong on this point.

>As you've basically noted, artists don't lose donors under circumstances that would get companies into a lot of trouble.
Artists do lose patrons when they don't deliver. Who in their right mind continues supporting an artist when they are not doing anything? Again, prove this shit to me instead of constantly talking and talking with claim after claim and not a shred of actual proof or evidence. These claims are so stupid. I mean, shit I lose patrons now and then even when I am active releasing artwork weekly with the claim I wasn't active enough. Now imagine if an artist isn't doing anything or at least providing the bare minimum promised. Of course they will lose patrons you donut!

>>127024
>That's because they don't conduct themselves in a way to make breach of contract claims possible.
I disagree, any sort of business transaction has some form of contract. Patreon itself has a ToS, meaning simply by using patreon whether you are a creator or a consumer, you are subject to a contract, and it isn't just between you and patreon, but also you and the creator that you are supporting. I do not see any sort of legal reason as to why a patron wouldn't be able to sue an artist on patreon if they didn't deliver.

But again, and I have said this multiple times. Suing someone over something so little is just stupid and serves you absolutely no benefit because you are going to lose more money for the court fees. It's just not worth suing over. It's not that you can't, it's just not reasonable to do so, not for you or the artist. You can just issue a chargeback and get your money back. So where is the problem? They don't deliver, take your fucking money and leave. It's not complicated.

>What obligations are you referring to?
Making sure they deliver on what they promise. Again, issue a fucking chargeback, you quite literally have that power.

>Actually it supports the analogy in that "investors" get to see what their money is going toward.
It's like you have this issue with not understanding nuances and context. They are investors and they want to see what their money is going toward because they want to make a PROFIT. This is literally not the same fucking thing we are talking about. Like I don't understand how you can be this retarded lol.

>>127025
>ou mean we get to review the source code and pre-release assets, and have direct access to the developers, in the same way we get to see WIP content and download source files on Patreon?
What is your IQ, cause you have some serious issues in comprehension and understanding of different situations? Seeing wip content and getting access to some source files isn't an artist giving you some kind of "in" or copyright privilege, it is literally a fucking benefit for supporting them. And in reference to video games, no you don't' get access to the source code you donut, but you can get access to WIP builds of the game (which is what fucking early access is). Or another example, sometimes you even get to see WIP artwork for a game. Some special editions of a game will occasionally come with digital or sometimes physical artwork, and very often that artwork is concepts and WIP pieces.

Just cause you get access to these things as a BENEFIT ... a FUCKING BENEFIT! doesn't give you any sort of copyright. I put it in capitals and repeated it so you fucking read it and hopefully comprehend the difference between getting something as a benefit and being an investor and getting access to it to make sure your going to earn a profit.

Seriously making me want to rip my hair out cause I can't believe how stupid you must be to not understand the difference between investing and being a fucking patron on patreon. Like holy shit dude, did someone drop you on your head?

thread derailed by an ultrafaggit

back on topic, YP really REALLY needs to turn off search indexing, and maybe reintroduce a password gate. what kinda pw tho is unclear, since YP is no longe associated with 8chon and its shota panda

>>127094
>thread derailed by an ultrafaggit

Ironic since he's always accusing everyone else of doing exactly that (in every thread that gets derailed after his "arrival").

>>127056
>>127054
>>126803
>>126801
>>125967
>etc
>etc

Jesus fucking Christ. 5,000,000 words! Essay man breaking his own record for thread saturation, 10 fold!

>>127053
>Just because a creator claims to not have any obligation doesn't make it true
>>127024
>What obligations are you referring to?

>Again, you literally have not even proven if this is true or not. And you even just said your source is the creators themselves who claim this. That's not a good source.
It's a perfectly good source if you understand what goes into claims of false advertising, breach of contract, etc etc. This is the part of the conversation where I advise you to leave the law to the lawyers.

>>No, if you are operating as a business
>implying

>Artists do lose patrons when they don't deliver. Who in their right mind continues supporting an artist when they are not doing anything?
>>>126801
>That's because most people are not stupid and have a basic understanding of the world and life in general.
Hmmm....

>>127054
>>I disagree, any sort of business transaction has some form of contract.
>business transaction
>Patreon itself has a ToS
Lots of websites have terms for their service. Doesn't magically turn their service into a business transaction.
>You can just issue a chargeback and get your money back. So where is the problem?
The problem is that you're relying on some strawman version of Patreon, where the level of specificity needed to initiate a chargeback actually exists. Another reason your Netflix thing doesn't work.
>Making sure they deliver on what they promise.
What do you allege they promise, other than a mere declaration of what their donations are going to?
>They are investors and they want to see what their money is going toward because they want to make a PROFIT.
Who's saying otherwise? You gotta stop relying on these strawman arguments, because all it's doing is showing that you have no idea what allegories are.

>>127056
Guess that means you've offered us a bad analogy.
>Just cause you get access to these things as a BENEFIT ... a FUCKING BENEFIT! doesn't give you any sort of copyright.
>implying donors are obligated to care about the "benefit"
>>127025
>>We don't need the copyright
Seriously, this strawman thing is getting old.

>>127224

These are the first comments that really shifted everything off topic.
>>125276
>>125470
>>125473
>>125517


I was only responding to what the conversation shifted too. Plus, I hate to break this to you, most of the threads here go off topic regardless if I am present or not. None of you know how to stick to the topic. But, who fucking cares, not like you all have anything important to say.

>>127316
>Lots of websites have terms for their service. Doesn't magically turn their service into a business transaction.
Google, what is a business transaction? "A business transaction is an event involving an interchange of goods, money or services between two or more parties." Google, what does ToS stand for? "Terms of Service"

So I am not sure how much you are aware of this, but by accepting any ToS, that IS a type of business transaction. You are agreeing to the terms set by a business to use their service. The only reason it doesn't feel like a business transaction is because you have gotten used to it as more often than not is practically an automatic agreement when you choose to use the site. Plus in the case of patreon, you are not just visiting the site, you have to sign up, accept a ToS, and also pay money to any creators you support. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. It's 100% a business transaction.

>The problem is that you're relying on some strawman version of Patreon, where the level of specificity needed to initiate a chargeback actually exists.
I really don't have any clue what you mean. Are you saying you cannot initiate a chargeback on patreon? Cause patreon themselves disagree with you as they have an entire section on chargebacks and how they are handled.

>What do you allege they promise, other than a mere declaration of what their donations are going to?
The tiers typically have a list of rewards and benefits. Obviously, this doesn't apply for all creators. But if they don't give you a list of rewards and benefits, then they literally have no commitments at that point because they never even set any. Anyone who is paying at that point is just a donator. You can't sue someone over something they never promised.

>>127316
>Who's saying otherwise? You gotta stop relying on these strawman arguments, because all it's doing is showing that you have no idea what allegories are.
I am curious as to what you think an allegory is and how it applies to anything that has been discussed here. Cause I am getting the feeling you are the one who doesn't know what it means.

Also, your use of quotes is confusing as fuck and I have no idea what you are trying to say. As you are quoting shit I didn't even say. Are you using quotes as answers or some shit? What is the context? It's why I ignored your entire first reply and second half of the second comment.

>>127383
>oh, faggots are gonna derail threads anyway
>hey, I'm gonna be an ultrafaggot instead of leaving it alone

Ha-ha, I suck dicks and deserve to get ripped from.

>>127388
It's an impostor!

BTW, do you have any idea how immature you have to be to do that lol? That's like the kind of thing a 5 year old would do. To each their own I guess. When you don't have an argument you resort to imatureity.

>>127387
Says the person literally doing the same thing.

>>127392
Essay boy just went into "No, you!" mode.

judgejudy1.gif (637.2KiB, 320x240) save_alt

>>127384
>>Lots of websites have terms for their service. Doesn't magically turn their service into a business transaction.
>Google, what is a business transaction? "A business transaction is an event involving an interchange of goods, money or services between two or more parties." Google, what does ToS stand for? "Terms of Service"
<

>So I am not sure how much you are aware of this, but by accepting any ToS, that IS a type of business transaction.
Even where no exchange occurs?

>Plus in the case of patreon, you are not just visiting the site, you have to sign up, accept a ToS, and also pay money to any creators you support
When did donations become business transactions?

>Are you saying you cannot initiate a chargeback on patreon?
I'm saying chargebacks don't work too well for mere donations.

>The tiers typically have a list of rewards and benefits.
I think the word you're looking for is "incentives".

>if they don't give you a list of rewards and benefits, then they literally have no commitments at that point because they never even set any. Anyone who is paying at that point is just a donator.
We're donators no matter what. You yourself acknowledged that Life sometimes gets in the way of an artist's ability to incentivize. Actual businesses have no such excuses for non-delivery.

>>127386
>I am curious as to what you think an allegory is and how it applies to anything that has been discussed here. Cause I am getting the feeling you are the one who doesn't know what it means.
The word I was looking for is "analogy". What of it?

>Also, your use of quotes is confusing as fuck and I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Sounds like a personal problem.

>As you are quoting shit I didn't even say.
Not required to quote only your words, but have fun dodging the one point you can't address.

>Are you using quotes as answers or some shit? What is the context? It's why I ignored your entire first reply and second half of the second comment.
So who's supposed to be the retard here?

I run a failing Patreon because I have so much free time to shit myself here, on a daily basis, instead of producing content.

Actually I'm kinda curious what do you guys gain from this whole argument? I mean it does look like waste of time and energy to me... well unless you guys just having fun trolling each other... who knows...

>>127595
>Even where no exchange occurs?
The acceptance of the ToS and the use of the website is the exchange. They offer you a service, and as long as you accept the terms put forth, you can use that service. But as I pointed out, even if you don't agree with that, we are talking Patreon which does include exchanging actual money. So it doesn't really make a difference to my main point.

>When did donations become business transactions?
The only time it really counts as a donation from a legal perspective is when you are not receiving anything for it. Patreon actually has a section on this for writing off donations on a tax form and what counts and what doesn't.

>I'm saying chargebacks don't work too well for mere donations.
I disagree. Banks and sites like paypal are almost always more often than not going to side with the consumer unless the business/seller (in this case patreon) gives proof against the claim made by the consumer. Again, patreon has a section in their ToS about chargebacks.

>I think the word you're looking for is "incentives".
Patreon calls it benefits. https://blog.patreon.com/tiers-and-benefits-best-practices Not sure why you didn't bother to just look that up yourself, instead of acting like I am the one who is wrong lol. If you want to claim I am wrong, you might as well take that up with the site itself. As well as some governments considering now most of the benefits have taxes on them cause they are seen as goods and services.

>>127595
>Actual businesses have no such excuses for non-delivery.
They do. I have already said it once, but you don't seem to listen. Delays happen all the time. For example, many people pre-order games, and yet those games can get delayed. When was the last time you seen a game company get sued over a delay? The only time I ever see any sort of legal action taking place is when a company either refuses to refund or never delivers at all. You have not once proven or shown that this cannot be done for artists, it is simply something you keep assuming without any logical reason for it.

>The word I was looking for is "analogy". What of it?
XD Fair enough, but don't blame me when you are the one who used the wrong word lmao. That's your own fault.

>Sounds like a personal problem.
Not even close, it's a problem with your formating. You have to differentiate between quotes when you are quoting a person, and quotes when you are using them as answers. Everyone on this forum is anonymous, I have absolutely no way to know who you are quoting. It could be you, it could be someone else. Use a little bit of common sense when writing.

>Not required to quote only your words, but have fun dodging the one point you can't address.
How am I supposed to address a point if I don't even know what the point is? And if you don't explain the point then that isn't me dodging it, that is you not being clear.

>So who's supposed to be the retard here?
You. Always has been you. Don't even know how to write proper points, nor do you understand how quotes work apparently.

>>127633
>I run a failing Patreon because I have so much free time to shit myself here, on a daily basis, instead of producing content.
Imposter! As for my "failing" patreon, keep telling yourself that. XD Honestly, my patreon has been a lot more successful than I ever even expected in this short amount of time that I have used it. I know some artists who have been doing art for 10+ years who have less patrons than me, and I just started doing art a few years ago and my patreon is only 1 year old with very little advertising of it. Plus, I have a fanbox for my Japanese fans or anyone who dislikes patreon. With that said, I am not making a living off of it. Not yet at least.

I am expecting a massive growth in 2021 throughout the year since I will be releasing all the exclusives I had done in 2020. Think of it like this, in 2020 I mainly only posted to patreon as most of the art I did was exclusive. So even with the small amount of pieces I posted publicly, I still grew on patreon, and now I will have an art piece every single week that has been backlogged from the entire year.

Doing exclusives on patreon was the best choice I ever made. Which is why I still do it. The simple fact of the matter is, if it didn't work .. I wouldn't continue it. But it does work, and I assume that is why most other artists on patreon do it to. For all the complaints you have, it's actually not the artists fault, if you dislike it, complain at those who pay. But to be frank, I am thankful to them, they are good people and I enjoy their company on my discord server.

>>127654
>well unless you guys just having fun trolling each other.
I enjoy it. Not necessarily trolling, but I do enjoy the debate and conversation even if it sometimes can go in circles. For what it's worth, for every 20 or so assholes there is actually a good person among them who is willing to have a decent conversation.

Buns actual job: Being "that 1 guy" on Yiff.Party... Okay TBH theres 2 people who fit that bill, but still.

>>127804
what about me do i count

AAAND ARCHIVED

also why are yall so hateful towards trolls isn't this the original spirit of YP (why does nobody reply to the name w7-890)

>>127730
🐰🐇 put this on your name or you can use this 😇

1292886881924s.jpg (10.4KiB, 200x175) save_alt

>>127925
I don't even know what your robot sounding name means but I've seen it around and as your old boss I decided to reply to your name to remember the good times. You were always 7 hours late for work and drunk and sometimes smoking weed around the petrol pumps, thats the only reason I fired you. Apart from that you were a good employeo.

tomcruiselaughing.jpg (58.7KiB, 800x450) save_alt

>>127724
>The acceptance of the ToS and the use of the website is the exchange.
<
>The only time it really counts as a donation from a legal perspective is when you are not receiving anything for it.
That's not what I asked, but I'll advise you again to leave the law to the lawyers.
>Banks and sites like paypal are almost always more often than not going to side with the consumer
>consumer
I don't think you're getting this donation concept.
>Patreon calls it benefits
Patreon can call it whatever it likes, but it's an attempt to garner donors just the same.

>>127727
>They do. I have already said it once, but you don't seem to listen. Delays happen all the time. For example, many people pre-order games, and yet those games can get delayed.
And unlike donors on Patreon, consumers (and bonafide investors, as the case may be) get rightfully pissed.
>XD Fair enough, but don't blame me when you are the one who used the wrong word lmao. That's your own fault.
You struggled with the concept just the same by taking things more literally that you ought you have.
>Sounds like You have to differentiate between quotes when you are quoting a person, and quotes when you are using them as answers.
I don't have to do a damn thing, but you don't need to offer us any excuses for not ignoring adverse points.
>How am I supposed to address a point if I don't even know what the point is?
I guess it would be difficult to understand points that contradict your world view. But by all means, keep calling your opponent retarded while you explicitly ignore arguments you can't rebut.

>>127727
>Not even close, it's a problem with your formating.

Try not giving us essays.

File