July 2020 donation progress: $0.00/$250 (0%). Click to learn more...
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 July 2020

So far, approximately $0.00 has been raised out of our target of $250.00. We're about 0% 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 July!

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.

Entitled artists

undoReturn
D1-6XeJXcAAYzYG.jpg (25.3KiB, 608x600) save_alt

Hey there everybody. Your friendly neighborhood Crackhead again. I wanted to: (1) Post a thread where people can share their interactions with some entitled artists (and their fanboys) and (2) to vent about this mentality that the artists have, Patreon's corrupted business model, and how to fix it.

So. I'll begin my rant. Artist's seem to think that they deserve to be paid. Fair enough, everybody needs some kind of income. But - and this might be a little confusing - people don't DESERVE to be paid. To help make this point, I'll need to split this into three parts:
The Problem with Patreon.
The Grey Area of Fair Use and its Abuse
The Mob Mentality of Artists and their Followers.

The Problem with Patreon.

Patreon is a bad business model. Plain and simple. On the surface, there's nothing wrong with Patreon. It's a nice crowdfunding website where nice people go to support other nice people who just want a little bit of money thrown at them to show that people care. Dig only a foot deeper and you start to see some cracks in this facade. The site rarely has people on it that use it for donations. Instead, it has become a marketplace of intangible goods and paid subscriptions. In fact, it's pretty much just a porn site. Subpar camthots have a foothold on the place and NSFW artists make their home there. Now, here's where the problem lies. A donation is a one time payment that you make to show someone you care. You could do this as many times as you like and you can do it when you feel like it. Giving to somebody because you want to makes you feel pride and joy, because you feel like you're helping, like you're contributing. A subscription, on the other hand, is a constant payment, usually monthly wherein you pay to have access to content. This doesn't feel like giving, like donating. This feels like I'm being forced to pay. I could pay if I want. I could subscribe with the intention of donating. But what happens if I don't want to donate that month, or I just don't have sufficient funds at the moment to do so. I would lose access to that content, would I not? I see that on many artist's Patreons, they call their subscriptions, donations. That is a blatant lie given the information stated above. (Running out of space, continued on next post)

Now, this is what artists seem to want: "Pay me to make content for you guys". In actuality, this is what it is: "Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw. I deserve hundreds of dollars just to do my hobby". That'd be like me coming along and demanding payment to put together some LEGO that I just came up with of the top of my head. It may be professional looking, but for me to demand payment just so you could see it, would be extremely petty. Paywalls are another part of the problem. To illustrate, imagine Ebay used a paywall system. You want to buy something, but you can't actually see what you're about to buy. You can't even read the description without first paying for the product. Then add passwords to that. Not only can you not see what you buy, but you also need a password to see it, after you bought it.

Pauvre connard...

Biggest problems are a) artists setting up their patreons like it'll be their main job and then posting once in a blue moon b) advertising with official, popular characters, then only posting eye-cancer-inducing OC commissions, I am not paying to see other people's self-inserts fuck each other

>>29270
Patreon here, this are more real points than the OPs communist agenda, a) its true, i see patreons that made like 1 work monthly, masterpiece or normie art still just mediocrity on the relation time/money, i personally try to see this as a 1/3 time job and so I produce daily or every 2 days depending on my other work (fortunally its office work).
b) its true on every level, patreon or no, a familiar pokemon its more appealing than a smegma-crusty OC, unfortunally theres this copyright hole that pretty soon the big companies will see here and crush all those fanart fags.

>>29286
ad b) copyright's not the problem, it just way more effective to charge people for commissions and then charge other people to see these commissions.

Kayla-na fits this bill very well, she's also really sucky with her attitude

>>29286
>implying Patreon is a marketplace

Sorry guys. A lot of bullshit happened yesterday and I couldn't finish my rant.

The Grey Area of Fair Use and its Abuse

Fair Use is a throwaway card artists like to pull wgen someone points out that 90% of thier Patreon money comes from drawing copyrighted material. Fair Use is a grey area because, without it, we wouldn't have reviews, the news, or other forms of media that we use throughout the day. Here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use. This should explain every little detail without taking up too much space. One of the things I wanted to focus on though, was parody. Artists (can I even call these people artists?) like Miss Phase and a few others, like to hide behind the parody argument. In order for a work to be considered parody, it must be "transformative". It seems pretty obvious to me what this means. Just make sure your character doesn't look the same as the copyright holder's character.

However, you will see this time and time again, where a person who has a certain way of drawing, an artstyle, considers their work to be transformative. Take the example of Wouhlven's OC Data (Wouhlven, I'm not attacking you, but sicking your fanboys on me was kinda mean, so it kinda is an attack). Data is a Renamon of the Digimon series. If you go and look at her design, there are a few noticeable changes. First off she has tits (they're kinda small ?). Second, she has a rather curvacious body. Third, her she wears glasses. Fourth, she has a pixilated version of renamon's purple yin-yang symbol on her legs. (Renamon artists tend to treat that symbol like it's a cutie mark or something). However, the artist still calls her a renamon and she can digivolve to anthro versions of her other forms. And those forms keep their original names as well.

To me, that's not so much transformative as it is taking someone else's concept and using it for personal gain. (A little side note; after his fanboys came onto yiff.party demanding we pay their artist, and after he made a big fuss about it on twitter, he actually gained more supporters and went from making around to $225 a month, to $275. It was going to happen inevitably, so he can't complain.)
Funny thing about artists is that they're generally nice to each other. They hate to be stolen from and hate to see people steal their OCs. They'll get angry for another artist if they caught somebody using that artists character without permission. That's cool right? So, where's that same amount of repsect for the designers of renamon, lucario, or pikachu? What about them? They're artists too are they not? Shouldn't they get the same protection from fellow artists and the same respect? Apparently not.

Artists love to pull the "I'm not some big company making millions" card to justify stealing the original artist's character. They ignore the fact that they would support MilesDF's greedy practices simply because he isn't part of a large company. To them, he's not making millions (yet), so he isn't a bad dude.

I saw this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.michaelessek.com/parody-fair-use-mash-ups-copyright-info-t-shirt-designers/amp/. It supports the point that fair use is not a get out of jail free card. Just because you're getting away with it, that doesn't make it lawful and it sure as hell doesn't make you exempt from the law.

Personally I feel people should use Patreon more like CoffeeChicken where iirc all works are eventually posted on twitter but at a later date than Patreon, it feels like a better solution than just making it a paywall.

Crackhead, do you seriously lose sleep over this whole thing? Man you have so many hangups about this. Jesus christ.

>"Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw. I deserve hundreds of dollars just to do my hobby".
Sitting in front of the screen stationary does not mean what you do is hollow of any value. I used to be paid to sit on my ass to draw for video games. It paid like shit and the games we were making were ass. Now I sit on my ass to draw porn and it makes a lot more people happy, and I get to live better because the community is better than all the pothead bosses I used to have. In the entertainment industry, there is simply no job that's mightier in morality than what I do now, legitimate or otherwise.

>Patreon is a bad business model.
It stuck around, people opt into it, constitutes as a successful business model. I used to work in start up accelerator programs. 100 startups come in, two of them actually start making profit, and one of which survives after 6 months. We live in a world of 1% success rate for any new software company.

If you mean "No, I mean it's a bad value prospect for users vs creators" then... You're only saying that because you don't want to support creators. Plain and simple.

>But what happens if I don't want to donate that month, or I just don't have sufficient funds at the moment to do so. I would lose access to that content, would I not?
It is true you have to back up on the content manually. That IS dumb, that's why I never kick people out of my Discord server if they cease to donate for whatever reason, and I supply them the old artwork should they want to have it. It is true that it's up to the creator to make things more just when it comes to that, but, you know, it doesn't mean we don't try.

>a) artists setting up their patreons like it'll be their main job and then posting once in a blue moon
If that's the case then their Patreon campaign does not work. Plain and simple. Patreon IS a job, given if you treat it like a job. You have to keep up and you have to fill in a quota of content every month to retain user retention. "Retention" is a business term used for mobile app and gaming industry, and it's one of the most definitive things to determine if a software has any future. You have to work for your retention (concurrent users and drop/gain rate of users), you have to show that you have the means and the intent to make your app a live service. It should be updated properly, it should reflect the needs of the users properly, and there should be a lot of communication. When I got into Patreon I knew a lot when it comes to all this, and I made use of my previous job experiences to make my Patreon campaign successful. To me, it is a job, and not only I give enough effort to have it be constitute as more than a hobby, but also it follows the technicalities of various job-specific terminologies.

Likewise, you can found a company but don't do shit with it and become bankrupt. That's pretty much the same as "making a Patreon and posting once in a blue moon". It's a mishandling of the tools, not something that showcases the tool's shortcomings. That's not Patreon's fault, and certainly not a fault on behalf of GOOD Patreon creators.

>b) its true on every level, patreon or no, a familiar pokemon its more appealing than a smegma-crusty OC, unfortunally theres this copyright hole that pretty soon the big companies will see here and crush all those fanart fags.
What I don't understand in this whole debate is, from a pirate's standpoint, what bad is there to be done by an artist doing sexual fanart? Do we ruin the characters for you? What do we actually do to bring you distaste, other than the fact that we gain monetary support by bringing people things that they want to see? If we don't do it, people will still want to see it - but they just won't see it because there will be, at most, a fraction of the content you are seeing now. Like it or not, Patreon is a content aggregate. It makes people create stuff that appeals to the most people possible, as opposed to a commission-mandated content pool where people with the most money dictate what content there is.
> One of the things I wanted to focus on though, was parody. Artists (can I even call these people artists?) like Miss Phase and a few others, like to hide behind the parody argument.
It is true the rules governing this is vague, but that opens a leeway for debate - until more definitive rules come into place. You argue using IP belonging to others is just wrong (but then why would there be a parody clause in the law?) or porn artists' work isn't transformative enough, and I argue that you overlook many details to benefit your own view on these. Our works are more transformative than you think.
>However, you will see this time and time again, where a person who has a certain way of drawing, an artstyle, considers their work to be transformative.
It is true this quality alone does not constitute a work to be "transformative". Let me explain in the next post.

The law in place (as detailed in its whole vagueness in http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use) was first and foremost put in place to combat the THEN biggest problem when it comes to reused/redistributed media content: Reselling of copied movies, music on hard memory tools. This is why the law is hilariously insufficient when it comes to deliberately point on what constitutes as a "fan art" - that just was not at all a problem when these laws were conceptualized. The laws are mainly there to hinder you from taking a content absolutely verbatim, and selling it with all the profits made to yourself. At the time of this law is made or updated, the gray area of "someone making a content from SCRATCH but intellectual properties belonging to others" was unheard of - other than Chinese bootleg companies making bootlegs of American properties. They still couldn't do much because that would require enforcing overseas rules.

These laws are also there to protect the rights of reviewers, where they're allowed to use undoctored footage from things that don't belong to them. This forms the basis of what can be lawfully "transformative" in the eyes of a lawman in 90s. However, with the explosion of internet and people creating unlicensed digital art depicting other intellectual properties, the gray areas have been more and more spread out. The law we're arguing about, although it's unquestionably the law that dictates what we're talking about in the eyes of the court, is outdated. That being said, this means we have to squeeze our own interpretations and meanings out of these outdated laws to reflect towards our modern conundrums, which can tiptoe around and become biased towards my ideals or your ideals in a coincidental, hectic way.

...and this is where this confusion and controversy stems from, with no real answer. If you handle the whole debate by incurring "the fair use laws are there to only hinder you from pirating movies and music, or you trying to pass your unlicensed work off within the official distribution belonging to companies: As such any actual, made-from-scratch artwork, that doesn't align with aforementioned intentions, it's to be labeled Transformative in nature", you would not be incorrect. I wouldn't say you're entirely right. I'd definitely call you immoral if you defend what I've said, but I wouldn't call you wrong. At the same time, if you claim "if you draw things that are not licensed to you, by nature you're misusing copyright material" I also wouldn't call you incorrect. Again, it would be a dangerous oversimplification, but not wrong on paper, despite being in conflict with the previous "correct" statement. This conflict only happens because the laws are, again, outdated.

Here's what DMLP says about "what constitutes as transformative":
>In evaluating the purpose and character of your use, a court will look to whether the new work you've created is "transformative" and adds a new meaning or message. To be transformative, a use must add to the original "with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. Although transformative use is not absolutely necessary, the more transformative your use is, the less you will have to show on the remaining three factors.
>If you merely reprint or repost a copyrighted work without anything more, however, it is less likely to qualify for protection under this prong. If you include additional text, audio, or video that comments or expands on the original material, this will enhance your claim of fair use.
This site states that, basically, any edit you make on a footage not made by you CAN be used as "Fair use points" in court [...]

And if you have enough Fair-use points, DESPITE THAT YOU'RE USING A WHOLE MOVIE AS THE CANVAS OF YOUR WORK, MIND YOU, you can actually win this hypothetical lawsuit. This is currently how things work, and whether you're guilty or not is in the hands of the judge that assesses such things. The judge, from case to case, is responsible with filling in the gaps of the law to suit the current situation.

What does that say about merely USING DESIGNS and IN-FICTION PLOT-ELEMENTS of a licensed property? Well, surely, it's better than actually putting meaningful images or text on top of a movie and still getting away with it. Again, the law seems to give more weight on whether your artwork CLOSELY RESEMBLES something that can be distributed by the license holders. That's also why "transformative" is so outlined - by definition, it means that your new work should make it clear that it aims for a different thing than the original.

As such, currently, I incur that by means of us doing "porn", it's already transformative, in the eye of the current outdated laws. Maybe Article 13 and its upcoming US version will change that for the better or worst. But currently, porn being a whole genre that most of these IP holders don't create, us making porn makes us
a) Aim for a different meaning using the IP, and put well-known characters in positions that they wouldn't otherwise be depicted in
b) Have designs that are adjusted to suit a different genre
c) Have designs that are adjusted for SPECIFIC PERSONAL taste, which is something IP owners don't do
d) Most importantly, make it abundantly clear that we don't try to pass our content as the real thing, or that we don't try to be financial competitors to the real thing.

That last part is given a very big clause in DMLP's article when it comes to fictionalized properties.
>This fourth factor is concerned only with economic harm caused by substitution for the original...
We don't harm em, thus, we are in the clear.

Not Crackgead (obviously), but I'm gonna interject here:
The hold up a lot of us have with the entirety of the patreon model as it's been applied by a lot of 'artists' is the delicate balance with how fanwork is handled. The golden rule for as long as fanwork has been a thing generally (Nintendo and Activision as notwithstanding examples) has been "Any and all fanwork is OK, as long as NO MONEY is expected for that fanwork, if you put a price tag on it we'll C&D your ass." These patreon 'artists' are doing a complete fuck you to this and are making profit with other people's IPs. The reason they aren't being called out on this from those IP holders is because of the degrees of separation between the art itself and the money being transferred, and the fact generally no one 'artist' is completely dedicated to one IP, painting a massive target on them despite the first reason, and just generally these companies having not caught on yet. This is complete bullshit because before patreon and anyone who doesn't do this after respect the fact that this is FANart, made by FANS because they like a thing enough to want to make art for the sake of making it. Bringing money into the equation completely devoids this of any fan merit and brings it purely to making a profit over someone else's IP, no matter how much so they want to try and claim otherwise.

To a couple of the other points,
>"Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw. I deserve hundreds of dollars just to do my hobby".
It's the second part of this that's important, not so much the first which obviously means you went and focused on the first part. Making art can be a job absolutely, and is a worthy goal to achieve. The problem is the patreon model, as opposed to proper commissions or in a production studio environment, is that you're being paid to do whatever the hell you want, which is not real work. Work (in this context) is do something for someone else in exchange for money. I'm sure someone's going to come along and make the argument you're still doing this with patreon, thing is, you're not being held accountable for anything from any given person. Which is pretty key for the “Work” dynamic to work, because without it, there's no possibility for anyone to give input that affects what the artist has to do to get that money, you are literally just sitting on your ass doing whatever the hell you want because no one is telling you what it is you're 'earning' that money for, creating the “Hobbiest, but people are giving me money” mentality so many of these people have.
>Patreon is a bad business model.
This is “Patreon is a morally wrong buisness model” less so than “Patreon doesn't function as a working buisness model”, as the rest of that paragraph went to explain.

>Not Crackgead (obviously)
It's alright, I'm not one to try to reject sound arguments with irrelevant accusations of samefagging or whatever. That's what he does, by uttering my name and acting like I'm the only one against his judgment whenever someone else tries to talk sense into him.

>"Any and all fanwork is OK, as long as NO MONEY is expected for that fanwork, if you put a price tag on it we'll C&D your ass."
That's not false, especially in 90s and 00s when so many people weren't self-producing so much merch that had so much fanwork on it. I'm inclined to believe Disney was very trigger happy when it comes to that, but I believe their tactic of spamming C&D was not because they were going to win as the law stands, but their lawyers were too powerful and going against Disney is too expensive.

>degrees of separation
Extremely valid argument. We're not doing sales, we're putting "donation incentives". Skeevy language? Sure. But at the same time, the law that says "you can't SELL stuff that has IP rights on it" still works in full effect. It works in a lot of ways, like we can't make a company based on doing this, we can't have stock, we can't do all the extra corporate stuff that they can do - and in the end, we can't get big enough to fuck up their profits. That's why the law is there, and that law still fulfills its purpose.

>Bringing money into the equation completely devoids this of any fan merit
I disagree. A lot of us don't do this for profit, we do it so that we can focus our lives on doing this and bring the maximum amount of content in return. Not all of us, some of us are more immoral - but most of the time the community handles it. Sure there are MilesDFs but we know of his name because he's rare.

>Work (in this context) is do something for someone else in exchange for money.
I disagree. That's already an extremely shallow definition. You can also say that to discredit a lot of Start-ups. You can discredit so many independent porn workers who don't want to divulge in it. You can say that for Youtubers/Twitch Streamers who try to explain their sustainability methods to non-savvy people. The definition of work is more versatile than you give it credit for. You know what else you discredit? Bosses of small businesses.

>...is that you're being paid to do whatever the hell you want, which is not real work.
>...Which is pretty key for the “Work” dynamic to work, because without it, there's no possibility for anyone to give input that affects what the artist has to do to get that money...
Again, that goes against so many mottos in the free market. Making start ups, or making a game by your own to put on Steam, or again being a Youtuber. You don't have to be under another person's leash for it to constitute as work. But yeah, you argue that it doesn't constitute as "real work", but even though I agree it's a morality argument, it's such a vague terminology that you can say "McDonalds workers aren't doing real work because it's not the same as doing construction or health-aid work". In the cyber age, we get a lot of input to better our craft - it's the information age, we get the feedback from users, not bosses.

In the end, we do the things other people enjoy being there, and we're able to sustain ourselves because of it. With self-discipline and bringing people what they expect, that's enough to make it count as work. Otherwise, there is no "law" that describes what counts as a "work". If you have to be bound by corporate, then does that mean independent auto repair shops aren't doing work? If you have to be officialized by government, does that mean you have to go to a notary every time when you babysit?

I still have no idea why artists always bring Fair Use. This clause is there to deal with using already made content, not with the concept of using intellectual properties. The only reason why it's always brought up is because it covers parody and everyone thinks adding tits to a character you do not own is parody, which isn't the case by the way. Fair Use is also not vague at all. There is some gradient for some factors like amount used and such, but no vagueness whatsoever. In principle every sort of fanart is copyrights infringements, being sold or not, but since people and intellectual properties owners are not morons they only see fanart as a problem if they're merchandizing the crap out of it.

The most important part with Fair Use you seem to completely miss out is new meaning/purpose. A character's purpose is to be used within a story, and displayed using many ways like in stories and on a picture among other usages. It has nothing to do with changing the scenes or that having tits change the meanings to the design. If that would be the case then everyone would be fine writing and filming new Harry Potter episodes and make up their own events and then label that as "new meaning and purpose". An actual example of new meaning would be, in the art aspect of things, to take a lot of photos you didn't take, and use them as paper-mache craft on a statue you built. This would be a great an example of transformative media. The photos themselves, their purpose have been changed and used for new expressions and purpose.

[cont] Take in mind that intellectual property owners have the full rights for derivative anything. That goes for making plushies, music, writing and of course art. In most cases it doesn't matter that people take a character they don't own and change the design a bit : They're still using their likeliness - Names, and universe for the most part. Again as an example, think of Lego trying to sell Sonic characters as Lego shapes. The designs are not the same obviously but they're still taking their names and identity and Sega would of course not take it too lightly. Now however if you're making a book about Sonic the game and use images to show levels and write a guide about the game, then this is completely fine since you're using the media for a different purpose and more importantly, review and critique. Here Fair Use applies, for points like amount of content used and such. If your book is 95% screencaps and 5% nonsense text, then you will have some problems.

If you want to make money with art, then go create your own original characters. Don't use other people's success and notoriety for your own benefit. This is why copyrights and intellectual properties are a thing. People like me don't like people who make money off of properties they don't own because it's against the law, but simply for a moral standpoint. Even if the law was completely fine with that, it wouldn't change a thing for me, I still would find this extremely deplorable.

>I still have no idea why artists always bring Fair Use.
Much like this thread, it's often the pirates who bring it up.
>This clause is there to deal with using already made content, not with the concept of using intellectual properties.
Exactly what I've said. Except that there IS no law that's more relevant with what we're talking about, so we have to talk about Fair Use which is what governs this whole issue in the mean time.
>It has nothing to do with changing the scenes or that having tits change the meanings to the design.
You underestimate it to suit your own belief. I have a lot of trans-leaning fans because I explore these themes in a character that's normally undoubted and untouched when it comes to such issues. Overlooking porn because it's "just bolting tits on a character" is the same as overlooking comedy because "it's just fart jokes". Sure, some comedians just talk about doody - but a lot of comedians have more to dissect in their craft. Porn is a great genre to explore sexual freedom - which is something a lot of people direly need to see.
>An actual example of new meaning would be, in the art aspect of things, to take a lot of photos you didn't take, and use them as paper-mache craft on a statue you built.
You can make a review "video" out of "video" footages of a movie. That's more of making an edited collage out of photos. Your end-product can be of a similar media to the original and that can still be transformative.

>Take in mind that intellectual property owners have the full rights for derivative anything.
They can make their own reviews too, it doesn't hinder others from making reviews. Alas, if Disney or Sonic Team wants to make their own porn, I'll happily cease my own operations. Hell, I'd be glad to send them a resume.
>If your book is 95% screencaps and 5% nonsense text, then you will have some problems.
How much of a percentage is it to use character names, overall setting and vaguely self-modified-for-comfort character models and pretty much nothing else? I'd say doing your own drawings in itself at least 30% of the way. Your extravagant example becomes quite irrelevant when you think like that.
>If you want to make money with art, then go create your own original characters. Don't use other people's success and notoriety for your own benefit.
That's not what we do. Even if we create our own original characters (I do, you just don't know as I keep the two separate) people will always want porn of well-known characters. The demand will always be there, and the demand is enough to justify its existence. Not to mention, everything is set up nicely so the porn does not interfere or mix up with official material and we don't actively hurt the gains of the IP holders by any means. If anything we contribute to the fandom and keep it lively for the time they announce new products. We help them.
>Now however if you're making a book about Sonic the game and use images to show levels and write a guide about the game, then this is completely fine since you're using the media for a different purpose and more importantly, review and critique.
Parody is the act of critiquing a thing by means of offering an alternate narrative. This alternate narrative doesn't have to be comedy.

>Work (in this context) is do something for someone else in exchange for money.
You seem to be misinterpreting this definition, this is not to say 'Independent' workers of any kind aren't doing real work, the point is at the end of the day, any given person who is doing work is doing something for someone else in exchange for money. (Or something non money as well, but typically money because it makes life easier.) So for “Bosses of small businesses”, they're working for the customers who interact with their business every time they interact with them for their services / products, for a indie game dev, they're putting up a 'product' after some amount of dev time that customers give money for, a start up is starting a business that is intended to interact with customers however that start up is intended to make money with, independent auto repair shops work for their customers repairing their vehicles. Whether directly, delayed, or in a round about way through a corporate system, everyone is exerting effort for someone else for the purpose of gaining something (typically money) in return.

(Cont.)
Except for patreon artists.
They have the “Exerting effort” and “the purpose of gaining something (typically money) in return” parts, but they skip the “for someone else” part entirely by way of diluting the someone else to many many someone else's that have little to no leeway to actually say anything about what it is they are getting in return for the money. Voting and suggestions are a thing (And are absolutely good things in the context of a patreon, don't get me wrong), but that still is not “I'm paying money for something” as much as it is “I'm paying money for the possibility of getting something, that I may or may not want at that.” Which is fine if patreon was just donations, which it was intended to be, because with a donation you're not expecting anything in return. But that's not how these 'artists' are treating patreon with paywalls and the rest of it, they want it to be a part time or full time job.

>So for “Bosses of small businesses”, they're working for the customers who interact with their business every time they interact with them for their services
So how does that not include Patreon creators? Because they're doing what they want? But small businesses CAN do what they want in the inception of the thing they're working on!

Because there is no "product"? Are you going to lean on the literary definition of what's a "purchase" of a "product" vs what's a "donation incentive"? If so, why is that a factor in determining what a "work" is, but for some reason it's not a viable argument to any of you when I say "we're not selling others' copyrighted characters because we're not SELLING anything"?

>They have the “Exerting effort” and “the purpose of gaining something (typically money) in return” parts, but they skip the “for someone else” part entirely by way of diluting the someone else to many many someone else's that have little to no leeway to actually say anything about what it is they are getting in return for the money.
It's for people though. If people don't have an interest in seeing it, they don't support it. That's it.

Do you mean we should just, literally, do what they ask from us, and that constitutes as "real work"? Official sources never do that, in fact being able to surprise your own fanbase is always regarded as a good thing. They use their creative agencies (or demography charting/survey/audience test results and try to mask THEM as artistic leaps, and people actually HATE it when they do that) and so do we.

>>29439
There is a law about intellectual properties and such, and it's simply under the umbrella of Copyrights, you know, the right to copy. Not going to reply to every replies but I'll just say that : My observations of how the laws work around copyrights are based on court cases examination and reading the laws many times over and over, not made up personal opinions based on nothing. Adding a dick on a character isn't enough to make it parody : In involves massive transformation of the character designs, and exaggeration, not forgetting to actually make fun of something relevant to the subject. Fair Use is there so you can use existing material for your own work, for research/news/teaching/blablabla. It isn't about creating something from scratch based off intellectual properties : Those are derivative works, which the copyright owner has full control of.

As a personal note to add, I'm perfectly fine with people making money using IPs they don't own - To a certain extend : Commissions for instance. Personalized request which isn't about selling out for a specific character, one time payment, and everyone gets to see the work. This is fine with me, not perfectly but this isn't something that angers me. As soon as I see someone using properties they don't own for a monetary benefit and forcing a payment, then I have a problem with that, because the artist then clearly shows no respect for their audience, and the properties they're using.

>>29443
It's fine for people to use Patreon for other than donation, which to be honest even for myself who really hate people making money that way, is a stupid way to set one up if you want some income. You are indeed right about people misusing Patreon though. It was first intended for rewards, bonuses. Not for having your actual work locked behind a payment. Things like WIPs, native work file and stuff like request priority and such.

The problem is there's a world of difference making something beforehand with the intention to sell it and being paid to make/do something before the thing is done. The former is where most business reside, the latter is the realm of commisions, whether artistic or for something like repair services. Someone can choose not to buy something for the former, and the commissioner has input with what they're getting with the latter.
Patreon artists want to straddle some inbetween of "You're paying me for the promise of me making something, of whatever the hell I decide to make, that you can have when I'm done." That doesn't work because the two approaches are at complete odds with each other, bringing us to the "Hobby, but get money" thing we're at. Art packs are infinitely closer to being absolutely fine than patreon as a whole, in the context of what constitutes as work.

>>29337
Sonichu by CWC aka chris-chan is the purest form of transformative comedy lul.

Whelp. I hadn't even gotten to my last and final point and the thread has already devolved into Miss Phase attacking me. I thought my ex-girlfriend left but she just loves my arguments so much she can't resist debating with me and showing my thoughts to her fans. I'm going to post the last part and then leave. I'm not getting wrapped up in an argument with someone who will state something as fact and then change their words when the fact is revealed to be a falsehood.

Wat.jpg (44.6KiB, 468x895) save_alt

Can I Have a TL;DR for this debate please? It would be nice to see what is going without trying to dissect every part for 30mins.

>There is a law about intellectual properties and such, and it's simply under the umbrella of Copyrights, you know, the right to copy.
Again, we don't copy anything - we make things, and different things at that - but one of which is a tool owned by something else. Plain and simple. That does warrant the Fair Use argument because what we do strictly isn't "reusing" any actual refined work. And even using the Fair use argument brings us to where we are. Not much to do in the eyes of the law. Morally, though? It's a subjective argument. I think it's fine, you think it's not. What else to do?
>As a personal note to add, I'm perfectly fine with people making money using IPs they don't own - To a certain extend : Commissions for instance
That's an awfully specific leeway to allow, and has nothing to do with the marrow of this conversation. Commissions take on an average of 30 bucks per picture. A Patreon membership takes 5 bucks a month at most, for the lowered price you get the private content that appeals to the most people, as opposed to something that appeals to you only. I don't think limiting the artist's full potential in appealing to a lot of people is beneficial to anybody - but the person who's paying. On the topic of "what constitutes a work", that doesn't hold up with what you're saying. A boss pays you to do a thing to appeal to a lot of people, not just himself. That's not the case with commissions.
> "You're paying me for the promise of me making something
It's not the promise, it's the insurance. Without the support we can't possibly invest the time we can invest into making so much more content.

>>29473
>Miss Phase attacking me.
I did nothing to you. If you still need a burn heal, maybe it's because of your own doing.
>someone who will state something as fact and then change their words when the fact is revealed to be a falsehood.
I never did that.

>>29536
I never said that copyrights is only about copying. This is only where the term comes from in very basic terms and for what it was used for at first. Of course it's more than restricting copying. And again copyrights give protection to intellectual properties. It doesn't matter if you're making something of your own with a character you do not own : This is a derivative work, and only the owner has the right to produce these legally. Come back with Fair Use when there is an actual case of parody, which never happens with porn. See 581 F. 2d 751

There is a clear difference between a one time payment for a picture that everyone gets to see, compared to make something in advance and charge everyone to access it. One is a personalized request, the other is merchandizing a product many times over. One makes a one time payment, the other in theory makes infinite money. 5$ for Patreon seems very low if you ignore the fact that people tend to watch more than one artist. That 5$ tends to get pricey with more and more people joining the Patreon bandwagon. 30$ a commission is extremely low, the average makes more sense at 50$. Not uncommon to see full pictures being done for 100$ or higher. It doesn't matter anyway because it was about the nature of the work done between a commission and Patreon, where one is a one time personalized request that everyone gets to see, compared to selling many products in advance with a clear incentive to use properties you do not own, and having people to pay up to access it.

>Come back with Fair Use when there is an actual case of parody, which never happens with porn.
There is literally a booming genre of movies called "Porn Parodies" with so many associated studios.

>One makes a one time payment, the other in theory makes infinite money.
One time payment per drawing, but a lot of commissioners never stay at "one drawing". If anything's infinite money, it's commissions. In comparison, you get multiple amounts of work for 5 bucks a month, and you can opt out for a year and come back to pay just 5 bucks for a year's worth of artworks.

>5$ for Patreon seems very low if you ignore the fact that people tend to watch more than one artist.
5$ Per artist, the same way 30$ per commission is also per artist.

>30$ a commission is extremely low, the average makes more sense at 50$.
I'm known for my friendly pricing.

>where one is a one time personalized request that everyone gets to see, compared to selling many products in advance with a clear incentive to use properties you do not own, and having people to pay up to access it
No guarantee on the former. Many times I've taken commissions but given them personally, because the content does not suit my galleries. They put it up on their galleries but that already hurts that image's availability - because people often look at my gallery and don't go down the rabbit hole any further.
For a lot of people, things I do for everyone's eyes is the things they would already commission from me, and that'd mean a worse value prospect.

>>29543
There is a ton of dodging and completely missing the points now and it's getting really annoying. Because there is a genre named Parody doesn't mean it is legally the case. Porn isn't parody and it's been established many times in court. I'm not saying 100% of it isn't parody but in this realm where artists simply take characters they do not own and add tits and dick on them, it clearly isn't parody whatsoever.
You completely missed the point here and really feels like you're doing it on purpose. One commission work has a fixed price paid once. A product sold on Patreon has a price that everyone has to pay to access it. This makes the price infinite in theory compared to a one time payment for one commission. There is nothing hard to understand the concepts between the two. Not only that but again one of them forces everyone to pay up to access it.
People are not forced to commission to access the art. Everyone being open for commissions doesn't cause any compromises unlike everyone paywalling their stuff on Patreon for a price. Again that concept isn't that hard to get.
There isn't only you in this art business, and it was made clear especially when using the term Average.
That is your own problem for letting people upload your work and you not doing it. You're really grasping here, people not looking at your whole gallery is completely irrelevant to the concept of selling merchandise. You're basically making appeals to emotion as red herrings at that point.

>>29547
To add with this porn parody discussion, it is very possible to make porn parody, but it needs some actual steps nobody in this fandom takes care of :
- The characters shouldn't be used with their actual names
- Their designs and actions have to be very exaggerated
- And very important here, it has to actually poke fun at something relevant to the material being worked with. Laughing at them having boobs and having gay sex aren't relevant to the slightest

With all this considered then you have a case for parody being actual parody to the eyes of the laws.
Like I said before, for me it isn't about being against the laws but the simple, fact that people are making money using properties they do not own while they're forcing people to pay up to access the material. I and many others simply find that disgusting

I'm sorry for the answers the points you're giving me take me 3 words at a time, but that doesn't mean I'm dodging anything. For time and character count reasons I keep things concise, and you constantly misunderstand it or go over the very crucial details that I'm trying to give you in order to suit your narrative.

>I'm not saying 100% of it isn't parody but in this realm where artists simply take characters they do not own and add tits and dick on them, it clearly isn't parody whatsoever.
I've taken so many posts in this thread to explain why it can be in many ways called a parody, and in fact "putting tits on a character" is a gross oversimplification to discredit all the work artists have been doing.

>One commission work has a fixed price paid once.
Again, all the work put on Patreon would not be there if Patreon wasn't around and the artists needed to go elsewhere for their sustainability. The pieces are made to make the most amount of people happy, and a lot of artists take suggestions into account for drawings or make polls. A lot of people also like the surprise element of what they might be seeing. I make big comics (last one lasted 76 pages and included a lot of patron inputs and 11 characters created by my patrons), those I wouldn't be able to do if Patreon's model did not exist. If anyone wanted to commission that from me, the price would be in 4 (if not 5) digits and that would cause a lot of problems in the security of that money's handling (as Paypal does not like such loaded transfers and it's very easy to scam digital artists by demanding refunds). Instead, it's community funded. By no means that was the only content my patrons got during its time of release either. It still has a fixed price, that's why the donation goals are there.

"Infinite money" is a bad-willed exaggeration. If I hit a higher goal, I wouldn't make a comic: I'd fund more people with that money and make a game for my patrons to enjoy.

>>29551
The laws don't care if you worked hard on your picture. Porn isn't parody, and realistically everyone using Patreon claiming to make parody isn't making real parody to the eyes of the laws, there isn't any simplification. Again, appeal to emotion about how much sweat artists are pouring out drawing properties they do not own so it makes it fine.
There is nothing relevant said here beside saying that Patreon works as everyone knows trying to pass out the fact that you make more money that way means it's the better alternative. You would have a case here if the reward in question wasn't the art being locked up. It doesn't matter if it helps in the long run more than commissions : You are making money using properties you do not own, using popular franchises as an easy way to attract people's wallets. I don't care if it makes it easier that way. Commissions on the other hand do not rely on merchandising properties they do not own. They work on what the commissioner is asking for, and everyone gets to see it. I still cannot grasp how you cannot understand the very easy to get concepts here and why one of those is objectively worse than the other.

Now I know that you're clearly doing in on purpose by saying it's ill-willed. In case you're just too, special to understand what I mean by infinite money in theory, here's the explanation :
If someone wants to see your stuff, he has to pay 5$. Now if someone else wants to see it too, it's another 5$, his friend wants to see it too, another 5$. And another guy again, has to pay 5$ yet again. If you're not too dumb to understand this principle, for every person wanting to see the stuff, more money is being spent. The formula here would be 5$n, which like I said, in theory makes the cost of a single product generate infinite money.
Now compare this to a commission. Someone wants a personal work with whatever he wants. He pays 50$. Now someone wants to see it, he will have to pay 0$. He shows it to his friend, who luckily had to pay nothing to access it. Someone else sees the art, and by a miracle didn't have to pay a cent. The net cost for the art was 50$ one time. Nothing more.
Now if you still can't grasp this concept I'm trying to explain a third time, then I don't know what to think of it.

That will be it for me. I don't want to be repeating myself especially when everything I add is dodged with excuses without addressing the points whatsoever and dismissing them with the "You don't understand artists" card

>The laws don't care if you worked hard on your picture. Porn isn't parody, and realistically everyone using Patreon claiming to make parody isn't making real parody to the eyes of the laws
Porn is parody, it's regarded as parody, there has been many examples to when it was regarded as parody, it is not something restricted by the definition of parody to have your criticism involve porn (and you can point out to a lot of criticism using sex as a point). Etc, etc, I've been repeating myself tons of times and you're just going to deny them and this is not a debate anymore.

What we do isn't currently illegal, it rests in a gray area. And I agree it shouldn't be: What we do isn't wrong.
>appeal to emotion about how much sweat artists are pouring out drawing properties they do not own so it makes it fine.

I've never done that or said that or gave any impression that I'd mean that. A bank robbery takes a lot of effort too. What I've always incurred is that what we do has a unique value that can't be replicated and as such, artists deserve the public funding.

>The formula here would be 5$n, which like I said, in theory makes the cost of a single product generate infinite money.
Any copied material can make infinite money, then. But they don't. Because that's not how things work.

> I still cannot grasp how you cannot understand
I get what you mean, it's just fucking incorrect. I've already said so, you just keep harping on how one person pays for one thing vs how a community funds an artist. One being a good thing doesn't make the other a bad thing. Simple as that.

It's time for my final point.

The Mob Mentality of Artists and their Fans.

Every time I look at twitter, I see artists having nothing but praises heaped on them. "Ooh your art looks incredible", "You draw so well", "I love the way you made the characters look". There's nothing wrong with praise, but too much of it can go right to a person's head. I've seen stories of this time and time again. Then, the moment someone says that they didn't like something about the artist's art or their prices or whatever, they go ballistic. They go on twitter and rally their army saying something along the lines of: "look at this guy trying to steal from me". And at that exact moment tons of fans gather to insult that person and tell them how pathetic they are. Some people even go to the website that OP posted on and continue to hound them there.

TL;DR anyone?

Cont.) Another thing, if you want to appear to be a good person, don't insult people's economic status. Every one of the people that have attacked me have made fun of me by telling me to get a job without knowing whether or not I actually have a job. Here are a few from past threads and twitters:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Wouhlven/status/1106954619392008197
>>28354
>>28356
By the way those were some of Wouhlven's fans. If I can remember correctly, Twitter has a rule that states that you cannot organize an attack on anyone, be it on Twitter, or on another platform. Accidental or not, you still called attention to something you didn't like with the intention of making people take sides with you. Here are some more

(Cont.) Here are a few more:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SonicPhase/status/1085577166086127616
https://mobile.twitter.com/notglacier/status/1102831769055780864
A lot of rude and inconsiderate people there. Why would I want to support someone with - not a donation - but a full monthly payment, who would probably put me on the grill for simply not having enough money? Patreon creators see their fans as nothing more than sentient wallets abd soldiers to command at their lesiure. Sorry it took so long for me to finish my rant, I might add on to it when more bullshit happens.

reee.jpg (261.2KiB, 2408x1488) save_alt

This is weird. The thread is clearly titled "Entitled artists", but all I can see is one guy moaning because he thinks he's entitled to an artist's output. The justifications are all hilarious, ranging from saying it's not a real job, or that artists aren't entitled to payment or even the baffling affirmation that Patreon generates "infinite" money, but it ends up being more like pic related.
Here's the deal: art is a luxury. It's a premium product that takes skill, time and dedication to be produced. If you can't afford it, you don't need it. This isn't food, housing or healthcare, you don't need to jerk off to furry porn to survive. Yeah, it sucks to see an artist I previously liked going full-Patreon with only low-res previews to the outside world, but guess what? It's not a basic human necessity, I can live without it.
What makes you think you have the right to consume everything an artist puts out?

>A lot of rude and inconsiderate people there. Why would I want to support someone with - not a donation - but a full monthly payment, who would probably put me on the grill for simply not having enough money?
Here, let me show you a place in return, where people are incredibly toxic when it comes to having any content that takes a couple bucks to access - because this new method of gathering funds for an artist to incentivize more/better quality/bigger production is more than what you used to pay for: none. How can an artist, no matter how rightfully they require the sustainability money, can defend themselves in a place where they don't care anything else but all the art to be free no matter what?

https://yiff.party/bbs/
A lot of rude and inconsiderate people there. What you see under my Twitter thread is people that are enraged and trying to talk some sense into you. Yiff.Party is full of people that will just shut down a conversation when losing a debate, reverting to screeching of buzzwords or copy pasting some other shit like "Implying Patreon is a marketplace" as if these mottos haven't been debunked several times each.

What people ask for is 5$ per artist. This isn't healthcare numbers no matter if you have a hundred favorite artists that you want to see ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that they want.

>>29703 the baffling affirmation that Patreon generates "infinite" money
Strawmanning isn't nice. Since people here really seem to have a huge comprehension problem, I'll have to reword and repeat for what now, the 4th time ?
I used the very important term -potentially-, this wasn't meant to say that people on Paytreon are making a ton of money this way. This was explained to show the clear cut difference between a commission and paying on Patreon :
- Commissions offer time worked on a personalized request for a price, that everyone can see after it's completed
- Patreon sells the same product(s) they typically made in advance to everyone, making the final revenue for the same product infinite in principle, people who don't pay can't access it
If you guys have a minimum of thinking ability, you can easily see that Patreon offers a lot of downsides to the users compared to commissions, and that was only what I wanted to explain

>Here's the deal: art is a luxury. It's a premium product that takes skill, time and dedication to be produced. If you can't afford it, you don't need it
Huge red herring here. The fact that art is a luxury doesn't change the fact that most of people using Patreon is profiting from intellectual properties they do not own as a mean to generate money. If they want to sell luxury art then they should first make their own property if they want to be taken seriously. If an artist gets his stuff leaked and is actually making his own creations and characters I'd be 100% behind him, but for 99% of artists using Patreon that isn't the case

>>29703
>pic
>implying Patreon is a marketplace

>>29709
>https://yiff.party/bbs/
>A lot of rude and inconsiderate people there.
Why not being an asshole and see if we're still "rude" and "inconsiderate".

>What you see under my Twitter thread is people that are enraged and trying to talk some sense into you.
Wow, look at that ego. >>29665

Unfortunately for you Ms. Phase. Taking this "us vs you" mentality, where you assume you are there to "talk some sense into" the other party, means you've already lost the debate; because no one on "the other side" will listen to you. (the entire point of debate is to come to a compromise or at the very least a better understanding of the issue, not just to change people's minds)

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people who aren't even internally consistent, let alone making "sense", but you are not getting anywhere like this.

Unfortunately for you Ms. Phase. Taking this "us vs you" mentality, where you assume you are there you "talk some sense into" the other party, means you've already lost the debate; because no one on "the other side" will listen to you. (the entire point of debate is to come to a compromise or at the very least a better understanding of the issue, not just to change people's minds)

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people who aren't even internally consistent, let alone making "sense", but you are not getting anywhere like this.

Alright. Let's address some issues here. I will be looking at all of Miss Phases responses. Should she come here, I will simply ignore her and wait till she leaves. (What is she even doing here anyway? Could it be that maybe there are a few people SHE doesn't feel like supporting. Just saying, it'd be pretty interesting IF it was like that. Keyword is IF. Remember that Miss Phase.)

>Crackhead, do you seriously lose sleep over this whole thing?

No. I actually lose most sleep by staying up too late playing video games and the mid-night munchies.
>Man you have so many hangups about this.
Of course I do. I keep seeing artists monetize characters that they don't even own.

>Sitting in front of the screen stationary does not mean what you do is hollow of any value.
Way to avoid the issue. What about the sentence right after.

>In the entertainment industry, there is simply no job that's mightier in morality than what I do now, legitimate or otherwise.
"Higher in morality". Draws porn. "legitimate or otherwise". OR OTHERWISE?! So are you implying that, at the end of the day, you don't care whether or not what you do is illegal? Isn't that a pirate's mindset?

>It stuck around, people opt into it, constitutes as a successful business model.
Just because people all jumped on the bandwagon when they realized how broken the donation system was, that doesn't mean it's a good business model. Remember, I said "bad business model", not "successful". A good business model is good for both the company, and the consumers. A bad one is the exact opposite. Either one can be successful, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

>It is true you have to back up on the content manually. That IS dumb, that's why I never kick people out of my Discord server if they cease to donate for whatever reason, and I supply them the old artwork should they want to have it. It is true that it's up to the creator to make things more just when it comes to that, but, you know, it doesn't mean we don't try
So you're not a complete jerk.

>>29703
I don't exactly care for this thread in general but I personally dont see the harm in me coming here and looking at art that is otherwise paywalled. I was never going to donate* (the average $5 a month is insane considering how inconsistent artists are or how picky I am vs how many paywalled artists exist). Not like they're losing anything and i think the argument of patrons unsubscribing because this place exists is exaggerated.

* purchase

I can live without the luxury but at the same time I'll take it if nobody's hurt. Only a bit morally questionable.

I personally think I'm part of the silent majority when it comes to this matter. The people who post on this board are looking to argue over piracy and art, whether right or wrong, and skew the vision of the average yiff.party consumer.

>No. I actually lose most sleep by staying up too late playing video games and the mid-night munchies.
That's nice. I lose sleep over working on my drawings. I bought Splatoon 2 a week ago and I haven't had the chance to even play it.

>Of course I do. I keep seeing artists monetize characters that they don't even own.
I have my own characters, too bad it's not something that swings in any venue recently. A lot of artists try with their own characters, but the entertainment industry is extremely closed to it. In any case, I wouldn't mind if anyone monetized characters that I own - as long as they don't try to pass off as official and make more money than me. THEN it would be stealing.

>Way to avoid the issue. What about the sentence right after.
Your fault in putting things the way you do. Stop whining when you get answered appropriately.

>"legitimate or otherwise". OR OTHERWISE?!
Opposite of legitimate is "unofficial", not "unlawful".

> A good business model is good for both the company, and the consumers.
We're not bad for anybody. Not even the license holders. We keep the fandom up and fresh, and we divert the attention of the older demography back into the official material.

>>29833
> I was never going to donate
> I can live without the luxury but at the same time I'll take it if nobody's hurt. Only a bit morally questionable.
That's entirely fair. I give exclusive big samples to people all the time, and some of them change their mind later. Or not. I don't feel bad about having my paywalled works to be in the hands of people who don't want to pledge - I just don't want to publicize it as non-paywalled because that would be disrespectful to the support of my patrons.

I'm tired as hell and need another drink, so don't expect a coherent, cited legal reasoning from me, or a coherent sane anything, tbh. For free, at that. What I will say for free, is that the opposite of legitimate is illegitimate because you don't need a law degree for that.

Here in the UK, Judges generally rule against fair use or fair dealing where commercial gain is the sole factor on principle, and the use of game rip models or edits would not stand you in good stead, anyway. In the US, a lot of these cases are swung by the first amendment, but it seems to go either way.

But be under no illusions, there's no moral high ground here. Either you're using game assets you have no rights over to make recordings to sell for money - and let's be clear, the vast majority are not parodying, you're doing the same as Air Pirates, but with more IPs in each instance - you're masturbating furiously to Pac Man wakawakaing Samus's ass and violating Namco and Nintendo's tight copussyrights in the process.

>>29557
It can. As per the Starballz and Air Pirates cases in the US, the substance of the content needs to be original. You can't just take the characters and setting and sex it up as in the latter. In the former, it's permissible, because it isn't the same thing - it is a mimicry of the original with a sexual twist.

The funny thing is that YP hurts the artists with relatively benign patreon setups, where you can pay $5 and see everything they've done for the past year, while pretty much not touching the big jew lords that lock all their content behind messages and force you to pay each month (2x as much on gumroad if you dared to avoid their patreon).
The former type of artist is, I think, justified in bitching. It'd be pretty easy to just go message only to avoid most of YP's bullshit but you're basically fucking over your fanbase with that, so YP puts them in a bad spot.

>>30329
>A lot of artists try with their own characters, but the entertainment industry is extremely closed to it.
>being this serious

>I wouldn't mind if anyone monetized characters that I own - as long as they don't try to pass off as official and make more money than me. THEN it would be stealing.
>We're not bad for anybody. Not even the license holders
>implying plaintiffs have no interest in the money unauthorized parties make from their IPs
>implying damages are restricted to economic harm
Had you been using Patreon as intended, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

>I just don't want to publicize it as non-paywalled because that would be disrespectful to the support of my patrons.
Nobody forced you to conduct your campaign so that's even possible.

>>30400
>The funny thing is that YP hurts the artists with relatively benign patreon setups
Based on what?

>>30400
There is a funny paradox where artists who don't whore out their Patreon would have less success getting money from people but on the other hand there is no incentive to pirate their stuff, while Patreon whores give people the need to pay up, giving more reasons for people to pirate their content.

The best solution to that is to give out rewards you can't possibly pirate, or a better tip would be to not be a bitch with your content so people would have more incentive to be nice back to nice people. Sadly a lot of these artists go the easy route and just put everything behind a paywall instead.

In the end there pirating will always be a thing, and it's best to not think about it. People who pirate wouldn't buy the stuff in the first place. They only grab it because it's free and accessible

> opposite of legitimate is illegitimate
it might mean either "unofficial" or "unlawful" based on the context, and I was making apparent that I was using the former context.
> Either you're using game assets you have no rights over to make recordings to sell for money
I'm a video game developer, thus if you really want to be astute in literary definitions, I wouldn't say any porn artist is using "assets". We don't use "assets". "Asset" defines the individual building blocks of differentiating variety while constructing a video game. We don't rip anyone else's work out of a game, we draw them on our own. We follow the basic design elements of a character to retain a likeness.

The backstage production bits that are made to craft the actual assets are not called "assets", or at least, it's up in the air whether it's called that or not. Things like character model sheets and scripts - the two things that many underknowledged people accuse porn artists to illegitimately use. We don't use anyone's script or model sheet - we retain likenesses. We make interpretations, and don't hide the fact that they're interpretations. We don't use any official asset. If people want to donate us for doing that, there is no hard factor that would hinder them from doing so.

I did use a couple game music tracks for a flash game I did 8 years ago. Although that game in no way monetized, that wasn't right. I was amateur and now I'm not.

>Nobody forced you to conduct your campaign so that's even possible.
I conduct my campaign on the basis of rewarding those who're incredibly charitable.

>The funny thing is that YP hurts the artists with relatively benign patreon setups
>Based on what?
Common sense.

If you look up "entitled artist" on the internet you'd probably find a link to Miss Phase's patreon page. Like jesus fucking christ "girl", we get it. Your "art" isn't netting you as much money as you want it to. Go complain somewhere else, we ain't gonna give you money.


Anyway, worst interaction I had was with Daxzor. Some guy on Steam added me (I was using a cropped picture of Dax but didn't claim it as my own or anything and always gave out the artist's name whenever people asked. If you really believe that you can help an artist by stamping their name on your steam profile then you're just delusional) and kept me around for about two weeks until he sent me a screenshot of a couple emails between daxzor and him and daxzor was like "REEEEEEEE I HATE PEOPLE REEEEEEEE THEY STOLE MY ART REEEEEEE REPORT THEM TO VALVE REEEEEEE THEY CAN'T USE MY ART WITHOUT PERMISSION REEEEEEEEE DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE USING MY ART AS THEIR AVATAR REEEEEEEEEEEE KILL THEM REEE". Fucking pathetic.

>>30475
> Your "art" isn't netting you as much money as you want it to. Go complain somewhere else, we ain't gonna give you money.
No im making enough. I came here, initially, to claim the antagonism against "paywalls" does not suit the founding idea of YP and the userbase of YP is becoming contradictory (because userbase's main agenda is to get every content without supporting creators despite anything else). People over here are hectic, and became cherry-picking and flammatory. I just respond to those who either have questions or accusations to throw at me - and I answer the former, debunk the latter.

>>30479
what are we talking about can i talk about it too i wanna join

no offense but i think we should have done this earlier

the real fag is [Miss Phase !PJpk8svy.2]
phase 1 : divertion (done)
phase 2 : codebreaking (w8)

>>30537
>What part of that requires paywalling content?

??? Where did I say that non piratable content has to be paywalled ? The point was pretty much all artists paywall their content as rewards so of course it's going to get pirated if it's locked away. What I had in mind was stuff you can't pirate like vote pools, requests/commissions priority and such. They still can paywall some content without being a jackass, like PSD files and WIPs/progression, but these would lower the incentive to pirate by a whole ton. It's about offering rewards while not treating your viewers who don't/can't pay like crap in return while at the same time make it less likely to get your rewards pirated

By the way when people read assets in an artistic scenario they think of already made stuff, something like a sprite sheet or a 3D model from a video game. Intellectual property is a concept while an asset is something tangible, at least in the media sense

>>30471
>I'm a video game developer, thus if you really want to be astute in literary definitions, I wouldn't say any porn artist is using "assets".
It's easier to use intellectual property than it is to rip assets, but it's not up to you to decide whether nobody has ever used "assets" for porn.

>I conduct my campaign on the basis of rewarding those who're incredibly charitable.
>>30469
>The best solution to that is to give out rewards you can't possibly pirate, or a better tip would be to not be a bitch with your content so people would have more incentive to be nice back to nice people.
What part of that requires paywalling content?

>Common sense.
>logic is a substitute for evidence
So why do we still have no proof that this place harms anyone?

>>30479
>No im making enough. I came here, initially, to claim the antagonism against "paywalls" does not suit the founding idea of YP
Based on what?

>>30544
>??? Where did I say that non piratable content has to be paywalled ?
Wasn't addressing you, but with regard to assets, anybody can work off of them to make porn; but it's easier just to misuse IPs because that means no effort is made extracting resources.

31026

I cannot believe you had the audacity to - not just go to one - but multiple threads just to request an update. Listen, I know the request thread doesn't work, but... There is a request thread for this kind of stuff. Please use it.

>>30536
The other one was me, I had a longer name like Miss Phase: The attention whore but it got cut off so only the : remained lmao

>>31141
noice

>>31141
ya that's a cute name

My problem with Patreon is that some artists just outright lie about not paywalling stuff but do it any way. The use of something I like to call "Patreon Bait" (a low res, SFW preview of an image) annoys me to no end. And when I say low res, I mean an image around 500x900 pixels. Waiting a whole month for an art pack that is locked behind a PM is counter intuitive.

Sorry everyone. I'm trying to enjoy myself today and possibly for the next week. We'll just see. I'll respond whenever I fail. So just hang tight, I'm sure I'll be back here much earlier than I would like to be.

First to all stop calling the "artists" because they are NOT, they all are just GREEDY DRAWERS

And Phase stop being a troll, is more likely that you stop using a paywall that people stop sharing in this place

>>31673
the higher the wall the bigger the boat ARR and w7-890 needs a bigger hdd

Ello, how y'all doing?

Just thought I'd share that most of this is pretty moot since patreon, at least when I was a creator on there, forced everyone to paywall everything they posted, or else you wouldn't be seen PERIOD.

Of course they would also suspend any pledges you had too. My response to that was to just say fuck it, mostly because I don't like censoring my art and guess what a paywall/forcing me what to do with MY work(/revenue since I wouldn't be getting any of that either)? So, I left.

My patreon was paywall-less and was used as it was intended (kind of falsely advertised or simply easily exploitable by all parties). Anyway, I didn't come here to debate but to just share my piece.

Have a nice day, now.

>>31957
This would insinuate that you were only using Patreon to share your art, which would be doing things wrong. There are a multitude of places purposefully there to share your art like FurAffinity for furries, or Hentai Foundry for hentai stuff among many other places

patreon users should be called artfags
also why are there so many whales that keep on giving them money (even for crappy ass art)
or maybe im just being autistic

>>31957
>Just thought I'd share that most of this is pretty moot since patreon, at least when I was a creator on there, forced everyone to paywall everything they posted, or else you wouldn't be seen PERIOD.
How's that?

>My patreon was paywall-less and was used as it was intended
Who are you?

>>31975
Patreon forces you to make your posts Patreon-only if your content is NSFW even if you want to make it available for free. This is because they wanted to "fight" adult content from being visible to the public

You know I guess this wouldn't be an issue if patreon wasn't a thing, huh?

>>31972
yes, go game-end yourself

>>32003
Your entire page, or just the NSFW content? By Patreon-only, does that mean Patreon users as a whole or just paying patrons?

>>32043
I do not use Paytreon myself but I'm fairly sure it works by having your Patreon page flagged as NSFW, so all posts are forced Patreon-only even if they wouldn't require a payment

>>32043
As a creator, you need to both have your entire page as NSFW, and also forcibly paywall every piece of adult-content you offer. You can publicize a post if it contains no adult themes though. Just so you know, having "implied" nudity counts as a "NSFW" picture. Your girl needs to be clothed. I had a picture of a naked body, bits covered only by foreground elements. It didn't show anything explicit, but I asked Patreon staff and they said the character should be clothed.

The pictures that need to be publicized, such as your avatar, cover image and Tier banners, also need to be SFW and have no implied nudity in them.

Say what.

>>50720
Are you autistic?

>>50761
sad autistic man has to ask normal people if they are autistic :'-(

>>50772
Bruh, who the fuck even are you? You need to go back to the loony bin where you belong.

>>50720
>bumping an old thread to call someone out, without even reading it
>being this obsessed

Just wanted to personally say fuck Blitzdrachin. She's a bitch and she knows it. She shuts out literally *every* possible means of communication with her outside of giving her money. You do not matter to her unless you give her money, and even then, she only cares if it's a decent amount of money. Let's not forget how she pulled ALL of her animations from every website when she decided she can make a quick buck by making all her content retroactively paywall-exclusive like a total cunt. She's the antithesis of proper business ethics. She has easily the worst attitude a creator should have and should be looked at as an example of what NOT to do if you decide to create art. Fuck her. Seriously. I sincerely hope someone finds a way to wreak havoc on her little "Primeleap" project thing. Entitled bitch.

>>29558
> My problem with Patreon is that some artists just outright lie about not paywalling stuff but do it any way. The use of something I like to call "Patreon Bait" (a low res, SFW preview of an image) annoys me to no end. And when I say low res, I mean an image around 500x900 pixels.

discover the blacklist. If you add such artists to the black list, you will cease to see their ads. I do this with lovers more than once to stick their boring YCH in the face of the viewer 2-3-5-10 times.

>>31961
> This would insinuate that you were only using Patreon to share your art, which would be doing things wrong. There are a multitude of places purposefully there to share your art like FurAffinity for furries, or Hentai Foundry for hentai stuff among many other places

I’m sure that an increasing number of artists decides to leave for Patreon basically just from realizing how many disgusting geeks like CMG and other autistic people are fapping on their drawings, while hating the artists who painted these pictures. The more reality penetrates the artist’s brain, the less incentive he has to do something for free outside his circle of friends for those who will never become his client, unless he is forced to. I believe most of these artists are even pleased to see the constant nagging of CMG and all those dumb "thoughts" about how the world should be arranged so that dumb, lazy asses like CMG could not work at all and have all the fun, free housing, food and porn.

>>50806
> You do not matter to her unless you give her money,

why should you, a pathetic loser, get someone's attention for free? You're too nasty for that. To receive free attention you must be either smart or pretty. Or be able to do something that is interesting to other people. But other people are hardly interested in your stupid thoughts, nagging and your greed. I will tell you a little secret. When your tiny pussy can be considered a penis with some caveat ... you have to discover the fact that free sex does not threaten you either. I am sure you already understand this at the expense of the subconscious and you hate prostitutes and camwhore even more than artists. After all, none of them will be interested in such an empty place, like you - for free. I guessed? ;)

> I sincerely hope someone finds a way to wreak havoc on her little "Primeleap" project thing. Entitled bitch.

"someone". But not you. Because you are too dumb, lazy and greedy. I’m sure even after 10 years, you’ll still be sitting on a pissed couch and whining that life is unfair to you, the boss at work despises you, on the Internet no one wants to look at your feet and notice you there .... world shit and all that like that. Tell me, did you think about suicide? For people like you, a separate paradise is surely invented, where all those present are required to kiss your ass three times a day.

>>50816
This is the kind of crap that turns many people away from donating to artists like Blitzdrachin, my dear white knight.

>>50809
She's not gonna noticeyour whiteknightting either

>>50940
>>50941
saaaaaaad boi :'(

>>50941
I don't give a damn about it. I’m not her sponsor, I don’t like Pokemon and primitive art for children.

>>51125
Ok white knight

>>50955
>>51125
>samefag.

I like how there's an "Entitled artists" thread on the site that almost went under due to people not donating a bit of money to support its operation

pathetic

>>51239
>I like how there's an "Entitled artists" thread on the site that almost went under due to people not donating a bit of money to support its operation
>being this new

Is this supposed to be irony or something?

>>51239
This entire site wouldn't exist if artists didn't paywall their content.
Let that sink into the black, limitless confines of your utterly smooth brain

>>51239
Ok, creatorfag.

>>51239
>almost went down
How new are you?

ok boomeroo

>>51436
I mean, I'm sure it'd exist, there just wouldn't be a purpose to it.

Hell, look at my Patreon. I release all my content to the public eventually. The model wasn't built around paywalling, it was built around "If you give me as little as $1, you're getting benefits that are more than just exclusive artwork."

You can never fully stop pirating.
You could try to protect your artwork as much as you damn well possibly can and put countless resources into making sure your stuff doesn't get pirated...

Or you can build a model that just says "Fuck it, you're gonna pirate it so go ahead. Patreon's get other benefits anyways, and you're just seeing stuff I'm releasing regardless."

>>52147
>I mean, I'm sure it'd exist, there just wouldn't be a purpose to it.
Then why would it exist?

>Hell, look at my Patreon. I release all my content to the public eventually. The model wasn't built around paywalling, it was built around "If you give me as little as $1, you're getting benefits that are more than just exclusive artwork."
Then this place is of no concern to you.

>You can never fully stop pirating
>Fuck it, you're gonna pirate it so go ahead
>implying

>>52169
It isn't a concern to me, which is why I don't complain about this site.

TBH I hate the creators that paywall. It makes me feel as if they give creators a bad rep because of it. I can't support pirating, but I'm also not going to support creators that paywall with Patreon at the same time.

It seems like you're talking out your ass.

>>52230
Your choice if that's what you want to think.
I don't like pirating, but I also hate people who restrict content for years, so it boils down to the lesser of the two evils.

You can still be a Patreon creator and not have paywalls.
The difference is that if you don't have a paywalled Patreon, this site just creates more awareness for your Patreon and nothing else, so what's so wrong about that?

>>52213
>I can't support pirating
>>52259
>I don't like pirating

>dat implying

>>52259
If you know how the econ works then you understand why paywalls exist. You need resources of value to make cash such as a property or idea.

A creator's art already has value. If anyone reading this is a shitlord going "Artists just sit on their ass all day they don't deserve money", even if you don't like it, when someone pays into patreon for someone's artwork, it means it has a monetary value. That's how the market works. Research how stocks are determined to have their monetary value for another example? Finite File supply doesn't work here because the art files are infinite via copying when digital but the demand for what's on that digital canvas is limited, what is being sold is the idea more than the file. A paywall makes an artificial wall because people sometimes don't buy into patreon due to the idea being free to see after one viewing. Adding the paywall reintroduced a finite supply like products found in a store.

In a better world people wouldn't use paywalls and would just use this site as awareness and backup but we live in a world where you try to get the most money you can for survival, which means paywalls are encouraged to exist. Ultimately, even with the lost of sales/potential sales due to shitlords, it still will generally generate more money having said paywall. Especially if you have something people really want, like comic pages, or porn. It's also why personal interact sells a lot too, limited personal time.

If people directly gave money to creators more, then you'd see less people feeling pressured to paywall their artwork because the creators would trust that they get enough money to live a life. Or just have the world not be fun wacky capitalist hell. You can't have a paywall if there's no money and everyone's basic needs (including entertainment) is met.

>>51454

You're right, I am a creator making 1k per month via patreon and gay. You may not shit and cum from this info, as much as I know you really want to.

>>52455
>You need resources of value to make cash such as a property or idea.

That's why some artists open a Patreon page. What part of that requires a paywall?

>>52455
If you love paywalls so much, go to Gumroad.

>If people directly gave money to creators more
That's what Patreon is about.

>then you'd see less people feeling pressured to paywall their artwork because the creators would trust that they get enough money to live a life.
The artist gets paid either way, so all paywalling does is create unnecessary aggravation and hurdles, which deters some people from donating in favor of artists without paywalls.

>>52462
The more resources you have the more projects you can invest into. So a paywall isn't required but if it boosts your net profits by 20%+, why wouldn't you? Most who could obtain a 20%+ pay raise at a company would take it too.

>>52464
>If you love paywalls so much, go to Gumroad.
I'll go to Steam instead with their paywall model

>That's what Patreon is about.
If you read my words, I didn't say Patreon doesn't do that. I said giving creators more money makes those who feel secure in there living situation use less tactics like paywalls to increase profits

>The artist gets paid either way, so all paywalling does is create unnecessary aggravation and hurdles, which deters some people from donating in favor of artists without paywalls.
It only creates aggravation and hurdles for those who can't pay. It's not the creators fault someone else doesn't have money to spend. Patreon can be used as a donation box OR as a product delivery system. Expecting every creator to be on the whims of maybe getting a donation from people like you instead of setting up a service/production which you pay into(like how many profitable business operate) is weird

Again, your boards are amusing because all y'all pathetically have a hard time raising funds for a site that basically has more value than any one Patreon.

Surely, there's 180 horny guys on here. All you need is to donate $1 each month. However with no real loyalty to the site, lack of proper money transferring institutions, and the idea that this content should be free, you get the very reason why paywalls work.

- Loyalty will get you patrons, which paywalls can make you have more "exclusive" content for those being loyal people.
- It's a lot easier to fund a creator when they're not doing something harmfully illegal (Most creators are not millionaires, some may actually not eat for a day because you wanted an idealized world in a capitalistic hellscape)
- Most people who care about others creating won't use this site beyond it having better load times. Which again, is why the paywall works more. People are willing to pay for the things they value because that's one of the ways we show value

TLDR: I'm going to keep like at all y'alls pathetic threads because they're beyond amusing

>>52485
I got a question for you. Why are you using the site?

Fucking cry some more, you jealous fags.
I'll keep making my 3k drawing lazy furry porn ;)))

>>52484
Except...who makes 20% more off of restricting content behind a Patreon paywall?
Unless the content being created is REALLY good and superb, in which case you don't need to put content behind a Patreon paywall in the first place, it's not hard to find similar content elsewhere.

>>52485
>>52498
Ok Whiteknight Von Neckbeard.

>>52464
>>52484
>>52485
Just wait until we implement IPFS as a means of sharing things... you will be sorry alright.

>>52484
>I'll go to Steam instead with their paywall model
At least then you're not misusing Patreon.

>If you read my words, I didn't say Patreon doesn't do that. I said giving creators more money makes those who feel secure in there living situation use less tactics like paywalls to increase profits
And what makes you think attempting to paywall on Patreon is viable if artists aren't getting much to begin with? There are many reasons why a given artist doesn't get much, and paywalling won't help in those cases.

>It only creates aggravation and hurdles for those who can't pay. It's not the creators fault someone else doesn't have money to spend.
If only it were that simple.

>Patreon can be used as a donation box OR as a product delivery system. Expecting every creator to be on the whims of maybe getting a donation from people like you instead of setting up a service/production which you pay into(like how many profitable business operate) is weird
What's weird is trying to use a donation platform to run a business. It's up to the artists if they want unnecessary headaches and hurdles needlessly susceptible to piracy (which is what it _arguably_ becomes when artists misuse Patreon in that way).

Pirate.jpg (30.9KiB, 542x370) save_alt

I'm all for Patreon artists until they start paywalling

ok boomer

I'll keep making my 3k drawing lazy furry porn ;)))

>>52552
I know the "ok boomer" is a basic insult you're throwing around but that insult came from those who are making the younger generation's lives worse via terrible living conditions and future options. Most people using Patreon are the younger generation, guess who pirating hurts the most. You're actually like a real boomer via your actions.

>>52555
Much more thought provoking and engaging than being a walmart cashier or accountant I must say, and more profitable!

Lmao coomers, I make even a bit above USD 4.000 creating low effort animations.

Suck it, jealous idiots. Maybe next life you actually get to enjoy life. Now you are stuck in your underpaid dead end jobs pffffhaha

You all whiney bitches can go fuck yourselves.

"Boo hoo people wont give me everything i want for free so i'm just going to steal their shit using this website." what a bunch of pieces of shit.

I'm a writer and I bust my ass trying to make Patreon into a full time job. Wait... hold up. No... Patreon IS a full time job, I spend around 60 hours a week between writing, research, promotion, managing ad campaigns, talking with editors, going over previous chapters, talking with artists, etc. The only difference is that I'm not making the money to justify the time I'm putting in... yet.

I'm not "entitled" you fucking cockbiter, I work for every goddamn dime.
Besides, who the fuck are a bunch of assholes on a pirating website to tell me that my time and my effort is worthless.

Go cut your dicks off and shove them down your throat so you can choke on them.

This whole thread is why thots and PAWGs are still on the site. Actual furry artists want this site to be down and the thots keeps themin place

>>52689
>I'm a writer and I bust my ass trying to make Patreon into a full time job
Ok

>who the fuck are a bunch of assholes on a pirating website
>implying

>to tell me that my time and my effort is worthless.
Is your stuff any good? If not, then no amount of promoting and managing ad campaigns will get you more patrons.

>>52700
>Actual furry artists want this site to be down and the thots keeps themin place
How? By putting junk data into the website?

>>52735
This story would give insights as to why THOTs and PAWGs exists.

Lao Tzu was passing with his disciples and they came to a forest where hundreds of carpenters were cutting trees, because a great palace was being built. So the whole forest had been almost cut, but only one tree was standing there, a big tree with thousands of branches – so big that ten thousand persons could sit under its shade. Lao Tzu asked his disciples to go and inquire why this tree had not been cut yet when the whole forest had been cut and was deserted.

The disciples went and they asked the carpenters, “Why have you not cut this tree?”

The carpenters said, “This tree is absolutely useless. You cannot make anything out of it because every branch has so many knots in it. Nothing is straight. You cannot make pillars out of it. You cannot make furniture out of it. You cannot use it as fuel because the smoke is so dangerous to the eyes – you almost go blind. This tree is absolutely useless. That’s why.”

They came back. Lao Tzu laughed and he said, “Be like this tree. If you want to survive in this world be like this tree – absolutely useless. Then nobody will harm you. If you are straight you will be cut, you will become furniture in somebody’s house. If you are beautiful you will be sold in the market, you will become a commodity. Be like this tree, absolutely useless. Then nobody can harm you. And you will grow big and vast, and thousands of people can find shade under you.”

>>52761
Autism.

>>52792
I didn't write all that, I just copy-pasted what I knew, but still a lot of people don't get it ITT.

>52689
These people are a bunch of kids (psychically and or mentally) so it's best not to get angry at them. They'll eventually go into a econ 101 class and realize why pirating is the wrong thing to do for private individuals working on their craft :3

>52761
Nothing is useless. People just fail to see value in things they don't understand and are unwilling to learn about said value.
:3 even you pirates are valuable in terms of archiving work. Said work is just rendered harmful because of capitalism and your motivation is due to pressures from capitalism

:3 you all should watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJW4-cOZt8A

here's part 2 and a few other videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR7ryg1w_IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XlZyadq33s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6bLq4466LM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBFL40NrYO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWqtX8izZdc&list=PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv&index=5

>>52700
It's only the people who put content on Patreon and want people to spend money on it in order to see their content.
Almost all content I could find someone else who created a similar version of it anyways.

My patreon doesn't paywall a damn thing. I release everything I create to the public eventually and I built my patreon around that model. It isn't just "Pay me and see art." it's "Pay me and you can provide me feedback as to what you want to see me create", as well as discounted commissions and the such.

As such, this website creates almost no impact on my own patreon besides free advertisement. You want to pirate what I create? I mean, it's being released for free eventually so go ahead.

>>52858
Do pro-patreon folk really think they'll ever convince anyone to stop pirating? That's hilarious and adorable.

>>52858
>They'll eventually go into a econ 101 class and realize why pirating is the wrong thing to do for private individuals working on their craft :3
>even you pirates are valuable in terms of archiving work
>still implying Patreon is a marketplace

>Said work is just rendered harmful because of capitalism and your motivation is due to pressures from capitalism
>donations are capitalism
>>52863
>this website creates almost no impact on my own patreon besides free advertisement.

>>30471
>I'm a video game developer
>please respect my asset definition senpai
my post was about IP and public policy, not how you nerds make open world games

>>52761
I get what you're saying, but I must admit it made me laugh. XP

>>52938
You can make patreon into a market place easily yes. People are pressured into making it such a thing because the profits are higher.

>donations are capitalism
Is a silly statement. Currency exchange itself is not inherently capitalism. Other system use currency. We live in a capitalist society so such exchanges now will be subject to capitalistic pressures most of the time. Patreon can be a place where you could distribute resources for people to create works but again, if you want the most profit in our current system, you will turn patreon into a limited service. People buy into services more because of the tactics used. Think loot boxes and gambling mechanics. If people were not pressured into capitalistic modes of production and were taught about such tactics, you'd see more free content because people like to make free content while being able to live.

>52864
You'd be surprised how many people have DM'd me about changing their minds about random topics. Most people are lurkers that will just consume info. It only take one piece of info that connects with someone for them to go down a rabbit hole. One person changed is enough.
Also my primary reason for being here is to laugh at dumbasses here. Putting random info out is just a fun side gig. I already have a large platform to talk about any info I want so even if no one's mind is changed here, it's certainly changed elsewhere :3

>this website creates almost no impact on my own patreon besides free advertisement.
When discussing this website, people generally don't talk about how this gave them free advertising. It's generally
1. People who were already gonna pirate just have an easy way to pirate. Thus making it stressful for creators because they now have to figure out ways to stop pirates because:
2. It delays people from supporting someone on patreon because they already have posts accessible
3. It's a way to check if it is a patreon you would support in the first place

Only #3 is free advertising in a good sense because people KNOW what they're buying into. The other two reduce the amount of income a creator could have made. Now if you're making enough money on patreon that's not a big deal, but most people don't make much on patreon. So it's harmful to those with less resources. If you have less resources, you will become more capitalistic in the way you run the business or will switch jobs/attention.

This website overall just does more harm because we live in a bad system to being with. This site is a band-aid for pirates, not really a solution for creators making content.
Which again, is why it's funny that the pirate site has a hard time with donations. It's happened multiple times. People are scared right now so it'd be funded for a few months but when people don't care again, guess what will happen again. In order to stop that, the owners will have to do something, and that something will piss off all the pirate here.

>>53126
>To stop that, owners will have to do something.
We could start by getting rid of you.

>>53125
>You'd be surprised how many people have DM'd me about changing their minds about random topics
That's nice dear. People aren't gonna stop pirating stuff here, the only retard here is you who keeps wasting money.

>>53126
>is why it's funny that the pirate site has a hard time with donations. It's happened multiple times
Are you new? It's happened so often that anyone who isn't new doesn't care anymore, it's a false scare and it's happened for ages. Why would the admin suddenly stop now, especially when the month was paid right away and now he has implemented a whole other site to yiff party? Meaning double the piracy and more pleased users?

admin also stole $300

>>52858
I've never heard of anyone who "grew out" of pirating. In fact sites like these only create more and more pirates and that won't be changing any time soon. Every movie, tv series and videogame was already piratable before this site, YP only broke the barrier for paywalled art in patreon. These posts of yours sound extremely arrogant and delusional, thinking other people should think the way you do and those who don't just aren't educated enough. That's not how you convince people, you only turn them against you and make it more likely for them to keep pirating.
>>53125
Why waste time here then if you supposedly know you won't convince anyone yet you keep coming back to post again and again? Who are you trying to fool?

>>53125
>You can make patreon into a market place easily yes. People are pressured into making it such a thing because the profits are higher.
What pressure, besides what artists create for themselves? I'd rather donate to an artist who's honest about it than to someone who needlessly uses Patreon to run a pretend business. Regardless, [citation needed].

>Is a silly statement.
>continues to act as if donations are capitalism

>Currency exchange itself is not inherently capitalism.
False equivalence.

>People buy into services more because of the tactics used. Think loot boxes and gambling mechanics.
Things that are not relevant to a donation platform.

>If people were not pressured into capitalistic modes of production and were taught about such tactics, you'd see more free content because people like to make free content while being able to live.
With all the artists using Patreon as a tipjar, to cover their expenses so they can focus on their art, you can spare us your misplaced anti-capitalist rhetoric.

>>53126
>This website overall just does more harm because we live in a bad system to being with.
Is that why we've yet to see anyone actually harmed by this place?

Wanna see something mad? https://yiff.party/patreon/10632287

>53197
Let's be honest. A lot of people here aren't educated on econ and even if people are, they're here to get off. I too think it's not an efficient way to convince people but again, there are lurkers. A bored person will sometimes go through new info and realize why they've done a dumb thing. It happens.

I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that I do this as entertainment. I didn't realize this place had boards until recently so it's been a guilty pleasure reading through stuff. Me taking 2 seconds to write out a thing isn't a big deal, especially when you get responses like >53148 where it's clear I've erked someone, even if it's a tiny bit. If you don't see how that's amusing then live your life I guess idk.

>>53260
The pressure of being destitute if they made art their job... Art is a business if you make it into one, and you can tell by said patreon creators making money. That's how capitalism works. Do you think someone who makes 1k a week is going "oh no, I'm pretending to run a business. What if people figure that out!!!" I'm not giving you a citation for basic definitions of how markets, business, or capital works. If you got to this site, you know how google works.

>continues to act as if donations are capitalism
Pretty sure I talked about how many people don't use Patreon as donations but as a service for goods. Which that becomes capitalistic

>Currency exchange itself is not inherently capitalism.
>False equivalence.
Would you like to give a reason for this or do you just want to throw out words

>With all the artists using Patreon as a tipjar, to cover their expenses so they can focus on their art, you can spare us your misplaced anti-capitalist rhetoric.
And how many people succeed in that goal while keeping it just as a tip jar. Usually what happens is:
- they have another job, thus it's just a hobby, aka they're secure in their living situation
- they do succeed, yay
- They don't make enough which leads to them finding ways to make up for that, sometimes that's by turning patreon into a service
- they don't make enough and they get another job then don't focus on that art
You can use grapheon to figure out how much patreon covers everyone's expenses
https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon?zd=1&zi=igx4b56b

So yes, capitalism is bad, which is why this site exists.

>Is that why we've yet to see anyone actually harmed by this place?
People have DMCA'd this place because they felt they were harmed. People spend time trying to stop pirates here instead of working on their craft. Etc, etc. Who is the "we" here. Sorry you're blind to the world around you?

>>53412
Cringe

You guys are so pathetic. Trying to go "muh art and fair use shit". Artists have their heads so far up the ass that they forget the simple fact of becoming unimportant and meaningless once they die.
Do you guys think you'll be remembered? Like you're Michelangelo or some shit like that? If you did nothing to chance people's lives, then no one will care about remembering and respecting you once you're dead bc that's what happens with people in a daily basis

>>53411
>The pressure of being destitute if they made art their job.
Which is why they don't quit their day job until they've gotten enough patrons (and being destitute has nothing to do with one's drawing ability).

>Do you think someone who makes 1k a week is going "oh no, I'm pretending to run a business
That kind of income suggests someone who either knows how to run a real business, or is popular enough to get that much from donations alone.

>Pretty sure I talked about how many people don't use Patreon as donations but as a service for goods
And those are the kind of artists we complain about here, misusing Patreon like that.

>Would you like to give a reason for this or do you just want to throw out words
Do I really need to explain how trading currency differs from charity?

>>53412
>And how many people succeed in that goal while keeping it just as a tip jar.
How many, indeed. Weird you'd acknowledge this considering what you've said so far.

>https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon?zd=1&zi=igx4b56b
What does that have to do with us?

>People have DMCA'd this place because they felt they were harmed. People spend time trying to stop pirates here instead of working on their craft.
>still implying Patreon is a marketplace
People can feel whatever they want, but that's not how harm works. It's not our fault they choose to conduct their pages in such a way that it's necessary to stop such unnecessary bogeymen.

>>53422

You do know that most artist draw their works for personal living reasons, right? Most do not have some weird kink for their historical legacy?

Dont project your feeling of irrelevancy onto others.

>>53459
You were talking about >What pressure, besides what artists create for themselves?
I pointed out that in general society, you need money to live. That's not a pressure a person puts onto themselves. That's like saying "you decided to live because your parents fucked and you didn't die in the womb, so you're gonna have to live with the consequences"
Sure, working for someone else's business who is already established does produce (sometimes) enough money for the workers. However, if you make your own business then you're pressured into making sure you make money yourself. Why should a creator get a second job so that YOU can view their work for free? Why not just make the smart business decisions to have only 1 job? They don't need to support your lazy ass's desire for entertainment, that's not the point of THEIR life lol. Creating artwork, videos, models, etc is a valued skill in the market and the point of using a valued skill in the market is to do work so you can live a life. A job isn't your all of your life. Even for established business, this is how it works. Disney doesn't make billions by showing off their properties for free and most people don't live at Disney 24/7

>You can make patreon into a market place easily yes
>I'd rather donate to an artist who's honest about it than to someone who needlessly uses Patreon to run a pretend business
>Do you think someone who makes 1k a week is going "oh no, I'm pretending to run a business..."
>That kind of income suggests someone who either knows how to run a real business...
I'm glad you agree that people can run a real business on Patreon & are not implying that people running a business should make their main income via donations because you think a good/service should be free under capitalism.

>>53459
>...misusing Patreon like that.
Patreon takes a cut of the money you produce on Patreon because Patreon the company is a business. Their model is to house content, distribute money to creators, and distribute that content to user accounts. Patreon itself is a service, not a charity.
If someone else comes along and uses that service for profits themselves, this just becomes a normal action that happens in almost every market.
Do you think Walmart makes all their products in the store? No, they're a middle man for the product makers. Rather than them distributing the products to the customer themselves, someone else does it and takes a cut or the store buys the product at wholesale value(thus they own the product now) then marks it up and sells it to the customer for profit.
This is the supply chain. The supply chain here just happens to end with a individual using Patreon to distribute their content to you.
Even in not capitalism, this is how trade works. Capitalism just helped commodify it in a certain way.
Anyone using Patreon as a service for profit is not misusing Patreon. Patreon wants people to make a ton of money so that they too get their loads of profits. You're just agree that distribution under capitalism is shit, which is good to agree with.

>53459
>Do I really need to explain how trading currency differs from charity?
Since we were discussing how capitalism incentives profit seeking and that donations are not inherently capitalistic but under capitalism they're most likely going to be acted in a way that works in a capitalistic way, aka find ways to get more donations to get more profit; Then yes, please explain with sentences what you mean, you're a big boy who can communicate their ideas to the world themselves.

>>53461
>wants people to be paid for their labour
>pirate wants free things under capitalism, even if works were created by an individual in this instance
>says capitalism is bad for creating works and that your actions are not helpful under this system because it harms individuals. You need a better system to do the things you're doing
>pirate acts like a tip jar works for creating content
>says that's stupid because tip jars don't work unless you seek profits which turns patreon into the service you pay for which creates pirates, aka it's a dumb system
>"Weird you'd acknowledge this considering what you've said so far."
What do you think I've said so far? I want more goods/services produced, I want people compensated for what they produce, I want things to be free for all within reason. That's now the system we live in currently, so you need to change the system or not be a dumbass about what you do in said system.
What's weird about the statements???

>>53461
>https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon?zd=1&zi=igx4b56b
>What does that have to do with us?
It's showing that Free Patreon doesn't work. If it doesn't work, people will use other tactics to gain them more money. This means you see more paywalls cause people who use that make more money. It's still fails, but it is more successful.

Which leads into:
>People can feel whatever they want, but that's not how harm works. It's not our fault they choose to conduct their pages in such a way that it's necessary to stop such unnecessary bogeymen.
The bogeymen is a world wide poor distribution system for creating content which you have recognized but have done nothing to address the actual problem. You instead want free good/services for yourself because again, in a thread about entitlement of artist, the most entitled shown in this thread are people like you. It's not people on Patreon doing a capitalism to survive.

You're so far up your ass that you can't see that beyond the general harm of capitalism. You & the other pirates are directly hurting people who have tried to do the kind action of trying to do better for themselves & you. To distribute their works for free & to be able to create those works for free. Free here meaning the basic needs are met for a person for them to give value to others. But they have failed because under this system, statistically speaking, that does not work due to people like you. When people do the work to make the profits that they need for survival & you undermined that by attacking them while not the system that produced those actions, you're the entitled shitter who doesn't understand how economics work. You are directly a person creating harm because you could have been the person giving $1 with the collective to works that clearly give you enough value to use a site like this or by helping revolutionize our econ system so that a tip jar, paywalls, etc aren't necessary in the first place

Unrelated but a certain creator doesn't want drama to be posted publicly. If you want to ask, do it in a PM. I don't want to be at the mercy of getting blocked.

Are we talking about me again? I liked it when we were talking about me.

>>53560
I liked it when you weren't here.

>>53571

YES go on <3

>>53579
PISS IN MY MOUTH I LOVE YOU

Take it to the DMs you two

>>53614
Still trying this shit. Your buddies already left the site. You should follow them.

are-you-on-drugs.jpg (94.4KiB, 644x353) save_alt

>>53524
>I pointed out that in general society, you need money to live.
And how does that translate to unnecessary paywalls, when tipjars suffice? If an artist isn't very good, it wouldn't make a difference what said artist does.

>Patreon takes a cut of the money you produce on Patreon because Patreon the company is a business.
Patreon makes its money running a donation platform. What of it?

>That kind of income suggests someone who either knows how to run a real business...
>I'm glad you agree that people can run a real business on Patreon
>... or is popular enough to get that much from donations alone
Imagine failing this badly at reading comprehension.

>Since we were discussing how capitalism incentives profit seeking and that donations are not inherently capitalistic but under capitalism they're most likely going to be acted in a way that works in a capitalistic way, aka find ways to get more donations to get more profit
>profit

>pirate acts like a tip jar works for creating content
<

>What's weird about the statements???
Your argument doesn't work when you acknowledge that people are doing just fine with tipjars. >>53461

>>53532
You didn't the question. People in the past have made more competent effort trying to prove that this place somehow hurts artists.

>It's showing that Free Patreon doesn't work.
Really? Because it looks to me like it's showing that "No one makes a living on Patreon". Why, then, don't artists use Gumroad instead (seeing as it's actually a marketplace by design)?

>If it doesn't work, people will use other tactics to gain them more money
Even though, according to your link, 2% of artists "earn more than the federal minimum wage" from Patreon? Clearly the paywall method isn't working, which is probably why those artist haven't quit their day jobs yet.

>>53700
TLDR: Money = life, paywall can = more life

If you click on the source or use https://graphtreon.com you'll see that leaving it as a tip jar is insufficient. Level of art quality does not correlate with Patreon income. Again again, paywalls are a way to increase income because most people don't "donate" and paywalls create an incentive to support an artist in continuing their work under capitalism. Again, an artist doesn't need to be poor because you want free entertainment

>Patreon makes its money running a donation platform. What of it?
Again, Patreon is not housing tip jars out of the kindness of their heart. If you read their tricks and tips for success on Patreon, they tell creators to treat what they put onto patreon like a service. Beyond general store/capitalistic mentality that's just a basic part of business, like Walmart or a Movie theater, even the site wants people to make paywalls because Patreon gets more money.
Your point of creators "misusing patreon" is stupid, which is what I'm discussing. Your statements just showing you're projecting your wants and again, you're not actually addressing the problem to fix your concern. You're just getting free entertainment and you should just be forward about that fact rather than diluting yourself into thinking you're doing good/not contributing to the "misuse"

>That kind of income suggests someone who either knows how to run a real business..... or is popular enough to get that much from donations alone
>I'm glad you agree that people can run a real business on Patreon
>Imagine failing this badly at reading comprehension.
It's written down, you don't have to imagine. We're discussing what a business is and where a business is run. Unless y'all donate to walmart, amazon, the government, etc for their main source of income, stating donations from popularity is irreverent in this discussion about where and who runs a business. I'm not going to entertain a side tracking statement because you're digging in your boots into the hill you're dying on. Learn how to debate points rather than dodge you silly goose.

>Your argument doesn't work when you acknowledge that people are doing just fine with tipjars. >>53461
You pointed to >>>your own post<<< in which the quote you picked doesn't even show agreement with the idea that tip jars work under capitalism.
If you fully read it like a big boy can, I was talking about outcomes that could happen, follow by a source that shows most outcomes. Both of our positions is how are people able to create content. Donations-living(your point) is rare, it DOESN'T work for a majority of creators. Even paywalls don't work but they work BETTER than a tip jar when used which is the actual point I made. 3/4 of the outcomes list is tip jars not working.

>You didn't answer* the question. People in the past have made more competent effort trying to prove that this place somehow hurts artists.
What proof would be needed to be provided for YOU PERSONALLY to believe that many creators are harmed by this site.
Don't say, "you need to come up with the proof yourself" because I did, even with a source, and you ignored it. So make the goal post, don't move it, and I'll answer it as long as you don't make some stupid goal post like "let me see the hospital bill of the hurt artist"

>It's showing that Free Patreon doesn't work.
>Really? Because it looks to me like it's showing that "No one makes a living on Patreon". Why, then, don't artists use Gumroad instead (seeing as it's actually a marketplace by design)?

"why doesn't someone move from one paywall site to ANOTHER paywall site. I'm certain it'll work this time guys"
In all seriousness though, patreon has an advantage over Gumroad by patreon being a reoccurring payment which can land you more money then a person consciously making the effort to buy content. Both sites in the end though, do not make living wages for most people.
The smart business thing to do, is to use both sites. Paywall patreon for current goods to be distributed, then use Gumroad for old content that people can access but don't need to have reoccurring payments. Genius, I know. Never heard of in a basic business 101 class.
You know what, I'm certain we could make millions off of patenting the idea. Like say, musicians paywall their concerts, then sell cds after. They could even advertise their stuff for free-ish on the radio at a later time or the same time. Dedicated fans could pay early access to upcoming songs, or maybe even back stage passes to the members. Maybe even make the live version recording of concerts performances into limited discs that could be released years later so you make big bucks off of your fans then and make a ton more later off of random passerbys or newer fans that missed out. Why has no one thought of this plan?????
Oh wait, that happens all the time to different degrees, well darn, we're not becoming millionaires off that idea :<

I know you're just a rando on the web who doesn't care and just wants to win a debate they can't win against another rando on the web but please oh please, take a business 101 class or entrepreneur course at your local college. If you're going to argue this you need it. The statement:
>Why, then, don't artists use Gumroad instead (seeing as it's actually a marketplace by design)?
Makes you look like a dumbass or at the very least, unable to see how regular business make money. It's a basic fact to use a middle man, or to use multiple sources of income. Even if gumroad is better suited for this stuff, having a backup plan that still works but has lower value is a thing you do

Like for christ sake, if you want a tip jar to be the main source of people's income, why aren't you telling people to only use Ko-fi or bank wire transfers or an actual fucking glass tip jar. I'm dying from laughing at this statement alone.

>If it doesn't work, people will use other tactics to gain them more money
>Even though, according to your link, 2% of artists "earn more than the federal minimum wage" from Patreon? Clearly the paywall method isn't working, which is probably why those artist haven't quit their day jobs yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NuFVQk_CCs
Now that we agree on this basic fact, how do you fix it that if you're in a situation in which you don't want a regular job to be the solution.
Tip jars don't work well enough for >most people<, Paywalls don't work well enough for >most people<, even if people like you archive it and jack off to it aka find value in it.

You have a ko-fi that makes a small amount of money, and you've paywalled your patreon to increase the amount of money you get there, you take commissions as well. What else can you do to make a liveable wage
(Hint: Grab a business book. Do market research.)

You're gonna come up with a lot of good/ok/bad solutions, one of those things may be to stop piracy (DMCA) because if you can limit the supply when there's a demand, and you're the only source that controls the copyright, you can increase your income that much more, especially if you do other things like advertising, previews/samples, good word of mouth, etc under capitalism

>>53671
We have always been here. And we are watching.

Cuckonafex4.png (219.3KiB, 830x974) save_alt

Haven't seen this much butthurt artist entitlement since the Jazonafex Cuck-Shed Saga

>>53741
How insecure do you feel?

>>53741
I honestly can't tell if that's a real screen shot or not only because Jason would be enough of a dumbass to write that out publicly

This thread should be renamed to pirate entitlement honestly. There's a few fair points earlier in the general thread but even then the framing of the conversations there are silly/bad. Like the reoccurring point that "Patreon is a donation site (in spirit) not a market place" is amusing. Heck, there's a whole section about "IP stealing creators are bad" on a site that steals IP from creators who only make original content and happens to paywall it off lol

>>53793
People here love to shill for Patreon. Not the artists mind you. No, no they are 'entitled'. Patreon on the other hand is abused by them.

Lovely narrative by degenerate furries here.

>>53810
SIMPs and CUCKs strikes again, coming here for 3DPD content lol.

>>53714
>TLDR: Money = life, paywall can = more life
>>53412
>https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon?zd=1&zi=igx4b56b

>Again, Patreon is not housing tip jars out of the kindness of their heart.
Doesn't need to. The platform is still designed to be a donation platform for artists. Whether the site takes fees from donations is irrelevant.

>Your point of creators "misusing patreon" is stupid
You're the one relying on an article that can't decide the point it's trying to make.

>It's written down, you don't have to imagine. We're discussing what a business is and where a business is run
No, that's what _you're_ discussing. My point is that those capable of running real businesses wouldn't bother with Patreon's donation platform.

>follow by a source that shows most outcomes.
That nobody on Patreon makes money? Because that's basically the title of your article. You need something better.

>What proof would be needed to be provided for YOU PERSONALLY to believe that many creators are harmed by this site.
If you need to ask, then you are not prepared to fulfill your burden of proof.

>>53716
>"why doesn't someone move from one paywall site
>implying

>do not make living wages for most people.
Are most people skilled?

>The smart business thing to do, is to use both sites. Paywall patreon for current goods to be distributed, then use Gumroad for old content that people can access but don't need to have reoccurring payments
So use one platform to receive donations, and another to sell stuff? Why paywall Patreon content, then? Patreon money

>>53717
>>Why, then, don't artists use Gumroad instead (seeing as it's actually a marketplace by design)?
>Makes you look like a dumbass or at the very least
Really? It's a great question to ask when someone posts an article suggesting that nobody makes money on Patreon.

>Like for christ sake, if you want a tip jar to be the main source of people's income
When did I say that? Do you mean >>53459?

>why aren't you telling people to only use Ko-fi or bank wire transfers or an actual fucking glass tip jar
Might as well, if that one article was worth a damn and that nobody on Patreon makes money.

>>53719
>Tip jars don't work well enough for >most people<, Paywalls don't work well enough for >most people<
You're still relying on that article?

>You have a ko-fi that makes a small amount of money, and you've paywalled your patreon to increase the amount of money you get there
Why bother with Patreon is nobody even makes money there? Paywalling on Patreon (or not) wouldn't make a difference if this is true.

>What else can you do to make a liveable wage
Who says no one is allowed to use Patreon (or any other site) while maintaining a job? Realistically, most people aren't cut out for Patreon (or any other platform, paywalls or tipjars) to begin with. Those that have potential would realistically need to continue working before they receive enough monthly donations to focus on art. As far as time goes, going from full-time to part-time work may be enough for some.

>You're gonna come up with a lot of good/ok/bad solutions, one of those things may be to stop piracy (DMCA)
It's only piracy if you allow it to be. Nobody is forcing anyone to attempt paywalling, which needlessly makes this a threat.

>>53793
>"Patreon is a donation site (in spirit) not a market place" is amusing.
So how do I buy the attachments of a given post? It'd be really amusing if you unironically suggested paying for more months than necessary, which is only worth it if I really liked this artist and wanted to donate. Otherwise, my connection isn't so bad that I need multiple months to download the attachment(s)

>Heck, there's a whole section about "IP stealing creators are bad" on a site that steals IP from creators who only make original content and happens to paywall it off lol
Beating a dead horse. Not our fault if those artists want to owe IP creators statutory damages.

>>53409
Who argues for weeks on end against people enjoying things for free and then tries to use "I'm just having fun haha" as an excuse the moment someone points out that his arguing skills are so poor that they won't convince anyone? Nobody's falling for that, you wouldn't even be arguing in the first place if it weren't for the fact that people enjoy things for free that you waste money on, it obviously tilts you hence why you've been doing the unnatural act of arguing for weeks. People don't argue for no reason, you ARE trying to convince people and even act condescendingly for the sake of making yourself feel better against the fact that you're wasting money on things others are getting for free, don't lie.

>>53967
Ya no one likes to argue, that's why debate clubs, lawyers, and half body furry avatar rant youtube videos don't exist.

I've said earlier that ya, a side goal is for lurkers to read it and maybe question stuff. Main goal is to have fun which yes, when someone argues terribly I find enjoyment in that and love to pick it a part. If that's not your jam that's ok but it's mine so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If my main goal was to convince people via argumentation, I would just go to my twitter which has thousands of followers or DM an individual who is more accountable, which is something I already do for seriousness/fun lol

>for the sake of making yourself feel better against the fact that you're wasting money on things others are getting for free, don't lie
Sorry if it breaks your world view but no, I don't care if people get free things. I'm a communist, I advocate for free access to goods/service when possible. Nothing is free though, so my problem is what's the price being paid for that free access, not the free-ness itself. Since we live under neo-liberal capitalism, the price for your free viewing of small creator's works is ultimately destitution or helping people be closer to it.

If you steal from a musician making 1 mil, who cares, they're able to live a good life. Most creators don't have that luxury. Side note, hope it's not too wild to say that helping fund people to make sure they have a good life isn't a waste of money, especially if they're giving you something of value to your life

I actually want to make a really specific note of this because your framing of how you view goods/services is bad for yourself

The reason why even communist and anarchists that try to advocate for non-capitalist actions/infrastructure/etc all the time will still advocate for livable wages, non-punitive punishment, etc via our current capitalistic system is because the main idea is to maximize happiness while sustaining and progressing livability

"free things" is a right/center wing talking points to dismiss the actual point that people should have "free access to goods/services"
To have free access, you need people to be able to live and to have enough of a resource. People aren't robots though, so unlike capitalism that expects you to produce unless stuff to live, the com/anarcho thought is that you live and from living you produce valuable needed goods/services.

If everyone has the basic needs of life, everyone will produce free things when possible, because humans naturally do that. You have a problem, you want to fix it, those that have the means to fix it will fix, or someone will try to and others will complete their work later

Entertainment is people fixing boredom or people working through ideas/problems in their life publicly
It's why you get deep works like FMA, Nier, etc while also getting planking, cinnamon challenge, https://www.reddit.com/r/ButtSharpies/

>53993
>...that expects you to produce unless stuff to live...
produce USELESS stuff to live*

Think how many products go to land fills because stuff was over produced and no one wanted it. The new iphone being released every year because instead a couple of good phone designs for different situations that will last for years, they make an incomplete phone that will only last for one year, it could last longer but then they send out an update that kills it or makes it worse because the update is for the new phone. Then there's games that make you pay to not waste your time playing it, such as clash of clans or every paid loot box ever.


Now then,
>>53902
Read the paraphrase below >TLDR: Money = life, paywall can = more life
Then look at your statement >And how does that translate to unnecessary paywalls, when tipjars suffice?
Paywalls can increase the amount you make (aka more life) then a tip jar can (aka less life). Again, congratulations *clapping*, we both agree people are destitute, I'm just arguing that people are a little less so when paywalls are used in a smart business way

>>53902
>Again, Patreon is not housing tip jars out of the kindness of their heart.
>Doesn't need to. The platform is still designed to be a donation platform for artists. Whether the site takes fees from donations is irrelevant.
https://blog.patreon.com/setting-shop-tips-building-successful-patreon-campaign This is an older article, they have newer ones they release to creators all the time, which you can view on their blog, but it shows my point
They're not designed to be a donation platform, they just CAN be a donation platform
Why them taking fee is an important point is because their platform design is around making a profit, not helping artists. They advocate for paywall like services/goods because they know they'll make more profits when the creator make more profits. The donation talk is mostly PR.

>You're the one relying on an article that can't decide the point it's trying to make.
You're the one not noticing the article makes multiple points when you use critical thinking skills
Luckily for you, there's the new source that has more sources you can look up personally from their site

>My point is that those capable of running real businesses wouldn't bother with Patreon's donation platform.
I know your discussing this point, that's why I called it stupid, because "a real business" is any individual/group that makes enough money to live. Patreon is a way to make money. The IRS actually considers you have a business when you're seeking profit, even if you don't make that much profit. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/hobby-or-business-irs-offers-tips-to-decide
So can we get off the "Patreon is a primarily a donation website so it can't be a real business" because again, it's a stupid point that doesn't help your arguments and just sounds silly that you're buckling down with that point

>That nobody on Patreon makes money? Because that's basically the title of your article. You need something better.
Surprisingly, there's more info past the title of the article that you can read. There's even a website for you to check out data yourself via https://graphtreon.com/ when you're thinking about the point of "are tip jars sufficient" and I say "no, even paywalls arent, but paywalls do better than tips jars so paywalls more often when people are seeking profit"

You can use something like
https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators/adult-drawing-painting and see what the successful people do with their patreon. Hint: it's different sized paywalls. It's why sometimes "free content" here is just the hi res version of the low res version that came out at the same time. Literally could see it for free but still pirated the hi res version so how are you actually helping or "breaking the system down maaan"

>What proof would be needed to be provided for YOU PERSONALLY to believe that many creators are harmed by this site.
>If you need to ask, then you are not prepared to fulfill your burden of proof.
You're a Ken Ham right now https://youtu.be/NyrXQ__VcS8?t=6657
When asked what proof you need to change your mind, you don't say what will because you already know that you won't change, even if you are given clear proof that there is harm
Clarification on what's needed is just clarification on what's needed. It does not correlate to if someone has proof or no proof. What you said is a dodge to look like you're winning a debate when again, you're dying on a dumb hill.
Try again, what proof would be needed to be provided for YOU PERSONALLY to believe that many creators are harmed by this site.

>>53903
>implying
...that I'm mocking you for the "patreon is a donation site" because the statement >Why, then, don't artists use Gumroad instead (seeing as it's actually a marketplace by design)?
implies Patreon isn't a marketplace by design, which is a dumb statement that already been explained multiple times.

>Are most people skilled?
Yes actually! I'm gonna use literacy because there's more data there. https://ourworldindata.org/literacy Most people are skilled in reading nowadays which wasn't always the case. Back then if you could read that was a major advantage, nowadays you can be a master reader and it's only a party trick. You can get income from just reading but not everyone will make an income from it because that's how markets work. Your connections, your class, what degrees you have (but may not have earned), etc will determine more of what your income will be then pure skill.

>So use one platform to receive donations, and another to sell stuff? Why paywall Patreon content, then? Patreon money
>reoccurring payments
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-cards/credit-cards-make-you-spend-more/
Or heck look at real life example https://www.patreon.com/spoonyexperiment
$389 per month but the last upload is Jun 11, 2016 at 5:56am
There is a benefit from reoccurring payments, especially if you put other stipulations on top of it, again, You need to grab a business book or do market research

>Really? It's a great question to ask when someone posts an article suggesting that nobody makes money on Patreon.
You could have found the answer before hand by reading what I said before or right then... or using critical thinking skills

>Like for christ sake, if you want a tip jar to be the main source of people's income
>When did I say that? Do you mean >>53459?
Tip jar is another way to say donations, which you have said multiple times like:
>>53700
>Patreon makes its money running a donation platform. What of it?

>why aren't you telling people to only use Ko-fi or bank wire transfers or an actual fucking glass tip jar
>Might as well, if that one article was worth a damn and that nobody on Patreon makes money.
It'll still be a low rate of income for people. The tip jar STILL won't work. It'd be better to advocate for non-capitalistic systems because this is capitalism, this is markets, this is poor distribution of resources for getting a valuable output.
If you want free things, figure out how to make them free access. This site only provides the free to see part, but not the free to produce part.

>>53904
>You're still relying on that article?
No, my own from looking into how to set up a patreon. https://graphtreon.com is pretty helpful, you can also ask creators about this. Twitter makes a lot of them accessible if you're curious. Most will tell you that the tip jar is not the money maker, but it is very helpful still

>Why bother with Patreon is nobody even makes money there? Paywalling on Patreon (or not) wouldn't make a difference if this is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
This is just a common thing that happens under capitalism. Your statement is like saying "Walmart employee not making a living wage, why don't you just become the CEO then? This is your fault for not having a ceo position, a position that is limited and which requires money already to get the education, connections, etc you need for such a position in the first place"

>Who says no one is allowed to use Patreon (or any other site) while maintaining a job? Realistically, most people aren't cut out for Patreon (or any other platform, paywalls or tipjars) to begin with. Those that have potential would realistically need to continue working before they receive enough monthly donations to focus on art. As far as time goes, going from full-time to part-time work may be enough for some.

Again again, people generally just want 1 job. If you make creating artwork, video, etc a job, then maintaining another job is not your first solution always. Having a full-time/part-time job is a solution, I went that route. But there are multiple solutions. One of those solutions is to make patreon a paywall, which is my point

I was asking you to think of more solutions then the basic bitch solution. If you go past the BBS, you'll come to conclusions like the paywall. Which again, is a side effect from poor distribution of resources, labour, etc. Under capitalism, the smartest thing to do in this situation would be not to work a job at all and have passive income from stocks, savings interest, owning a business with labour, etc. But you need money and time for that, which is why people get awful jobs in the first place to help them get the jobs they actually want. If you're not willing to go down the awful job path, you have to think of other solutions or already have money.

>It's only piracy if you allow it to be. Nobody is forcing anyone to attempt paywalling, which needlessly makes this a threat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVKjFp5DEvk
This is a good video to watch about why "nobody is forcing anyone to attempt paywalling" is false
The other good video if you don't want to listen to argumentation is again, to read a business book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jILgxeNBK_8
Maintaining power over your digital copyright is like commanding land, production, labour, etc in real life. The control of resources, like where people can view a product, helps make income. If we didn't live under capitalism and lived in a better system or even had better laws, yes, piracy would be allowed because it'd just be the norm to have access to things. Piracy is just stealing resources, which is why free access good, piracy bad.

>So how do I buy the attachments of a given post?
It's a subscription service like netflix, disney+, hbo on the go, etc (aka a market place for what products you'd like to see)
Patreon could honestly allow future month donations if it really wanted to, it just doesn't. Don't start give them ideas, otherwise we'll have season pack passes for donations.
If you want to buy attachments of a given post, the person would use gumroad because their systems allow for that, thus again, why you use both sites. It's like buying a movie instead of buying a subscription to watch it on a streaming service.

>Beating a dead horse. Not our fault if those artists want to owe IP creators statutory damages
You do realize that IP is paywalling formed ideas yes? Going back to piracy from this site causes damages, taking IPs also cause damages.

You're just acknowledging IP damages but not copyright damages

To be clear, COPY RIGHT means the ability to make copies of a given good. Copyright isn't just a legal term, it literally says what it is. Like Miles Per Hour meaning how many miles you'd travel in an hour if you went that speed constantly, copyright is discussing who gets to make what and who gets to see it, for the purposes of profit/allowing that idea to eventually be used by others rather than a person hiding that idea away for it to die with them. People could make the stuff then never show it to the world or never show parts of it to the world, which is where you get trade secrets.

If an IP owner can control their IP because they don't want it damaged, the same can be said for people damaging their copyrights. This really isn't a hard concept to understand.

Like you're so close to understanding why it's funny to read your bad arguments, and it just flies over your head every time, even when you make arguments that are in the same foundation as mine.

Guys let's just let him have his shallow victory. At the end of the day, this website is still up and running. His talking means nothing to that end. Anything he posts after this should be completely ignored.

>>54013
Why do you talk as if this community listens to you?
Nobody likes your degenerate ass, so choke on a lego you retarded piss-loving piece of shit.

I know I am pretty late on this thread, but as an artist who hasn't even read the thread beyond the first couple of posts, you hit SO close to the mark but then completely miss it.

You say that Patreon is a bad business model because you personally don't like that content creators use it to gate off content to only paying customers. While it is a shitty thing to do in my opinion, you operate under the assumption that artists create work and you are entitled to that work for free. You assume that Patreon is an optional "donation" that people can give to content creators that they want to support but no where on Patreon does it say that it's used exclusively for "donations".

If you were to say, "I personally don't like that content creators use Patreon as a paywall for their content that I personally would prefer be free," then you're entitled to that opinion and I actually agree with you. I heavily disagree with you when you say artists operate under the mentality of, "Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw.", which, is simply retarded because creating art isn't just a simple "hobby" for some people, for those people, it is WORK, it is their LIVELIHOOD.

In conclusion, if you hate the way that artists act, yet begrudgingly consume the fruits of their labor, why don't you pick up a pencil and become an artist yourself? It's really not that hard. "Natural Talent" isn't real and after a year of practicing every day for barely an hour a day, I am a LOT better than I started. I can even recommend you good learning materials and books. Art is actually the cheapest hobby ever, you can literally use printer paper and a normal No. 2 pencil. Literally Google, "Andrew Loomis Fun with a Pencil" and read the book free online. I can probably say with confidence that 90% of the artists that draw your disgusting furry porn and anime girls fucking each other read Andrew Loomis' Fun with a Pencil at some point. Also fuck you.

Also, your problem with the system is that a lot of content creators decide to "paywall" their content, and you make a "ridiculous" comparison to you assembling LEGOs from your imagination and having people pay you to see them and honestly... why the fuck is that ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous that you be compensated for doing something that you enjoy if other people enjoy seeing you do it? You even specify that you aren't assembling LEGO sets from instructions, you are assembling them "off the top of your head". How the fuck is you putting together LEGOs any different than a sculptor or an artist drawing something from their imagination? Take pride on your work!

>>54013
Thank you for thinking I'm victorious uwu

I do agree with >>54026 though, the first part at least.
You started a thread, not a cult. If you don't want to participate yourself, don't.

>>54027
I recommend
-Anatomy for artist by Sarah Simblet
-How to Draw: drawing and sketching objects and environments from your imagination by Scott robertson and thomas bertling
-Picture this by Molly Bang
-Colors and Light by James Gurney

which the library should carry all of those :3
A lot of people do suggest Loomis tho, also things like https://www.ctrlpaint.com or https://www.youtube.com/user/ProkoTV

>>54013
Oh my god I can't stop laughing at you

>>53999
>Paywalls can increase the amount you make
Based on what? That one article suggests nobody makes money on Patreon, so paywalls clearly aren't working.

>Surprisingly, there's more info past the title of the article that you can read.
And it betrays the point trying to be made.

>There's even a website for you to check out data yourself via https://graphtreon.com/
You need to use your own words to prove your point. The last person that tried using graphtreon to prove a point failed miserably.

>Try again, what proof would be needed to be provided for YOU PERSONALLY to believe that many creators are harmed by this site.
It's not my duty to prove your point for you: Put up or shut up.

>Tip jar is another way to say donations
And?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
What does that have to do with Patreon being a bad place to make money?

>>54006
>One of those solutions is to make patreon a paywall
And if you made it a tipjar, you do less work and don't need to worry about leaks and stuff.

>I was asking you to think of more solutions then the basic bitch solution
I'm not trying to debate capitalism vs. communism with you. Again, that's _your_ discussion.

>This is a good video to watch about why "nobody is forcing anyone to attempt paywalling" is false
>The other good video if you don't want to listen to argumentation is again, to read a business book
"Good" being subjective and coming from a (needlessly) opposing viewpoint. Use your own words, if you point is worth a damn, but I don't get why anyone would be this opposed to charity.

>It's a subscription service like netflix, disney+, hbo on the go
Really? Because I thought it was a platform where I can give money to artists I like, with no guarantees of performance from the artists.

>If you want to buy attachments of a given post, the person would use gumroad
But why paywall on Patreon to begin with, if nobody apparently makes money off of it?

>You're just acknowledging IP damages but not copyright damages
I'm acknowledging moneys Congress allows IP holders to recover by law for copyright infringement. You, personally, should leave copyright law to the lawyers.

>>54027
>While it is a shitty thing to do in my opinion, you operate under the assumption that artists create work and you are entitled to that work for free
Based on what?

>You assume that Patreon is an optional "donation" that people can give to content creators that they want to support but no where on Patreon does it say that it's used exclusively for "donations".
Which only really works to the extent we complain about using Patreon to offer, e.g., commissions or websites where artists sell stuff (like Gumroad).

> I heavily disagree with you when you say artists operate under the mentality of, "Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw.", which, is simply retarded because creating art isn't just a simple "hobby" for some people, for those people, it is WORK, it is their LIVELIHOOD.
As with most people, such generalizations don't apply to every artist, but enough artists like that do exist. To those that make it their livelihood, how do you think they manage? Not everyone has the talent to make that happen; and not everyone is meant to be an artist, yet so many try. Why else do you think thots are hated around here?

>if you hate the way that artists act
A bad attitude is a strong deterrent of support and inspires spiteful acts. To those who are popular enough, such acts don't matter.

>yet begrudgingly consume the fruits of their labor,
>art is consumable

>>54028
Way to miss the point.

>Also, your problem with the system is that a lot of content creators decide to "paywall" their content, and you make a "ridiculous" comparison to you assembling LEGOs from your imagination and having people pay you to see them and honestly... why the fuck is that ridiculous?
Because you can't see (much of) it without paying first, it's ridiculous being forced to pay, if there's no way to know in advance the quality and nature of these constructions. You say we claim to be entitled to the work of artists, but artists are not entitled to donors' money either. This sense of entitlement is what this thread of is about, and attempts to deflect it is a perfectly good way to get donors to save their money for more deserving artists.

>>54146
>Based on what? That one article suggests nobody makes money on Patreon, so paywalls clearly aren't working.
>And it betrays the point trying to be made.
>You need to use your own words to prove your point. The last person that tried using graphtreon to prove a point failed miserably.
>It's not my duty to prove your point for you: Put up or shut up.
>And?
>I'm not trying to debate capitalism vs. communism with you. Again, that's _your_ discussion.

It's no fun to respond if all you're gonna do is dodge or give non-answers.
In order with what's boring about your respones,
- You keep asking me for data(which I respond to, provide, and you don't accept) but you yourself never put data forth for why your argument is better. You just repeat talking points you think gives you an edge, but don't explain anything beyond that.
- You pick out quotes you can easily respond to rather than respond to the full point written down
- " (I've already provided data, there's only so many times I can repeat myself) & " (you could respond with a better point to counter act mine, but you don't)
- It's not my duty to find 1,000+ valid sources for you to ignore. Clarification from you just helps reduce research time with data we both can agree on
- " (You respond to an easy quote rather than answering the point)
- " (you could respond with a better point to counter act mine, but you don't)

>Why bother with Patreon is nobody even makes money there? Paywalling on Patreon (or not) wouldn't make a difference if this is true.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
>What does that have to do with Patreon being a bad place to make money?
Again, not answering the full written statement. %2 is a pretty bad rate for who makes a [Livable wage/minimum wage] on patreon but in context to the USA, this happens in a lot of industries. This is a common issue due to the capitalist market. This is why you have wage workers needing benefits from the government even with multiple jobs aka not enough funding. If you look up success rates for funding you'll find a majority (50.01%) in a lot of industries fail to get it, or fail to keep it. I'm certain if you got stats on people who live off of kofi it'd be abysmal too. If you'd like to show that donations for a majority of people are successful then I'd be glad to see it from you.

>And if you made it a tipjar, you do less work and don't need to worry about leaks and stuff.
Citation? Reasoning? No, just a non-answer again... cool.

>I'm not trying to debate capitalism vs. communism with you. Again, that's _your_ discussion.
Capitalism bad is one of the reasons I'm saying your arguments fail, I'm not debating capitalism vs communism, it's just that reasoning also inherently advocates for a non-capitalist solutions
If you actually argue my against my points directly, you would also be debating the economics of the paywall, which inherently frames the discussion on how that econ works.

>"Good" being subjective and coming from a (needlessly) opposing viewpoint. Use your own words, if you point is worth a damn, but I don't get why anyone would be this opposed to charity.
So you don't want sources? You just want to fuck around?
Charities are good but they're also a bandaid to a systemic problem.

Let's just take this thread's start with your line of thought, why not charity entitled artists to sit on their ass all day?
Why hasn't charity worked for 98% of patreon creators so far? 98% of people don't use paywalls, so why are the charity focused patreons failing?

>Really? Because I thought it was a platform where I can give money to artists I like, with no guarantees of performance from the artists.
That's literally every business. Why do you think refunds are a thing, or yelp reviews? This is a non-answer again. What are you even arguing with this statement?

Streaming services don't have to guarantee performance, they just have the resources to where they probably will provide something vs a individual who has to do everything with less resources.

>But why paywall on Patreon to begin with, if nobody apparently makes money off of it?
Non-answer again. Like I've said before, you don't put your eggs all into one basket, reoccurring payments is a powerful thing, it's an easy method for file distribution and money collection.

>I'm acknowledging moneys Congress allows IP holders to recover by law for copyright infringement. You, personally, should leave copyright law to the lawyers.
Piracy like yiff.party is also copyright infringment. again, the word copyright in simple terms means Copy, Right. yiff.party is a pirate site because a lot of their content doesn't have permission to be copied.
https://www.patreon.com/policy/legal
>"By posting creations on Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your creation. The purpose of this license is strictly limited to allow us to provide and promote memberships to your patrons."
^^^You'll find this type of clause a lot when signing up for sites because they need to be able to copy your works. There are ways to copy something without this, piracy isn't one. Lawyers are needed because the rules are really tedious and misusing reproductions can cause harm.

I'm not the OP of >>54027 but,

>>54149
>Based on what?
🎵Hello non-answers my old friend. I've come to talk to you again.🎵
There's more to the top of the thread, which is what OP is discussing
>...Artist's seem to think that they deserve to be paid...
>...The site rarely has people on it that use it for donations. Instead, it has become a marketplace of intangible goods and paid subscriptions...
>...In actuality, this is what it is: "Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw. I deserve hundreds of dollars just to do my hobby"...
etc

> Not everyone has the talent to make that happen; and not everyone is meant to be an artist, yet so many try.
This is a really shitty way to frame the discussion. There are people who fail on patreon who clearly have the talent and are artists, but just don't have the exposure. To those types of people, what's your answer to OPs point about it being a livelyhood and that it's weird for top thread op to act like those people are sitting on their ass doing nothing?

>if you hate the way that artists act
A bad attitude is a strong deterrent of support and inspires spiteful acts. To those who are popular enough, such acts don't matter.
Hey, Hey anon, there was a full sentence you cut off.
>if you hate the way that artists act, yet begrudgingly consume the fruits of their labor, why don't you pick up a pencil and become an artist yourself?
Answer that, rather than breaking it up with an answer? and a non-answer.

>Because you can't see (much of) it without paying first, it's ridiculous being forced to pay, if there's no way to know in advance the quality and nature of these constructions. You say we claim to be entitled to the work of artists, but artists are not entitled to donors' money either. This sense of entitlement is what this thread of is about, and attempts to deflect it is a perfectly good way to get donors to save their money for more deserving artists.

-Paying for food at a new restaurant
-Paying for a movie ticket
-Paying for amusement park
-Paying for a book
-Paying for an escape the room challenge
-Paying for an physical art gallery ticket
All the things in common here is that you pay for something without having all the details to it. Most people running a patreon will show advertisements or show some/all of their work publicly. It's good to have more info but it's not required with out we do business in a lot of industries. It's a legit tactic to hide info, it's again, why trade secrets, copyright, etc exists.

Again, the entitlement that you deserve to see something before you buy rather than "voting with your dollar" is odd in a capitalist market. You're not forced to buy into a Patreon subscription, you want something from a patreon and you don't want to pay to see it. This isn't a "I need food" sort of situation, this is a "I found a problem with the capitalist market, but I'm gonna do a piracy to get my jimmies off instead of fixing the problem"

TLDR, OP didn't deflect, you don't deserve to see something before you buy it, you have the "right to vote with your dollar"

>...In actuality, this is what it is: "Pay me to sit on my ass all day and draw. I deserve hundreds of dollars just to do my hobby"...

lmao only that I make THOUSANDS
suck it

5.967 USD for drawing nothing but a shitty trans furry comic.
How mad does this make you :>

>>54157
>It's no fun to respond if all you're gonna do is dodge or give non-answers.
Not fun arguing from a bad position, is it?

>>54158
>Again, not answering the full written statement.
Stay focused.

>Reasoning?
>>52464
>The artist gets paid either way

>Capitalism bad is one of the reasons I'm saying your arguments fail
That Patreon, specifically, is a donation platform? Don't see the need to bring Capitalism into this.

>>54159
>So you don't want sources? You just want to fuck around?
I want you to use your own words to further your argument. If you're gonna bother us with random Youtube videos, it better be more than mere commentary.

>Charities are good but they're also a bandaid to a systemic problem.
Ok.

>Why hasn't charity worked for 98% of patreon creators so far? 98% of people don't use paywalls, so why are the charity focused patreons failing?
Questions are argumentative: How did you ascertain the percentage of artists on Patreon don't attempt to paywall? Are you still relying on that one article in claiming that artists who use Patreon responsibly are failing?

>That's literally every business. Why do you think refunds are a thing, or yelp reviews?
Why are you still equating business to charity? Unlike businesses, I don't actually expect anything from my donations (but I can only speak for myself here).

>Streaming services don't have to guarantee performance
False equivalence: The reasons I'm giving them money is to gain access to their services. Can't say the same about my donations.

>Non-answer again.
>all challenges to my position are non-answers

>>54160
>Piracy like yiff.party is also copyright infringment.
>Piracy
If that were the case, I'd imagine that Nintendo et al. would be more interested in this place.

>"By posting creations on Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your creation. The purpose of this license is strictly limited to allow us to provide and promote memberships to your patrons."
>The purpose of this license is strictly limited to allow us to provide and promote memberships to your patrons."

>>54162
>etc
Where's the part where we assume we're entitled to an artist's work?

>This is a really shitty way to frame the discussion. There are people who fail on patreon who clearly have the talent and are artists, but just don't have the exposure. To those types of people, what's your answer to OPs point about it being a livelyhood and that it's weird for top thread op to act like those people are sitting on their ass doing nothing?
That really depends on their attitude and their motivation. Those who've managed to make a living on Patreon didn't do so overnight, so those who've "failed" probably gave up too soon (or had no other choice but to stop using Patreon, for whatever reason).

>Hey, Hey anon, there was a full sentence you cut off.
And?

>Answer that, rather than breaking it up with an answer? and a non-answer.
I'm not entertaining defective premises. Imagine being so closed-minded that you'd dismiss opposing viewpoints as non-answers.

>>54164
>-Paying for .....
>it's not required with out we do business in a lot of industries.
>it's again, why trade secrets, copyright, etc exists.
>False Equivalence: The Post

>Most people running a patreon will show advertisements
Just what is being advertised, and how visible is it without having to pledge first? My understanding is that NSFW posts are censored, unless you pledge to artists that post NSFW content. If I understand correctly, that renders these previews (which I assume you're referring to) moot.

>You're not forced to buy into a Patreon subscription, you want something from a patreon and you don't want to pay to see it.
So to those concerned, they'd save their donations for artists that publicly display their potential.

>This isn't a "I need food" sort of situation, this is a "I found a problem with the capitalist market, but I'm gonna do a piracy to get my jimmies off instead of fixing the problem"
This is indeed a first world problem. No need to misuse the word "piracy" because some artists would rather paywall that use Patreon for its intended purpose.

>you don't deserve to see something before you buy it
That's the attitude that breeds consumer fraud in actual markets. You really should give up on false equivalence.

>you don't deserve to see something before you buy it

This very much. Seeing in this case is consuming. That's why you can't watch a whole movie before you decide if you want to pay for it later. Sure it's alright to properly have a good luck at a car before you buy it. Because the consumption of it is owning and driving it.
With a piece of art, consuming equals seeing it. Especially if it only exists digitally.

>>54301
>Not fun arguing from a bad position, is it? >Stay focused.
It's not fun responding to your dodges, deflections, and non-answers. You're not being smart and witty, you're being transparent about not being able to respond to other people's arguments.

Even if one has a bad argument, you can talk past them and put forth data, like I have been doing. But if you don't even give bad responses, no response can be given. Which makes it no fun. Give me something to work with here bb.

>The artist gets paid either way... >And if you made it a tipjar, you do less work and don't need to worry about leaks and stuff.
These are your reasoning, I have said why they're dumb or ill-framed arguments. The full quote you only took a part of is:
>Citation? Reasoning? No, just a non-answer again... cool.
Where's the citation part. Where's the argument against it being a better business idea to put your eggs into different baskets. Where's the argument that tip jars produce more/as much money as limiting the supply of content to a market?

I expect I will not be seeing any arguments for those things, just you quote "Where's the citation part." with "My data is that this site exists/I don't need outside sources from myself, I'm right/ bUt wHeRez Y0uR cItAtIoN (*ignores all citations from me* haha got'em)"

>That Patreon, specifically, is a donation platform? Don't see the need to bring Capitalism into this.
See, even though this isn't an argument, it's still hilariously poorly stated so it's fun to respond to.
We're talking about how people funding their stuff. Funding generally deals with the field of economics. Capitalism is economics. Donations are still bound to economics. Trading with fiat currency is just formalized & standardized form of physical trade (aka a middle man)
Last I remember, donations through patreon are through bank notes primarily, not time/labour/engagement/advertising/etc. Those extra things are usually done through other platforms by users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patreon
Just read the openers and you'll be able to argument much better instantly if you're not just incompetent.

>I want you to use your own words to further your argument. If you're gonna bother us with random Youtube videos, it better be more than mere commentary.
What you're complaining about is sources that you can just listen to instead of reading, I was making easier for you lol. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_model
There, now they're "real sources" ( Wikipedia uses references, I don't want to hear how it's not a source, look at their sources then if you want to go that far deep into the subject)

>Ok.
Non-answer

> How did you ascertain the percentage of artists on Patreon don't attempt to paywall? Are you still relying on that one article in claiming that artists who use Patreon responsibly are failing?
When I research for my business strategies for my patreon, I check which people are doing the best/ok/horribly via graphteon. It's informal but the trend I see is that paywalls work better and most hi-earning people have some type of paywall, excluding things like youtube videos which primarily monetizes their content differently (merch, sponsors, etc) so you can actually find people who do use it primary as donation-ish more often then people doing artwork/writting/etc. Also I just hang around a lot of different creators and when they switch to paywalls they tend to do a bit better. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a formal study on how people run their patreon in a way that you can see percentages clearly.

TLDR: I use multiple sources

>Why are you still equating business to charity?
Because I've explained why it's not a charity. I even used the IRS, the people who determine which groups are charities.
>Unlike businesses, I don't actually expect anything from my donations (but I can only speak for myself here).
Fantastic, I'm a furry. But me being a furry doesn't make me think that everyone is a furry. You go by definitions, if someone fits the definition of furry, they're probably a furry. If most of patreon fits within the definition of a business, then calling it a charity is stupid unless proven otherwise like, an actual charity using patreon. People running a freelance business using patreon as one of their sources are not charities.

>False equivalence: The reasons I'm giving them money is to gain access to their services. Can't say the same about my donations.
Just saying false equivalence doesn't do anything. You're not the only person who has money and uses that money. I know you've lived in a society that makes things shiny and "professional" but a business is a business. You're not guaranteed a good produce or service, that's why laws to recoup losses exist. Streaming services like netflix, disney+, etc just have a higher chance of not being shit because they have the money and labour to more so do better. But that's not always the case for example: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi or https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_emoji_movie

>all challenges to my position are non-answers
Oh daddy...You've really studied the blade haven't you

>If that were the case, I'd imagine that Nintendo et al. would be more interested in this place.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190912/10021542977/nintendos-rom-site-war-continues-with-huge-lawsuit-against-site-despite-not-sending-dmca-notices.shtml I mean, you're not wrong.
The reason why they probably haven't is because it's bad PR + lawyer resources for not enough of a monetary gain. If a place like this stopped becoming a small fry operation on individuals and instead affecting nintendo's market, yes, nintendo would come after this place and creators. I'm certain they at the very least, know of this place.

>The purpose of this license is strictly limited to allow us to provide and promote memberships to your patrons."
The us in that quote is Patreon. Patreon has the license to copy the work, you're an end user, you do not get to copy it. This is like ignoring the FBI's warning on films about copying, the DVD producer sure could copy it to the disc, but that doesn't give you the right to copy it. Are you a pirate because you don't understand how copyright works? That'd be so sad lol.

>Where's the part where we assume we're entitled to an artist's work?
... I'm going to assume you're from the USA because I'm certain the education system has failed you...
Assuming artist don't need to be paid in a market econ, that their business is instead a charity in which they should release free-access works, and that it's a hobby people should be grateful for receiving money at all, is entitlement. If you replaced this type of argument with an electrician's work, you'd sound like a dumbass that expects their work to be free when it's skill to be paid for.

>That really depends on their attitude and their motivation. Those who've managed to make a living on Patreon didn't do so overnight, so those who've "failed" probably gave up too soon (or had no other choice but to stop using Patreon, for whatever reason).
What's too soon in your mind? There are people who have done patreon for a long time, objectively do better stuff than someone like me, but still has failed. You can describe that in a vague way or in the way markets work. At the end of the day still, a produce who could produce goods/services doesn't because the market doesn't let them unless they have a shit ton of money which is a crappy distribution model.

>False Equivalence: The Post
Explain the false equivalency because they're all about business and how resources/goods/services are managed. What doesn't equate in your mind? Use your big boy words.

>Just what is being advertised, and how visible is it without having to pledge first?
You can't even find NSFW patreons via their search, you have to find it from an outside source. The outside source will be where you see their stuff. People generally list their main free gallery on their Patreon bio or you could just google their name then find their gallery if they have one.
If you're gonna pick selective points, make sure you don't own yourself by acting like the world is limited to one website, especially one you can't even access from the website itself without special conditions lol

>So to those concerned, they'd save their donations for artists that publicly display their potential
This site exists because people don't save their donations but instead get past the paywall and leak it. Aka, you're not forced into buying a patreon subscription, you want something from patreon and you don't want to pay to see it. If you followed the market solution, you wouldn't pay for it and you won't see it. This is why this site is considered to be a pirate site.

Legit, what do you think you're arguing for?

>No need to misuse the word "piracy" because some artists would rather paywall that use Patreon for its intended purpose
I didn't misuse it. What happening is copyright infringement via piracy. Stolen goods. And my point is that they're goods not needed for a life and you're not fixing the actual problem to get your entertainment. Again, what people are doing on Patreon is how capitalist markets work, you don't like that so you do something(piracy) that doesn't fix the problem but still benefits you and you should just be forward about that.

>you don't deserve to see something before you buy it
>That's the attitude that breeds consumer fraud in actual markets. You really should give up on false equivalence.
Here, I'm giving you this list so you can be more creative with the fallacies you say. Just repeating that one doesn't make you sound like you're good at arguing, it doesn't even mean what you said is true. You have to use your big boy words and say why it's a fallacy. If you just said that in a debate class without a follow up, you'd get an F-
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/logic%20and%20analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

You are correct while also being so wrong. Capitalism works by everyone having all information, but there's no way to be omnipotent so lack of information happens. Some of this makes sense, eating a cake to know it's value then going "I value this at 0.01 cents" when the price is $5 doesn't work. It is one branch of philosophy for capitalism but most people don't use it because it breaks really quickly, everything would be $0 and have already been consumed.

"You don't deserve to see something" means, you are not required to buy into something. If you can't see it and don't feel comfortable with it, then the market action is to not spend your money on it. That's the contract most people go off of because it builds more trust. The producer shows a limited amount for you to consume, you buy into the full consumption, you're both happy (in a perfect situation) Bad things can happen because of the lack of info, but the trust and your buying power(bank notes, laws, government, etc) is what makes up for that.

Now I disagree with what I said myself, not in terms of it being wrong, but in terms of it being a poor solution to the distribution of resources
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rGM5QGzbT0 THIS VIDEO IS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ A BUNCH OF BOOKS
Captialism is a bad system, the ways to fix that bad system make it worse or weird.

To access and consume goods/services for free and have it be viable for life, you need a better system.

But until that happens, your power is buying power and collective power, the business power is owning and managing resources(which includes their own buying power). You are not entitled to anything as a buyer, the point is that business will be kind and good because they want your money, it's not that they're required to give you something. We just luckily have laws that make it kinder for the buyers since owning and managing everything trumps a lot of buying powers. Even that buying power you have is back up by the government, which people with bigger buying powers control and who has more buying power? Businesses. So again again, you don't deserve anything, you just happen to have something other people want. That is... if you have money, which again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

>>54332
This false equivalence stuff needs to stop.

>>54350
>It's not fun responding to your dodges, deflections, and non-answers.
Says a lot about you that you'd characterize it like that.

>Even if one has a bad argument, you can talk past them and put forth data, like I have been doing
No, what you did was post a defective article (and some Youtube videos without having established foundation prior to my last post). Way back when, we actually had people make some effort in actually interpreting Graphteon data. Didn't work out very well, but at least the effort was made back then.

>Where's the citation part.
Not everything needs a citation, and so far you've chosen your sources badly.

>Where's the argument against it being a better business idea to put your eggs into different baskets.
>business
This came after using your article against you, proposing nobody on Patreon makes money. Of all the different baskets available, Patreon the worst one to put anything in (if your article were worth a damn).

>Where's the argument that tip jars produce more/as much money as limiting the supply of content to a market?
Why am I required to make that argument? My point is that, for a given amount of money, setting up a tipjar (anywhere) is less work. Let's stop confusing this issue.

>>54351
>We're talking about how people funding their stuff
And that's still the conversation _you_ want to have.
>Last I remember, donations through patreon are through bank notes primarily, not time/labour/engagement/advertising/etc.
In what way does that justify attempts to paywall on Patreon, of all places?
>TLDR: I use multiple sources
Quality over quantity. You certainly talk the talk, but I've yet to see anything from you that distinguishes artists that try to paywall and artists that use Patreon as a tipjar. On this point, that one article isn't as helpful as you think it is.
>Because I've explained why it's not a charity.
If I have to ask, you didn't do a very good job at it.
>If most of patreon fits within the definition of a business, then calling it a charity is stupid unless proven otherwise like, an actual charity using patreon. People running a freelance business using patreon as one of their sources are not charities.
Why does using Patreon properly preclude artists from also doing commissions and selling media elsewhere? Why are you acting like every artist on Patreon operates their pages in the same exact manner?

>>54354
>Just saying false equivalence doesn't do anything.
If you want me to stop, then rethink your presentation and stop trying to compare apples to oranges.
>The reason why they probably haven't is because it's bad PR + lawyer resources for not enough of a monetary gain.
You think statutory damages and legal fees isn't enough monetary gain? If only you knew the amount of cases that never get media attention.

>>54407
>This false equivalence stuff needs to stop.

This must be autism.

>>54355
>The us in that quote is Patreon. Patreon has the license to copy the work
For the purposes of promoting a given artist's page. Can't you read?
>... I'm going to assume you're from the USA because I'm certain the education system has failed you...
An assertion was made about assumptions we make, yet you can't seem to explain the basis for that charge: What have we said to give you the impression that we honestly feel entitled to a given artist's art?

>>54356
>There are people who have done patreon for a long time, objectively do better stuff than someone like me, but still has failed
For those users, failure only occurs when they give up. If not, then they made the mistake of quitting their job before Patreon was making them enough money.
>Explain the false equivalency because they're all about business and how resources/goods/services are managed
That was easy. Next time don't try to compare profit-seeking ventures to the pursuit of gifts.

>>54357
>This site exists because people don't save their donations but instead get past the paywall and leak it. Aka, you're not forced into buying a patreon subscription
Buying a Patreon subscription? You make it seem like I can actually expect something from an artist in a given month, the same way I can expect to watch movies on Netflix month to month. You're trying too hard; and depending on how many pages you've seen (here or on Patreon), you'd know many artists have a month (or so) where they can't or just don't post art. Unlike actual subscription services, this doesn't stop donors from donating at times where artists need money the most.
>If you followed the market solution, you wouldn't pay for it and you won't see it.
Except many people here discovered artists worth donating to. If you weren't so new, you'd be aware of this.
>What happening is copyright infringement via piracy. Stolen goods.
We're not the ones drawing third party IPs without permission, or stealing from actual marketplaces.

>>54411
Nice argument. Git good or git out.

>>54358
>Here, I'm giving you this list so you can be more creative with the fallacies you say. Just repeating that one doesn't make you sound like you're good at arguing
If I'm repeating it, it's because you're making the same mistake (and apparently expecting different results). You could claim the fallacy fallacy and go nowhere, or you could reconsider your arguments for another chance to be convincing.
>Capitalism works by everyone having all information
Then I guess paywalling on Patreon, of all places, isn't Capitalism. Wanna try that again, or do you maybe want to stop complicating this conversation with unnecessary references to Capitalism?

>>54360
>THIS VIDEO IS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ A BUNCH OF BOOKS
What's so special about this video that it can substitute entire books? I suspect that this is just someone's commentary/opinion, and it just happens to resonate with your sensitivities, which would make it worthless to us.
>To access and consume goods/services for free and have it be viable for life, you need a better system.....
Ok.

>>54407

>>54332
>This false equivalence stuff needs to stop.
It's another dude and you're still going on about false equivalency. Not everyone is doing a false equivalency because you disagree.

>Says a lot about you that you'd characterize it like that.
That you're entertainment? I'm pretty sure I've been forward about that before. If you gave better arguments and did do non-answers I would be kinder about it ya, but that's about it.

>Didn't work out very well, but at least the effort was made back then.
1. Again, you can give your own sources but you don't. 2. You don't actually discredit my sources 3. I've made a lot of money from patreon from graphteon research so it went well for me

>Not everything needs a citation, and so far you've chosen your sources badly.
I don't think you've given any so this isn't a "everything" situation. I don't even think you've argued against most of my sources besides the %2 article that you think is the only source I use for some reason. If they're bad sources you can say why since they they are a part of the argument.

>This came after using your article against you, proposing nobody on Patreon makes money. Of all the different baskets available, Patreon the worst one to put anything in (if your article were worth a damn).
You didn't use the article against me lol. I've be arguing that Patreon is a bad system due to capitalism. However, I also recognize that with people making so little, they'll use tactics that make them more money, which paywalls tend to do. Again, what's your solution and give a source as to how you know it's better

>Why am I required to make that argument? My point is that, for a given amount of money, setting up a tipjar (anywhere) is less work. Let's stop confusing this issue.
We're discussing income for creators to live. A tip jar can be easier to set up but if it makes less money then that ease means nothing. Limiting the market (paywalls) works better and patreon is easy to use. So ya, you need to make an argument because your point fails especially since you don't back anything with data, just you saying that's how it works.

>And that's still the conversation _you_ want to have.
You've said >That Patreon, specifically, is a donation platform?
Donation implies that people are funded by those donating rather than people getting something in return. So discussing how markets work is needed because patreon is not purely a donation site. The discussion I'm having is that you're wrong and here's the info why.
But ok, what convo do YOU want to have

>Last I remember, donations through patreon are through bank notes primarily, not time/labour/engagement/advertising/etc.
>In what way does that justify attempts to paywall on Patreon, of all places?
It's pointing out that Patreon is a part of the market. Market forces at play means paywalls will exist because it's a digital restriction of resources which is usually beneficial. Especially if you believe in supply & demand models. If you don't play the game then you lose and losing = literal death unless your country has a good safety net.
Is it morally good to use paywalls, no. Does the system allow for such moral actions, only if you have money. Most people don't have the money thus oh hey look, all these paywalls make sense and are justified to a certain extent.

>On this point, that one article isn't as helpful as you think it is.
[bold] I'm not using that one article for everything [/bold]
Are you repeating that because that's the only source you clicked on?
Also I've already explained that there aren't formal deep dives into that data as far as I know. I only have the data I used for my business as well as the top people who have succeeded on patron. Sadly I can't point to a single article this time cause no one has cared to write it up yet.

>If I have to ask, you didn't do a very good job at it.
It can also mean you didn't understand because you're not smart enough to get it lol

The IRS's explanation of what a business is by their definition alone should be enough for you to stop the charity/donation point. Patreon's own tips & tricks on how to set up a sucessful patreon should explain why people use paywalls and that it's geared more towards business actions. etc etc, I can only hold your hand so much dude

>Why does using Patreon properly preclude artists from also doing commissions and selling media elsewhere? Why are you acting like every artist on Patreon operates their pages in the same exact manner
I'm confused by what you mean. It sounds like you're still stuck on the idea that pateron is a donation site. Patreon doesn't stop anyone from doing commissions or selling media so sure, people can do things outside of patreon (as they should) for main sources of income but if they're smart, they'll set up their patreon to not just a donation site so that they don't have to sell as much media or do as many commissions. Automating the process or drawing less for more is the smarter thing to do, which patreon is good at doing if you set it up correctly.

Creators don't set up their patreons the same but successful ones have trends to them. Again, market research is helpful.


>If you want me to stop, then rethink your presentation and stop trying to compare apples to oranges
You can keep saying it. It's basically a non-answer/dodge so I'll point out that non-answer/dodge then skip over it unless you say something else interesting.
I know my stuff is comparable so if you want to act like it's not, you need to say/prove why you think there's a fallacy there. Currently your debate grade is a solid F.

>You think statutory damages and legal fees isn't enough monetary gain? If only you knew the amount of cases that never get media attention.
Laywers/legal cases are expensive. PR can make and break a bussiness. So clearly it's not enough or else they'd have already done it. Companies like that hand lawsuits out like candy. If they crack down on fan works incorrectly that can lead to some weird legal situations. Also those types of works floating around are basically advertisements, not for the correct thing but it's like when pepsi puts their drinks in all sorts of movies. It's just there to be a reminder so that you may purchase some after seeing it

I do know some amounts of such things for these types of industries, I may learn more if >You gave a source for such things. You can give sources to further your argument rather than talking out your ass

TLDR: There are a lot of reasons to leave up things that technically infringe on copyright because it's more beneficial for the company to leave it

>>54411
I'm going to assume you mean the person who keeps saying false equivalence at anything they disagree with

>>54412
>For the purposes of promoting a given artist's page. Can't you read?
Clearly. The point is still that they have the rights to do that, you do not. If you put those works over here and the creator did not agree to put them over here, it's an issue.Who can copy and distribute a work is a big thing. A lot of sites have this so that they can distribute your files because they can run into legal trouble if they don't.

>An assertion was made about assumptions we make, yet you can't seem to explain the basis for that charge: What have we said to give you the impression that we honestly feel entitled to a given artist's art?
Re-read:
>>54355

> If not, then they made the mistake of quitting their job before Patreon was making them enough money.
This is horrible business advice. There is a standard at which you should be able to say "this business is failing" and to either change strategies or to switch fields because otherwise ya, not making money is a waste of time (because that's how capitalism operates, make money rather than making valuable things)

>>54437
Yes. Only an autistic person would throw that 'false equivalence' line around as if it's an argument and a reply to a completely logical statement.

>That was easy. Next time don't try to compare profit-seeking ventures to the pursuit of gifts.
What was discussed isn't a pursuit of a gift (also it's a learned skill not a god given gift)
If someone build something and charges you before you can see it, it's a business.The "false equivalency" only comes about because you still are on about patreon is a donation site and artist should give free labour for your entertainment. If you believe that
we live in a market based econ and that art is a professional skill, then that comparison is fine. If you don't believe that then you gotta explain what wacky world you live in.

>You make it seem like I can actually expect something from an artist in a given month
You just described a well run business yes
> you'd know many artists have a month (or so) where they can't or just don't post art
You described a poorly run business yes
>Unlike actual subscription services, this doesn't stop donors from donating at times where artists need money the most
It's good that people are kinder to individuals than corporations, but this happens with corps too. It's called "investments"

Everything you said all describes a business market. It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it. What you're telling me and anyone reading this is that you don't know what businesses are and probably think way to highly of their performance

>Except many people here discovered artists worth donating to. If you weren't so new, you'd be aware of this.
They could also have discovered the artist via their galleries. Seeing all of an artist content can help exposure but it can also reduce income. Lots of pirates don't donate. Lots of people steal content for themselves. It's how you get repost accounts. This isn't even to mention the artist who do waste their time trying to stop pirates and losing customers that way too via aynnoing anti-pirate measures or people just using yiff.party as their free source to content.

Again, you're not actually fixing a problem, you're just benefiting yourself. The few donating doesn't stop all the shit done and lose by others.

>We're not the ones drawing third party IPs without permission, or stealing from actual marketplaces.
I only draw my own IPs and my content has been put onto yiff.party without my permission so this isn't a good argument. People here still feel entitled to see my stuff for free

Also it's a real market, it makes money. What makes it "fake" It's like calling the black market not a real market when the treasury still has to track it because it's just an unregulated and hard to track market that makes billions. At what price point does a market become "real". Thinking that it's not a real market so it has different rules is part of entitlement. It's the same as an abuser saying "I only hit my wife because she did x" framing it like there was an option to hit their wife when that wasn't at all an option to being with.

>>54411
>Nice argument. Git good or git out.
Honestly their statement is at the same level as some of your non-answers

>If I'm repeating it, it's because you're making the same mistake (and apparently expecting different results). You could claim the fallacy fallacy and go nowhere, or you could reconsider your arguments for another chance to be convincing.
I've been in enough debates to know I'm not making that type of fallacy right now. I've also been in enough debates to know when people start throwing out fallacies without following up that it's a sign they don't have an argument. Which is why I'm giving you a bigger list so you do better.

>Then I guess paywalling on Patreon, of all places, isn't Capitalism. Wanna try that again, or do you maybe want to stop complicating this conversation with unnecessary references to Capitalism?
I already explained that lack of info is inevitable, it doesn't make something into not capitalism, it means it's real world capitalism. Due to the knowledge that people lack info, people started to use that in the market.

This is where you get different models for how the econ works. People trying to explain and maybe predict what will happen on the micro and macro scale. People having paywalls is just restricting land in a digital space. To have a private owner in control of the means of production/distribution/etc

This is basic stuff, so no, I don't need to try again. I will keep referring to our current econ system since that's how people get funded and those sorts of pressures affect how people act. Without that in the discussion you have a pretty lacking convo, especially when you're defending some of your points by patreon being something to donate to rather than it being a bussiness model some people use.

>What's so special about this video that it can substitute entire books?
It can't fully substitute hours of the subject of course, but I don't think me giving you those sources would do anything. I'd be surprised if you even read the title of such books if I linked them.

> I suspect that this is just someone's commentary/opinion
That's basically most books too. It's why some professors like you to cite the author of dictionaries that you use.
The video is about why common current ideas of how the market work is shit. There's other sources I can give but they're much much longer so ya, this video is better than the others. They reference what they're talking about so you could find books via the video yourself if you wanted lol

>Ok.
Thanks for ending on an non-answer

>>54428
>It's another dude and you're still going on about false equivalency. Not everyone is doing a false equivalency because you disagree.
It's false equivalence when you're making a bogus comparison. Knock it off and I'll stop calling people out on it.
>If you gave better arguments and did do non-answers I would be kinder about it ya, but that's about it.
That's rather closed-minded of you. What's the point of arguing if you're not willing to seriously consider opposing viewpoints?
>1. Again, you can give your own sources but you don't. 2. You don't actually discredit my sources 3. I've made a lot of money from patreon from graphteon research so it went well for me
1. What do you think I need to cite? 2. If that's what helps you sleep at night. 3. How's that?
>I don't think you've given any
Why should I? I don't need to cite any to establish, for example, running requires more effort than walking. If you want to dispute that, then you have issues.
>I don't even think you've argued against most of my sources besides the %2 article that you think is the only source I use for some reason. If they're bad sources you can say why since they they are a part of the argument.
Why should I acknowledge shit sources? You should know better than to rely on things like Youtube and Wikipedia.

>>54430
>A tip jar can be easier to set up but if it makes less money then that ease means nothing.
Same can be said trying to paywall on a site nobody apparently makes any money on.
>Limiting the market (paywalls) works better and patreon is easy to use
Based on what? Capitalism? You're not very good at this.
>Donation implies that people are funded by those donating rather than people getting something in return
Artists are free to express their gratitude however they wish. Problem?

>>54431
>It's pointing out that Patreon is a part of the market.
Donations can also be made with bank notes, so you're not really answering the question.
>Are you repeating that because that's the only source you clicked on?
You should know better than to rely on Youtube and Wikipedia.
>I only have the data I used for my business as well as the top people who have succeeded on patron. Sadly I can't point to a single article this time cause no one has cared to write it up yet.
Then put up to shut up: Let's see your work.
>The IRS's explanation of what a business is by their definition alone should be enough for you to stop the charity/donation point. Patreon's own tips & tricks on how to set up a sucessful patreon should explain why people use paywalls and that it's geared more towards business actions
[Citation needed].

>>54432
>Patreon doesn't stop anyone from doing commissions or selling media so sure
Does it need to? People promoting the other ways they make money doesn't stop Patreon from being a donation platform.
>Creators don't set up their patreons the same but successful ones have trends to them.
Wanna show us these trends?
>It's basically a non-answer/dodge so I'll point out that non-answer/dodge then skip over it
What an attitude to have in a debate. Why bother if you're going to dismiss the slightest challenges to your position like this?
>you need to say/prove why you think there's a fallacy there.
You need to pay attention, if you honestly think I haven't.

>>54435
>Laywers/legal cases are expensive.
>attorney's fees are never recoverable
>PR can make and break a bussiness.
So how many lawsuits get public attention?
>So clearly it's not enough or else they'd have already done it.
>>34712
Meanwhile, this place has been untouched.
>You can give sources to further your argument rather than talking out your ass
You'd demand a source if I argued we are debating on yiff.party's BBS.
>TLDR: There are a lot of reasons to leave up things that technically infringe on copyright because it's more beneficial for the company to leave it
Really? Because statutory damages is reason enough.

>>54440
>Clearly. The point is still that they have the rights to do that, you do not. If you put those works over here and the creator did not agree to put them over here, it's an issue.
What valid claim do they have if they themselves depict third party IPs without permission? Smart artists understand not to put anything on the Internet that's not meant to be shared publicly.
>Re-read:
A post without factual assertions as to who actually assumes they're entitled to an artist's work.
>This is horrible business advice.
Waiting to quit your day job until you're receiving enough donations is bad enough? Have fun quitting before having any patrons.

>>54443
>Yes. Only an autistic person would throw that 'false equivalence' line around as if it's an argument and a reply to a completely logical statement.
>implying it's logical to compare apples to oranges

>>54444
>What was discussed isn't a pursuit of a gift (also it's a learned skill not a god given gift)
So panhandlers that play music in the streets don't use a learned skills to convince people to give them money?
>If someone build something and charges you before you can see it, it's a business.
Except if I don't see it, I can't do business with merchants. Ever shopped at a grocery store wearing a blindfold?
>The "false equivalency" only comes about because you still are on about patreon is a donation site and artist should give free labour for your entertainment.
When did I say that last part?
>You just described a well run business yes
Really? Because paying someone without expecting anything in return sounds like charity.
>You described a poorly run business yes
Or a month in which an artist gets sick or experienced a natural disaster. Are you asking me to stop donating then?
>It's good that people are kinder to individuals than corporations, but this happens with corps too. It's called "investments"
Which is when people expect some kind of return on their money.
>It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it.
So why bother throwing in this business crap?

>>54574
>implying it's logical to compare apples to oranges
you are very, very autistic, sir.

>>54446
>They could also have discovered the artist via their galleries.
People here have clearly stated they started donating after finding artists here.
>Lots of pirates don't donate. Lots of people steal content for themselves.
>This isn't even to mention the artist who do waste their time trying to stop pirates and losing customers
>Again, you're not actually fixing a problem, you're just benefiting yourself. The few donating doesn't stop all the shit done and lose by others.
>I only draw my own IPs and my content has been put onto yiff.party without my permission so this isn't a good argument.
And yet we still have no evidence of harm. Not our fault some artists want to pretend that Patreon is a kind of store.
>People here still feel entitled to see my stuff for free
How do you figure?
>Also it's a real market, it makes money.
So the Salvation Army is a real market? Simply being able to receive money doesn't automatically make it a marketplace, or else PayPal also becomes a marketplace.
>Thinking that it's not a real market so it has different rules is part of entitlement. It's the same as an abuser saying "I only hit my wife because she did x" framing it like there was an option to hit their wife when that wasn't at all an option to being with.
What a weird analogy. We've had plenty of artists share their initial feelings of being discovered here and recognizing that we're only a threat to the extent a given artist wants us to be one.

>>54576
And you're not? Come back when you have something meaningful to say.

>>54448
>Honestly their statement is at the same level as some of your non-answers
What an attitude. Are you really going to pass up opportunities to restate your arguments to make them more convincing?
>I've been in enough debates to know I'm not making that type of fallacy right now.
Keep telling yourself that.
>I already explained that lack of info is inevitable, it doesn't make something into not capitalism
Really? Because at >>54358, you said "Capitalism works by everyone having all information," so naturally withholding would be inconsistent with Capitalism. Even scammers offer enough info to further a fraud (as deceit, not secrecy, is what makes scams work).

>>54449
>Without that in the discussion you have a pretty lacking convo
Without that in the discussion, we're actually on topic: Nobody's forcing any artist to treat Patreon like some weird store, with all the unnecessary burdens and paranoia that brings, when dedicated alternatives exist.
>It can't fully substitute hours of the subject of course, but I don't think me giving you those sources would do anything.
>The video is about why common current ideas of how the market work is shit. There's other sources I can give but they're much much longer so ya, this video is better than the others.
Why? What makes them a credible source?
>Thanks for ending on an non-answer
Stay on point and you'll get less of it.

>>54580
oh oh he's having a meltdown :^)

>>54586
Oh oh someone's being a dick.

>>54588
Abloo abloo someone is mean on the internet to a dumb autistic idiot

>>54611
Small penis troglodyte forgets how to speak English.

>>54567
>It's false equivalence when you're making a bogus comparison. Knock it off and I'll stop calling people out on it.
You either don't understand the argument thus are throwing out a random fallacy or you're saying a fallacy because you disagree. If you're the only one calling false equivalence on multiple people, the problem is probably with you.

>What's the point of arguing if you're not willing to seriously consider opposing viewpoints?
You have to argue a viewpoint for me to consider it which most of your replies are non-answers.
The arguments you do give are usually bad when thought about for a bit

>1. What do you think I need to cite? 2. If that's what helps you sleep at night. 3. How's that?
1. Data that goes along with points you keep repeating like: "donations are more profitable or are sufficient for the majority of people" (it'd be cool to see gumroad or kofi/paypal.me stats if you can find them), "patreon is primarily a donation site", "piracy is better for business" (there is actually a source for that), be cool to see a "piracy has no impact on business" since you said that at one point, etc

2.You usually don't reference the sources I put down. We can't read your mind so that means you, at least publicly to us, don't discredit the sources

3. It's been pretty good, thanks for asking. I'd show you the result if it wasn't a stupid idea to dox one's self. I'd rather have people here steal my content monthly rather than weekly if you know what I mean.

>You should know better than to rely on Youtube and Wikipedia.
Ctrl+f "http", you'll quickly find that there are non-youtube and non-wikipedia sources. Some of which are primary sources, like one's from Patreon themselves.
So I do know better. Do you?
Also to be clear, the medium of information does not discredit its validity. Wikipedia is only referred to as a weak source in school because it doesn't have one authoritative voice, but the sources at the bottom of the page are still usable. It's a summary. Unless you want to read all the references, I'd suggest using wikipedia here

>Why should I? I don't need to cite any to establish, for example, running requires more effort than walking.
Unless you created all the information in the world, you got your information from the outside world
We'd all love to see where that information actually comes from, rather then you talking out of your ass
Just saying things doesn't make you smart or right, you actually have to back it up with evidence. Start doing that

>Same can be said trying to paywall on a site nobody apparently makes any money on.
You're again so right but so wrong. Both don't make a lot of money for most people, so using both is better. Since patreon can be used more like a business model you can do that while keeping the actual tip jar as a tip jar. Make both a tip jar is a terrible idea if you want to live off of such incomes

>Based on what? Capitalism? You're not very good at this
Based on business strategies... You know, like I was talking about earlier in a wikipedia source. Here's a new one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/location-model
https://www.britannica.com/topic/supply-and-demand
Digital goods are (basically)infinite but labour is still finite. If you have infinite supply that ruins supply side of the supply and demand graph. But limiting supply you can correct that again. This increases the value of the good/service thus [CAN] increase income. It's not the only business strategy but it is a pretty common one, such as IP. Ideas are infinite, but you can make them into property so that people at least can produce stuff from those ideas

>Artists are free to express their gratitude however they wish. Problem?
Donate to me and fund my life. I will express my gratitude only be saying thanks and will give you nothing else

I assume you wouldn't do that, because you want something in exchange for that money. The feeling that you're helping someone can be enough, but if you're saying "artist" it implies you also want art.
Artists don't need to express their gratitude by producing art for free and hope someone donates, they can make money from producing art and people buying it or investing in it.
Again, you're implying artist take donations rather than producing a valuable to the market good/service. Again again, the donation argument is a stupid one

>>54569
>Donations can also be made with bank notes...
And those are still bound to market forces. It's why actual charities also advertise
If you're looking for a moral argument against paywalls, then I've already given it to you with me being anti-capitalist. If you're looking for a logical argument, then ya, it's justified because getting the most money is good and paywalls can do that well. It's not good for the customer but it's good for the business owner

At this point, I don't even give a damn if it's legal or illegal. We "steal" from artists, artists steal from companies. Both think they're justified for doing it. It doesn't matter. As long as this site remains, your constant whining, bitching, and Patreon butt munching means nothing. I get quite the kick watching you put all this effort into what is essentially empty speech. Go out and get some sun. And stop using this site if it bothers you so much.

>You should know better than to rely on Youtube and Wikipedia.
Non-answer, also read:
>>54671

>Then put up to shut up: Let's see your work
Show your sources on why tip jars work and why Patreon is primarily a donation platform. Then I'll see if I can find my market research file. If can't, I'll tell you what I did so you can replicate it.

>"The IRS's explanation of what a business is by their definition alone should be enough for you..."
>[Citation needed]
Citation was already given long ago
>>54000
It seems like you're too incompetent to click through the >># or by ctrl + f-ing my IRS quote or "IRS", "Patreon", "tips & tricks" to see if there was a source already given. What's even funnier is that I was talking about my old sources and how I shouldn't be holding you hand for this, in the statement you JUST quoted, so you should have known there was a source. Again, I don't need to hold your hand like a little child through this

91e9b71b2701e408776ba4f3d2da19de.jpg (53.9KiB, 548x640) save_alt

>>54574
Please heed this advice so this thread can die.

>Why does using Patreon properly preclude artists from also doing commissions and selling media elsewhere? Why are you acting like every artist on Patreon operates their pages in the same exact manner
^restate this because I am unsure what your argument even is here.
>Does it need to? People promoting the other ways they make money doesn't stop Patreon from being a donation platform.
Is a response I shouldn't have gotten. It has nothing to do with my argument:
>If most of patreon fits within the definition of a business, then calling it a charity is stupid unless proven otherwise like, an actual charity using patreon. People running a freelance business using patreon as one of their sources are not charities.
At the very least tell us what your argument is leading to

>Wanna show us these trends?
https://graphtreon.com/patreon-creators/adult-drawing-painting
I suggest going through the top earners, mid earners, and low earners and see the trends. Also look at historical graphs and their social media. Sometimes you can see why people have raised/dipped from them talking about things.
If you want me to coddle and hold you hand through this, you gotta do more legwork first

>Why bother if you're going to dismiss the slightest challenges to your position like this?
You gotta give an argument first for it to a the slightest challenge to any position. Non-answer means you haven't argued for anything lol.

>you need to say/prove why you think there's a fallacy there.
>You need to pay attention, if you honestly think I haven't.
^Like this. This is a non-answer. This is the kindergartner going "Nah nuh, you're gross". State why something is a fallacy rather than just saying it then when pressed on why going "I don't want to say"

>So how many lawsuits get public attention?
Why do I have to cite the source for you? Cite it yourself.

>You'd demand a source if I argued we are debating on yiff.party's BBS.
Because your non-answers are boring and I only find repeated arguments so amusing

>Because statutory damages is reason enough.
If someone breaks your pencil, and it cost more money in gas, time, energy, etc to buy another one when you have better pencils to use, then you're just gonna have a broken pencil and move on with your life unless it does become more beneficial to fix it

>What valid claim do they have if they themselves depict third party IPs without permission?
My artwork is on this site and it's my IP. So what are you going on about? If you're determiner for who gets on this site is if they've used 3rd party content then my stuff shouldn't be here
It is an internet rule that anything on the internet stays on the internet ya, but legally it's infringement so that doesn't really matter.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Your argument is dumb.

>Waiting to quit your day job until you're receiving enough donations is bad enough?
You just zoomed over what I said before, try again

>implying it's logical to compare apples to oranges
Multiple people are suggesting that you're wrong. Take the hint

>So panhandlers that play music in the streets don't use a learned skills to convince people to give them money?
How much money does the average/median panhandler make playing music vs someone hired to play or setting up a digital shop like bandcamp? This is the argument we're having. Also I said learned skill, you said "pursuit of a gift" which are not the same things.

>Except if I don't see it, I can't do business with merchants. Ever shopped at a grocery store wearing a blindfold?
Yes. When buying new food I've never tried before I can't taste test it before hand, but the advertising gets me to try it. I buy DVD/Blue Rays for movies I have not seen, I only know what people have told me that I should buy.
If something doesn't give me enough info or someone else doesn't tell me their experience, I don't buy it because I don't trust it. This is a normal thing to do lol

>When did I say that last part?
If people are drawing things for donations, it means they had to draw the thing first to get the donation, which means they could be drawing for free forever if no one donates. This means it's free labour until it isn't rather than the better model of get paid then produce things.

>Because paying someone without expecting anything in return sounds like charity
That just sounds like poor spending habits honestly

>Or a month in which an artist gets sick or experienced a natural disaster. Are you asking me to stop donating then?
I would say you should keep paying for the subscription if you can because our system is bad and can't handle such things itself properly. In a better econ system this wouldn't be a problem.

>It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it.
>So why bother throwing in this business crap?
It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it. What you're really doing is paying someone for their labour (formally or informally) and you have a parasocial relationship with them. You easily be cold and calculating and say you're funding a worker to produce x. I'm glad you humanize this process, that's good, but ultimately this isn't much different than billions moving money around to make certain companies produce goods/services, except they generally make money back from it too

>People here have clearly stated they started donating after finding artists here.
Citation?

>And yet we still have no evidence of harm. Not our fault some artists want to pretend that Patreon is a kind of store
I know people have a problem donating to this site but we need to fund you going to college so you're not this stupid and unable to read what other's have said

>How do you figure?
I literally just have a few week delay for artwork as my "paywall" and people couldn't wait the few weeks for it. All my IP too. So to answer your question, I used basic critical thinking skills.

>It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it.
>So why bother throwing in this business crap?
It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally, that's it. What you're really doing is paying someone for their labour (formally or informally) and you have a parasocial relationship with them. You easily be cold and calculating and say you're funding a worker to produce x. I'm glad you humanize this process, that's good, but ultimately this isn't much different than billions moving money around to make certain companies produce goods/services, except they generally make money back from it too

>People here have clearly stated they started donating after finding artists here.
Citation?

>And yet we still have no evidence of harm. Not our fault some artists want to pretend that Patreon is a kind of store
I know people have a problem donating to this site but we need to fund you going to college so you're not this stupid and unable to read what other's have said

>How do you figure?
I literally just have a few week delay for artwork as my "paywall" and people couldn't wait the few weeks for it. All my IP too. So to answer your question, I used basic critical thinking skills.

>So the Salvation Army is a real market? Simply being able to receive money doesn't automatically make it a marketplace, or else PayPal also becomes a marketplace.
What charities get funded is a real market yes. How money is distributed is what the market means. Distribution is humans doing things. This is basic econ 101. Paypal is a part of a market but is not in it of itself the market, so market pressures and laws do influence it. Again, basic econ 101.

>We've had plenty of artists share their initial feelings of being discovered here and recognizing that we're only a threat to the extent a given artist wants us to be one.
Citation? You guys do harm and you have to be worked around ya. I made my stuff not a big deal to steal cause I knew it would happen but it's shitty that I had to design my stuff around that. There's also a very real problem that lost patrons due to this place can affect my bottom line

>>54580
Non-answer to another person
Non-answer
Non-answer

>>54685
>the better model of get paid then produce things.
Also known as commissions. Last I heard, people actually kept a stable income with those things.

>Really? Because at >>54358, you said "Capitalism works by everyone having all information," so naturally withholding would be inconsistent with Capitalism. Even scammers offer enough info to further a fraud (as deceit, not secrecy, is what makes scams work).
Did i stutter?
Fun fact, I'm anti capitalist because I don't think capitalism works. Yes, for capitalism to work everyone needs all information, and that's impossible. You tried to argue my point and accidentally argued for my point, thanks.

>Without that in the discussion, we're actually on topic: Nobody's forcing any artist to treat Patreon like some weird store, with all the unnecessary burdens and paranoia that brings, when dedicated alternatives exist.
Not making money is forcing people to do certain trends, one of those being paywalls to increase income. The idea you guys should have the right or duty to go around that and distribute it for free is entitlement. Again, take food from a store because you think you're "entitled to food" and you'll be arrested. Even if morally everyone should have food and could, we just don't do it and you stealing isn't helping the systematic problem.

>>54689
>Citation? You guys do harm and you have to be worked around ya. I made my stuff not a big deal to steal cause I knew it would happen but it's shitty that I had to design my stuff around that. There's also a very real problem that lost patrons due to this place can affect my bottom line.

What's your Patreon name? I'll look it up on graphtreon.

>Why? What makes them a credible source?
The information in them and the experts who are the primary source lol

>Thanks for ending on an non-answer
>Stay on point and you'll get less of it.
I am on point. Even when it's obvious I'm on point you still give non-answers lol

>>54691
Also known as commissions. Last I heard, people actually kept a stable income with those things.

As someone who does commission, I can do less of them with Patreon, thus allowing me to focus on my own work, which increased my patreon number, which makes commissions less needed, which turns commissions into a bonus, so on so forth
Just doing commission is a stupid idea if you want a decent living. Automation or large distribution is smarter to do.

>>54694
Read the first paragraph of this: >>54671

lol turns out the condescending whiny stuck up bitch lecturing people on capitalism WAS butthurt about this site's existence all the time and wasn't just here to "laugh at people and didn't care if people stopped or not", as if it wasn't obvious already since nobody stays here for months to argue about why piracy is bad thinking they're gonna convince anyone, what a dipshit.

>>54739
Hello, condescending whiny stuck up bitch here, at most I'm annoyed this site has to exist.

Anyone here probably has been across the internet. We know how it works. Everyone has pirated something at some point. I use to do ROMs cause I wasn't able to access old console games or songs from japan because importing is hell. Except for the few exceptions like harming smaller individuals or spoiling a work, I don't care much about people pirating an infinite supply of goods.

I was flattered when someone first stole my content and put it here because it meant it was already valuable enough to steal. Although I was also annoyed because I didn't expect my content to be noticed and stolen 2 months in, I was expecting that much later on.

So, sorry to burst your worldview, I am primarily here to laugh at you. I've only stuck around because a follower poked me saying my stuff got updated again and I happened to noticed these boards again while were people flipping out about funding.

Also ya, I like debating or overthinking about weird things then discussing it. It's one of my main specialties of my artwork actually.

The only reason why I'm talking in this thread was because some of the discussion caught my eye enough

You guys could have had a fantastic discussion here. Reading from the top, there really good starting points. However it turns funnily bad because the core foundations and the end goal of the arguments are super flawed. I'm debating here because I also have an interest in these sorts of subjects and I also knew some people would make amusing arguments

If you want to poke at my biases: I'm not fond of this site due to the harm of smaller individuals so I'm going to be more amused by the dumb shit happening here, I like debates so I will stay and debate until I find it boring which as many non-answers I get, may be sooner than later because it's not very challenging or amusing to answer back to nothing. I do structure my stuff a bit for lurkers to read since lurkers sometimes learn stuff from such threads, and giving actual info helps lurkers not be as big of shitters if they are one. I'm a creator so I'm going to be biased towards people making artwork the best way they can. Also I'm far left so my framework doesn't deal as much with capitalist thought, although I can still argue within a capitalist framework.

Ya those are my main biases I think. Again, sorry to burst your worldview about someone liking debates, although that should have already been known, again, debate classes, lawyers, there's whole sections of the internet just for people to debate. One of those people found this shity board that takes 2 minutes to load per page, even with the fastest internet package.

New Canvas.png (7.5KiB, 529x53) save_alt

Tick tock tick tock, the clock starts
How entitled are the users of this website to getting free artwork. As entitled as an artist?
We shall see

>>54668
>You either don't understand the argument thus are throwing out a random fallacy or you're saying a fallacy because you disagree
That doesn't seem like any sort of defense on the analogies made, so in what way are the stated business activities applicable to charity and charitable acts?
>You have to argue a viewpoint for me to consider it which most of your replies are non-answers.
Because nobody is allowed to probe your position? If this is what you believe, then all you're doing is dismissing things that are contrary to your world view.
>1. Data that goes along with points you keep repeating like: "donations are more profitable or are sufficient for the majority of people"
>"piracy is better for business"
>business
I know I challenged the idea that paywalling on Patreon gets artists money, but when did I argue that?
>"patreon is primarily a donation site"
If I had to argue that the Sun is out when it's above our heads, are you going to ask for a citation then? If you weren't so adverse to opposing viewpoints, you'd have noticed that I already addressed this. Simply put, Patreon doesn't the infrastructure, nor does it have the same implications and expectations, that bonafide maketplaces (i.e. Gumroad) do.
>be cool to see a "piracy has no impact on business" since you said that at one point
When?
2.You usually don't reference the sources I put down.
When you're relying on things like Wikipedia and Youtube, why should I? With Wikipedia, you don't even have an excuse for not using reliable sources.

>>54671
>3. It's been pretty good, thanks for asking. I'd show you the result if it wasn't a stupid idea to dox one's self.
Nobody's asking you to dox yourself, but thanks for admitting you have no proof there.
>I'd rather have people here steal my content
Not our fault you want to manage your Patreon page such that this is a real concern of yours.
>Ctrl+f "http", you'll quickly find that there are non-youtube and non-wikipedia sources. Some of which are primary sources, like one's from Patreon themselves.
Cool. It's not my duty to make these sources applicable to your position.
>Unless you created all the information in the world, you got your information from the outside world
Are you seriously disputing that running takes more energy than walking does? Try it for yourself and see if you still need me to cite sources on this issue.
>Just saying things doesn't make you smart or right, you actually have to back it up with evidence
What this tells me is that you're not familiar with the sites in question. If you are, then it's been up to you to demonstrate functionality that makes Patreon a legit marketplace (which can't also be explained by charitable acts).

>>54672
>Both don't make a lot of money for most people, so using both is better.
You'd think so, but you're still not making very much if both sites are bad for it. Paywalling or running a tipjar isn't going to help either
>Since patreon can be used more like a business model you can do that while keeping the actual tip jar as a tip jar.
Patreon makes for a better tipjar than the actual tipjars because, by design, artists are better equipped to show their appreciation to their donors. What part of that requires using Patreon to run a tipjar?
>Based on business strategies...
Still? As long enough artists are doing just fine using Patreon as intended, it makes no sense pretending to run a business on Patreon (and exposing oneself to the inherent vulnerabilities of doing so).

>>54676
>Donate to me and fund my life. I will express my gratitude only be saying thanks and will give you nothing else
That's exactly how many artists operate. Doesn't stop donors from donating.
>if you're saying "artist" it implies you also want art.
Really? So what am I supposed to call someone who makes art?
>Again, you're implying artist take donations rather than producing a valuable to the market good/service.
How? You're the one implying artists are selling artwork on a donation platform (beyond occasionally stating when they do commissions).
>And those are still bound to market forces.
Inflation is of no concern here. Stop confusing the issue with Capitalism.
>it's justified because getting the most money is good and paywalls can do that well.
[Citation needed].

>>54678
>Show your sources on why tip jars work and why Patreon is primarily a donation platform.
You must not be familiar with many artists on Patreon. It's almost as if you're not familiar with the site at all, if this is an actual point of contention.
>Citation was already given long ago
All I see is a link to a website for general tax info that's not meant to give anyone tax advice. Why can't you cite IRS regs on the matter? While your at it, maybe look up the term "hobby" and see how the IRS defines it for tax purposes.
>It seems like you're too incompetent to click through the >># or by ctrl + f-ing my IRS quote or "IRS", "Patreon", "tips & tricks" to see if there was a source already given.
A source was given. What wasn't given is any sort of interpretation that shows your reading is correct.

>>54682
>restate this because I am unsure what your argument even is here.
I'm just challenging your position, genius. It looks to me you're just inventing a reason to be confused, since you're not attacking either question directly.
>It has nothing to do with my argument
It does if you want to turn Patreon into a place of actual business merely because artists can point donors to other moneymaking ventures outside of Patreon.
>https://graphtreon.com/patreon-creators/adult-drawing-painting
The trends, please, not a long list of artists (with missing data) doesn't say anything about what you insist is a trend.
>Sometimes you can see why people have raised/dipped from them talking about things.
The last time we had someone try to use Graphtreon, it was to try demonstrating harm (which failed miserably due to clear misinterpretations of these dips and climbs).
>You gotta give an argument first for it to a the slightest challenge to any position.
If only it were this easy to make all opposition go away.

>>54683
>State why something is a fallacy
I have: Go back to all the times I've said "false analogy" and read the words that come after.
>Why do I have to cite the source for you? Cite it yourself.
You're the one raising the PR issue.
>If someone breaks your pencil, and it cost more money in gas, time, energy, etc to buy another one when you have better pencils to use, then you're just gonna have a broken pencil and move on with your life unless it does become more beneficial to fix it
IDK statutory damages seems plenty beneficial to IP holders with valid copyright claims.

>>54684
>My artwork is on this site and it's my IP
Not if it depicts third party IPs without permission. For everything else:
>It is an internet rule that anything on the internet stays on the internet ya, but legally it's infringement so that doesn't really matter.
Who do you make art for? Commissioners? Work-for-hire, so you can't stop them from sharing. Patrons? They're similarly free to share what they were given (how do you think this place works?). Yourself? Then you basically told us that you know better than to upload it to the Internet.
>You just zoomed over what I said before
Cool. Answer the question or abandon this point.
>Multiple people are suggesting that you're wrong.
And? Even if we were to assume there's no samefaggotry here, the least you can do is not commit any fallacies yourself (argumentum ad populum) when trying to tell me my calls were wrong.
>How much money does the average/median panhandler make playing music vs someone hired to play or setting up a digital shop like bandcamp?
What does that have to do with the use of learned skills to seek monetary gifts just the same, online or offline?

>>54685
>Yes. When buying new food I've never tried before I can't taste test it before hand
Meaning you saw what such an item looks like and can recognize it in the store. Can't do that wearing a blindfold, since you have no concept of its smell or touch either.
>I buy DVD/Blue Rays for movies I have not seen, I only know what people have told me that I should buy. If something doesn't give me enough info or someone else doesn't tell me their experience, I don't buy it because I don't trust it. This is a normal thing to do lol
It is, so you understand our objection.
>If people are drawing things for donations, it means they had to draw the thing first to get the donation
That's not what I asked, but if you like to draw in your free time, you already have art samples to work with. The way I see it, the most popular Patreon pages are from artists already established in some community, meaning that many already recognize such an artists and the artist's skill. If said artist were such a great person, said artist could probably get away with uploading no art for months at a time while experiencing little to no loss of patrons. Let's see similar results at a bonafide marketplace.
>That just sounds like poor spending habits honestly
What's wrong with using spare cash on charity?
>I would say you should keep paying for the subscription if you can because our system is bad and can't handle such things itself properly. In a better econ system this wouldn't be a problem.
Don't know what you're calling it a subscription, but no economic system would stop things like natural disasters, nor does any explain the choice of a given artist to use Patreon as a paywall or a tipjar.

>>54687
>It's only a "donation" cause it's a individual that you feel like you're helping personally
Exactly, so why bother with this business crap?
>Citation?
You're browsing it. If you're genuinely curious, try lurking more. These aren't exactly new discussions, after all.
>I know people have a problem donating to this site
We're still here. Even if we disappeared, it's the artist's choice to use Patreon to run a pretend store.
>I literally just have a few week delay for artwork as my "paywall" and people couldn't wait the few weeks for it.
Only a problem if you choose to operate a paywall. What does it say about you that a patron is willing to share your content prematurely? I don't think said patron's entitlement has anything to do with it.

>>54689
>What charities get funded is a real market yes.
>Paypal is a part of a market but is not in it of itself the market, so market pressures and laws do influence
I was asking whether the Salvation Army, itself, is an actual market. Does receiving spare change outside grocery stores turn it into a place where goods are sold? As to PayPal, it seems you've missed this point.
>Citation?
You're browsing it.
>You guys do harm and you have to be worked around ya.
Do tipjars have to work around us?
>There's also a very real problem that lost patrons due to this place can affect my bottom line
So what proof do you have that this place has actually had any impact on your page? Time and time again it's been alleged, but never actually established.

>>54693
>Yes, for capitalism to work everyone needs all information, and that's impossible.
So what does it say about certain artists that scammers provide more info than they do?
>Not making money is forcing people to do certain trends, one of those being paywalls to increase income.
Thank goodness for Gumroad, then. Where's the proof that paywalls outperform tipjars on Patreon? The closest thing we have to proof is some article that suggests nobody on Patreon makes any money.
>The idea you guys should have the right or duty to go around that and distribute it for free is entitlement.
When did we ever claim a right or a duty to do anything? We work because patrons choose to share the content they were given access to, so this entitlement angle doesn't really work.
>Again, take food from a store because you think you're "entitled to food" and you'll be arrested.
We've seen this type of false analogy before, and it's always under the false assumption that something is being stolen. Do you even understand how this place works?

>>54695
>The information in them and the experts who are the primary source
Neither have yet to be established: Why are they experts, and how can we be so sure it's more confident than mere commentary?
>I am on point.
Capitalism still doesn't explain why some artists want to go the extra mile trying running a pretend business on Patreon, with all the worries and vulnerabilities that entails, when it takes less effort with none of the same weaknesses using Patreon as intended (and that there are websites specially designed for the sale of digital goods). Thus, continuing to insist on bringing up Capitalism only confuses the issue.

>>54691
>As someone who does commission, I can do less of them with Patreon, thus allowing me to focus on my own work, which increased my patreon number, which makes commissions less needed, which turns commissions into a bonus, so on so forth
Why paywall on Patreon when you can just do this?

>>54742
>Everyone has pirated something at some point
>I don't care much about people pirating an infinite supply of goods.
>I was flattered when someone first stole my content and put it here because it meant it was already valuable enough to steal. Although I was also annoyed because I didn't expect my content to be noticed and stolen 2 months in
>still implying Patreon is a marketplace
>I've only stuck around because a follower poked me saying my stuff got updated again
It's on you that it matters whether or not there's an update here.

>>54746
>I'm not fond of this site due to the harm of smaller individuals
What harm?
>I like debates so I will stay and debate until I find it boring which as many non-answers I get, may be sooner than later because it's not very challenging or amusing to answer back to nothing.
If you don't want non-answers, argue accordingly: Keep the Capitalism crap up and you're probably going to get more of it.
>although I can still argue within a capitalist framework
Nobody asked you to.

Patreon is a marketplace.

No implication. Just facts.

>>54789
You just keep calling things fallacies then expect me to re-explain what I've already explained
Let me make it simpler. How you give money has nothing to do with what the person at the other end does with it. You can feel like you're giving money as charity, but if it's to a business, it's business income and you're the customer. Someone drawing porn or art is generally not a charitable act, so they are a business or doing a hobby.

>Because nobody is allowed to probe your position?
I said:
>You have to argue a viewpoint for me to consider it which most of your replies are non-answers.
You're not probing my positions, you're giving non-answers a lot

>I know I """"challenged""" the idea that paywalling on Patreon gets artists money, but when did I argue that?
When you argue that the best way to run your creative operation is off of donations after someone has already produced work, you're either implying someone should do it as a hobby in which you tip them but their main income is something else, or you're saying you can live off of doing that.
You didn't challenge the idea of paywalling, you argued against paywalls then kept repeating that point with no evidence
Show with evidence outside of yourself as to why tipjars are better, don't just say it, prove it

>>54833
>Patreon is a marketplace.
Then why can't I buy posts the same way I can buy downloads on Gumroad?

>>54844
>You just keep calling things fallacies then expect me to re-explain what I've already explained
What's wrong with making your case more convincing?
>How you give money has nothing to do with what the person at the other end does with it.
What makes you think I care what the artists does with my money?
>You can feel like you're giving money as charity, but if it's to a business, it's business income and you're the customer.
Thank goodness I don't donate to businesses, then.
>Someone drawing porn or art is generally not a charitable act
I donate money, not art. It's nice seeing my favorite artists doing what they love to do, but if I wanted art so much, I'd just buy it from artists actually selling art.
>You're not probing my positions
I asked you some questions about your position, which led to discussion. If this is not probing, then what is it?
>When you argue that the best way to run your creative operation is off of donations after someone has already produced work
When? All I said there was that artists with prior art are better prepared to solicit donations on, e.g., Patreon (even moreso if an artist is already familiar to a community elsewhere).
>you're either implying someone should do it as a hobby in which you tip them but their main income is something else, or you're saying you can live off of doing that.
Which is it? Let's be real: It's foolish to quit your day job before you've secured enough patrons to cover your expenses. Is this seriously a point of contention?
>You didn't challenge the idea of paywalling
So where's the evidence that paywalling on Patreon outperforms tipjars, that some artists genuinely feel the need to do so on Patreon (passing up websites actually designed for this)?
>Show with evidence outside of yourself as to why tipjars are better
>>54407
>Why am I required to make that argument? My point is that, for a given amount of money, setting up a tipjar (anywhere) is less work.

New Canvas.png (23.9KiB, 549x193) save_alt

This site broke so I couldn't finish my response. I'll finish it some other time

Since I didn't write a million words I think you can find the time to prove, with sources, that patreon is a donation site

Cause on the creator dashboard, I got notified of a business blog post (in the picture) which links to https://blog.patreon.com/creator-profile-ann-kullberg

Also I had to do some research for tax info from patreon and I accidentally found this: https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004484326-My-responsibilities-as-a-Patreon-creator

I'm very temped to call the "patreon is a donation platform" argument a non-answer in the future because even when I'm not trying I'm literally getting notifications about how patreon being a business and or you are a business using patreon as a platform

Why does Miss Phase sound like they pretend they know what they are talking about?

>>54936
Lmao stop posting, buddy

Still no sources, eh?

>>54904
>https://blog.patreon.com/creator-profile-ann-kullberg
>an artist needlessly running a pretend business on Patreon

>https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004484326-My-responsibilities-as-a-Patreon-creator
>You are not working for Patreon: rather you’re working for you.
>you're working for you
Nice analogy. How does working on your own time stop Patreon from being a donation site? >>54901. Still not our fault that some artists want to go through the needless trouble of trying to run some kind of pretend store.

>I'm very temped to call the "patreon is a donation platform" argument a non-answer
In other words, another argument you can't rebut.

>>55028
>>54794
>It's almost as if you're not familiar with the site at all, if this is an actual point of contention.
But sure, let me go find random links to post so I can insist it's proof while doing nothing to explain why (since that's the standard y'all seem to want to go by).

>>55031
non-answer

>In other words, another argument you can't rebut.
An unfalsifiable statement is when you enter into god arguments.
You haven't set boundaries for what would make you change your mind, you don't analyze sources, you don't give sources, and you keep just saying a point as if everyone else is just suppose to believe it because you said so.

I have already rebutted your arguments. You just keep giving non-answers or ignoring points when it doesn't fit your worldview or you can't find a better way to dodge, misdirect, etc in a way that sounds like a real argument

Like you say, Put up or shut up. Where's your sources for your foundational argument
If you can't give evidence then you're basically a greedy selfish child screaming about what they want to be real. There's porn on this site, you're too mentally young to be on it.

>Anonymous 01/06/20(Mon)03:12:01
>But and sure, let me go find random links to post so I can insist it's proof
It's taking ya a long time to find those very real sources huh? Can you give us an early christmas present show us one of the links you found

>>54789
>If I had to argue that the Sun is out when it's above our heads, are you going to ask for a citation then?
Yes, if both parities didn't agree on that fact you would be asked to show a citation or some type of evidence. Worded arguments are a way to distribute information, they are not in themselves evidence. Since the sunning being out is a easy fact to give evidence to, you could do it in 2 seconds.

I could show you patreon was a business platform for creators with primary source evidence in 2 seconds, why is it so hard for you to show evidence if "patreon is a donation platform" is just a basic fact of life? You withholding evidence for your foundational argument makes you look stupid.

>>54791
>Nobody's asking you to dox yourself, but thanks for admitting you have no proof there
Is this your first anon site? Do you think: on anon board shitting on people + gives name of business/username = not dox-able?
You'd be one of the piss babies that harasses me on my actual platforms so I have proof but you're not worth showing lol

You could actually make me look like a dumbass if you showed good enough proof to where the only option i had to rebut it was to show data tied to me, which I wouldn't do. You could corner me. Why you haven't done this already, makes you look even more incompetent

>Not our fault you want to manage your Patreon page such that this is a real concern of yours.
>Cool. It's not my duty to make these sources applicable to your position.
>Try it for yourself and see if you still need me to cite sources on this issue.
>What this tells me is that you're not familiar with the sites in question
>You'd think so, but you're still not making very much if both sites are bad for it.
All non answers
>Patreon makes for a better tipjar than the actual tipjars because, by design, artists are better equipped to show their appreciation to their donors.
Non-answer: Show a source
Artist aren't showing you appreciation, they're making a product and are appreciative of your support or patronage. Even if patreon was magically a "donation site" for everyone, this is a really creepy way to frame it. You don't own people. Wtf is "better equipped to show their appreciation to their donors" What year is this? 1861?

>Still?
>Doesn't stop donors from donating.
>Really?
>How?
nonasnwer/the point went right over your head, again

>>54794
>Inflation is of no concern here. Stop confusing the issue with Capitalism.
LAMO. MARKET FORCES DOESN'T MEAN INFLATION. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME HAHAHAHAHAHA
market forces: the economic factors affecting the price of, demand for, and availability of a commodity.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/market-forces

If you're going to dodge, dodge correctly. Holy shit lol

>it's justified because getting the most money is good and paywalls can do that well.
^ this was a moral argument for capitalism I gave. I do not agree with this for how society should be run but this is how it currently runs in the real world. It's why billionaires are successful and those that are homeless and in debt are failures. More money = more success. Success = not being destitute then having a life.
You pirating the stuff doesn't fix that. Also the citation would be the Albert Einstein https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ or look into how capitalism works

>You must not be familiar with many artists on Patreon.
non answer

>Why can't you cite IRS regs on the matter? While your at it, maybe look up the term "hobby" and see how the IRS defines it for tax purposes.
I've read enough IRS material to be fine to know that their public webpages give good info most of the time. If you don't like it, cite the irs page you like better.
The irs defines hobby as "people engage in a hobby for sport or recreation, not to make a profit. "
vs
"If someone has a business, they operate the business to make a profit. "
What's your point? Or is that another non-answer

>What wasn't given is any sort of interpretation that shows your reading is correct.
>I'm just challenging your position, genius.
>if you want to turn Patreon into a place of actual business
Non-answer

>The trends, please, not a long list of artists
I've done enough source work and data analysis, you're a big boy and do the rest yourself or you can put in some legwork and give me the sources I desire

>>54795
>The last time we had someone try to use Graphtreon, it was to try demonstrating harm
And? I wasn't here for this why should I care? This is a non-answer.
However you do make a good point,what could you do to check out the data I want you to see. It's not like you can look at people's pages, what they're offering, any social media they have to check and see how they distribute their stuff for free(if they do). Can't do any of that to see that most people who do well on patreon have some type of paywall, be it early access, uncensored versions, patreon only, etc etc. If they don't they other advantages like better creating skills in niche subjects, more followers aka more advertisement, etc etc. Can't look into lower numbered patreons and seeing lack of content, lack of advertisement, just starting on patreon, lack of incentives like limited supply of a good or a discount on commissions, etc etc

>If only it were this easy to make all opposition go away.
Non-answer and it's pretty easy when there is no opposition in the first place. Make actual arguments rather than unwitty come backs

>State why something is a fallacy
>it's always under the false assumption that something is being stolen. Do you even understand how this place works
Explain the false assumption with sources if you can

>>54795
>So how many lawsuits get public attention?
>Why do I have to cite the source for you? Cite it yourself.
>You're the one raising the PR issue.
You brought up the point about how many lawsuits get public attention, I ask why do I have to cite that and your answer is because I brought up PR issues dealing with that fact that when companies target certain parts of organic entertainment places/things people don't like it? The amount of people paying attention affects PR, how many lawsuits get public attention means nothing

Companies know what furries are, they know what a furaffinity is, there's literally a browsing tag called pokemon. They know it exists. People tag this themselves. Nintendo/gamefreak won't touch that because they'd lose a lot of free advertising and fans very quickly. This happened with their streaming bullshit. Ya, sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't. It depends on the benefits, this is a simple concept.

>IDK statutory damages seems plenty beneficial to IP holders with valid copyright claims.
If the lawyers cost more than the cost of collecting damages, gets rid of your free advertising, loses fans, and potentially gets stories written in the papers about this independent either make more people angry or making it into a meme at semi-worse, why are you going to collect damages

"Oh no, this person made $60 off of pikachu, where now people will freely see pikachu, oh how hurt our bussiness is"
Sometimes that does happen with certain companies still like Disney, but Disney has so much money that the cost of laywers and bad press doesn't outweigh their paywall on their content and image.

There's more to life than simple binary actions. It's the same reason why I'm annoyed that my stuff gets stolen here but I understand it's not a big enough deal to pursue anything. I've probably lose patrons to this place, but I have a bunch more each month so it's fine for now.

>My artwork is on this site and it's my IP
>if it depicts third party IPs without permission.
Did I shutter? It does not include third party IP. It's all original artwork with original subject matter. This is a non-answer and a dumb dodge.

Also even if artwork contains third party IP, you're ok with stealing from individuals, but you'll defend corporations?
So you as an individual stealing third party content should also be punished or stolen from with your logic, yes?

>Who do you make art for?
Myself. Anyone who commissions me or gets a gift can post it whenever they want, and some do. But I have a lot of stuff that's my artwork, my stories, etc. And yes, the patreon stats they're buying access to see the work early, not buying the artwork. There is a difference.
Your logic is like buying a movie ticket, seeing the movie, then asking for the master reel to distribute it because you bought a ticket to see it.

>Yourself? Then you basically told us that you know better than to upload it to the Internet.
So you want artists to not post their works to the internet? This is the system you're going for?
I would call you idiotic because not only does the person not have a chance to gain the capital to fund their work, but you also lose the chance to see someone's work yourself lol

I started posting to the internet for myself, I got popular from doing that to where I could use patreon as a way to live and produce works. Otherwise I would have been a carpenter. Which if my business keeps growing like it seems to be, I'll be able to do that along side art.

Your logic is terrible through and through. This site was supposedly for spreading people's work for all. So why argue someone hide it so that it's not distributed to the masses? You should want for people to show their work, and you should want a system to support that behavior.

>Cool. Answer the question or abandon this point.
non answer

>Even if we were to assume there's no samefaggotry here, the least you can do is not commit any fallacies yourself...argumentum ad populum
It amuses me to know you're paranoid of that. Don't worry I don't care to do that. I also don't use words like autism as an insult so, sorry, multiple people are here.
Also, you've run into the The Fallacy Fallacy. Just because multiple people say you're wrong or called you dumb doesn't mean they're all correct, but you also haven't supplied things like sources and you give a lot of non-answers so even without multiple people, you're still wrong

>What does that have to do with the use of learned skills to seek monetary gifts just the same, online or offline?
"Monetary gifts" spare me. I'm talking about income, if most people donate their time for no money and no support they'll fail vs someone running a business. What's your point about panhandlers is basically what I'm asking? Do you have source for donations being better for musicians? How does that translate to say an artist on patreon?

>>54798
>Yes. When buying new food I've never tried before I can't taste test it before hand
>Meaning you saw what such an item looks like and can recognize it in the store
Unless eyes have learned how to taste a distance or through packaging, I am buying it with a lack of information. At most, I could smell it but that still a lack of information for taste when it's FOOD YOU CONSUME
Patreons are still advertised, especially if they're nsfw and patreon doesn't index them on their main site. If you don't like someone's advertising, don't buy it. It's that simple. If you think you want to dapple in it, then pay like the $1-$3 to see the stuff. You'd honestly get more content then spending it on a small pop in most cases lol

>It is, so you understand our objection
I understand the objection, I don't agree with your response. You don't actually change anything, you don't try to make a system in which movies could be produced and distributed for free or a much lower cost, you just steal it and then cause companies to make DRM or the FBI investigate stolen goods. I'm also consider this response, a non answer

>>55089
Lol faggot. You're autistic and funny.

>Don't know what you're calling it a subscription, but no economic system would stop things like natural disasters, nor does any explain the choice of a given artist to use Patreon as a paywall or a tipjar.
Different systems can handle the aftermath and prevention differently. It's like how we can make iphones real easy but can't make enough houses for homeless people to not live on the streets

>Exactly, so why bother with this business crap?
>You're browsing it.
non-answer

>We're still here
For how long? And when will it be ruined by someone coming in trying to make profit like the other anon sites?

>What does it say about you that a patron is willing to share your content prematurely
That pirates exist everywhere? Most of my patrons ask if they can even post their commissions before I make the public post when they get them from me so I have pretty good patrons. Usually my stuff gets stolen when someone subs to me then immediately unsubs. So someone probably keeps requesting it here honestly.

>So what proof do you have that this place has actually had any impact on your page? Time and time again it's been alleged, but never actually established.
There's been repost accounts who get their stuff from here instead of my patreon and don't tip me or anything. There's been dips when I've released certain types of story posts and they appear here. etc etc.

>Why are they experts, and how can we be so sure it's more confident than mere commentary
Wikipedia has sources to experts or more information. Many times primary sources. Youtube videos can be more iffy but ya, some of them have experts. Tedtalks has more experts working on their stuff. some of the other videos I could just give you day long lectures from professors if you'd like true expertise.

>>55092
Oh subby, talk dirtier to me. Praise me more cock slut and you'll get your reward.

>Capitalism still doesn't explain why some artists want to go the extra mile trying running a pretend business on Patreon
Non-answer. I've already explained this multiple times. Do I need to repeat "don't put your eggs into one basket" again? Do I need to explain market forces? Do I need to explain how patreon is designed for digital goods. Do I need to explain what a file uploader is or what "digital good" means?

>Why paywall on Patreon when you can just do this?
Because I make less when I don't have the paywall lol. I give out free stuff a lot because of advertising and it's nice to do, but I know from making other types of the same product pay walled that if I paywalled everything, I'd make more money. I traded money for advertisement which will eventually make money but the point is, when people can get free stuff, only a percentage will donate, a lot of times that percentage isn't enough, even with commissions.

No one wants to draw 24/7, I have games to play, family to see, places to go. Just like anyone else with a job lol.

>It's on you that it matters whether or not there's an update here.
If my stuff is free it'd still be here honestly. I find my art in a lot of places

>What harm?
non-answer, already answered before

>If you don't want non-answers, argue accordingly: Keep the Capitalism crap up and you're probably going to get more of it.
Just because you don't understand words used in economics doesn't mean I'm gonna stop.You can use google. If you're gonna talk about donations and who gets paid or not, you're gonna have to know these things. If my argument for why something happens is due to something dealing with capitalism, you need to argue why capitalism isn't worth discussing or give other arguments to discuss.

>Nobody asked you to.
Non-answer

>>54904
>https://blog.patreon.com/creator-profile-ann-kullberg
Wasn't this about paywalls vs. tipjars?

>>55068
>You haven't set boundaries for what would make you change your mind
Your burden of proof is never on your opponent.
>you don't analyze sources
Keep telling yourself that.
>you don't give sources, and you keep just saying a point as if everyone else is just suppose to believe it because you said so.
If it were ever contested, you'd ask for sources proving that this debate is online. If you're this unfamiliar with Patreon, you shouldn't be arguing about it.
>You just keep giving non-answers or ignoring points when it doesn't fit your worldview
Is that why my questions and arguments are left hanging? Why positions that don't fit your worldview are being dismissed
>Like you say, Put up or shut up.
So do it already.
>Where's your sources for your foundational argument
What do you believe my foundational argument is? Why do I need one just to rebut yours?
>If you can't give evidence then you're basically a greedy selfish child screaming about what they want to be real.
Talk about ad honimem, huh? It's not my fault you can't handle your burden of proof.
>It's taking ya a long time to find those very real sources huh?
>unironically asking for random links to claim as proof without foundation

>>55071
>If both parities didn't agree on that fact
What does it say about the other party that such a fact would be contested in that moment?
>I could show you patreon was a business platform for creators with primary source evidence in 2 seconds
Being a primary source of income doesn't stop Patreon from being a donation platform, as the same can be said for panhandlers offline.
>why is it so hard for you to show evidence if "patreon is a donation platform" is just a basic fact of life?
The lack of actual ramifications for being a marketplace, as previously discussed, speaks for itself. Maybe you'd have noticed if you hadn't spent this much time bitching about proof of a fact known to people actually familiar with the site.
>You could actually make me look like a dumbass if you showed good enough proof to where the only option i had to rebut it was to show data
Show us the data.
>>55073
>All non answers
So you agree? Or you simply can rebut any of it?
>Non-answer: Show a source
Are you seriously denying the ability of artists to show their appreciation on Patreon? Whether you agree or disagree doesn't make that point a non answer.
>Artist aren't showing you appreciation, they're making a product and are appreciative of your support or patronage.
Is there supposed to be some kind of contradiction here?
>Even if patreon was magically a "donation site" for everyone, this is a really creepy way to frame it. You don't own people.?
Where'd that come from? Talk about creepy.
>nonasnwer/the point went right over your head, again
>I made remarks that can't be substantiated, so I'll just call this a "nonasnwer"

>>55075
>LAMO. MARKET FORCES DOESN'T MEAN INFLATION.
Are you denying that the currency used to donate is subject to inflation?
>market forces: the economic factors affecting the price of, demand for, and availability of a commodity.
So why can't you actually demonstrate factors that cause an artist to paywall on Patreon (other than pure dumbassery) instead of using it as a tipjar?
>^ this was a moral argument for capitalism I gave.
Still don't care. If you're going to claim that paywalls do anything well, show proof.
>pirating the stuff doesn't fix that.
Sure, "pirating", but who's claiming otherwise?
>Also the citation would be the Albert Einstein https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
A socialist website promoting socialism. You're not very good with this citation thing.
>non answer
It's an answer whether or not you're willing to except how many artists get by running tipjars on Patreon. Your ignorance doesn't change what's going on in the world beyond your sight.

>>55077
>The irs defines hobby as "people engage in a hobby for sport or recreation, not to make a profit. "
[Citation needed], but what is it about Patreon that precludes artists from engaging in an IRS hobby?
>Non-answer
There's nothing to talk about if you don't offer us your interpretation of what you introduce to us as proof. We're not mind readers, but have fun manufacturing confusion and denying relevance to excuse yourself from pending challenges.
>I've done enough source work and data analysis, you're a big boy and do the rest yourself
I know nothing about your results and therefore cannot comment on _your_ analysis. Besides, the burden of proof remains with you.
>>55079
>And?
The raises and dips you speak of have been misinterpreted before, but you haven't even bothered to establish them the way it has been done before.
>what could you do to check out the data I want you to see.
I see many blank fields, and no substantial claims on what I see before me.
>Can't do any of that to see that most people who do well on patreon have some type of paywall
To someone with biases like yours, perhaps, but can you actually demonstrate an advantage to paywalling on Patreon?
>If they don't they other advantages like better creating skills in niche subjects, more followers aka more advertisement, etc etc. Can't look into lower numbered patreons and seeing lack of content, lack of advertisement, just starting on patreon, lack of incentives like limited supply of a good or a discount on commissions, etc etc
All it takes to undermine all of that is paywalling (especially for unestablished artists).
>Non-answer and it's pretty easy when there is no opposition in the first place.
No amount of denial will make the opposition go away. If you don't like contrary viewpoints, then don't bother with debates.
>Explain the false assumption with sources if you can
Do your own lurking.

>>55082
>You brought up the point about how many lawsuits get public attention
In response to your PR nonsense
>The amount of people paying attention affects PR
>how many lawsuits get public attention means nothing
Pick one.
>They know it exists.
You don't know that.

>>55083
>If the lawyers cost more than the cost of collecting damages
>what are costs on recovery
>gets rid of your free advertising, loses fans, and potentially gets stories written in the papers about this independent either make more people angry or making it into a meme at semi-worse
That's not even the worst of it, but if you think this is an actual deterrent, then you really ought to demonstrate how many lawsuits get public attention.
>why are you going to collect damages
Because Congress allows IP holders to recover substantial amounts of moneys. What else did think I meant by "statutory damages"?
>I've probably lose patrons to this place, but I have a bunch more each month so it's fine for now.
What makes you think this place has anything to do with your supposed losses?

>>55084
>Did I shutter?
I must've, if you missed the word "if".
>Also even if artwork contains third party IP, you're ok with stealing from individuals
Stealing what?
>Myself.
Then you don't need to share it, do you?
>Anyone who commissions me or gets a gift can post it whenever they want, and some do.
Where do you think the stuff here comes from?
>And yes, the patreon stats they're buying access to see the work early, not buying the artwork. There is a difference.
And in light of this place, how is this any different than just uploading your art?
>Your logic is like buying a movie ticket, seeing the movie, then asking for the master reel to distribute it because you bought a ticket to see it.
Except unlike the theater, you're getting paid regardless, but feel free to make whatever strawmen you like if that's what helps you sleep at night.
>>55087
>So you want artists to not post their works to the internet?
How did you get that from keeping personal art to yourself?
>This site was supposedly for spreading people's work for all.
This is a repeatedly asserted ancillary benefit to this place. If you think that we think this is the main function of the site, you must new around here.
>So why argue someone hide it so that it's not distributed to the masses? You should want for people to show their work, and you should want a system to support that behavior.
Yeah, that's why paywalling on Patreon bothers me.

>>55089
>non answer
I guess you're abandoning the point.
>Just because multiple people say you're wrong or called you dumb doesn't mean they're all correct
Then why bother trying to point out that multiple people are saying I'm wrong?
>but you also haven't supplied things like sources
>Why do I need sources, when you can go by logic? Talk about a double standard.
>and you give a lot of non-answers
Only to anyone who lacks the humility to just drop a losing point.
>so even without multiple people, you're still wrong
The fallacy fallacy in its natural habitat.
>What does that have to do with the use of learned skills to seek monetary gifts just the same, online or offline?
>"Monetary gifts" spare me. I'm talking about income
Way to dodge the question. How else would you characterize donations, but money surrendered with nothing expected in return? Whether it's given or from sales, it's income just the same (and the lack of online shopping carts on Patreon is telling.
>What's your point about panhandlers is basically what I'm asking? Do you have source for donations being better for musicians? How does that translate to say an artist on patreon?
When did I argue that donations are better for musicians? The point about panhandlers is a clear and apt comparison to donating to artists on Patreon (some also being musicians): Both using learned skills to get money. Calling either a business invites a bunch of inapplicable implications.

>>55091
>Unless eyes have learned how to taste a distance or through packaging, I am buying it with a lack of information. At most, I could smell it but that still a lack of information for taste
I thought you were buying it because you were advised to try it? "[L]ack if information" implies you don't have enough info to try it because you can't identify it in the store.
>Patreons are still advertised, especially if they're nsfw and patreon doesn't index them on their main site. If you don't like someone's advertising, don't buy it. It's that simple. If you think you want to dapple in it, then pay like the $1-$3 to see the stuff.
But in order to make that decision, I'd need some kind of advertising. When that info is unavailable, due to an artist not being indexed on the main site, all I have to go by is what little info is available. If I need to pay to just see the artist's advertising, then that artist is paywalling too hard, so I move on to an artist more deserving of my money.
>You don't actually change anything, you don't try to make a system in which movies could be produced and distributed for free or a much lower cost
Why should we?
>you just steal it and then cause companies to make DRM or the FBI investigate stolen goods
Why are you still trying to compare actual business activities to charity? Theft implies a permanent loss of goods.

>>55094
>Different systems can handle the aftermath and prevention differently.
Which still has no bearing on an artist's choice to use Patreon as either a paywall or tipjar.
>non-answer
What a weird way to admit that there's no point bothering us with this business crap. If you're genuinely curious about old conversations, it's up to you to lurk old threads.
>For how long?
We've had a lot of doomsayers try to tell us this place is gonna die, but it hasn't yet. Generally speaking, when people start complaining, we still have life left.
>And when will it be ruined by someone coming in trying to make profit like the other anon sites?
We've been begging Admin to put on ads, to no avail. If he's that opposed to making a profit on this place, it's up to him to use the proceeds only on costs and upgrades.

>>55099
>That pirates exist everywhere?
That's a toxic attitude, when this place has gotten people to start support certain artists, but I can't blame you. Still, the solution to this is to offer incentives that can't be pirated (as you say).
>There's been repost accounts who get their stuff from here instead of my patreon and don't tip me or anything. There's been dips when I've released certain types of story posts and they appear here. etc etc.
What accounts? Where's the impact? Show us the dips.
>Why are they experts, and how can we be so sure it's more confident than mere commentary
>Youtube videos can be more iffy but ya, some of them have experts.
Still waiting on the expertise of these supposed experts, and whether these videos are more than mere commentary.

>>55101
>Do I need to repeat "don't put your eggs into one basket" again?
Why put eggs in a bad basket?
>Do I need to explain market forces?
How about you do something useful and explain why tipjars are even an option on a website supposedly intended to sell digital goods.
>Do I need to explain how patreon is designed for digital goods
You can't explain how the lack of a shopping cart a similar functions still makes Patreon a marketplace.
>I know from making other types of the same product pay walled that if I paywalled everything, I'd make more money
Doesn't matter what you paywall if you're paywalling on websites actually designed for it (i.e. Gumroad). Still, if you're trying to prove that paywalls outperform tipjars, you need better sources than just yourself.
>when people can get free stuff, only a percentage will donate, a lot of times that percentage isn't enough, even with commissions
Patreon (like a lot of places) is a YMMV experience, with or without paywalling. Why some artists choose to take on unnecessary burdens there is still beyond me. Hasn't stopped us from donating.
>>55103
>If my stuff is free it'd still be here honestly. I find my art in a lot of places
And it's still on you whether or not that matters.
>non-answer, already answered before
A bad answer doesn't make the question a non-answer.
>Just because you don't understand words used in economics doesn't mean I'm gonna stop
Then don't complain about "non-answers" because this isn't a debate about Capitalism.
>If my argument for why something happens is due to something dealing with capitalism, you need to argue why capitalism isn't worth discussing or give other arguments to discuss.
You can whine all day about the problems with Capitalism, but you're still unable to tie it to the issues before us now. No amount of bitching about Capitalism influences an artist's choice to either use Patreon as intended, or paywall it

It's been a minute. The site loads a lot faster now lol. That's good.

There's a lot of non-answers so if I skip it, you know why

>Your burden of proof is never on your opponent
That's the internet's way of debating. You can be asked for clarification about where your information comes from. If someone asks for a clarification and you don't give it, it look really bad.
Peer review exists for a reason. Experts in their fields use peer review. Show your sources because it's clear there needs be a clarification from you lol

>"Is that why my questions and arguments are left hanging? Why positions that don't fit your worldview are being dismissed "
It's literally because I've already given an answer or there's nothing to answer to unless you want a stupid reason. For example:
>you don't analyze sources
>Keep telling yourself that.
This is literally a kindergarten response. Am I suppose to go "ya huh, you don't analyze sources" You didn't disprove my statement, you just made a terrible come back.

>>55132
>What do you believe my foundational argument is?
That patreon is only a donation site, that a majority of people should live off of donations for goods/services in a capitalist system, and that pirating causes no harm/is helpful for the creator. Those are the top three of my head. There's more you need to cite/argue more, but having sources for these three would make this discussion much easier lol.

>>55133
>What does it say about the other party that such a fact would be contested in that moment?
It doesn't matter what it implies about the other person in this case. Even if it's common knowledge, you should be able to show a source for WHY it's common knowledge. Not being able to cite a source makes you look like a dumbass for not know where your own knowledge comes from.

>Show us the data
You haven't should proof yet lol. My citations are enough data currently. You need to out do me first

>All non answers
>So you agree?
Non-answer means your statements aren't worth answer because I've already answered or it's a childish deflection. Also Non is the prefix, it'd be more likely to assume disagreement then agreement you silly goose

>Are you seriously denying the ability of artists to show their appreciation on Patreon?
This is the creepy comment because you don't say this about walmart. You don't pay walmart for them to show you appreciation by giving you products. You pay for a good/service and they can be thankful. There's a difference
The way you describe it sounds like a creator owes you. Someone can set up their patreon like that but most of the time, that's not gonna happen. If you feel like the creator owes you beyond the goods/services they provide, you may just be in a parasocial relationship in which you think the creator owes you more than they actually do. Or you have a very gross way of thinking about how donations work. Charity is charity, not a transaction.

>LAMO. MARKET FORCES DOESN'T MEAN INFLATION.
>Are you denying that the currency used to donate is subject to inflation?
You made a stupid error, and you except me to now take it seriously as if you didn't say stupid thing. Inflation is real, but the term market forces doesn't not mean inflation lmao. They're two separate things. Unless you have a real argument with this, I'd advise move past your mistake

>>55135
>[Citation needed], but what is it about Patreon that precludes artists from engaging in an IRS hobby?
Already gave a citation. Patreon people can engage in what the IRS would describe as a hobby, but if someone and entitled artist making paywalls, they're probably look at it like a business. Patreon itself treats the funding like a business. Most entitled artist you'll be discussing in this thread are not doing a hobby.Your deflection about people doing a business only works if EVERYONE is doing a hobby on patreon.

>I know nothing about your results and therefore cannot comment on _your_ analysis.
I can't comment on yours because you don't show sources and have poor argumentation. Please cite more sources and I may give you more personal data

>The raises and dips you speak of have been misinterpreted before, but you haven't even bothered to establish them the way it has been done before.
Again, I wasn't there nor was I the misinterpreter in that situation so why should I care? There's more data than graphs on that site. Part of what I want you to look at is on patreon itself so the graphs don't really matter for the main data lol

>I see many blank fields, and no substantial claims on what I see before me.
They're blank because they're not suppose to be filled in. You can just click top x creators and start checking out trends. You can use the field to find things but I'm certain I told you to look up stuff yourself because you're lazy and I'm not going to hold you hand through every detail unless you put some more effort into the debate
I've come here to laugh at you, not to teach you how to do basic research

>demonstrate an advantage to paywalling on Patreon?
I have! One of the main ones being artificial scarcity, fomo, reoccurring payments which people forget about, it'd being a good live feed over something like a single package you get from gumroad, etc

>The amount of people paying attention affects PR || how many lawsuits get public attention means nothing
>Pick one.
They're not contradictory. You can get away with bullshit lawsuits if not enough people pay attention. Certain subjects will get people's attention more so than others which affects PR. It's why everyone knows about supreme court cases but not state cases, even though state cases can affect people a lot more a points.

> demonstrate how many lawsuits get public attention.
I bet you know what this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
but don't know what this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce
If you look into how these are related, you'll see what I mean about attention being required for PR to be affected and why you have to weight what lawsuits you're attacking or deal with. One of these suits does more than the other, and it's probably not the one you're thinking of.

Lawsuits are a tool, not an end all be all. Sometimes suing people is not a good tool to use. "statutory damages" is sometimes less than what the lawsuit would cause in costs. That's how life works. It's also a reason why people and companies settle outside of court a lot.

>What makes you think this place has anything to do with your supposed losses?
People have left my patreon when things get posted here, and some people have discussed yiff.party being a thing they went to, luckily it's always been my lower tiers.

>>55138
>Stealing what?
Stealing people's files off of patreon. Don't deflect and say "they used thirdy party" not everyone uses third party IP and even if they did, two wrongs don't make a right.

>Where do you think the stuff here comes from?
Mostly patreon. Not all patreon stuff is commissions and what not. My stuff has been stolen and it's not third party and it's not commissioned/gifted to anyone

> how is this any different than just uploading your art
More money. Kofi jar is nice but it makes far less than the patreon.

>Except unlike the theater, you're getting paid regardless
What do you even mean? People don't pay for nothing most of the time. You can get paid for nothing but you'll either lose patrons or not gain any patrons. Spoony is a good example of this.

>How did you get that from keeping personal art to yourself?
If people don't want their artwork stolen, and it will be stolen online if uploaded, then they shouldn't post their stuff. Your logic makes art less likely to go online unless it's a commercial product which may not get funded, especially if their plan for funding is artificial supply.
That's how I got that

>If you think that we think this is the main function of the site, you must new around here.
It was one of the main reasons people toss around. It's one of your arguments actually. If people want to see the stuff behind the paywall so they can make a full choice, this site can't be limited. Otherwise it's just another paywall, that payment being social connections or monetary gains

>Yeah, that's why paywalling on Patreon bothers me.
Again, you don't address the root problem, so what you're bother by is not getting free access, then you proceed to be ignorant about how goods/services are produced.

>>55139

>How else would you characterize donations, but money surrendered with nothing expected in return? Whether it's given or from sales, it's income just the same (and the lack of online shopping carts on Patreon is telling)
1. You know a shopping chart isn't needed for sales or profit. Most of the things you spend your money on don't require a shopping cart. I don't know how to convey how stupid of a statement that is to say in text. Your school actually failed you and I'm sorry people didn't do better for you

2. A donation is money given with no returns to you. No thank yous, no art, no goods, no services, nothing. If a person made a sale, it's not a donation. You get something for that sale. It's why if you donate and report it to the irs, you have to say if you get something with that donation. Funding/Investment would be a better term to use for someone on pateron. You're investing in a person to do a thing, it doesn't mean they will, but you assume they do or have measures to ensure they do.

Those are VERY different concepts.

>Both using learned skills to get money
That's every job you dummy. What do you think a college degree or a trade degree is. Your musician point means nothing if most people can't live off donations. What do you think your big point is lol

>>58449
Nigga. This thread is dead as fuck. You'tr beating a dead horse at this point.

>>55140
>[L]ack if information" implies you don't have enough info to try it because you can't identify it in the store.
Yes, I agree, if you don't have enough information, you will not buy it. If you do, it's your fault if you get a shity thing. If someone is running a paywall and isn't giving enough info, don't buy into it. If you want behind a specific paywall, it means you had ENOUGH information to want to get behind it. Don't support people not giving enough information about what's behind the paywall. That's it.

People don't need to set up a model in which you see everything. A lot of products and services don't show you everything already. Again, a move trailer isn't the full movie, it only shows you enough to make you want to go behind the paywall

>Why should we?
You get free access to funded works if you make the system better...don't be a brat

>Theft implies a permanent loss of goods.
Ah, see, now you said something stupid but telling. IP is not a permanent lost of goods. Dark vader will still be in starwars even if someone else makes r34 of him. Goods were added to the world. Yet people would still call it stealing because

tangible goods are not the only goods in the world.
DRM was made because Digital goods are so easy to copy. You don't steal anything, you create more of it. But because that hurts sales, it seen as theft.

You need to update your idea of "permanent loss goods" or your argument about third party idea is null

>Generally speaking, when people start complaining, we still have life left.
With how funding looks here, you need a pay piggy to keep it going. if that pay piggy aint around, this site will struggle until it sinks. It's why arguments happen here about keeping the site afloat, because there's not a good plan to keep it afloat yet, even after all this time

>We've been begging Admin to put on ads, to no avail
I really don't think that'd work. Especially this crowd. Most people probably have adblock and making profit off of people's stolen work makes people fight harder to take such places down. Also I'm assuming there's some tricky to the payment system already, which is why bits are used. So using official channels of commerce could be more determental.

>How about you do something useful and explain why tipjars are even an option on a website supposedly intended to sell digital goods.
People tip lol. It's countries like america tip waiters, even though you've already paid for your food and if no one paid the waiters, the resturant has to pay them a certain wage. Again, you need to learn how commerce works.

>You can't explain how the lack of a shopping cart a similar functions still makes Patreon a marketplace.
Can someone else here explain why a lack of a shopping cart isn't need to have digital goods cause I'm utterly disappoint anyone would make this argument. It's not funny it's massively disappoint. Do I need to explain what a netflix is again?
Like...who failed you so hard when you were young in life. I'm so so sorry for you. Vote bernie so this poor person can get educated to a standard level in life

>>58452
That's pretty hot

Also a thread is only dead if it's locked or no one talks

>>58459
Which is why we call it "necroing" when someone bumps a dead thread.

>>58475
Thanks for explaining, autismo

>>58436
>It's been a minute. The site loads a lot faster now lol. That's good.

You're not fooling anyone.

This thread needs to be written into a pamphlet so we can TL;DR holy fuck

>>58741
Quick summary:
Crackhead McGee, OP in this case, made a thread to rant about artists showing entitlement (I'm assuming it was in response to artists frequently describing yiff.party users as entitled). Posts >>29418 - >>31673 are Miss Phase entering the chat and proceeding to make the case against artist entitlement even worse by being insulting and not grasping basic concepts. During this time, OP makes no attempts to defend themselves. Posts >>50808 - >>52147 a bunch of whiteknights originating from what seemed to be an alternative vore thread come to attack OP, one of them using OP's name to slander Crackhead by saying absolutely stupid shite and then samefagging to make it seem like there are more than their really are. Fast forward to today, and it would seem that a creatorfag is sadly finding enjoyment through people arguming with them, derailing the thread and turning into some retarded back and forth about capitalism. Said creator claims that they want to help people who lurk in the threads see that this site is wrong but lengthy ass text walls do not make anyone want to change their pirate ways at all.

>>29270
This, I fucking hate this. Especially when you have a niche fetish, you see the same neon-haired donut steels over and over again.

>>58814
Hello autist!!! You're can't hide because your autism bleeds through your posts!

>>58814
>comes back with a lengthy rebuttal almost a month later
>No changes in attitude
>still awkwardly trying to make Capitalism relevant.

That one isn't here for a real debate.

>>58847
0/10

>>58868
>That one isn't here for a real debate.
Everything makes sense now.

8c3.jpg (43.5KiB, 640x496) save_alt

>>58444
>two lawsuits against two government agencies

>>58641

>You're not fooling anyone.
I wasn't trying to deceive anyone about the shit loading slow as fuck. It's wasn't amusing sitting around for minutes for this place to load. With the update being a notice, I left and forgot about the place

My stuff was uploaded recently again and a Patron informed me so I'm back for a bit

>>58868

There could be a meaningful debate but until there is I will do what amuses me

>>58974
And?
The original argument is about how lawsuits don't always work, companies don't always use them. They're just a tool.
That particular comment was about lawsuits being noticed. The government deals with lawsuits all the time, most people can only name a few. That's why I picked it, it's a bit easier for me to find an interesting relationship than the billions of company lawsuits that I don't try to look into that often.

If you want to talk about a company's right to control their works, that's fine, but the way it's being advocated for is destructive and is against what this site is for
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3296479/nintendo-suit-rom-emulation-game-preservation.html
Nintendo makes enough money and doesn't sell such things in the market, they're wrong to do this

It also would mean one SHOULD put a lawsuit to this place because it's the artist right to do so (those who are ONLY using their IP and their works) and the money lost could actually be of value. Most artist don't make millions, those few extra dollars help. But we all know how well that gets handled here

Yiff party has shitty morals and upkeep, but it does do some stuff right like protecting itself from DMCAs and what not. Which again, shows more of an entitlement of the users here rather than most creators

>>59072
0/10

>>59074
>That's why I picked
Two lawsuits most people never heard of, against agencies that regularly deal with litigation (rather than staying on point re: publicity involving private litigants), decided in a forum with so many cases heard in its history. >>58868 was right: You're not really here to debate.

>>59195

If you dont know what citizens united is, you live under a rock.

Ignoring the fact that those points were made after the other person deflected so hard that they started arguing for individuals not being able to control their copyright but multimillion corporations should be able to, I am more familiar with certain types of lawsuits. If I havent gotten a single source from them for basic points that I've proven them wrong on, why should I have to work harder to google specific lawsuits when those still prove my point? If you want another explanation of why companies dont always block content/DMCA because that's not always beneficial, which is the original point, check out how Nintendo YouTube partner program is going vs their lawsuit against rom sites

Also, did I stutter? Again, I'm mostly here for my amusement. I do genuinely debate but I can only re-answer poor arguments so many times. The main person I respond to just deflects most of the time so if there's a real argument I'll answer it lol

>>59198
Imagine being this autistic and actually wanting to 'debate' with anons.

Wew lad, that midlife crisis will come early for you.

>>59307

Sorry I have more interests than looking at furry porn all day

>>59198
>If you dont know what citizens united is, you live under a rock.
>doesn't bother to defend the other case
>can't bother to stay on point
Ok troll.

>The main person I respond to just deflects most of the time
You had an awful lot to say to someone who deflects "most" of the time. Spare us your excuses and just go.

>>59321
>Sorry I have more interests than looking at furry porn all day
No, I don't think you do.

>>59329
>You had an awful lot to say to someone who deflects "most" of the time
That's what happens when one deflects, you have to talk both their dumb new point and the original point. As your king I do not spare you.

>No, I don't think you do.
It's true! The most you can say is that I look at furry porn at max 40 hours a week but that's because I'm getting paid to draw it. You may even be jerking off to it since y'all steal it here.

>>59417
>That's what happens when one deflects, you have to talk both their dumb new point and the original point
>>58868

>It's true!
You have a funny way of acting like it. Jerk off and leave us alone.

>y'all steal it here
>being this new

>>59445
>Jerk off and leave us alone.
That's a lot of entitlement thinking an anon on the anon board isn't a part of the us :<

>being this new
Back in my day all we had was napster. You kids and your parties of yiff

>>59528
0/10

>>59567

I'll take his score over yours
https://youtu.be/-npPHkeb3A8

>>60083
>>59307

>>60098
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/

>>60193
How the fuck is this related to anything?

>>60206
It relates to entitlement

>>60419
>There’s a reason the History Channel has produced hundreds of documentaries about Hitler but only a few about Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Bad guys (and gals) are eternally fascinating. Behind the Bastards dives in past the Cliffs Notes of the worst humans in history and exposes
the bizarre realities of their lives. Listeners will learn about the young adult novels that helped Hitler form his monstrous ideology, the
founder of Blackwater’s insane quest to build his own Air Force, the bizarre lives of the sons and daughters of dictators and Saddam
Hussein’s side career as a trashy romance novelist.
>>60206

>>60648
and?

reading back through miss phases arguments in relation to fanworks and fair use for patreon sort of cracked me up knowing that Patreon has been cracking down on rule 34 or fanart being funded by the website hard enough that a few people have completely swapped IP characters to random animals lately.

>>60655
>>60206

>>60662
Don't forget Obscenity Laws.

>>60662
Can't believe Manyakis cannot even draw Marina from Splatoon, and the stand-in looks so hipster-awful.

174a69c3071ed2b4e9c3d1c299e0674a.jpg (192.9KiB, 800x800) save_alt

>>60856
You're one to talk.

>>60938
>stand-in

>>60938
I am.

>>60955
I feel I need to remind people that when I said "he cannot draw it" I didn't mean it as he doesn't have enough talent or anything like that. Manyakis is fucking amazing. I meant as in Nintendo doesn't allow him to draw Nintendo characters verbatim anymore. What he came up with to halfway-resemble Marina was... not really all that good, character design-wise.

remember folks playing dumb is an essential survival skill i've done this before on youtube my account got banned lol

>>60968
>>60955
>stand-in

>>61180

File