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.
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 30 April!
At this time, yiff.party can only accept donations in numerous cryptocurrencies. Please select a currency below to display the relevant donation address.
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.
"Patreon Can't Solve Its Porn Pirate Problem"undoReturn
Anonymous 01/24/20(Fri)21:02:07 No. [R]
Anonymous 01/24/20(Fri)21:05:39 No. [R]
Patreon officially lost?
Anonymous 01/24/20(Fri)21:43:57 No. [R]
Nope, they just can't be bothered.
The cookie share tool could be easily prevented.
They could write user metadata into the images.bothered.
They can't even be bothered to secure user data and have had plenty of leaks https://www.zdnet.com/article/patreon-hacked-anonymous-patrons-exposed/
Cloudflare could do something also but cba
Anonymous 01/24/20(Fri)22:26:00 No. [R]
I just love how Patreon is basically saying, "All right, boys and girls. You wanna turn corporate capitalist on your fans and prove you're the next best thing since chocolate ice cream? YOU deal with the fans who distribute your degenerate wares freely. Good luck!"
A part of me wants to think this is Patreon's way of getting back at all the greenbacks who decided to turn the service into a paywall.
Anonymous 01/24/20(Fri)22:40:18 No. [R]
While I'm happy to see them admitting their losing, this article can bring even more unwanted attention to the site, Kotaku's little report years back didn't exactly help things shining a light on the sites existence.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)00:41:33 No. [R]
After reading that all I can think is: Get shit on. Get absolutely shit on, you paywall abusing, lying, cheating, mothafuckers. This is the kind of shit that I hope gets the message across to all artists and camwhores. The message is this: it's you. We're not the problem. You are. You keep coming here acting all high and mighty like people actually give a damn about you. No. No they don't. If you don't actually give a damn about your fans punishing them with paywalls and forcing them to pay for worthless shit, then no one is going to give a damn about you.
On the other hand, this could cause more problems. I wish we could take this page down so we don't attract anymore artist fags who think their porn is some kind of Picasso painting that we just can't grasp the beauty of.
In conclusion, fuck'em. They deserve it.
TheChameleon 01/25/20(Sat)00:42:36 No. [R]
VICTORY GUYS, WE WON!
But Anon is right, we don't need more negative attention for the site.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)01:16:14 No. [R]
See, this is how they should've been in the first place. This now defeats the purpose of having a bloody paywall.
You know? Like they initially lied in their pitch about "donations"? Which instead wound up being a failed subscription service?
Anyway, as we were.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)05:50:55 No. [R]
This might explain why I've been seeing more people using alternative paywall sites. Unfortunately for those fuckers, we're already beginning to crack into those as well as seen with Fantia.
I like to be optimistic that the extra attention means we're more likely to get new potential backers from Joe Schmoes who care more about content availability than whining artists, especially with an article like this telling them Papa Patreon doesn't have their back (plus the Youtube Effect where they're inclined to stick with something suboptimal solely because it's popular and all the competition is niche). And if they do come, people can just tell 'em to take a hike like they've always done. Not like they can do much else except bitch.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)07:31:56 No. [R]
No one is forcing anyone to subscribe to anything.
Take some responsibility for your actions.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)11:41:00 No. [R]
Take responsibility for not donating to artists who pull this kind of crap?
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)16:41:19 No. [R]
And, that's the kind of attitude that has led to the rapid commercialization that we now have in the online art industry, specifically the furry fandom. So what if we're not being forced to? You think artists give a rat's ass what we think or how we feel about their business choices to begin with? Before art was either shared more freely or kept between friends and chat circles. Now it's all about turning over a profit through a subscription service with whatever they can throw into it. It's ridiculous and it's ruined/ruining the fandom and what it stands for.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)17:06:48 No. [R]
lol as if that's what you actually care about. All you want to do is consume, like all of us here. Don't pretend, idiot.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)18:07:11 No. [R]
But I'm still circumventing this site just fine...
January 2020 donations is still only at 65%... maybe you guys should donate so they'll fix the ability to flag posts.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)18:11:22 No. [R]
I love the fact that they talk about Jane in the article.
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)19:23:30 No. [R]
More publicity = more visitors = more donations?
Kek 01/25/20(Sat)22:40:53 No. [R]
Get yiffed. :D
Anonymous 01/25/20(Sat)23:59:57 No. [R]
That's hilarious, now I want to actually read it, just to see if they mention her pushing her underage daughter for people to yank to.
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)02:11:56 No. [R]
How about someone getting butthurt that their content is leaked and using Discord? You can't stop leakers.
TheChameleon 01/26/20(Sun)02:57:24 No. [R]
I can't believe they mentioned her in the article.
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)08:41:30 No. [R]
Primeleap only for artists and images, it aint worth shit for peps of any medias.
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)11:48:49 No. [R]
Wow, looking at the comments.... you guys are pretty shitty as a human. "I have my noble reasons for ripping off creators so F them...." classy!
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)15:05:49 No. [R]
Does YP scrub any EXIF data on import?
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)16:03:43 No. [R]
artists need to starve. Free porn for EVERYONE! Hail Trump!
ArtistButNotPatreonType 01/26/20(Sun)19:41:27 No. [R]
Art was ‘always free’? Seriously? You think Bach and Picasso and Da Vinci just gave all their art out for free? Art has ALWAYS been a paid thing, for those who live off it. Sure, there are also hobbyists, but even in aboriginal communities you’ll find artists who are supported by their community for what they provide. These people are trying to make a living creating something people want - you wouldn’t be stealing it or downloading it if you didn’t want it. And wanting something means value. In a capitalist society, we largely function on showing value through money. How can you steal from them, insult them, and claim that THEY are the assholes? You’re the thief! We’re not talking about some rich ass corporation here, ripping people off and trying to create monopolies or serfdoms.
Crackhead McGee 01/26/20(Sun)19:52:08 No. [R]
Yes, so what I am jealous of artist? They need to suffer like me. SUFFER SUFFER SUFFER SUFFER
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)21:06:35 No. [R]
Anonymous 01/26/20(Sun)22:03:50 No. [R]
This isn't about not wanting artists to earn from their work. It's about wanting fairness. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the furry fandom has been a place for artists to both share and advertise their art. If that wasn't the case, every furry website that's been developed since the mid-00's would have been built with a marketplace design and mindset, just like Patreon. No art would be shared or even previewed. Only those willing to pay for it would be able to see it. But, it's never been like that. Also, this isn't the 16th century. Artists don't have to ride their horses miles away from town to some nobleman's villa to paint their portrait or a shot of the countryside for a small fortune in return. Art is not the "luxury" item it used to be and making a living off of it is not as hard as it was for the all-time greats. The problem is all these modern-day artists thinking that they are all-time greats themselves and turning away from the community to give their art to only those who would be willing to pay for it through subscription sites. There's really no excuse for it. There are too many people now to where you absolutely have to paywall your art. There are plenty of people who would pay for it, piracy or no piracy.
Gay111 01/26/20(Sun)23:47:05 No. [R]
Artists used to be sponsored by a rich guy who appreciated the art since Roman times. And they would definitely exchange their talent for money.
You are a sub-human if you can't understand why people work for retribution. And if you don't agree with the artist's terms, then don't pay and don't access it.
The truth is, you are a failure because you are poor and have no respect or consideration for artists. You don't deserve to look at their art.
Anonymous 01/27/20(Mon)19:16:53 No. [R]
Can't stop leakers, won't stop leakers. As long as desire drives people, they'll make a way to get it either by themselves or by relying on others that's how it goes. Hahahaha. Anways, keep up the good work fellas also don't forget to rest and savor moralfag tears.
Anonymous 01/28/20(Tue)20:24:21 No. [R]
I can't believe you guys would steal fursuit photos using a fishing hook!
Anonymous 01/29/20(Wed)10:31:23 No. [R]
To be frank, and that's something applying to piracy of any kind, a majority of the people pirating stuff or taking stuff in here wouldn't have spent a dime on that art even if they had no other way to access it. Does that make it right ? Eh. Not really... But this is the wrong place to expect morality from people, so getting upset over it isn't really productive.
Anonymous 01/29/20(Wed)10:38:41 No. [R]
And seriously dudes. We're all fucking thieves in here, don't go acting all that "they deserve it" shit, you wouldn't say the same thing if you stole from a local home store lmao. We're here because we're too broke to pay, or just can't be arsed to, no other reason.
Anonymous 01/29/20(Wed)12:19:26 No. [R]
Well I'm here because I hate artists and they deserve to starve. If I have to suffer going outside so should they.
anonononono 01/29/20(Wed)14:59:55 No. [R]
hmmm whatever happen,leaker can't be get rid completely since some of supporter didn't know what should they do with their reward,for nsfw maybe,they will use it for fapping,but they can't fapping same picture so they use it as trade item or worse R E S E L L I N G
Anna 01/29/20(Wed)16:48:57 No. [R]
Agree. artists are money hungry whores and shouldn't be allowed to monetize fandoms for their benefit.
weird that people seem to be so angry because this site exists while also using this site. lots of people complaining because they arent implementing things that no sane person would ever want on things that they paid for. added drm and trackers mean that it has been re encoded and that is bad for quality
Anonymous 01/30/20(Thu)06:47:20 No. [R]
Patreon gave up
Go home, folks
Anonymous 01/30/20(Thu)10:05:34 No. [R]
there is ways of win money and not being a self inflacted asshole
Anonymous 01/30/20(Thu)15:44:26 No. [R]
patreon is understaffed (so jack conte can mooch the money to bid on gay shit like slash's 1986 concert electro guitar or something) and lazy. it's not that they can't, it's that they can't give a shit.
Jane 02/06/20(Thu)06:11:01 No. [R]
I am a fucking idiot
Anonymous 02/07/20(Fri)00:20:04 No. [R]
AND FUCK SILICON VALLEY
Anonymous 02/07/20(Fri)13:47:40 No. [R]
> FUCK KIKES
> FUCK ROASTIES
When can a furry be THIS BASED?
Anonymous 02/08/20(Sat)00:53:51 No. [R]
wake me up when y'all stop treating this like 4chan and start treating it like a community
Anonymous 02/08/20(Sat)08:27:11 No. [R]
Tell that to the whole of the internet, you'll not find much difference, elsewhere among an ANON BOARD.
Anonymous 02/08/20(Sat)09:24:41 No. [R]
haha guys I say the funny racist word and the funny jew word pls laugh my life is shit
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)03:23:25 No. [R]
whoa dude 😳d-did you just call me a c-cuckold??? I can't come back from this you've literally destroyed me
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)03:26:55 No. [R]
I agree. If we're going to do this we need to have a personal object in our lives the reminds us of this place
Introducing, the reminder box. You can stick your finger into the box to help remind you of our community and to know which creator to steal from next
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)03:40:59 No. [R]
Why don't you guys just make this a competitor to patreon honestly? Artists can upload their stuff here manually and the incentive would be for the artist to have access to a easy to use reoccurring payment tip jar and promotional ads/more visibility on the site, then yiff party gets 1% of anything paid to the artist for up keeping the site . Anything money over goes to charity or for making better systems for this site. This would require being transparent about how much money is made and what charities it's going to for that system to work though
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)03:43:26 No. [R]
The rule would be that all posts had to be public though
That may actually work really well because then artist who have time exclusive works could still have that on patreon, but then they'd come over here and upload the stuff so people aren't wasting money on stealing and this site would have less theft, also the site wouldn't have a funding issue
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)06:04:18 No. [R]
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)06:35:28 No. [R]
WEEEEEEEEEE ARE THE CHAMPIONNNNNNS, MY FRIENNNNNNNNDS
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)09:08:17 No. [R]
As someone who makes content on Patreon myself...well I'm indifferent.
When I first found out about this site, I was pretty angry. Over time, I learned due to my Patreon model, it didn't impact me much of any way, at least negatively. Hell, this site has almost no impact on anyone that releases all of their content to the public eventually.
Since then? I don't know. It's a matter of "Who do I hate more? Anon pirates who impact others, but not me, or people who are paywalling Rule 34 characters they don't even own?"
Even looking at my Patreon, nobody's been migrating crap from mine anyways for months anyways, even if I was worried about it lol. I'm not 'good' enough I guess.
And those who are getting content imported more regularly likely make a very hefty amount anyways.
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)12:08:36 No. [R]
There's a good amount of art that isn't r34 but is still stolen
The few potential dollar lost does mean less money towards supplies or food depending on the model used
I think import more relates to who stumbles upon it. If you have a larger audience your more likely to have one of these coomers find it. Or if you have a niche fetish you'll get imported faster. Take that opinion with a grain of salt though
Anonymous 02/09/20(Sun)15:07:34 No. [R]
This is false. Hardly anything gets leaked because there's way too much stuff, and hardly enough incentive for people to archive and share everything in existence.
The idea of leakers being an unstoppable hydra is also false. It's more like you have the occasional god (神 in the Japanese community) who, for whatever reason, seems to have access to a lot of media that they then share online (one of the gods in Japan was scanning and uploading raw manga because they were planning to turn it into a business) until they get busted by the police, and instead of being replaced by multiple equally functional heads, they're replaced with mostly weaker and crappier demi-gods (some don't know how to scan, some need donations to pay for their orders, etc.) which leads to far less content being digitally preserved. The number of people using Yiff Party's importer service is proof of this; everything was better when the bots (Deus ex Machina) were creating fake accounts and uploading stuff online, but now that it's up to you guys who are actual human beings, I wouldn't be surprised if you even manage a single percent of what the bots used to be sharing.
And there's also the difference between some random Japanese artist on Pixiv releasing art on Pixiv Fanbox and Blizzard releasing Diablo, or Eiichiro Oda releasing a weekly chapter of One Piece. The latter two carry a huge financial incentive and competition to having their stuff cracked/scanned and uploaded online, whereas some random Pixiv artist isn't going to generate traffic for advertisers, miners, and whatever weird piracy subscription services (these are common in Chinese internet) the crackers/scanners and leakers need to keep doing what they're doing. It's also not like the host of Yiff Party is magnanimously hosting this stuff out of his own wallet with the monthly donation drives (and he's one of the rare exceptional hosts that doesn't have malware-infested advertisements peppered everywhere).
Anonymous 02/11/20(Tue)08:49:39 No. [R]
It's as >>59211 said.
>This is false. Hardly anything gets leaked because there's way too much stuff, and hardly enough incentive for people to archive and share everything in existence.
Nobody's been leaking my Patreon for months. If it ever does leak, it's early access to stuff I release publicly anyways, so the overall impact of this site, at least on my Patreon, has been minimal to none income wise.
Maybe I'm just bad at Patreon which is why nobody cares about mine here. The only people I've seen get upset and take action with watermarks and banning people and the such are the ones probably making more than they should off of stuff that I'm shocked hasn't gotten taken down with a copyright notice from Nintendo yet. (Like they supposedly did with Kuro's.)
Anonymous 02/12/20(Wed)07:14:30 No. [R]
You are one of those good-hearted creators what cares about consumers. Repect, bruv.
Anonymous 02/12/20(Wed)09:53:01 No. [R]
It makes sense. There is a lot of huge legal issues that can be associated with porn, and Patron likely figured it's better for them to keep their hands off of it than to try lay and claims and bring fourth a whole mess of legal trouble on their doorstep. The other only option would be to basically ban porn from their platform, and we all saw how well that ended when Tumblr attempted it.
Their chance of stance seems to be around the time that some creators like Kuroodod and Diives were given a C&D by Nintendo to stop drawing Pokemon, I would bet that had something to do with it. Thousands of people on Patreon draw Pokemon porn as well as porn of many other Nintendo properties still, not to mention characters from many other well known litigious corporations such as Disney, Square-Enix, Blizzard, etc. Patreon clearly just wants to be a "safe harbor" and wants to deal with none of that. By basically putting all of the ownership and control on the content creators, they avoid the lawsuits and C&D's coming to them and having them go to the creators to deal with instead.
But by washing their hands of the matter, they also don't have much legal routes by with to go after people who redistribute the content either, so they really can't do much without moving the target from the content creators on the site to themselves. I bet they figured that the money they would lose and legal trouble they would face form doing that far far outweighs what money they are losing from this site existing. Especially when you consider that instances like the cherry-picked example in that article where someone actually loses any significant amount from piracy are rare, in most cases the ones who pirate would not pay if they had no free options regardless, so cutting off the piracy wouldn't suddenly cause a large influx of subscribers.
Anonymous 02/13/20(Thu)07:36:21 No. [R]
Selling products of pornography and non-public-domain content is unethical. period.
Anonymous 02/17/20(Mon)15:03:29 No. [R]
I mean that's nice, but nothing new. Patreon was never going to be able to stop this site. Patreon artists are still gonna use the site as a paywall rather than a donation page. Unless that changes (which it won't unless Patreon takes away that function, which it won't) things will be exactly the same here.
Anonymous 02/17/20(Mon)18:20:04 No. [R]
Anonymous 02/25/20(Tue)15:35:48 No. [R]
That's were they are mistaken, this place doesn't cost them shit, why would they bother trying to stop it?
If anything its free advertising, who the fuck wants to come here when they can drop by the patreon or gumroad and get everything easily.
Only people who literally can't afford it use this place and its not like we will magically get money to spend even if this place goes up in smoke.
Anonymous 02/25/20(Tue)18:19:41 No. [R]
Imagine importing a Patreon with a $1 paywall Lol, Its so easy to spot out the majority of kids on this thread under the age of 18 when they go on rants about how optionally paying for something in return for something else is a diservice to consumers Lmao. Its simple, if you can't afford something you don't get it, I know growing up in this era has given you all a sense of entitlement to entertainment from creators who can barely make minimum living with the stuff they produce these days, but you cant be that in·com·pe·tent when it comes to logic can you?
Anonymous 02/26/20(Wed)10:01:03 No. [R]
Imagine thinking that people get into the porn industry with no intention of making money Lmao
Anonymous 02/29/20(Sat)23:21:20 No. [R]
>Providing a material for consumption in order to relieve a human need is not a job
Selling food is not a real job, bucko.
Anonymous 03/01/20(Sun)06:45:10 No. [R]
LMAO, porn is not a human need. Sex IS THE REAL human need, so the prostitution is the real job.
Anonymous 03/01/20(Sun)10:41:06 No. [R]
Sex is not a need, you don't die without it. The species will die without it, but that's a different issue. Thriving in the future isn't the same as not dying today.
Anonymous 03/01/20(Sun)12:44:57 No. [R]
Elementary school retards in here lmfao
Anonymous 03/01/20(Sun)17:28:07 No. [R]
>Create art of IP that belongs to a company
>Try to paywall it
>People don't want to pay for that shit
>Pirate it instead, share it with everyone for free
>"But muh finances"
Well deserved. Maybe do something original if you wanna complain about copyright instead of drawing copyrighted shit and trying to sell it as your own.
Anonymous 03/01/20(Sun)23:25:21 No. [R]
most of you antisocial and apathetic people wouldn't give a shit about intellectual property and licensing rights of companies (most of them which bought the rights from the creators very early on to begin with, so the real creative mind isn't even calling any shots anymore, meaning the creative coherency is already ruined) turn into bleeding-heart activists when it affects your bottomline. i'd rather call you greedy for wanting all the content in the world than a person who's putting out quality work, spending time and utilizing pursued talents.
dude 03/04/20(Wed)20:13:52 No. [R]
"most of you antisocial and apathetic people wouldn't give a shit about intellectual property and licensing rights of companies (most of them which bought the rights from the creators very early on to begin with, so the real creative mind isn't even calling any shots anymore, meaning the creative coherency is already ruined) turn into bleeding-heart activists when it affects your bottomline. i'd rather call you greedy for wanting all the content in the world than a person who's putting out quality work, spending time and utilizing pursued talents."
Dude you want free shit because you are cheap. Just say so. No one gives a fuck either way. But stop pretending you are fucking martin luther king or something, you are just a cheap asshole loser like everyone else here.
Anonymous 03/04/20(Wed)21:34:22 No. [R]
> wouldn't give a shit about intellectual property and licensing rights of companies
Most of the things on our platform are exactly those that violates intellectual property and anti-obscenity laws, we are just giving you a taste of your own medicine.
The law will not protect you, they will take you out before they will ever take us out. Just watch who will last in the long term.
da pak 03/05/20(Thu)15:44:54 No. [R]
when they say, “I am an artist, I live off my work, and sometimes Patreon is the only income I have,”
GET A JOB>>>
if you really want to be graphic artist get a job from animation studios, they need it..
i mean if you wanna be the next rembrandt, don't post it on the net, post it on auction...
artist life is hard, good thing today they have patreons, they can milk money to idiots for a long time.
before time, artist are mainly poor, they need to paint and sell their painting for a living, and most of the time starve to death until their painting is sold for just a meal, painting price gets higher if the painter dies, yeah danm auctionist only gets the riches .. now patreons dudes milk more or less $30k+ a month and they still complain they being robbed because somepeople didn't pay the paywall.. FUK THEM, they are a disgrace from the artist and a true artist itself..
artist want to capture the moment or visualize a moment and let the people see what they believe (vinci), they express themself through art even if their poor (rembrandt), some of them have sickness but still presents (van gogh), and some are lucky, aristocrats buy paintings (piccaso) and some, you can't even tell if its rubbish or art because is abstract (pollock).
da pak 03/05/20(Thu)15:45:25 No. [R]
now this internet artist thinks they're artist? get real... they are just greedy.. they make art to get rich, they defeating the purpose and meaning of "ARTIST" well that isn't bad piccaso did that.. but fuk $30k+ a month LOL.. you can even beat piccaso's income in just a few years (considering when he's time and alive and ordinary income and that death won't affect the painting value to rise) and still they complain??? such greed
big problem is that they post it on the net, yeah tthey also want publicity and fame.. post it on some gallery or auction if you complaining while having so much income for a month.. what they can't hang them on gallery or auction because their work are LEWDS? so? even in greek time they paint and mold LEWDS like the venus statue
Anonymous 03/05/20(Thu)16:45:17 No. [R]
> but fuk $30k+ a month LOL..
the absolute fuck you talking about lol. 99.99% of internet artists don't make the MilesDF numbers like that. Most of them survive off of less than 400 bucks a month, spending as much time as a full-time job as they do their work.
"Picasso's income" Are you an actual goddamn fucking child or do you really believe today's the same as 50 years ago?
Anonymous 03/11/20(Wed)20:48:38 No. [R]
>if you don't agree with the artist's terms, then don't pay / access
Imagine there's a market where people go to by McGuffins. People really like them - at least until they get bored. You could say that the people are buying a continuous supply of new ones. There's two kinds of sellers: the first makes a McGuffin and sells it. They keep making a new one every month. The second kind does the same, but after a month they take it back to sell it again, only making new ones if people stop paying for the old ones; they don't even have to be good as long as there's many. Renting out in small installments, the price seems low so the customers think it's good value.
There's also a law that says you have to give the McGuffin back: people believe it's a moral right and you're a thief if you don't. Nobody remembers it's because the sellers used to pay their King for the right. Now they just keep all the money. The celebrity rent-seeking sellers are making bank so everyone tries the same - but oh - the buyers have already paid their money to the top rent-seekers. At any time there are only so many buyers with so much money. The rest fight over scraps and most quit; the buyers complain that there's only the same shit to be had. Most people get a bad deal.
Not paying the rent changes nothing. The only way to break the pattern is to break the game. You keep what you paid for and give it around so it can't be re-sold. When the rent-seekers can't make any money, there's enough left over to pay the other kind of seller who competes with variety and quality instead of old crap for five dollars a month.
That's the point of "piracy".
Anonymous 03/11/20(Wed)20:54:46 No. [R]
That's also the point why you shouldn't be giving any money to Patreon panhandlers and other people who simply beg with the excuse of drawing art. Spend it on someone who actually does shit for it. Unfortunately, Patreon made it so that you can hide your income so people can't check how much you're pulling in for what effort - so the best guide is to just not subscribe to anyone who doesn't give you explicit terms for what the money gets.
Anonymous 03/11/20(Wed)21:45:01 No. [R]
Picasso was piss-poor, didn't do well in school or work because of his obsession with his art and dislike of authority, and his art was considered to be shit by most of the people at the time. He became famous and rich by developing Cubism, which was a completely new approach to art and worked well alongside with the anti-war Dadaist sentiment. It was after that that aristocrats started buying his art, yet he didn't go down simply repeating the same thing and developed into Surrealism.
The point is, MilesDF can pull off $800 for a single derivative cookie cutter YCH in a group painting because he's a celebrity whose very name is a status symbol for the customers in their little social circlejerk. Not many remember that Miles got into that position by aping various Disney cartoon artists for ten years before he got consistent enough that people started asking him for character commissions. Then the celebrity effect took over, the money went up and his quality and originality went down. He's milked it ever since. Picasso had to fight to get recognition against traditionalist views and got paid shit all until much later - Miles just copied earlier better artists for money from the very beginning.
The artists who complain about the pay are like MilesDF. Once you start paying them, you get less, not more.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)05:48:56 No. [R]
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)06:06:19 No. [R]
Exactly, and totally agree. Even if you're agree with the paywalls, you have to admit that you will not give money to someone who don't tell you wat you will get with the payment. In this point, i don't know who's to blame, if Patreon for add this funtion, or the artist who use it.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)07:24:13 No. [R]
This is actually a good economic argument regarding the "fine art money laundering" perspective.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)15:35:56 No. [R]
You can't miss a point that wasn't there. The question wasn't about how things are different from when Picasso was making himself known - the question is about different approaches: art for money / money for art. People who make their income through paywalls, begging, and who go on pro-copyright crusades, are those who are trying to minimize effort for maximum profits. People who would literally sell their own ass to be able to make their art are the truly deserving ones.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)15:38:17 No. [R]
Supply side capitalists are always trying to eliminate competition to jack up the prices; in art and media this is accomplished by artificially restricting supply and availability. They engage in rent-seeking (see wikipedia) which is generally detrimental to the economy or the market segment where it's happening - it's one of the failures in free markets that may occur because the capitalists go to the state and buy special rights for themselves. With copyrights it happened 300 years ago when the Stationers' Guild in England got their monopoly on printing turned into a general copyright law after the Parliament of Great Britain decided they no longer deserve the monopoly.
They did it by arguing that authors had certain rights of exclusivity - but crucially, these rights could be sold - so then the Stationers simply refused to print unless they were sold the rights - and retained the monopoly.
The irony is when you suggests that copyrights are outmoded and were never just to begin with - you're instantly called a communist.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)16:08:36 No. [R]
> 99.99% of internet artists don't make the MilesDF numbers like that
They are trying to - that's the issue. They're trying to min-max with art and play the same game because they're short sighted and can't understand what harm they're doing to themselves, or think they're somehow exempt from the market mechanism. You see how the market for art is shit, pays very little, because it's like crabs in a bucket when you aim for the wrong target. John Forbes Nash would have a thing or two to say about that... but then again, most artists aren't economists and literally don't understand shit about money. All they can see are the celebrities pulling in top dollar, and think they can all be like that.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)16:24:19 No. [R]
> you have to admit that you will not give money to someone who don't tell you wat you will get with the payment
I've noticed that most people who support these artists don't actually understand or never bothered to check what they're paying for. They simply assume they're paying for the art, when in reality the Patreon subscription simply gives access to a gallery. It's a museum ticket you pay monthly even if the exhibits never change...
If you weed out all the museum keepers, 99% of Patreon artists would get no money.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)18:55:24 No. [R]
And seriously, compare. The comic book Blacksad - Silent Hell, sold ~20,000 copies with its fourth print run. 112 pages. Suppose both authors want to make $50,000 out of that. Of course they made less than that because the publisher took most of the money, but suppose it was an online publication with practically no distribution/middle-man costs. That's $893 a page. If you have 20,000 patrons to pay, it would cost each 5 cents a page or exactly $5 for the entire book.
Meanwhile, Patreon comics artists artists are pushing one or two pages a month and charging you $6 for a subscription. Even at the cheapest, you're paying upwards of $600 for an amateur comic book, compared to around $20 for a professionally made printed hardcover. That's absolutely mad - you're being totally ass-raped if you're paying any of that.
If the Patreon artists had the good sense of offering 20-30 cent subscriptions, maybe they too would get 10,000 subscribers and make a good $24-36k a year gross from that because paying 20 cents is nothing - literally everyone can do that even for just shits and giggles - but they're suckered into thinking that you have to charge 30x too much and alienate 99% of your potential audience. Instead of $2-3000 a month they'll make $600-900 a month tops and complain they're not getting enough for a living.
Anonymous 03/12/20(Thu)19:58:58 No. [R]
Wait, really? Shit, then the things are more fucked up than i thought.
Also, your comparison with the museum and Patreon is pretty accurate, you know?
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)08:22:17 No. [R]
Holy shit, okay!
Just live in your little comfy bubble and explain the world like this to yourself if reality is too much to handle.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)14:18:51 No. [R]
Look who's talking. Copyrights are literally legal fiction and the people who depend on them for a living are really pulling the wool over your eyes.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)15:32:55 No. [R]
This is one of those times where I say "so as all your other rights and privileges".
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)19:04:12 No. [R]
That's not how it works. "Legal fiction" means treating some counterfactual as true in order to give a judgement, such as in adoption where a person's biological parents are no longer considered their parents and instead the adoptive parents are, against all observable facts. Rights and privileges granted by constitutions are simple agreements to have these rights, whereas copyrights are fictive in the previous sense. Legal fictions are sometimes used for justice, but mostly they're avoided because they are basically make-belief and easily turn into legal fraud. It's especially insidious if legal fiction is piled on legal fiction, such as having corporate personhood and the allowing corporations to actually vote or stand government office, because you're pretending they're people.
If you think copyright is a real right - that you can "own" a piece of "immaterial property" in any meaningful sense - then please bring me the hole of a donut. Not the bit with the dough; just the hole. Let me hold it in my hand and I'll grant you that copyright is a proper right.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)19:16:16 No. [R]
To explain. Copyright is the idea that an idea or concept or a piece of information, like the words to "Happy birthday" are equivalently real like a piece of gold, that they can be traded and owned and stolen, that each individual instance of their "existence" carries value for the purpose of saying that you've lost or gained it.
To debunk that, you can take an MP3 file that's valued by iTunes or Spotify etc. to be worth a dollar. Cool, now just copy/paste it a million times. Do you have a million dollars worth of music? Of course not. The information does not contain any value - the value was actually in the process and the effort of coming up with the information in the first place. If you copy the same MP3 file to a million people, no new information is created, the original authors do not spend any more effort, so why should anyone be paid anything all over again?
The question of copyrights then is simply about whether the music label who now pretends to "own" the information can seek rent over it - to charge money without adding value to anything.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)19:35:06 No. [R]
You might argue that the music label - or anyone acting in that role - is indeed providing value because they act as distributors and archivists, so each person who has the access deserves to pay some nominal compensation for that effort.
But then, you can ask, why can't you just copy off of a copy and have your own distribution and archiving? Literally anyone could do it at their own expense. Oh - right - copyrights. It's a circular argument. You're not allowed because you're not allowed.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)20:05:01 No. [R]
Never 4get UMG fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)20:22:49 No. [R]
Of course there are certain arguable and reasonable rights that authors have - such as the right to not be defamed. An author's work should not be used against its purpose, or to injure the author - such as using a painting to sell a product or promote an idea that the painter doesn't approve of, because that makes other people think that the author does approve. An author has the moral right to choose the context of their art as presented to the public in the sense of commercial or political appropriation, but not who or how people can access it otherwise.
The author's job is to create, and the distributors job is to distribute. The author's rights do not naturally extend to distribution - to "copyright", except where the copying would negatively affect the author's person. This is not an economic right - you're not owed a profit over your work by default in any case, because you can't assign value by law. That would literally be communism.
Anonymous 03/13/20(Fri)21:36:08 No. [R]
That's a thing as well. The author has the natural right to keep any master copies - naturally because you can't force them to give away the source material. To ensure that the originals survive, you shouldn't hoard them in one spot, but to ensure that you can keep releasing "digitally re-mastered editions" for future audiences and sell the same thing multiple times, it's crucial that you keep them under lock and key.
That's another thing that Patreon artists do: have tiered releases. One group pays a dollar and gets low resolution crap, another pays $25 and gets the "high res" stuff or the original PSDs. You can kinda see the point of that, but it's really just the same artificial scarcity and fake value: you're holding back from some people in order to charge others more.
This is a common market practice. For example, you may buy a gadget X that has feature Y built in by default, but they're disabled unless you pay extra. Same cost to the manufacturer, different price to the consumer. It's all about charging more for the same thing by artificially restricting supply. It's basically cheating and a bad deal.
Anonymous 03/21/20(Sat)06:34:33 No. [R]
Knew as soon as this article was posted that things were gonna get shittier around here, same thing happened with when Kotaku and that other interview went talking about this place.
The board was just scraping by with the minimal amount of comman sense, and since then the brain dead 1 post topics have tripled cause people are to ignorant to fucking read, and maybe take a guess as to why we have request threads, and a fucking dedicated and highlighted "issues and feedback" thread for questions and complaints...
Then there's all the reactionary, game/anime streamer shit that's been booming lately, it makes the ethot surge look like a godsend...
Anonymous 03/22/20(Sun)07:38:56 No. [R]
As a weeb, I find streamers and camgirls as bottom of the barrel.
anonymous 03/24/20(Tue)02:46:05 No. [R]
soon yifi.party will be shut down !