cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply


Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from sexyfur.com and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.
Flockmod!

File: 206.jpg - (41.40 KB, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
42397 No.3480057

https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#adult-content

>Lastly, you cannot sell pornographic material or arrange sexual service(s) as a reward for your patrons. You can’t use Patreon to raise funds in order to produce pornographic material

That means end to paywalls. Let's see how long it takes before butthurt artists start posting whiny journals about how "Patreon destroyed their only income" to FA.

No.3480058

Aw SNAP.

>butthurt artists start posting whiny journals about how "Patreon destroyed their only income"

Well, all I can say to that, is I hope they made as much as they could b4 the change.

No.3480060

Remember to do your part and report every artist you can. I've already sent out nearly 30.

Recommended:
Miles-df (patreon.com/mdf)
Kayla-na (patreon.com/kayla-na)
Jasonafex (patreon.com/jasonafex)
Kabier (patreon.com/kabiercomics)
SherriMayim (patreon.com/sherrimayim)

WE CAN DO THIS, WE CAN TAKE IT ALL DOWN

No.3480061

Can't they just call their patreon a tipbox and continue with business as usual? The ones that don't paywall, that is.

No.3480062

>>3480060

You are a faggot.

No.3480064

>>3480060

look at all the butthurt lmao!

No.3480065
File: 12w0g866i3rz.png - (626.00 KB, 682x689) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
641020

>>3480060

Why do you imagine they would keep putting in effort to make art if they are making no money off of it?

No.3480067

>>3480064
lol epic trolling for the win

No.3480068

Business as usual. Use the porn first stage booster then jetison it once you're in orbit.

No.3480073

>>3480060 flag too many and theyll think you are butthurt and ignore them all.

No.3480074

>>3480065

>Why do you imagine they would keep putting in effort to make art if they are making no money off of it?

Patreon paywalls are a means of making money off of art with minimum effort, by rent-seeking. The ultimate aim of a paywall is to lock everything behind it and then just collect entry fees to the exhibit without ever working again.

Without Patreon, people just have to go back to business as usual: commissions.

No.3480076
>We ask creators to flag themselves as Adult Content if you create any content that has mature themes such as sexuality or graphic violence.

Op is an autist that can't read between the lines, this is a polite way to say: No IRL pornography such as photos and videos, anything else (ie drawings, cgi, text) we will tolerate it as a work of "art".
This means no more women making easy money only because they have a vagina between their legs, but rather they need at least some talent to create something with their hands.

No.3480086

>>3480074

>without ever working again

They are working to keep the thing updated dipshit.

No.3480088

>>3480086

>They are working to keep the thing updated dipshit.

I see the point flew over your head.

The point and ultimate aim of any paywall is that people couldn't access the content anywhere else. A paywall is all about minimizing the amount of value and work you have to provide in return for the money, because it's setting up artifical scarcity and forcing/fooling people into paying more.

Your complaint is like pointing out that a beggar has to do some amount of work to shake the cup at you. Yes, and so what?

No.3480090
File: wat.jpg - (11.16 KB, 244x220) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
11431
>Let's see how long it takes before butthurt artists start posting whiny journals about how "Patreon destroyed their only income" to FA.

What's so unreasonable about being mad that you aren't getting paid for your work anymore?

No.3480119

>>3480090

Entitled communists will never give you an answer worth hearing.

No.3480122
File: 23.jpg - (204.64 KB, 810x561) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
209552

>>3480119

I personally wish it was true in the context the OP gave. It's become a sea of paywall advertising on major art sites with little artistic merit and no forced "solicitation" tagging on places like FA has washed out everything worth looking at in a sea of shit. Thinning the heard would be welcome at this point so we can go back to pre-2013 commission atmosphere where paywalling, giant watermark crops, and homogenizing content to the biggest demographics wasn't in the grasp of every amateur artist who didn't know when to quit. Even people symbol drawing things with low viewership/demand are spamming constant advertising into tags and the artistic commons that should be full of appreciable art.

Doesn't look like it's covered under this unless the definitions of fetish/bestiality content. People like Zaush and some of the other low hanging fruit sound to be at risk though... I doubt they'd ever enforce it considering they get a free cut of the mentally ill disability dosh extortion racket.

Yiff.party was a good first step, hopefully there is room for a little push back here it's really overdue. Either way furry specific paywall alternatives would probably crop back up eventually and the cycle would repeat. There are already JP specific ones like Enty and others that might be looking to expand soon and likely have a more open policy towards cubs, gore, and other traditional Japanese patrician tastes.

No.3480127

I prefer paywall leaks to commissions.

Seeing artists work on characters they like, making comics about subjects they enjoy, is much more organic and enjoyable than seeing the same fucking welfare guy/girl fucking everything imaginable.

Do you really prefer the old way? That that blue pussy dog chick, the rainbow haired zebra, and that fucking thing with the dragon whiskers showing up in every goddamn thing?

I hate that shit.

No.3480128

Oh and by welfare, I mean most of the major commission whales are people who are disabled and living on government disability checks and child support.

No.3480141

>>3480127
That content is still produced if you're talking about Artica Sparkledog and the nasty mustache man types. They just need to go through Patreon commission raffle incentives. Most anger comes from art sites becoming a tragedy of the commons with YCH, streaming notifications, and paywall advert flooding every tag. It also resulted in drastically reduced production in skilled artists I follow and less "doing your own comic thing" in favor of FOTM, bandwagon, and stall. I have absolutely no problem being subjected to advertising and generating revenue off work with a 2 week delay before publicly releasing in HD like the Bird or Zootopia smut comics; it's the full indefinite paywall advertising crop spammers and "free" shit resolution versions no one would be able to jerk off to that bother me. It's not "free", it increased my time spent trying to find the good stuff by 2+ hours a week. I value my time at $39/hr an hour... I'm better off commissioning and not looking at the smoking crater of something I used to love. In 2012 I could get 10+ things a week, now I get 2-3 and it takes a shit ton longer while I sit there limp as fuck trying to figure out what I'm looking at behind a Patreon logo and if it's even worth stealing (it's not).

Here are the 4 paywall artists I even have the desire to pirate from:
Tchaikovsky2 (would tip jar if not pay walled; pirate once a month or so)
CoolBlue (would tip jar if not pay walled, haven't jerked off to sonic porn in decades; rare pirate depends on character)
Kanevexart (formerly tip jarred but stopped because they gated high res files; pirate once every few months)

Every other pay waller just leaves mountains of crap I have to dig through, there are too god damn many of them since it became so easy to do. They need to be thinned out.

No.3480142

>>3480127

>Seeing artists work on characters they like

That's not what happens with Patreon, because they still need to attract the customers - and since the people who are insane enough to pay month after month for the shit are generally going to be insane, you still get the same sparkledogs.

No.3480144

Nah. Diives is a fan of pokemon. Doing what he wants.
Jailbird, does whatever jailbird wants.
The tied tigress, does whatever the fuck she wants.

I'm happy with that.

I guess ya'll mad that Naylor keeps doing his piss fetish stuff instead of doing 150 comissions of Sherri or Jelomaus

No.3480145

>>3480122
can you post the full version of that pic

No.3480146
File: surprise penis.png - (1094.25 KB, 1000x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1120508

>>3480145

No.3480148
File: fa.jpg - (49.94 KB, 763x574) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
51134

>>3480146
wasn't expecting cub
but i probably should have been

No.3480167
>I drew art unsolicited, I deserve money for it

That's not how it works, you stupid bastards.

No.3480172

>>3480167

>waaah my penis
No.3480177
File: mappy_by_fryguy64-d568e9c.png - (317.15 KB, 600x630) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
324757

REPORT ZAUSH'S PATREON ACCOUNT!

No.3480179

>>3480057
Any artist can workaround this by having the low resolution version freely available and the high resolution only on patreon.

No.3480181

>>3480167
I made music unsolicited I deserve money. I made a movie unsolicited, i deserve money. That's not how that works stupid.

No.3480182

>>3480167

>literally doesn't understand how patronage works

Guess you're stupid?

No.3480183
File: 3afbc4098da393da913092df16fa2c3f.jpg - (263.55 KB, 1005x786) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
269874

Patreon furry artists are the jews of furry, only solution is scorch the promised land

No.3480185

>>3480182

>Guess you're stupid?

Look who's talking. Deserving money and asking for money are two different things.

>>3480181

>I made music unsolicited I deserve money. I made a movie unsolicited, i deserve money. That's not how that works stupid.

That's exactly how that works. Just because you do something, you are not automatically entitled money for it. The reason why in practice everyone has to pay the copyright mafia for music, movies, even if you aren't directly the consumer of said stuff or you never wanted any of it, is because it's a fucking racket that was successfully lobbied into the legal system about 200 years ago and now it's so entrenched and supported by idiots like you that it's hard to get rid of.

No.3480191

I would love to see any of you get so much as a single furry Patreon taken down. Really. Popping my popcorn right now.

And no, the artist taking it down because they're spooked or angered by policy doesn't count. Show me evidence that your complaints to Patreon made the company take action against the artist. Until then, all your muttering about ideals means less than nothing.

No.3480198

>>3480057

How much of a fucking faggot are you? They're talking about ACTUAL pornography, as in photos and videos. Furry smut is not going anywhere. Go play Nintendo or something

No.3480219

>>3480185

They're charging you for exposure, not for their time invested. If they were charging you specifically for time invested, they'd be paying themselves minimum wage. That means that your minimum fee would be much higher than 1 or 5 dollars a month.

Plenty of people made/make things, with the intent to sell them if there is a demand. You think some blacksmith made a doorknob, some hinges, or a lock, knowing exactly who would come in and purchase it next?

Have you not heard of "off the rack" products?

Just be glad that digital goods do not cost anything to duplicate, or you'd be paying playboy prices for your spank material.

No.3480225

>>3480198 they should put limits on how much a person can ask for and based on hours etc details per piece of production say unless its painted you get no $500 per piece of art you get a maximum of $240 tops and artists will begin to produce more to get access to funds. if they can't live off of $1500 a month then they are trying too hard or not living right.

No.3480235

>>3480225

Oh fuck off with that arbitrary thoughtless bullshit.

By that logic, a computer programmer is using so few calories and doing so little damage to their body, they should be paid worse than fast food workers, and construction workers should be default millionaires.

No.3480236
File: DMmIoMMVAAE0YM9.jpg - (171.45 KB, 1201x821) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
175563

Patreon?

More like

I'm broke as hell and this car is fuckin' me in the tailhole

No.3480237

>>3480225

>1500 a month

That's below the poverty line in Ontario for a single adult, and not much above if you're earning USD and getting the benefit of exchange. Is that really what the average person should be aspiring to?

No.3480238

>>3480236
Also this image is amazing

No.3480263

>>3480219

>You think some blacksmith made a doorknob, some hinges, or a lock, knowing exactly who would come in and purchase it next?

Apples to oranges. A blacksmith gets paid once for one doorknob. They cannot charge multiple people multiple times for the same thing. The value is in the item; a doorknob or a lock is useful of itself.

The value of art is not in the art itself, but in the labor of the artist to create it. Art that already exists cannot be valued or priced - only the work that went into it can, and if nobody asked you to do that work, you have no demand on other people's money. It's your loss.

>Have you not heard of "off the rack" products?

Those things exist because there is demand for such things - the demand just fluctuates so that you need to keep an inventory. Nobody makes warehouses full of shit just on the bet that someone might want to buy it.

No.3480264

>>3480219

>If they were charging you specifically for time invested, they'd be paying themselves minimum wage.

The amount of money they get paid for their work depends on how in-demand their work is, because better artists with higher quality and higher output per hour fetch better prices on the market and are able to sell more. They are able to negotiate better prices because they are better - the amateurs and panhandlers get nothing.

That's the point you don't seem to understand. The purpose of paywalls and general copyrights fuckery is to lower the bar for the artist by making multiple people pay multiple times for the same shit, cheating a dollar here and another there to hide the full expense from the customers, so the customer would not understand they're being taken for fools.

You seem to be under the belief that the artist automatically deserves the money, even when the market is so over-saturated by complete amateurs that under a fair pricing mechanism none of them would be making anything.

The main problem of this paywall cheating is exactly that there isn't an infinite amount of money to go around the furry art market. People are only willing to spend so much on art, and how that money gets distributed now is more a matter of how good a bullshitter you are rather than how good and prolific an artist you are.

No.3480266
File: tumblr_no9kjjB71F1s4u7aqo1_500.jpg - (32.68 KB, 500x356) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
33461

Let's suppose for example that you work 20 hours a week on your art and produce four complete pictures per month. You have 1,000 patrons.

Under a work-value payment scheme, you declare your price: you want to make $500 for each picture, for $2000 a month. Divided by 1,000 payers, that's $2 a month each. Here the people are not looking at the $2 but at the $2000 you'll be getting for just four pictures - and if they are like picture related, nobody in their right mind would pay that much. It would seem unreasonable because that $2000 could be awarded to better artists who return better value for the money.

Under the paywall scheme, you do not declare your demand per amount of work, but instead you are holding the art at ransom - people have to pay for access. It means you're defining your "value" by the amount of stuff you already have locked up behind your paywall, which is increasing all the time: ideally there would be no access to the art outside of the paywall - no private copies or siterips, so that each customer would have to keep paying to maintain access. That's why the customer is looking only at the $2 they are personally paying for the monthly pass, not your true value output, so it's a completely different game. This value is illusory, artifical and made up, and that means your customers are unable to evaluate whether it's worth spending the money on you. The $2 may seem a reasonable amount to pay even for comparatively shitty art, but it means that people in general are paying too much for too little, and so these low-value artists are grabbing all the available cash, leaving the better value artists without income by dilution.

No.3480269

>>3480266
In theory, with the definition of value where the monthly payment is compared to the amount of stuff it can access, the artist eventually has to do nothing. They can stop working, because there will be continuously new people joining the market, who haven't already seen it all, and they'll be paying the $2 because it seems like a pitifully small sum for the content it can access - it's small enough that it's not worth the trouble asking around for a pirated copy.

In practice the paywall has to leak a little or the people wouldn't find it, so the artist has to put out a minimum amount of value to keep the customers coming. That however doesn't mean they have to do nearly as much work for the money compared to the artist who sells their work rather than selling the artifical scarcity of a paywall.

The point is that it's perfectly possible to make money over art fairly, and not succumb to poverty level income or untolerable sweatshop hours and conditions. It just requires that you hold up a minimum standard of quality and competence. You need to be at least reasonably good; the paywallers are trying their best to avoid that.

No.3480276

People paywall art because they aren't good at marketing their work. Commissions take too much time, effort and requires them to draw shit they don't like. Artists are lazy and uninspired.

No.3480278

Y'know, I supported a couple of cool artists through patreon for a couple of months, firstly because I really enjoyed their artwork, then secondly because they would post the lowres version of their work for the general public, then for their patrons they'd post the highres + variations.
I'm surprised with how many of you are sided with the bad artists. What the hell, folks?
I refuse to believe salty artists come here to bitch and defend themselves as anons. That's just pathetic.

No.3480279
File: e1dd4d91fba91b4c412621d21b39c508.jpg - (296.19 KB, 1164x1038) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
303294

>>3480278
The entire furry market is alien to me. 17 years not a single penny on furry commissions or paywalls. Yet, have more porn than I have time to organize. Granted, it doesn't always hit the spot dead-on but imagination fills the gaps just fine.

No.3480298
File: 1239113945736.jpg - (36.56 KB, 407x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
37437

>>3480266
Stop huffing your own farts you fucking retard. You have to pay for software right? Hur dur once they made the videogame its like illusory value they hold at ransom mmaaaan. Posts like these demonstrate how you can go to college, learn big words, but still stay stupid bullshit.

No.3480311

>>3480263

Except the locksmith can use a factory or machine to produce multiple copies of said thing to be "used" by people.

Art is copied digitally via patreon to reach more people.

Same way comics do, movies do, etc..

No.3480312

>>3480276

>Artists are lazy and uninspired.

Funny, because a lot of people say that about artists (movie ones), photographers, sport stars..

Only idiots say that because they literally know nothing about how much effort it takes to reach a certain level.

I could easily say a Doctor should be paid 1$ for my visit, because he "fixed me" in 5 minutes or less.
But the knowledge AND experience is what makes him fix me in 5 minutes.

And as usual, if you do not like certain service, YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
If you're butthurt to cry about paywalls... it means you wanted the art, except for free.

You wanted the cake, the scrubs and everything and giving nothing in return.

No.3480314

>>3480298

> You have to pay for software right?

Free software exists. Proprietary software has the exact same problems - the actual programmers get paid for their hour and if they don't put out enough work in a period of time, they're sacked. Meanwhile the company that owns the rights to the software is not charging you proportional to the amount of work - if that were the case then the price of the software would go down the more people bought it. Instead they are increasingly trying to fuck you by re-defining what they're doing as a "service", i.e. you may pay monthly to use MS Office, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which is the software equivalent of a paywall. The real value is still in the man-hours of work put in by the programmers, and the price you pay has nothing to do with the fact.

>Hur dur once they made the videogame its like illusory value

It is, again for the same reason. The $60 or whatever you pay for a new game is completely made up, based only on estimating the optimum price that maximizes the money paid - it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of value you get as a player. It's based on years and years of conditioning the customers to believe that a certain price is the normal thing to pay, and as the prices went up, all the middle men "found use" for the money and increased the apparent expenses as well - like demanding ever-higher copyright royalties for using a voice actor.

So in software as in movies, music, etc. - it's a pyramid of bullshit where high prices are justified as expenses caused by the same bullshit one step lower, and the actual authors and workers who are paid by the hour, are paid only fraction of what the stack of middle-men and managers/agents take.

If you think the price of a copyrighted video game, any price, is a "good deal for the value", you've fallen in the bullshit. You're not paying for the real value.

No.3480316

Why do thousands of people in my town pay $2.00 each every day to buy the daily newspaper from convenience stores and newspaper machines? The publisher only created it once, by God, how dare they sell an individual copy to each person that gladly forks over the money.

No.3480317

>>3480314
Maybe because like the idiot who paid $2 million dollars for the only existing copy of the custom made-for-him Wang Tu Clan CD, people would rather not pay a million each for a game or piece of software. Instead they pay maybe $20 each, which covers a tiny part of the creation costs and wages of the people involved with maybe a little left over for profit, and mind you every CD or book or whatever does NOT make a profit, MOST of them LOSE money after costs. If I made a CD and printed a thousand copies to sell it would probably lose money, because who would want it, and I would be worse off than before I started. Are you willing to take that risk yourself, chickenshit? No, you are not.

No.3480319

>>3480311

>Except the locksmith can use a factory or machine to produce multiple copies of said thing to be "used" by people.

Still not the same thing. You're comparing physical tangible items to virtual untangible entities - a stone and an idea do not have the same properties.

The locksmith can lower their expenses per unit by the use of a machine, but it cannot be made arbitrarily low. In fact, if the market for locks remains the same size, then adding the machine is actually more expensive as no more locks can be sold. Furthermore, as they are trying to make more and more, they run into marginal costs of production where the expense per unit starts to go up as they find it difficult to source more materials, energy, time, labor, space for storing the finished articles, logistics for moving them around... etc. etc. Likewise, obviously, if someone else were to make copies to fill some of the demand for locks, the blacksmith is again left with unsold inventory and takes a real loss.

A digital file on the other hand can be copied billions of times at virtually no further cost to anybody - so the original author does not suffer any real loss even if everyone in the world got a free copy. There's no embedded value in a string of 1's and 0's, and so the virtual item does not carry its own value like a physical item does. That would be absurd, as you would essentially be claiming that simply copy/pasting your hard drive full of the same file would somehow be value - as if it was the same thing as having a warehouse full of locks all belonging to you. Even if you couldn't sell them as such, they'd still be scrap metal at least - there's always real value in a real item; if the blacksmith could magically fill his warehouse full of locks at the press of a button, he would. Virtual items do not carry value like this; you as an "owner" of an MP3 file would only waste your time giving yourself 2 million copies.

But then where is the value of things like art or software? As it is not in the actual item, it could be in the use of said item - in the profit and value you derive of it. That could be used to argue that the author has given you this pleasure, so you owe the author for it. Take again the blacksmith: they may sell you a lock, but they are not entitled to the profits you derive of the lock because that's your business, not theirs. Demanding more money because the lock successfully thwarted a burglar would be silly - the blacksmith didn't stop the burglar, the lock did, and the lock was already paid for. If this does not convince you, think of it the other way around: if the value I'm paying for is in the use and effect of said lock, then do I get my money back if the burglar never comes? I don't think the smith would like to make that deal with me.

So likewise, the artist is under no claim to be compensated for any enjoyment or further use of their art. The value that the artist provides, for which they do have a clear and sensible claim to profit on, happens exactly at the point of creation of the art, not in the distribution and use of it. Therefore you'd be a fool to think that having a copy of some drawing is in itself valuable. If you took the bait, you are paying for plain air. Doesn't matter if the price is "right", as in, it somehow happens to be in reasonable proportion to the actual amount of work expended, or even if the author is underpaid - you're still paying under false premises.

Ideally, you would instruct the artist to change to a more reasonable business model, but realistically you should just take your money and leave, because it serves no interest to reward these rent-seeking activities.

>Art is copied digitally via patreon to reach more people. Same way comics do, movies do, etc..

The point is, Patreon itself is not necessary for the purpose. What actual service are they providing to you? The answer is, they aren't doing you any favors - what they're really doing is holding things back from you in order to demand money to give you back your access. Anybody can copy a digital file, redistribute it, so why pay anybody in particular to do it? Why restrict it? What's the point?

No.3480320

>>3480316

>Why do thousands of people in my town pay $2.00 each every day to buy the daily newspaper from convenience stores and newspaper machines? The publisher only created it once

Yes. Once - in thousands of physical copies.

The same news are online for free. People pay to read it on paper, and it's the paper that costs money and justifies the price.

No.3480321

>>3480317

>people would rather not pay a million each for a game or piece of software.

Who is demanding them to?

>Instead they pay maybe $20 each, which covers a tiny part of the creation costs and wages of the people involved with maybe a little left over for profit

That would be reasonable, and entirely possible. Just list your costs and add 20% or maybe 50%, and divide by the number of people who would like to buy your game. Lots of people are already doing that with music, videos, art in general, and games. They take a one-time payment from their patrons in exchange for one-time output in labor and value.

That also bypasses the risk of not selling enough to cover cost, because they secure the deal before they spend the full effort, and they have the option of bailing out if they cannot convince enough buyers into it. If the game is a flop or they half-ass it, they of course risk their reputation and future sales.

>If I made a CD and printed a thousand copies to sell it would probably lose money, because who would want it

As you should. Why should you be automatically awarded money just for doing something? Stuff that is not worth the money being asked for it should not be made in the first place.

>and I would be worse off than before I started. Are you willing to take that risk yourself, chickenshit? No, you are not.

I have nothing to offer, so obviously I couldn't sell this nothing to anybody, so why would I?

No.3480322
File: ha_ha.jpg - (302.40 KB, 617x896) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
309659

>>3480319

Woman pays $10,000 for work of art that exists only in the artist's mind
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/07/22/138513048/woman-pays-10-000-for-non-visible-work-of-art

Someone paid $142 Million for a crappy painting
http://theweek.com/articles/456540/why-someone-pay-142-million-painting

HA HA HA HA

No.3480323

>>3480312

>Only idiots say that because they literally know nothing about how much effort it takes to reach a certain level.

Here's the thing: it still makes absolutely no sense to pay good money for low quality shit, simply because of "boo hoo, art is hard!". So it is - and so what?

The Beatles played 10 years in pubs and clubs, making very little money, but they put in the hours and became good - then they made the band and the rest is history. What people like you are arguing is that it's alright we're be paying Beatles money to beatless artists.

Why? Do you particularily enjoy mediocricity?

No.3480326
File: youareshit.jpg - (118.56 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
121407

>>3480323
here's a video you must have made, since you are so good at it.

>>>The Beatles played 10 years in pubs and clubs,

Lying again, there is an Ed Sullivan show on YouTube where they are playing in the USA in their Teens. You're saying they started in clubs when they were 7 or 8 years old?
Keep making stuff up as you go, it's entertaining, and I'll keep calling you out on it.

No.3480327

>>3480322
1) A fool and their money are quickly parted. Do you really want to have an economy where cheating is the norm and the buyer must beware?

2) Art collecting is a hot potato game, where each player is on the lookout for the next bigger fool to pay even more money on the promise that the next bigger fool pays even more money. Eventually the price goes up high enough that nobody will pay it anymore, and the last guy is the loser of the gamble. Then they'll donate it to a museum and write it off their taxes, pretending to be a great philanthropist.

The reason why you should be worried about these gambits is that people take such "value" seriously, because they see the potential to profit from bullshit. The insertion of this kind of imaginary value into the economy is killing your real purchasing power as it's like cutting your milk with chalk in water and baking a brick inside your bread. The money these hucksters take from the economy means they get to use resources without replacing their value, which makes them parasites.

In the smaller sphere of the furry art market, as I said earlier, the paywallers draw from the limited pool of disposable cash that people have, drawing the money away from the more industrious and more competent artists, and in exchange they don't put out as much art or as good art as they would, so everybody loses.

No.3480329

>>3480326

>Lying again, there is an Ed Sullivan show on YouTube where they are playing in the USA in their Teens.

The group, not called Beatles then, was formed in 1957 when John Lennon was 16 and McCartney was 15. They were calling the band The Quarrymen, later changing it to Beatals in 1960, then The Silver Beatles, and then The Beatles. Various people joined and left, they performed in pubs and clubs in Holland and the UK until about 1963.

In late 1962 they made their commercial breakthrough and in 1963 they released their first successful album as The Beatles as we know it. They didn't go to the US until 1964 - 7 years later - so they couldn't have been performing on the Ed Sullivan show as teenagers, as The Beatles.

It wasn't quite the decade that I remembered, but 6-7 years between a bunch of teenagers starting a band and making their commercial break is nothing unusual. It just takes time and effort to get good.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26384712

>The 10,000-hours concept can be traced back to a 1993 paper written by Anders Ericsson, a Professor at the University of Colorado, called The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance.
>It highlighted the work of a group of psychologists in Berlin, who had studied the practice habits of violin students in childhood, adolescence and adulthood. All had begun playing at roughly five years of age with similar practice times. However, at age eight, practice times began to diverge. By age 20, the elite performers had averaged more than 10,000 hours of practice each, while the less able performers had only done 4,000 hours of practice.

10,000 hours at 3-4 hours a night runs out at 7 years of practice.

No.3480331

>>3480326
In fact, check out the video on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0MEF6d1eU

Broadcast date 1964. They were just complete babyfaces the whole bunch, even though they were well in their 20's by that time.

Next time, post the proof along with your "debunking", lest you find yourself lying.

No.3480335

you sure do write a lot of stuff that nobody bothers to read.

No.3480336

>>3480335
If you're not reading it, then why are you arguing against it?

No.3480356

Oh noes, artists or should I say hacks are free to do what they wish ! Quick, implement communism/faschism/juche (chose one) and put them back in their place, their place being drawing sparkledogs for the 5 rich furry fandom commisionners and for our sticky enjoyment (I hope you like Arctica).

Or we can go the Cobalt way: limit them based on their efforts and hours spent on a piece, we just need to put a commissar in each furry artist household to keep watch, easy.

No.3480359

>>3480356

>Quick, implement communism/faschism/juche (chose one) and put them back in their place

How about just capitalism and the free market?

Copyrights were never part of the free market - it's an artifical restriction. The Stationers' Company in England held an absolute monopoly on all printing for 150 years on the Royal Charter, and when the parliament tried to remove their monopoly they simply lobbied it back in in the form of Copyright law, and that's when it spread everywhere.

We don't need to be putting artists to work camps or watch over them. Simply vote with your wallet and refuse to pay for bullshit, and the market will take care of the problem. There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by the bunch of amateurs who are wringing their hands anyways to get your pity-buck.

No.3480360

>>3480356
Also, the reason why you see all the sparkledog is exactly because there's so many people panhandling through Patreon in this fandom that it's just ridiculous.

It's sucking up all the cash for fuck all, and so the only people who manage to get anything done for them are those who first beg or bullshit for money and then use that money to buy overpriced commissions and YCHs from the handful of ego-inflated cookie cutter artists like Wolfy Nail, solely for the purpose of gaining more publicity and more sychopants to beg from.

Everyone's doing it, every tom dick and harry are locking up content, no matter how trivial, behind a paywall and going "Please please please give me a dollar!" and when they get that dollar they spend it on the popufurs in the hopes that the popularity and visibility would rub on, and one day they too would be e-famous enough to buy a $500 slot on the background of a furry wank pic.

See the problem?

No.3480363

>>3480360

>See the problem?

no because I'm not a whiny little bitch

No.3480368
File: 1435865733.leadshoes_goro_big.png - (195.92 KB, 1174x854) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
200621

>>3480177

try again, mappy!!!!!! ahahahahaha, haha!

No.3480379

>>3480363

>I have the Stockholm syndrome and there's nothing you can do about it! Ha Ha!

Fix'd

No.3480398

>>3480379
Says the man who gets insanely worked up and ravenous for not getting the shit he demands FOR FREE.

I mean.. HOW DARE THE ARTISTS FIND WAYS to get money to LIVE BARELY DECENTLY..
AND HOW DARE THEY USE SOMETHING I DISLIKE BECAUSE IM PISS POOR AND A LAZY TWAT TO WORK HARDER.

No.3480400

No, they didn't, you have fucking awful reading comprehension.

No.3480423

>>3480398

>I mean.. HOW DARE THE ARTISTS FIND WAYS to get money to LIVE BARELY DECENTLY..
>>>3480269
>The point is that it's perfectly possible to make money over art fairly, and not succumb to poverty level income or untolerable sweatshop hours and conditions. It just requires that you hold up a minimum standard of quality and competence. You need to be at least reasonably good; the paywallers are trying their best to avoid that.

It's curious how people like you are hell-bent on arguing against their own interest - unless of course you're one of those begging popufurs.

No.3480425

>>3480312

>If you're butthurt to cry about paywalls... it means you wanted the art, except for free.

>>3480398

Now I see where you're coming from. That's just not the case.

Now that we're supposed to be having crowdfunding to avoid individual people having to pay insane prices for commissions, it's important that people know what they're getting into and what exactly they are paying for. If you personally want to support some kickstarter scam or a Patreon beggar, that's your business, but if you want to maximize your returns you need to put your money where it counts to reward the talented, motivated and productive artists who want to play fair.

It's hilarious how people complain of artist drama and people taking money for commissions and then running off with it, or locking up all their previously free shit behind the P logo etc. but can't see why that is happening: it's because you keep throwing money at them for doing it. You reward bad behaviour and it's biting yourself in the nuts.

No.3480461

>>3480423

>"It just requires that you hold up a minimum standard of quality and competence. You need to be at least reasonably good"

Reasonable good according to Who? what is exactly "reasonable good" ?
Who will be the judge of "reasonable good"?

No.3480463
File: disaster-girl.jpg - (30.89 KB, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
31636

>>3480425

>avoid individual people having to pay insane prices for commissions

What are these insanely prices? are you the judge to know that the world would say the same as you?
You're acting all mighty here claiming your personal opinion is the basis of everything.

>but if you want to maximize your returns you need to put your money where it counts to reward the talented, motivated and productive artists who want to play fair.

What is "fair" for you?
Who you can say is "talented" and "motivated"?
What do you mean with "return of your money" ? This isnt an investment.
This isn't wallstreet.

And again, noone is forcing you to patreon. If you do not want to support them.. then don't. Bitching about patreon just shows that YOU wanted said content (that is now paywalled) for free.
So instead of just being a decent human being and just leave those who are paywalled. You just bitch about how ALL paywalls should be down and only catter to the specified business system you approve for.

You want it your way, at your tastes at the system and way you demand.
See how douchebag you are?

No.3480465

>>3480379

>nuh uh

you're doing terrific

No.3480469

>>3480461

>Who will be the judge of "reasonable good"?

Everybody. That's the point of a free market. As long as the customers are making rational choices, meaning that they are not under illusions about what they're paying for, automatically the money goes first to the best, then to the rest if there's anything left over.

>>3480463

>What are these insanely prices?

If you want to make $500 per drawing to make it worth your while, you'll find very few people willing to pay that much individually. Even $50 is a hard sell for just furry wank. Meanwhile, a hundred individuals are well within their means to pay $5 each. That's about the scale of it as I see it.

>What is "fair" for you?

Read the thread.

>Who you can say is "talented" and "motivated"?

That is up to the market to decide. See above.

>What do you mean with "return of your money" ? This isnt an investment.

The return is the art you're funding, unless you're in the market for just throwing your cash around like an idiot. There I cannot help you.

>And again, noone is forcing you to patreon.

If all the artists go there and dissapear up their exclusive rectums, where can I go?

>Bitching about patreon just shows that YOU wanted said content (that is now paywalled) for free.

No. It means I want to pay art, but not under these terms and conditions. The new deal they're forcing is a shit deal.

>You just bitch about how ALL paywalls should be down and only catter to the specified business system you approve for.

I've presented my argument to why it is a bad system, why it doesn't make sense, why it is abuse, and you've given no counter-argument to that.

>You want it your way, at your tastes at the system and way you demand. See how douchebag you are?

All I want is a fair deal. If you personally prefer to be taken advantage of, that's none of my business. However, it's extremely shitty of you to argue that other people should be subjected to the same abuse and should remain ignorant that they are being tricked.

No.3480470

>>3480463
More specifically, what I want to see is the artists who put $500 worth of effort into a drawing succeeding more than the artists who put $5 worth of effort into their work. I want to pay for the $500 lot, not for the $5 lot.

However, as paywalling enables the cheaper artists to cheat their way into money - by defining value differently - it creates a sort of lemon market where it doesn't pay to put much effort and time into your art. It's a market that rewards mediocricity and lack of effort.

As I've pointed out already, this new definition of value - access right - is completely artifical and nonsensical. It's a lie. It amounts to coming to your house and installing a coin operated lock into your bathroom after you've already paid for the whole thing. That's why it is not fair.

No.3480481
File: bugsbunny_tiredofyourshit.jpg - (94.36 KB, 500x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
96623

>>3480469

Well, everyone who is in these "paywalls" are indeed paying money and selecting that its worth their money..
The market as decided that they are worth paying and supporting. Therefore your own personal opinion is invalid. You can always go elsewhere to put your business. Moaning about how you cant get free stuff now that you never paid money for is ironic in this conversation about "market". Because you're bitching about value. If you wanted it, then it was worth something.

You do not think its good value for you? fuck off!
Nobody is going to miss you.

>>3480469

>If you want to make $500 per drawing to make it worth your while, you'll find very few people willing to pay that much individually. Even $50 is a hard sell for just furry wank. Meanwhile, a hundred individuals are well within their means to pay $5 each. That's about the scale of it as I see it.

Worth to WHO again?
If people pay 500 already then for some its worth 500$.
If you do not think its worth $500, shut up and find someone else!
The market will dictate if they lower their prices or not.

>No. It means I want to pay art, but not under these terms and conditions. The new deal they're forcing is a shit deal.

Why you cant accept that this is a fucking lie?
From the start you have been bitching about paywalls. Paywalls only block certain people from seeing some stuff. Most of the content still leaks or is posted albeit with a delay.
Premium content that was used to be free and posted once every who knows when can be now uploaded constantly because the artists can balance money and work. Not depending entirely of commissions.

Again, you're only seeing this into your OWN perspective in a way that somehow the artists OWE YOU something.
Which they don't.. at all.
Go find other artists if you do not like those paywalls.
Commission them if you want stuff done FOR YOU and you alone at your tastes.
If You do not accept their prices, then your problem.

>More specifically, what I want to see is the artists who put $500 worth of effort into a drawing succeeding more than the artists who put $5 worth of effort into their work. I want to pay for the $500 lot, not for the $5 lot.

Noone is preventing you to pay and get the 500$ level. Want 500$? Commission it.
You think they are not worth it.. dont pay, move along, find another artists who can be on your taste or supposed level of skill and fuck off!

>this new definition of value - access right - is completely artifical and nonsensical.

Except its not.
If someone finds it worth having CONSTANT updates for a modical low amount of money. They will pay for it.
If other people want to pay huge sums for commissioning high quality stuff, thats another different animal.
Find your market, buy from the stuff offered. Pick what you want.. If you do not like.. FUCK OFF.
Do not expect everyone to bow down to your fucked up wishes.

You do not go to McDonalds and claim that you hate their 5$ burgers and therefore they should be lower price.
You go to the competition and buy the burger you want.
A restaurant is not going to change their method of selling just because of douchecanoes like you.

No.3480491

In a Communist society artists are free to pursue their art unburdened by the need to market and sell it. "Selling out" is unheard of. Under capitalism, every artist is forced to become a cheap whore, or to risk starvation.

No.3480501

>>3480491

>"In a Communist society artists are free to pursue their art..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHAHAHAHEEHEEHAHAHEE.. Oh, mam, good one! Best laugh I've had all week. You sir, are a troll par excellence!

No.3480520
File: counterspell_trixie_by_plowplot-d7o6xpd.png - (549.84 KB, 579x806) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
563032

>>3480074

>they hide their contend behind a pay wall and I have to pay to see it.

So, like real paintings you have to buy to own, or wax museums you have to pay tickets for, or programs that once they write then you never have to write again but people keep buying it to have access to it, or books or making ships in bottles. The point being, this is actually a very common business model and you're not butt hurt about anyone else using it.

No.3480522
File: DMfQkPLW4AATq9P.jpg - (51.76 KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
53004

>>3480322

Fine art is a money laundering scam. Duh?
https://youtu.be/NSdbASDdwU4

No.3480524

>>3480319

what is a misunderstanding of economic value for $2000 Alec?

No.3480528

This whole thread is such a non issue white people problem.

Honestly, in whstever generation the middle class white kiddies live in, in which the world goes bsck to being really fucked what are you guys gonna do?

I mean everyones gonna be fucked, but what is your version of a future generation going to do to handle this?

No.3480529

>>3480481 secondary layer in the markets system says if you have the money you will inflate value to discourage majority of customers but still milk the customers foolish enough to pay it.

No.3480534

>>3480501

>haha, he thinks communism allows artists to pursue their passion!
>everyone knows that real art is pretentious bullshit designed to appeal to rich pigs as a way for them to scam more money out of the system
>checkmate commies!
No.3480575

Tell you what, lulz. I'll make it really simple for you.

See that site, OpenLetterToPatreon.com? Look at the signatures. Those are the Patreon creators who think their Patreons are threatened by the policy updates. PurpleKecleon signed it; so did Kyell Gold. Two of your perennial targets, right? You hate them, right? You HATE all that paywalling and lording over you, RIGHT?

Then stroke up those hateboners, and report PK and Kyell. Go on. Hammer Patreon's ticket system with a swarm of complaints about them. Make it a certainty that they get reviewed for content. Then let's see if it makes one whit of difference.

Do it. I fucking dare you.

No.3480626
File: 984ddc85c147615f49075694830a3e5d.jpg - (54.81 KB, 530x425) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
56128

>>3480575

You bring up a good point. How fucking entitled are these fur faggots that they want to ruin the lively hood of the artists they claim to respect just so they can get 20% more porn?

No.3480631

>>3480626
who the fuck respects PK or kyell? they're neogaf tier. NOBODY likes them or wants them in their communities.

No.3480632

>>3480359

>Simply vote with your wallet and refuse to pay for bullshit, and the market will take care of the problem.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? A whole bunch of people will pay a few dollars a month to an artist who draws whatever he wants. I'm willing to pay well more than that for a commission, something that I want, but they'll make much more from these small contributions than they'll ever make from me. Many artists won't even take commissions at all since they're happy with their haul from Patreon. And it's usually bland, boring stuff, the lowest common denominator.

Why do so many people pay the Danegeld? I don't understand it. It's good for the artists who rake in the dough, but it's bad for the commissioners who would want to pay for their services in the free market. I thought the whole Patreon thing would be a bubble that would burst when people got wise to it, but it hasn't happened.

No.3480633

>>3480481

>If people pay 500 already then for some its worth 500$.
>If you do not think its worth $500, shut up and find someone else!
>The market will dictate if they lower their prices or not.

500 people willing to pay a single buck for a peek at an image behind a paywall crowds out the commissioners who would pay anything up to $499 for a custom commissioned piece. The artist will make more churning out a bland, easy piece that 500 people will value at $1, than putting in the work necessary to please a commissioner paying $499 for a custom piece.

Patreon is a market innovation and I can't really fault the artists for the fact that 500 people will chip in a buck to see a lesser product. I'm just perplexed that there are 500 people willing to do that.

No.3480634
File: Le_Monument_de_la_Renaissance_africaine.jpg - (164.33 KB, 1920x1285) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
168269

>>3480534

Communist countries always seem to churn out a bunch of communist propaganda, so it seems there's plenty of work for artists. (I wonder how much freedom of expression went into these works.) One of North Korea's big sources of foreign cash is whoring out workers to build Soviet-style monuments for third-world countries. The North Koreans know how to make some really impressive Soviet-style monuments because of all the resources they pour into their propaganda. They really are some impressive monuments, but there's not much variety.

No.3480635

>>3480634
Urge to slot rising...

No.3480640

>>3480632
Looks like the market is working as intended. Law of offer and demand.
That's too bad for you that your 500$ are not so valuable now to the artists, but that's life.

No.3480649
File: 30_30_3bEd2.png - (1740.22 KB, 792x1224) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1781990

>>3480640

It's almost like if small donations are made instead of taking large sums of money from people who only want one self-serving agenda then it's better for everyone because it takes the power out of the hands of the few and puts it into the hands of the many.

Almost like a well regulated, real free market without monopolies results in a better, more stable world for everyone.

No.3480652
File: 1470572482273.png - (173.44 KB, 685x261) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
177599

>>3480632

>people
>wise
No.3480683
>patreon bans paywalls
>check my favorite artists
>still paywalls

uh?
so nothing fucking happened basically

No.3480697

the-free-market-but-not-like-that.txt

No.3480702

>>3480633

>500 people willing to pay a single buck for a peek at an image behind a paywall crowds out the commissioners who would pay anything up to $499 for a custom commissioned piece. The artist will make more churning out a bland, easy piece that 500 people will value at $1

Except you're wrong.
The artists produces MORE as in AMOUNT.
Thats why tiered rewards and "goals" exists.

No.3480705

>>3480632

>Well that's the problem, isn't it? A whole bunch of people will pay a few dollars a month to an artist who draws whatever he wants. I'm willing to pay well more than that for a commission, something that I want, but they'll make much more from these small contributions than they'll ever make from me. Many artists won't even take commissions at all since they're happy with their haul from Patreon

This is YOUR problem.
Find another artist, problem solved.
JEsus!!!, you're a fucking baby!!!.

You're "ME ME ME ME, ONLy I CARE, BECAUSE MY VIEWS..etc..etc..

>Patreon is a market innovation and I can't really fault the artists for the fact that 500 people will chip in a buck to see a lesser product. I'm just perplexed that there are 500 people willing to do that.

You're still implying they are only getting one piece of (according to you) 1$ value for 500$.
Which is stupidly wrong.
They are getting multiple pieces that could have cost 25 USD a piece, for 1 USD a month.
And they will consecutively get 1-10 pieces a month.. for just 1 USD.

I would rather pay 1 USD a month and get 1-20 pictures of the content I want to see, than having to churn 500 USD for a SINGLE picture. Only would interest me if I wanted something SPECIFICALLY for me.

They are completely different markets but you ass cant grasp it with your tiny manchildren brain.

No.3480731

>>3480705

Take a chill pill, dude. You have your opinion and I have mine. I already said that Patreon is a market innovation and I don't begrudge the artists for choosing the most lucrative business model.

>You're still implying they are only getting one piece of (according to you) 1$ value for 500$.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're not buying a piece of a tangible $500 product. You're not buying a share of stock. You're not a part-owner of the picture. You paid $1 for a digital copy of a picture that an artist already created and owns all the rights to.

The patrons value the good at $1 because that's what they paid for it. They didn't pay $500 for it and they didn't pay $25 for it. They paid $1 for it. In our hypothetical example, the product was priced at $1 and 500 people paid for it. If the entrance fee to the paywall were $25, then fewer people would pay. Fewer than 500 people would value the product at $25. (The artist's profits might still go up; if as few as 21 out of the original 500 pay the Danegeld, the artist's revenue goes up to $525. But to the other 479 people, the product wasn't worth $25.)

If you're happy with the bland, vanilla stuff peddled through Patreon, then good for you. It's a free market and you and the other 499 suckers are voting with your dollar. I prefer to spend my money on something custom that I actually would enjoy. All I'm saying is that the Patreon market thrives at the expense of the commission market. Since the latter is the one I care about, I lament that. But I'm not saying it's unfair for the artist make the choices that maximize his income. He deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor. I haven't expressed any support or joy at the (dubious) claim in this thread that Patreon will ban paywalls.

No.3480769

If Paymetons artists would make original content and not fan art of characters they don't have permission to draw, I might give a fuck about their begging. As it is they deserve nothing except being sued by the companies who own those characters.

No.3480792

>>3480731

>You have your opinion and I have mine

Opinions cease to be just opinions when you're demanding for other groups to fulfill your agenda based on your own interests.

>If you're happy with the bland, vanilla stuff peddled through Patreon, then good for you.

You're again implying so much, like claiming that ALL patreon somehow is just "vanilla". Also what is vanilla again? according to who is it vanilla? is your opinion the basis of the entire standard?

>If you're happy with the bland

What I like is irrelevant when pointing how retarded your very skewed "opinions" are. Because you're just displaying that you want everything to revolve round your "opinions" and "standards".

>If Paymetons artists would make original content and not fan art of characters they don't have permission to draw

Are you implying that only patreon artists only do fanart of copyrighted characters?

No.3480798
File: 1249884612.sankam_page20teaser.jpg - (60.80 KB, 322x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
62257

>>3480792

>Opinions cease to be just opinions when you're demanding for other groups to fulfill your agenda based on your own interests.

I haven't demanded anything. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Have I not said repeatedly that I don't begrudge the artist for maximizing his income? That the patrons are voting with their dollars? It's a voluntary exchange, just one I look upon with wariness.

>is your opinion the basis of the entire standard?

My opinion is my opinion. I don't know what standard you're talking about.

No.3480805
File: candypillowcase.png - (207.58 KB, 400x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
212562

>>3480798

Maybe they couldn't read you clearly over the deafening roar of your unearned sense of entitlement?

No.3480812

>>3480805

To be fair, Trickle-Down Economics has been so thoroughly ridiculed and shown to not be the case more often than not for so many decades, I haven't even heard Republicans mention the term in years.

Jeez, took em long enough to stop pushing a stupid idea as even an excuse.

No.3480817
File: disturbing trump billboard mumbai.jpg - (95.44 KB, 747x713) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
97726

>>3480812 They stopped using the 'trickle down' term but they're still promoting the general concept. That Laffer guy is still shitting up the airwaves with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vn8x_946t0

No.3480820

>>3480812

They may not be using the words, but it's exactly what Trump's tax plan is based on. Give the 1% money and hope it trickles down.

No.3480833

>>3480057
all i hear here are broke ass communism lefties who are butt hurt that can't get thy stuff for free and do not really know how capitalism works

patron is all about support you do not want to support the artist you are not entitled to they work and time no one force you to pay them people pay them cause thy want to see thy shit no one fore you to pay you cheap bastard

and no i am not an artist but i'm not stupid like you.

lefties entitle little bastards

No.3480841

>>3480820

merican politicians are always good at making names for project where in reality they are making fools of the "recipients" of these projects.

Example , "Iraqi freedom" = total mess and nothing but freedom.
"safe harbour" = all data up for grabs for NSA , all the data from their closest allies. Anything but "safe".
"trickle down economic".....You know what trickles down the sides of the wealth pyramid, dont you ? Its yellow and stinks. thats what.

No.3480843

I never got a paycheck from a poor man.

No.3480848

>>3480843
Then what's wrong with you?
There isn't much better a way to make money than to take advantage of an underpaid human being.

No.3480853

>>3480843 That poor man isn't the one demanding that you work double shifts for less pay either. That poor man isn't the one shipping your job elsewhere in order to pay other workers even less than you. Poor people at least empathize with what you are going through and will help you. The rich man paying you doesn't give a shit about you and never will.

No.3480857

>>3480853

The rich man that let me take a year off work, paid? Full benefits.

The poor people that vote for people that want to take larger cuts of my paycheck while leaving me excluded from benefiting from the programs it goes to?

No.3480858
File: Seriously_who_would_you_pick.png - (1133.54 KB, 748x832) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1160746

>>3480820

>but it's exactly what Trump's tax plan is based on. Give the 1% money and hope it trickles down.

That's facetious and you know it. It's more like give the money back to those who paid it in the first place. The more you paid, the more you get back. That seems fair to me.

No.3480859
File: xl0me.jpg - (78.38 KB, 722x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
80259

>>3480853

>The rich man paying you doesn't give a shit about you and never will.

The ones I work for do. They care about my health since they pay for a gym in the building where I work that I have 24 access to and they reimburse me for hiring a personal trainer. They care about what happens when I get old since they pay what amounts to 5% of my salary into my retirement account whether I put any in there myself or not, then they match anything I contribute for my retirement. They're also paying anybody affected by Hurricane Harvey here in Houston full salary and benefits while they get their lives together, whether they're able to work or not.

I can't think of a single thing that a poor person has ever done for me except curse at me as I was leaving a Spec's because I didn't have any cash on me to give him.

No.3480860
File: PAC_Logic.png - (389.89 KB, 660x371) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
399243

>>3480858

>giving money back to people who paid it.

Ok, let's just assume for the sake of argument you're insane idea of reality is true, if the rich don't pay taxes and the poor don't have money, where does the money to keep America from collapsing come from?

You can't take money from people who don't have it. This leaves the choice of America collapsing from debt or America collapsing because we have to cut essential services until nothing works.

Either way, cutting taxes to the point that Trump is trying to do is an act of treason.

Your logic is as faulty as your memes are old and disproved.

No.3480861
File: total_spending_pie_2015.png - (146.39 KB, 1003x915) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
149901

>>3480860

>where does the money to keep America from collapsing come from?

We use the taxes that are still imposed on the middle-class and wealthy Americans. Or do you believe that Trump is eliminating all taxes?

Oh, I get it! Suddenly now you're concerned about deficit spending and the debt. Well, what we could do is slim down those huge blue and orange slices that represent the existing federal dollars spent on entitlement programs. Without that the US government wouldn't need to impose a heavy tax burden on the middle-class to begin with.

No.3480885

>>3480858

>oh no poorer people lose $8 a year, what a monster! Think of the poor people

It's more like "rich people will lose a bunch, that is bad, think of their luxury expenses such as their car collections and summer homes!"

Oh but Drumpf gives poor people $6 more a year, he really gives a fuck!

I'd vote Bernie, he'd fuck over people who can afford it. But even that is probably a bullshit Breitbart thing or some shit. Like it matters, this incompetent CWC-tier failure can't get shit passed. His own party hates him and he's facing serious charges, he'll be out of office in 6 months.

No.3480888

>>3480812

I still laugh at republicans who still defend the tickle down economics and cost cuts.. Even when the own Reagan economical advisor said the whole thing is a sham that never worked.

Cost cuts only give you a slight temporal boost and then you have a government staving in debt.

No.3480889
>3480805
>"Maybe they couldn't read you clearly over the deafening roar of your unearned sense of entitlement? "

Bingo!

This guy has been so fucking blind with his sense of entitlement its hilarious.

No.3480892

>>3480885

You honestly think "rich people" constant buy shit like cars and houses, just to spend money?

Sorry, but that's poor people behavior.

Poor people spend their money as soon as they get it, while rich people invest their money in things to keep them rich.

Also, poor people are lazy. They want to be rich, but they're not exactly going to work hard to obtain that. Hence the Professional Poor people.

Poor people are poor because of poor decisions.

No.3480895

>>3480833

>all i hear here are broke ass communism lefties who are butt hurt that can't >get thy stuff for free and do not really know how capitalism works
>patron is all about support you do not want to support the artist you are not >entitled to they work and time no one force you to pay them people pay >them cause thy want to see thy shit no one fore you to pay you cheap bastard
>and no i am not an artist but i'm not stupid like you.
>lefties entitle little bastards

The irony is.. the problem is the opposite.
Rich folks wants to pay less taxes again and again and again. They want the money, the cake, the crumbs and give nothing in return.

The current government have pretty much installed wellfare for the rich.
Where money is redistributed from the entire country, towards the top 1%ers.

Some people who work harder than anything since slavery (2 or 3 jobs) and they still cant pay to live.

No.3480896

>>3480859
Just because you have some godsend boss, doesnt means everyone does.
For the majority you're dirt and are replaceable im an instant.

What you described is called "privilege".

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

You're pretty much the "Richard" of this comic.

No.3480897

>>3480892

>You honestly think "rich people" constant buy shit like cars and houses, just to spend money?

Lol, they do, they buy ultra expensive luxury shit.
New yatches, new homes.

Investments aren't a magical giving thing.
Everyone said the investments in housing was godsend. What happened?
It crashed because some bankers got so greedy.

No.3480902
File: DNBrkRAUQAALx9B.jpg - (181.51 KB, 848x1199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
185866

>>3480861

> Well, what we could do is slim down those huge blue and orange slices...

You know that blue slice includes billions in corporate welfare, right? The most successful corporations in America are often the ones getting the biggest subsidies and even tax refunds every year.

Also the unemployment and social security would be half of what it was if corporations were paying a living wage. There are around 43 Million people on SNAP food assistance. Most low wage workers qualify for medical assistance and in some states even rent assistance.

If corporations were paying fair wages in the first place, the need for taxes wouldn't be so high. They are going to pay, one way or another. If you truly believe that government is so horrible and that they make everything more costly, then you should be standing with us to raise the minimum wage and get these people off of government assistance by letting them earn a living wage.

No.3480903

>>3480889

What entitlement? Where did I claim I was entitled to anything?

Oh, nevermind; you're agreeing with 3B. I'll consider your attack a badge of honor.

No.3480904

Thread successfully derailed into another 3B politics thread.

No.3480905
File: DM7uuz5VoAAK9T3.jpg - (147.43 KB, 848x1199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
150969

>>3480903

>What entitlement?

This entire thread is about how unfair you think it is that lots of poor people can donate small amounts and get what they want as apposed to the artists being dependent on large-sum commissions.

You started off by celebrating because you thought Patreon was going to become useless for furry art and things would go back to the way they were before when artists had to beg assholes like you for money.

YOU are literally complaining that you can't easily get what YOU want because all these other people's happiness is getting in YOUR way.

You are even more of an entitled cunt than me and that's saying a lot.

No.3480908

>>3480905

>You started off by celebrating because you thought Patreon was going to become useless for furry art and things would go back to the way they were before when artists had to beg assholes like you for money.

No I didn't. The closest thing I said was:
"I thought the whole Patreon thing would be a bubble that would burst when people got wise to it, but it hasn't happened."

If you have to repeatedly fabricate things that I didn't say to make your point, then you're not being very persuasive.

People have continued to support artists through Patreon, and it's here to say. That's the free market, and I support the free market.

I didn't start this thread and nowhere have I said anything to the effect that I support a ban on paywalls or would celebrate a ban on paywalls. On the contrary, I've said repeatedly that Patreon is a market innovation and that I don't begrudge the artists for maximizing their profits. I can be unhappy about it, but I've never said it's unfair nor would I celebrate anything like banning paywalls to give the artists fewer options.

I suppose you don't have the intellectual capability of making your point without making shit up.

No.3481055
File: furry_artists_at_furry_convention.jpg - (132.56 KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
135742

Honestly, if taking money for producing furry "art" is your primary role in society, you deserve to starve.

No.3481058

>>3480905 realistically speaking we hate art being locked behind those paywalls never being posted publicly

after about 3-6mths you would expect released to public focusing on unreleased works as major income and released stuff for extra being people will just grab off one location if already paid in but sadly entitlement gets in the way.

No.3481061

>>3480895
you are aware i was referring patreon and and bunch off wankers who who are happy that some artist will go down cause of it

you know the original subject of this threat not some tax bullshit

No.3481067

>>3480908

>No I didn't.

Yes you did, MANY TIMES.
You are a dick who wants to have your way whatever the cost even if it means fucking up a lot of other people.

Just accept it, your bullshit isnt helping you.
You just are pissed that you now have to pay 1 USD to get the stuff you usually got for free while the artists were starving.

No.3481068

>>3481055
You know whats ironic?

That some normal every day artists are told to actually draw furry to attract big payers.
Furries have the highest pay rate in the internet art market outside the top pros.

No.3481588

>>3481067

>Yes you did, MANY TIMES.

Nope. Not even once.

>You just are pissed that you now have to pay 1 USD to get the stuff you usually got for free while the artists were starving.

I couldn't care less.

No.3481644

Well-off free market worshiper upset at a free market solution that disadvantages them and their wallet size? Color me surprised... Also if you think you're important enough to decide what's an acceptable career and not market forces, then go check your ego.

No.3481652

>>3481644
If you want to talk about the free market, remove copyrights first, because those sort of artifical monopolies don't belong in a free market.

Without copyrights, more importantly without customers who no longer believe that copyrights are valid, see what happens to your paywall.

That's the point. Paywalls only exist because people believe that they should be paying for something that really doesn't cost a thing.

No.3481653

>>3481644

>Also if you think you're important enough to decide what's an acceptable career and not market forces, then go check your ego.

I'm assuming you're pro-copyright, so that would make you also pro social control of the market, so we can simply say: check yourself.

No.3481660

>>3481652
>>3481653
#shitkulakssay

No.3481662

>>3481660
Communism doesn't know copyright either. It's not a feature of capitalism or socialism.

It's a vestige of royalism, where the autocrat granted certain people special arbitrary rights and favors to exploit the public. Nowadays it's an example crony-capitalism, where the owning class maintains laws that let them exploit the public.

In any other case, if you were selling something that cost nothing, another person could come along and sell the same thing for less because it doesn't cost them anything either, and so the price tends to zero. Copyright is the fiction that allows one person to take what is free to make - duplicates of information - and prevent anyone else from selling the same thing, so they could maintain the price above zero. Meanwhile, anyone who pays the price is being cheated, because they're literally paying for nothing, only because they've been made to believe it's right.

No.3481679

>>3481652

Wow you're so fucking stupid.
No copyright = people would steal anything and anything you created would be classified as valueless because anyone can take it.

Can't you kill yourself?

No.3481697

Unlike wheelchair chan /furpol/ I don't pretend piracy is moral or that all art should be shared. It doesn't stop me from piracy but I don't claim I'm somehow on the right side by doing it. Only retards pretend they deserve and are owed free shit. Same for the artists that act like they deserve money because they breathe air.

No.3481734
File: 1509769369101.jpg - (8.64 KB, 290x277) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
8852

what if artists made art to make a statement and expressed different views on the human condition instead of solely doing it for monetary gain?

what a crazy world that would be

No.3481737

>>3481653

>>3481653

No, that's pro-civil control. Civil and social are not the same. It's barely different from any form of government and how they exist first and foremost to protect people's private property.

Intellectual property is still property, and strong protection of that drives more innovation than it prevents.

America is world leader in research spending, and medical research spending, and it is also world leader in new inventions and medicines. If the system did more harm than good, we would not be having such huge successes such as the new stronger than steel alloy we have involving gold and titanium. 4 times stronger than steel. Rice University. Most of our new antibotics? American.

What does china invent? Salt-water rice. Using techniques patented and invented by Americans.

No.3481739

>>3481697

Bullfuckingshit. You bash down on people all the time for paying for video games and stuff, while touting how much shit you pirate for free. Do you think we have the memory of a goldfish?

No.3481758

>>3481739

Yes I do because most of you are literal retards.

Piracy isn't justified morally, I just want shit for free, still doesn't make it right.

Even if Steam is a waste because you pay for air. Steam isn't a store, it's a service with shit rules. Get banned, lose your games, you don't own anything.

Still doesn't make it right.

You fuckers couldn't even point out that Sam Farber's ID was posting pro-Trump shit, while claiming 2 different IDs are the same person because of vaguely similar views. Many of you read Breitbart which is a sign of being an idiot. You don't know fuck all, your memories are shit and you put words in people's mouths. I blame all the STDs you get at Anthrocon, syphilis has fucked you up. Maybe Kayla-Na's pussy wasn't such a good idea after all.

No.3481776

>>3481737

>Intellectual property is still property

You're making a circular argument. Intellectual property is "property" only because it has been arbitrarily defined so by the very same government.

Intellectual property is a fiction. Nobody can own a thought or an idea - the very proposition is saying that you can own a number. 129038957 now belongs to me because I wrote it down here - it's that sort of nonsense. You cannot actually have it in any meaningful sense, so how can it be your property? If you claim otherwise, please deliver to me the hole of a donut; not the donut itself, just the hole.

>and strong protection of that drives more innovation than it prevents.

Copyrights and patents are two different things. A patent actually means you are giving your invention away by publishing all the essential information, and in exchange you get a limited time monopoly. A patent is the society buying your invention and paying you with the monopoly. In copyright, the society gives you the monopoly for no reason.

No.3481777

>>3481679

>No copyright = people would steal anything and

You can't steal what can't be stolen in the first place.

>anything you created would be classified as valueless because anyone can take it.

It is valueless - priceless - you can't come up with a price for art because it has no objective value. That's exactly the point. Art has no value in itself - the work of an artist has value, not the art.

No.3481788

ITT: autistic people that have never created anything other than the waste they expel in the toilet each day try to explain how ideas have no value and how creators of ideas should be fucked and not rewarded.

Enjoy your future plain, depression colored mass apartment complexes in your commie "Utopia". You'll too become like slavshit.

No.3481813

>>3481788
The commies will be enjoying a world with endless leisure, where all manual labor is performed by computers and robots. We will be rewarded for intellectual and artistic pursuits, and we will have a lifetime to pursue these ends. We must advance towards this goal, otherwise the bourgeoisie will claim ownership of all robotic labor, force the proletariat out into the streets, and destroy the world through mass social unrest. We are approaching this disastrous climax as we speak. The need for revolution is urgent.

You'll be going to the gulag though, haha. :-)

No.3481831
File: Islam_will_rule.jpg - (21.26 KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
21772

>>3481813
And what about the Billions of Muslims that are invading every country en masse, already control 57 countries, and will be ruling the world in the near future, and who hate commies and to whom your ideals would be HARAM (forbidden)?
Oh, wait....
Looks like you'll be going to the head-chopping block.

No.3481832
File: quote-it-was-thought-that-to-rally-islam-against-godless-communism-would-be-doing-the-soviet-edward-said-148-67-86.jpg - (74.19 KB, 850x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
75968
No.3481833
File: main-qimg-b3cf32f24848136b606664518108b98f-c.jfif - (22.92 KB, 260x313) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
23465
No.3481842

>>3481831
If the Imperialists had allowed communism to develop in the middle east, it would be a fully liberalized society right now, and Islam would be a vanishing religion.

No.3481844

>>3481831

Noone of this would have happened if US, England and Russia kept their own shit on their own countries.
Almost every thing that happened in the middle east has been thanks to foreign interventionism.

From the war on Israel (aka the jews taking the land of palestineans by the "generosity" of England) to the Iran Iraq issue (aka the US and England again making a mess of their interventions for oil, and then escalating it even further by using a secondary foreign country to wage proxy war).

Afghanistan was also fine and dandy before the US installed the Taliban regime.

But yeah, the country was decided "too commie" by US conservative trash.

No.3481845

>>3481777

You're beyond retard right?
Using your stupid excuse, then creating ANYTHING (including commercials, characters, stories..etc..)
Would be useless and valueless to create. Since according to you "there is nothing to steal". And now everyone will use your own shit at their own pleasure and you will never get rewarded from creating anything.

See how fucked up you are?
Its saddening that you have your head so deep in your ass all because you think "muh comics, muh piracy.. muh furry orn.. all should be free because I refuse to work for these things, all should be for ME!!"

No.3481849

>>3481845

>Would be useless and valueless to create.

Not to create - to have. The value of art is in its creation, not in its existence.

>See how fucked up you are?

First understand the argument before calling it stupid, stupid.

No.3481850

>>3481845

> Since according to you "there is nothing to steal".

Copying is not stealing. You're taking away nothing. The "victim" of copying only loses some of their potential to cheat money out of people under false premises, which the copyright owner only has because you agreed to the legitimacy of copyrights. In other words, the copyright owner had only your belief that you owe them money for nothing, and they lost that well before any piracy ever happened.

So really, you're doing everyone a favor.

No.3481852

"We define pornographic material as real people engaging in sexual acts such as masturbation or sexual intercourse on camera."

No.3481853

>>3480812

>To be fair, Trickle-Down Economics has been so thoroughly ridiculed and shown to not be the case more often than not for so many decades, I haven't even heard Republicans mention the term in years.

That's because Trickle-down economics is a liberal term that is used to revise and lie how economics actually work.

No.3481854

>>3481776

Cut the post-modernist "Everything is a social construct, therefor invalid!" bullshit.

Patents, copyright, intellectual property, all these things exist because they give people a place to make a living through using their brains. I am VERY FUCKING GLAD that engineering has more value than being a fucking wheat farmer or a bread baker.

Crawl up your ass and die, nigger, everything is a fucking social construct, pointing that crap out is like saying water is wet. It's not a fucking point to be made, it's irrelevant.

No.3481860

>>3481853
You're right, "trickle-down economics" is a made up Liberal term. The correct term is "capitalism".

Capitalism is what's fucking everything up, not "trickle-down economics". Blaming everything on "trickle-down" theory is just a distraction from the real root of the problem. We're not going to find some magical variation on capitalism that functions without consolidating power in the hands of the elites while purposefully fucking over everyone else.

No.3481865

>>3481853

>rickle-down economics is a liberal term

Funny because republicans say it a lot, or as the candidates love to bullshit themselves with "fiscal conservative" (which means tons of expending, tax cuts and debt increase.

No.3481866

>>3481860
I don't agree with you.
Capitalism is one thing, neoliberal capitalism is other.

Neoliberal Capitalism is the problem here.
They want to make sure that they can control every single aspect of everything and want to weaken the government to do commerce in a no rules scenario.

They pretty much means the change of a central government that supports capitalism, vs a capitalist powered feudal system, where the multinationals are the new feudal lords.

No.3481868

>>3481850

> the copyright owner had only your belief that you owe them money for nothing

Again, you're fucking stupid.
If we used your point of view, noone would want to design anything, create anything or be creative about anything.
Because they would not be rewarded properly for all the time they were using to make the thing.

According to you.. you have to "produce" something. If something is intangible but helps something to be efficient or entices a need.. is it then valueless?
Our world would be stuck in the fire age if they had the same way of thinking as you.

Would you stop selling the design of a microprocessor to various companies because they are all "copies" of the same first design?
How about the idea of a process that makes things efficiently? 1000 thousands of people are using X process, then you have a revolutionary process.. according to you.. I should only be paid once for designing said process. and not getting paid for ANYONE who is interested or using said process.

No.3481872

>>3481866
All you're asking for is for the central government to become the new elites, just as corrupt and decadent as what we have in our current system. Capitalism gives you a choice between a corrupt, decadent central power, and a series of corrupt, decadent fiefdoms.

The only logical choice is to tear the entire system down. We have the power within our grasp to simply replace labor with automated technology. We could have robots creating value without the need for pay, and then the worker could reap the benefits. The economy could carry on without the need for laborers.

Meanwhile, the former labor class would be paid enough for a home, for food, for medical expenses, for education, and for leisure. If they wish to advance themselves and earn more money, they need only gain an education or learn new skills, and use those skills to benefit the State. This will fill in for jobs that robotic labor can't fill, at least until we create better robots and smarter computers.

Just imagine. A true meritocracy, where everyone has an equal chance. Where nobody can "fall through the cracks", and where nobody can simply be born into wealth. The least ambitious person can simply sit and enjoy his life until he is ready for a change, and the most ambitious person will reap tremendous rewards without the need to exploit his fellow man.

This is the future that 21st Century Communism offers to us.

No.3481973

>>3481854

>Patents, copyright, intellectual property, all these things exist because they give people a place to make a living through using their brains.

Not really, and not all of these are equal. Some of these are justified, others are not. Copyrights is one of them that has no justification, as authors don't actually need copyrights to monetize their efforts - all they have to do is change the business model: sell the labor, not the art.

Patents are a compromize for people taking their inventions with them to their grave, locking them up in vaults etc. to protect their interests, because there is value in preserving the information at the patent office, so that we don't have to keep inventing the wheel over and over. Patents can exist without copyright and the concept of "intellectual property" as equivalent to real property.

If copyrights worked like patents - so that you have to apply and pay, and then renew or lose your copyright - there would be less of an issue, except for the fact that art - unlike patents - are only subjectively valuable as art by definition doesn't involve any practically useful information as such, so there's no point in giving away these special rights, which only end up being abused by large media corporations anyhow.

Copyrights actually lower the bar and the point where you can make money: the artifical scarcity allows you to take more money from the public than they would otherwise agree to. The reason for copyrights existing in the first place however is not in the rights of the authors, but in the publishers and corporations who actually own the copyright in 99% of cases. Copyrights are designed for the benefit of the corporate publishing industry, and as such it does not incentivize innovation or novelty, but simply pandering to the smallest common denominator to sell the maximum amount of shit.

No.3481974

>>3481868

>If we used your point of view, noone would want to design anything, create anything or be creative about anything.

Why not? If it's useful, then there's always a profit in making it, and you can get it protected for a limited time. Patents/trademarks are not copyrights.

Then there's people making shit beacause it's fun, and they want to do it. The best art, the best design, the best innovation doesn't come from those who simply do it out of money, because those people stop improving the moment you start paying them. The artist-for-money sees self-improvement as a cost to avoid to improve their profit margins, and would rather lower quality and automate output than produce great art.

>Because they would not be rewarded properly for all the time they were using to make the thing.

Copyright is not the only means to reward creative work. If your art is in demand, people will pay you to make it anyhow, and if they don't pay you enough then you will not give it to them, and they can't have it. It's that simple. Art will still exist.

>According to you.. you have to "produce" something. If something is intangible but helps something to be efficient

Again, you're veering into patents, not copyrights.

>or entices a need.. is it then valueless?

If it fills your need, you pay for it. If you find value in it, you pay for it. The society doesn't have to pay for it collectively by granting special rights and privileges. Because of copyrights, the copyright holders have the potential to extract more money out of the public than the public would otherwise agree to, because the mechanism by which they collect the money doesn't put any limits on the payment.

>Our world would be stuck in the fire age if they had the same way of thinking as you.

Modern copyrights didn't exist until the 1700's, and at the beginning they worked like patents: you had to apply, register, pay, and you got a limited term. Works like Shakespeare exist today because they weren't copyrighted in their time. The reneissance happened because nobody was there to say, "you know, we don't have the copyrights to these old manuscripts, so let's just leave them be."

No.3481975

>>3481872

>We have the power within our grasp to simply replace labor with automated technology. We could have robots creating value without the need for pay, and then the worker could reap the benefits.

The robots don't come for free. They too cost natural resources, energy, and time. There is X amount of resources available to humanity, and having the robots would subtract from that amount, so the people who now remain jobless would have to do with less resources per person. You essentially make a compromize between more free time, and more shit to consume. Problem being that people with more free time also need more shit to fill that free time, so your subjective standard of living would drop even more.

>The economy could carry on without the need for laborers.

How do you divide the money among the unemployed people, and still have an "economy" to speak of? Your society would collapse in political infighting, as everyone started voting themselves more money.

>Just imagine. A true meritocracy, where everyone has an equal chance.

In your society, the merit of measure would be your ability to bullshit yourself into more money - which there are many, like being a welfare queen popping out babies, gambling, frauds, political demagoguery, tv-evangelist, professional martyr for a minority cause... etc. etc.

You know, what you see happening around today. When there's no proper jobs, people set up fake jobs, make-work, and start stirring up bullshit in order to fake it. It's all about appearances, trying to look important rather than actually being useful to the people around you.

No.3481976

Look, I know you really want your gay space communism, but that isn't happening until we are post scarcity. We're not post scarcity. We've barely even started on raising the entire world to the American level of quality of life.

Hate on capitalism all you want, but we see it dragging India and china up beside America, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Be patient you entitled twat, space communism doesn't happen in a day. Even in the startrek books it pointed out two major conflicts/disasters that had to take place before the federation could form.

Until we have replicators, space communism isn't happening.

No.3481978

>>3481868

>Would you stop selling the design of a microprocessor to various companies because they are all "copies" of the same first design?

Again, that's a matter of patenting, not copyright. Intellectual property in general is an invention by itself. It is not natural: it's legal fiction that didn't really exist until the 19th century, and in the 20th century it became to mean basically, "anything intangible I want to demand money for".

There are three main justifications to intellectual property. 1. is the natural rights justification, which posits that there is some self-evident right that just pops out of nothingness, as if given by God. This is obviously bullshit. 2. is the "personality argument", or the idea that ideas are an extension of the person and thus violating your intellectual property is a violation onto yourself. This too is obviously bullshit, as there's no connection with what other people are doing with the ideas. The no.3 is the utilitarian argument, or the argument that while intellectual property is indeed a fiction, it is a useful fiction because by playing along to these rules it provides for greater progress and therefore prosperity for society.

The third one we can evaluate by how well the concept of intellectual property actually achieves its stated purpose. In the case of patents, definitely, although the patent system too is starting to outlive its usefulness because there's more patent trolls out there nowadays.

In the case of copyrights, it never could fill the utilitarian purpose because you cannot evaluate any "progress" in art - attempting to do so would be asserting arbitrary metrics of merit on art to define what "progress" means. Is today's dime-a-dozen pop artist any better than the great reneissance masters? How have they progressed? Heck, we can't even define what art means sufficiently to begin to think about whether we've achieved any progress in it, and art doesn't actually bring any prosperity to society as it's not any sort of tangible resouce that has practical value, so the utilitarian argument breaks down completely for copyright.

No.3481979

There is of course, a fourth justification of intellectual property with Ayn Rand:

>"The belief is that the human mind itself is the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral act."

Which is of course forgetting that the process of survival is not the property of an individual, but of the whole society and ultimately the species, to which the mind of the individual belongs as mutually arising. There would be no one without the many, so you can't attribute survival solely to the individual, and so the argument doesn't justify individual intellectual property.

All property is indeed intellectual property, in the sense that property only exists in the first place as a system of society. If you're alone in the woods with nobody else around, it makes no difference whether you "own" some piece of rock because nobody's there to take it from you.

No.3481981

>>3481979

So you're against basic evolution then. Wow, what a fucking science hater you are.

An individual being incapable of providing for himself, because of intellectual property rights, does not mean the majority of the species is threatened or unable to survive.

No one will mourn those who cannot contribute to society. Entitlement is only proper when you've done something to earn that entitlement. Being a jack-off furry porn pirate is no contribution.

No.3481982

>>3481975
The robots are already here. Go into any factory and you'll see fewer and fewer human workers. And it's going to get worse as AI technology continues to improve.

We must seize control immediately, or workers will be displaced entirely. This will destabilize the entire world, almost certainly resulting in wars that we will not be able to recover from. The time is now.

No.3482001

>>3481981

>So you're against basic evolution then. Wow, what a fucking science hater you are.

Wat?

I was pointing out that Ayn Rand hadn't got a clue about evolution. "Survival" is not about the individual, as the individual always dies in the end and fails to reproduce alone - survival is about the species, about other people, about having a group and a society large enough that it doesn't succumb into incest or get wiped out in a single hurricane etc. etc. and the individual is not even defined except in contrast to their group. Nobody is a special snowflake, existing in the world like a god on earth, like the objectivists believe.

And she was making the naturalist's fallacy anyhow: what is moral, what ought to be cannot be derived from what is. The fact that a species, a group, or an idividual is "surviving" doesn't mean it should keep on surviving - it just happens to do so; survival being good in the moral sense is a subjective opinion.

No.3482002

>>3481981

>Entitlement is only proper when you've done something to earn that entitlement.

Exactly. Now tell me, what entitles people to copyright?

Remember what you're granting the person: copyright is like a permission to print fake money, and then see how many people will mistake it as real money. You can run the copy machine however much you like, and price the results however you like, even different prices for different people, and the real money you take home doesn't need to be in any fixed proportion to the actual time and effort you put into it, you don't need to negotiate with anyone or everyone about how much is a reasonable compensation for the actual work you did, if any in case where you got or command the copyright without being the actual author, and this right never runs out.

No other type of business can get that sort of privilege, and the reward is granted for doing things that don't contribute to any real wealth and prosperity to the people who are forced to pay it. Copyright is just an unreasonable price to pay.

No.3482004

>>3481981

> Being a jack-off furry porn pirate is no contribution.

Yes and no.

It's true that pirating shit is no contribution to anything. Then again, it doesn't have to be, since you don't have to be entitled to anything to take it. The copyright holder is the entitled one, literally, as they are granted this special right by the society, and without this special privilege the stuff would be free to just have. Without copyrights there are no pirates - the distinction is equally fictious.

What isn't free is the ability and the will to make art. As long as people want art to be made, they have to pay artists to make it. The "pirate" cannot get around that, they ultimately don't get a free ride, because failing to support artists results in the lack of art, and if they really do value it and want more of it, then they have to start paying for it.

The point is that the people shouldn't have to pay any more than is needed, what satisfies the actual artist. If they're willing to do the work for X dollars, then there's no sense in paying them X+Y dollars, because that's overcompensation. You may if you wish to, but nobody should be forced to, or cheated to.

Copyright is all about enabling overcompensation to take place by selling the same work over and over in different places, in different contexts, directly and indirectly, regardless of whether the people derive any further value out of it. You are paying for copyrights even without realizing it, without even requesting to be served the content, without even recieving it in the first place. It is simply foisted on you e.g. in paying for the music used in advertisements through the prices of products you buy - and you have no choice because it's the law. How is this right?

No.3482017
File: 21d.jpg - (28.25 KB, 541x337) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
28928

>>3481974

who is "you" ?
I have not touched patents you clown.

You're talking about a different person about patents.

Again,you're just a moocher who wants things your way and want to set arbitrary rules that pleases and benefits YOU.

No.3482038

>>3482002

>No other type of business can get that sort of privilege

Except for the stock market, and bonds. You know, the biggest part of the economy...

No.3482078

>>3482002

Uh. Investing? Loans? "Interest is a social construct!" right?

If you want to reproduce someone's work so badly, why don't you actually reproduce it yourself? The law is extremely forgiving on transformative works. Oh right, this is all just a convoluted attempt to justify something you do or want to do as moral.

Just accept the fact that you as a moral actor will sometimes do immoral things.

If you can't invent that planetary sun gear coconut harvesting device, you're not entitled to copy mine. You don't have the right to break into my home, pull apart my device, and recreate it. The same concept applies.

If you let society do that, then everyone will do the lower effort thing because we're instinctively driven to go for the lower effort payoffs. Everyone will become intellectual property thieves, perpetually nosy.

All the societies with no concept of personal property or intellectual rights were at the lowest wrung of civilization. The native Americans weren't even building permanent fixtures, and had an unsustainable long term food pipeline of hunting that would have driven many species to extinction as their numbers grow.

It's proven history that intellectual property advances a society.

No.3482105

>>3482017

>I have not touched patents you clown.
>ID:bvnDX7l7
>Would you stop selling the design of a microprocessor to various companies because they are all "copies" of the same first design?

That is a matter of patents, not copyrights. You were confusing two different things.

>>3482078

>Uh. Investing? Loans? "Interest is a social construct!" right?

Yes, and?
Things being social constructs is not in itself an argument against them - just a reminder that they aren't automatically justified in and of themselves. See >>3481978

Interest in investments and loans is a matter of contract, and as such it's not anything like copyrights. Gambling with stocks to earn undue profits is not a special privilege that you are granted like copyrights are granted by the society - it's simply something that is possible under the system; it's a loophole. Yet, you do not need to play the stocks game, you don't need to play the investment game, and you don't need to play the loan game - it doesn't affect you unless you join in - but you do have to play the copyrights game because it applies to everyone.

>If you can't invent that planetary sun gear coconut harvesting device, you're not entitled to copy mine. You don't have the right to break into my home, pull apart my device, and recreate it. The same concept applies.

Again, what you're talking about involves patents, not copyrights. See >>3481978 and besides, if your device is patented then I do have the right to look through the files, copy and re-create it. I just don't have the right to sell it. If it's not patented, then guess what?

>If you let society do that...

The society is already doing that. It seems you just don't have any idea how patenting works.

>then everyone will do the lower effort thing

On the contrary. The history of intellectual property is rife with examples where a technology is discovered, someone patents it and prevents everyone else from improving on it by their patents to prevent competition and make money, and then when the patents expire there's a huge boom of copying. See for example 3D printing today: the fundamental techniques were actually tried and tested way back in the 80's, and the reason it is booming today is because the patents expired around 2005 and it became free for all to copy. Another example: Xerox and photocopiers - the patents expired and the market bloomed with cheaper, better copiers and home laser printers etc. etc.

>because we're instinctively driven to go for the lower effort payoffs. Everyone will become intellectual property thieves, perpetually nosy.

Hence capitalism and free competition. If you just copy, you can't do any better than the next guy and your profits fall to zero. The DDR copied everything from the west, they even reverse-engineered IBM computers to make copies of them, but since they had no R&D of their own they were always coming second behind and failed in the market.

>All the societies with no concept of personal property or intellectual rights were at the lowest wrung of civilization.

True, but that does not justify just any sort of intellectual rights. Too much, of the wrong type, is going to be counterproductive, and copyright is exactly that.

You're making the fallacy of thinking that more is always better.

No.3482106

>>3482038

>Except for the stock market, and bonds. You know, the biggest part of the economy...

The stock market isn't given a special privilege to operate like they do - the stock market is a consequence and a side effect of the freedom to make contracts among people and the freedom to choose which contracts to enter, which is the foundation of the entire free market.

Copyright on the other hand is the exact opposite: it results from the state imposing a particular contract on everyone. Copyright is a special limitation to the free market.

No.3482107

>>3482017

>Again,you're just a moocher

The real moochers are the people who use copyrights to get overcompensated. Remember that things which can be copyrighted and sold under copyright aren't by definition valuable in the real physical or practical sense - otherwise they would be patented and/or trademarked - so they are being paid for nothing.

>who wants things your way and want to set arbitrary rules that pleases and benefits YOU.
  1. I want to remove an arbitrary rule that has no justification to exist: copyright.
  2. Of course it would benefit me, as it benefits everyone to get rid of copyrights.

Copyright results in the misallocation of resources, from the general public to the few who overcompensate themselves using the special right. This overcompensation locks up economic resources away from more gainful activities on the market, and increases the general poverty of society.

No.3482108

>>3482107

Who the fuck are you to determine what over-compensation is? Obviously you have internet, and electronics, just how badly are you hurting that you want to spite others?

No.3482109
File: Adulthood.jpg - (52.63 KB, 528x279) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
53893

>>3482107

>The real moochers are the people who use copyrights to get overcompensated.

Who are you to decide what the appropriate level of compensation is for someone else's work?

No matter how you slice it, your argument always boils down to "Whaaa! Whaaa! I'm an entitled prick and I want it my way!"

No.3482134
File: thepoint_you - Copy.jpg - (31.71 KB, 399x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
32475

>>3482105

You're denser than a bag of douchebags used by furfags.

No.3482135

>>3482107

>The real moochers are the people who use copyrights to get overcompensated.

They are as valuable as people want to pay.
Regardless of how important you claim yourself to be.
All commerce is based on demand, need or desire.

Again,you're as dense as a bunch of douchebags used by furfags.

No.3482182
File: 17mrhckqxxywmjpg.jpg - (83.14 KB, 300x382) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
85139

>>3482134 yeah but density is the amount of matter in a given space and Douches aren't particularly dense. They're light wieght flexible bags with a tube at the end that scooches water into your sex holes. A bag of dildos would have worked better. A Bag of douches is not something you accurately associate with density because of all the empty space.

No.3482876

>>3482109

>Who are you to decide what the appropriate level of compensation is for someone else's work?

I'm not even trying to.

>>3482135

>They are as valuable as people want to pay.

Firstly, the value of an item cannot be defined by observing how much people are willing to pay for it, because that's a circular argument, and the people can be behaving irrationally. Just try to apply the argument to a dollar: if you're willing to buy one dollar for two dollars (e.g. by taking a loan) then that would have to mean one dollar is actually worth two dollars, and two is worth four... etc. which shows how silly the idea is.

Secondly, the question isn't about trying to dictate what prices should be paid. The question is about what the people are paying for, because copyright is a special market restriction. It's forcing people to pay not for the creation of the art which is what they really want, but for the gatekeeping and paywalling, and the double-dipping and selling the same thing over and over again which is superfluous and unnecessary. Copyright is forcing people to pay extra for unnecessary pretend-work and other indirect moneygrabbing schemes, instead of paying for what they're actually trying to purchase.

If the market didn't have this special restriction, the individual copyright holders couldn't get overcompensated so much, and that would mean people have more money left over to spend on other artists, so there would be more art and more diversity of art. Meanwhile, as you'd need to put more effort to your art to make money with it, the worse artists would drop off the market, so that would be a win-win situation.

No.3482877

>>3482109

>No matter how you slice it, your argument always boils down to "Whaaa! Whaaa! I'm an entitled prick and I want it my way!"

Imagine for example that your bank would make you wait five minutes by the ATM to have your money, or pay a dollar extra to have it immediately. You'd quickly swap banks, since that's a completely unnecessary thing to do and they're just fucking you over. Competition prevents the banks from getting too greedy over the service fees, because it's a free market and you can vote with your wallet.

Only an idiot would reply to the situation, "You're just an entitled asshole." and continue spending their dollars for absolutely jack shit.

That's exactly what happens with copyrights - there's an unnecessary obstruction placed in your way, for the sole purpose of jacking up the price. The difference is that you can't go elsewhere because copyrights prevent anyone else from doing the exact same thing, so you have to pay the ransom, and you get screwed over for nothing.

No.3482878
File: att-natta-barnet.jpg - (37.38 KB, 640x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
38277

>>3482877

You are still making the argument that the system is broken because other people are getting what they like while you don't get exactly what you want. You can paint over it with economic theory all you want, but you're still just throwing a tantrum because you can't get your way.

No.3482884

>>3482878

>You are still making the argument that the system is broken because other people are getting what they like while you don't get exactly what you want.

You could say that for everything. Let me demonstrate:

"Come on, you're just complaining about the system because some people are getting what they want, and you aren't."
-Josif Stalin.

The system is broken because it's working contrary to the whole point of the free market which is to provide the goods and services in the most cost-effective manner, neither under- or overcompensating. Copyrights are screwing people over, not just me, but everyone - except for those who are on the recieving end of the money.

You're simply defending crony capitalism.

No.3482927
File: DL5_fLuUQAA3g-S.jpg - (67.96 KB, 800x563) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
69595

>>3482884

>The system is broken because it's working contrary to the whole point of the free market which is to provide the goods and services in the most cost-effective manner

Again, you are trying to make the universe revolve around yourself. The free market is about everyone. The free market is designed to get the most goods to the most people because that is how the market grows. Right now, the artists are selling what they want at the price they want and the people are willing to buy it. You don't like it, but the market says you don't matter compared to the majority. Welcome to capitalism.

No.3482930
File: DNoTEaTX4AAS2kL.jpg - (142.21 KB, 1200x822) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
145619

>>3482884

Now that I have time to sit down and explain it properly here we go!

The thing you are thinking of when you say, "free market" is in fact something else. You want the art community to function as what is called an exclusivity market.

An exclusivity market is like companies that make yachts. You don't see a yacht dealer on every corner because they produce a high quality product at a huge markup and people pay it so they can both have the item and the bragging rights that they purchased it.

These companies only compete against each other in the most bare of terms. They divide up the market and work together to assure that they keep dominance in their area of expertise. It is not a free market at all, it's a series of monopolies working together to control the luxury boat economy.

The actual free market that most artists have moved to is more akin to Walmart. They pump out mediocre goods as fast as they can to get as many small sales as possible in order to maintain a steady stream of income. No one expects them to ship 14 inch, gold trimmed prints of the porn of the day. It's just digital art. They pay less but get more because of the low overhead. The Furry fandom is the Walmart of porn, pumping out as much product as they can to appeal to the greatest number of buyers.

This model is safer, economically speaking, because it doesn't depend on what are commonly called, "Whales" (People who are willing to spend big but are fickle) If you lose a customer who was only paying you 5 dollars a month it's no big deal. If you lose a whale who was paying you 400 dollars a month, then you have to get a second job until you replace them.

You are looking to be a whale in a market that doesn't want you. It's nothing personal, it's just good economic sense to diversify your income stream over a large group of people rather than cater to one person who might vanish next week.

No.3482954

What is Bitcoin?

No.3482967

>>3482927

>The free market is about everyone.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, and you're still somehow making this about me. You're arguing my point.

>The free market is designed to get the most goods to the most people

And that happens by using the available resources in the most cost-effective manner. The point of free competition is to pay no more than necessary, because paying any more would mean you have less resources left over to do the other things. Anything that breaks this principle is considered a market failure and a step away from the correct function of the free market, because it introduces income disparity, uneven wealth distribution, and economic inefficiency which lowers everyone's living standards.

>because that is how the market grows.

Growth of the market isn't its main purpose. Infinite growth is just the invention of the inflationists who want to keep printing money for themselves.

>Right now, the artists are selling what they want at the price they want and the people are willing to buy it.

The copyright holders are selling air; of course they want to sell air - everybody likes to get paid for nothing. Some people are under the illusion that this is alright, others are not, yet everyone must pay - because it's the law. If it wasn't the law, people wouldn't have to pay for air, and of course the majority would choose not to.

>You don't like it, but the market says you don't matter compared to the majority. Welcome to capitalism.

You're trying to play this out like this was a free choice made by free people on a free market, but that's not how copyright works. If you ask the majority, "do you think it's alright that Disney has lobbied forever copyrights for their own works?", they'd say no, it's not alright, but the majority isn't asked.

Welcome to crony capitalism. It's funny how you don't realize that you're fighting against your own cause.

No.3482977

>>3482930

>The thing you are thinking of when you say, "free market" is in fact something else. You want the art community to function as what is called an exclusivity market.

Nope.

>It is not a free market at all, it's a series of monopolies working together to control the luxury boat economy.

There you're describing the copyrights economy exactly...

>The actual free market that most artists have moved to is more akin to Walmart. They pump out mediocre goods as fast as they can to get as many small sales as possible in order to maintain a steady stream of income.

Under copyright, there is no free market. The authors who use the situation to their advantage pump out mediocre goods at a rate just enough to keep their paywall subscribers from leaving - which is like walmart employees doing only enough work to appear busy, so they don't get sacked.

>No one expects them to ship 14 inch, gold trimmed prints of the porn of the day.

No-one is asking them to.

>They pay less but get more because of the low overhead.

Actually, they're collectively paying more for less, because the paywallers and the copyright business model in general is about nickle and diming the money out of multiple people who aren't directly aware of each other, and not aware of what is ultimately being paid for the work.

Continuing with the Walmart analogy, it's like getting two paychecks from two different bosses, who aren't aware that the other guy also hired you to do the same work, and they both think you're cheap because you're only asking 75% the usual wages, when in reality the company ends up paying you 150% the normal wage. Now imagine there are hundreds and thousands of bosses, each paying you 1% of the usual wage, thinking "Man, this guy is just free labor!", when in reality they're collectively paying you many times over your worth, and that's coming off of the company profits, and ultimately from the bosses' paychecks.

If there weren't any copyrights, there couldn't be any paywalls, no such nickle and diming, and the authors would have to confront their market directly about what it costs and who's gonna pay it, so there would be an actual negotiation about how much is enough and the free market could function correctly. As it is, there's no negotiation, only government sanctioned monopolies, and the authors are able to cheat their way into more money than is due.

>You are looking to be a whale in a market that doesn't want you.

I have been advocating crowdsourcing all along to avoid the "whale" issue, so artists and authors wouldn't be dependent to selling to single individuals. You just keep skipping the point and ignoring the argument.

How it works is, you have the same subscriber system, but instead of artifical roadblocks and pay to access galleries, the people are continuing their subscription as long as you continue putting out new material. How much for how much in quality and quantity is up to you and them to decide, but the more people subscribe, the less they have to pay per person, so it's in their interest to invite their buddies along, and you get your income security as long as you're willing to meet your commitments.

No.3482996

>>3482930

> it's just good economic sense to diversify your income stream over a large group of people rather than cater to one person who might vanish next week.

How it works without copyrights: You set up a patreon page and say, "I'm willing to draw five pages of comics of this particular quality, on this subject... etc. for $500 from you. Now who's paying?" - and then a hundred people go "alright", and throw in a fiver each. Then you do the work, give out the results, get paid, and you get popular and next month there are 1000 people subscribing, so you go "Hey, I think this is actually worth $1000", and they go "alright", and pay a dollar each.

You see how it can work? If you're putting out good shit on schedule as promised, people start to like you, and your existing subscribers invite more people along to lower their personal cost, which means you can demand more money without breaking their bank. Both win.

Now how it works with copyrights: You set up a patreon page, "I'll let you in to look at my gallery for $5 a month from each of you. There's going to be new art every month! Now who's paying?". A hundred people join, you get a little popular, a thousand people are now subscribing and your income rises, but the money you're getting has nothing to do with how much and what kind of work you're actually putting out. Each of your customers is still paying the same $5, and there's no negotiation over the fact, and the customers don't know how much you're getting in total so they can't make a judgement on whether the price is right. All they have is comparisons about what other people are paying to other artists, and all the artists are colluding to increase prices together because they're not in competition; see the whole "professional pricing" fad a while back where popufurs were trying to convince other artists to up their prices.

So, you get $5000 for work that you would be happy selling at $1000 - obviously somebody's getting screwed over. You win, they lose. Now the tragedy is that the $4000 overcompensation you get in this example is money that the people could have spent on other artists, so there's a sharp drop-off in income between the more popular and less popular artists. The more popular artists get overcompensated, while the less popular artists get undercompensated because there's no money left over. People look at their wallets going, " I would pay you, but I already paid $5 to that guy, and that's all I'm willing to spend". That means the less popular niche artists who aren't pandering to the smallest common denominator are either starving, or doing something else entirely since they can't make enough money to make it worth their while.

So with the copyrights the market is paying more money for less output and less diversity in output. The market is not cost-effective, and less people are getting what they want, while a small minority of authors profit immensely.

No.3483009

>>3482996
I like how you typed that all out, and yet it doesn't matter.

No.3483025
File: P_20171031_152745_p.jpg - (213.89 KB, 1200x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
219020

>>3482930 Speaking of walmart. That's where I got the cat head piece from.

The fact that they sell these at Wal-Mart should tell you that the furry Fandom isn't "dying out" if anything it's gaining momentum.

No.3483030

>>3483025
They're not catering to furries.

You bought their "Catnip the Cat" Halloween costume.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Catnip-the-Cat-Mascot-Adult-Costume/138617590

No.3483031

>>3483009

>I realize I'm being fucked in the skull, and I like it

Fix'd.

No.3483034
File: DF8lCvuVYAEXAwT.jpg - (245.58 KB, 900x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
251469

>>3483030 close but no, it was maskimals.
And these were being sold at Wal-Mart long before the Halloween season even started.

Just like zootopia if this isn't blantant pandering to the furry community & or means to spread it's influence... I really don't what is.

I vaguely remember their being a thread about it here. Something about furry going main stream.

No.3483072

>>3482996

then.. dont.. pay.. it you fucking.. clown...

It isnt worth for you? DO NOT PAY. STOP BITCHING.

Noone is going to give you a ferrari for 1000 because you said its "awful" its priced higher than 1000.

Every single second you open your mouth. It only reeks of "ME ME ME, FOR ME, CONVENIENCE FOR ME"

No.3483099
File: Starfox_is_Awesome_by_starfox64x_-_Copy.jpg - (41.62 KB, 600x726) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
42617

Frankly I'm just glad more furries are able to make money off their art.
Patreon is doing great things for people. If they don't allow "adult content"
There's ways around that. There's plenty of free porn out there already any ways. I don't know why it bothers so many of you more people are able to get paid doing what they like... unless people being happy and benefiting in general just pisses you off.

In that case I just don't know what to tell ya.

No.3483130
File: Enjoy_This_Nightmare_Fuel.png - (360.23 KB, 733x1026) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
368874

>>3482996

>So with the copyrights the market is paying more money for less output and less diversity in output. The market is not cost-effective, and less people are getting what they want...

If they are not getting what they want why do they keep paying? Your argument keeps circling back around to "I'm right because I'm right." with no valid logical points to hold it up.

Here, Disney is the most copyright protected thing on earth. Guess what? Here I go defiling it in every possible way.

It doesn't matter. People break that shit all the time. You are trying to find a way to make your emotional, selfish argument seem like a valid social issue but copyrights don't mean jack shit 99.9% of the time.

Capture: No

No.3483136

>>3483130
be useful and give me the source.

No.3483140

>>3483136

Me. I took an old sketch I found online and used it as reference to practice painting values. I was going to post it for Halloween but I didn't dedicate enough time to it. I was trying out a new program called Manga Studio. It's pretty nice.

No.3483156

>>3483136
https://inkbunny.net/s/1275583

No.3483162
File: Enjoy_This_Nightmare_Fuel_Source.png - (511.09 KB, 972x677) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
523354

>>3483156

Yeah, that's it. Someone had posted it here. I didn't know there were two other pages.

No.3483167

>>3483130

>If they are not getting what they want why do they keep paying?

1) Some of the people stop paying: when the price goes up, fewer and fewer people are able and willing to pay. However, there's always some demand at any price. They may not be getting as much as they want, but the alternative is getting nothing, and something is better than nothing, isn't it?

2) Many people are under the belief that this system is correct and the prices are right, because they haven't seen or even considered the alternatives. There are no alternatives, since virtually nobody is willing to forfeit their copyright and ask fair prices - why would they?

It would be better for both artists and their customers in general to forfeit copyright entirely, because it would level the playing field and allow the average artist to make more money while making it cheaper for the customers, but since people are greedy and they're all looking to "make their break", i.e. get into that top spot where they're raking in money, they're not willing to give up the system that is hurting them. It's like how people play the lottery even though almost nobody ever wins.

In other words, ignorance and illusions causes irrationality on the market, and copyrights enable the copyright holders to exploit the fact.

>Your argument keeps circling back around to "I'm right because I'm right." with no valid logical points to hold it up.

I can bring the horse to the water, but I cannot force it to drink. You haven't actually refuted any of my points or shown how they are circular, you're just dismissing them arbitrarily. You are not arguing, you are just going "La la la, wrong wrong wrong!"

>It doesn't matter. People break that shit all the time.

That's not a valid argument. Being able to break an unjust law doesn't justify the law. It still should not exist.

>You are trying to find a way to make your emotional, selfish argument seem like a valid social issue but copyrights don't mean jack shit 99.9% of the time.

Of course they do. Without copyrights, you'd hear a wider variety of music on radio, pay less for a beer in the pub, start a restaurant with background music without immediately paying RIAA protection money etc. etc. because copyright holders are extracting their royalties from absolutely everywhere. Famous movie actors don't get $50 million salaries for a single movie because they need that amount of money - they get that because the studio is making billions on royalties and licenses, so they can afford it, so the actors' agents up the prices simply because they can. Who wouldn't?

The amount of money that people have to spend indirectly because of copyrights is ridiculous, and you have no choice whether to pay. The copyrights industry in the US is bigger than the whole agricultural sector in terms of GDP - the society is paying more to greedy copyright swindlers than we're paying for food!!

No.3483168

>>3483072

>then.. dont.. pay.. it you fucking.. clown... It isnt worth for you? DO NOT PAY.

I already don't, and neither do I demand being given anything for free. Stop beating that strawman, it's in pieces already!

> STOP BITCHING.

So when I see something wrong, I'm just supposed to shut up?

>Noone is going to give you a ferrari for 1000 because you said its "awful" its priced higher than 1000.

That's not the argument I'm making.

>Every single second you open your mouth. It only reeks of "ME ME ME, FOR ME, CONVENIENCE FOR ME"

How? Explain.

No.3483171

>>3483168

>So when I see something wrong, I'm just supposed to shut up?

You can bitch about it all you want but it's pretty clear that the majority think you are wrong and your argument isn't very persuasive. The existing system gives access to the most people so most people will be happy with it. If I was to open a patreon I would make the prices low then release the content a few months after the paying customers get it on a FA account so it's fair and accessible to everyone.

No.3483172

>>3483130
Btw. A common mistake people make when discussing about supply and demand is to assume that the maximum profit point, i.e. where result of buyers x price is maximized, is somehow the right price for a product. I.e. "What the market is willing to pay".

But that's not the case. It's just the point where the seller makes the most money. As you yourself pointed out: "The free market is designed to get the most goods to the most people" - and that implies selling at the lowest price that is still possible for the seller without making a loss - not the optimum point where they're making the most profit.

The sellers would like to up their profits, but that's not the purpose of the free market. That's why actual real capitalists actually hate the free market - they don't want any competition, they will do everything in their power to convince you to not go to their competitor, they will form trusts and cartels, and they will push through any law and regulation that would make competition impossible.

And so it's left for the society to make sure that the capitalists can't cheat, that they have to compete. That's also why artifical monopolies like copyright are harmful. Holding such a monopoly, you're free to price yourself by the maximum profit point, whereas without a monopoly you're forced to compete towards the minimum profit point.

No.3483175

>>3483171

>The existing system gives access to the most people so most people will be happy with it.

The existing system does a piss poor job at "giving access", as without copyrights you'd have free access to anything that already exists online, without unnecessary payments and artifical roadblocks, or jealously guarded paywalls. I can bet your ass that people would be more happy with that.

On the contrary, the present system disproportionally rewards some few popular artists, and screws the average artist over, which causes less art to be made, and the quality of art from the few popular artists isn't very great because they're pandering to the lowest common denominator.

And you yourself agreed earlier that this is not a desirable state of affairs - you agreed that the point of the free market is to make the most goods to the most people, which the copyright system does not.

>it's pretty clear that the majority think you are wrong and your argument isn't very persuasive

How is it clear? You have given absolutely no counter-argument to the points I have raised, and have not actually conduted any sort of poll or a vote to back up your statements.

You've made no attempt to show that I'm actually wrong, and in fact you've managed to agree with me as you were accusing me of being wrong, and yet you have the stupidity to call me "not very persuasive".

You're simply confused.

No.3483177

>>3483171

>If I was to open a patreon I would make the prices low then release the content a few months after the paying customers get it on a FA account so it's fair and accessible to everyone.

How can you call it accessible when you're doing the very opposite? You're witholding access in order to make people trade off between their time and their money, and that's just silly. It's still inconveniencing your fans for absolutely no reason, and your business model is still based on extracting entry fees instead of selling your actual work - so the payment is not proportional or depend on the actual services rendered and work performed - so how can you call it fair?

You're still doing the old switcheroo where you "sell music" but what the customer actually gets is just a plastic disc and no rights to the content, so you didn't actually sell anything. If you cared about accessibility and being fair, you'd set the price up front and once paid you'd release the material without delay and without strings attached. No member exclusives, no one month waits, no higher resolutions for premium customers, no DMCAs for redistributing... none of that bullshit. Just an honest pay for honest work.

No.3483178
File: THEKNOT_u18chan.png - (196.77 KB, 618x259) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
201496

>>3483176

>If you were being fair and cared about accessibility, you'd set the price up front and once paid you'd release the material without delay.

Ok, let's play it your way. How much do you think is a reasonable price for a page of a comic? How much do you think the artist should charge for say, a page of that comic where the wolf guy is going to fuck that hawk.

What is a fair price for a page?

No.3483179

>>3483178

> How much do you think is a reasonable price for a page of a comic?

And we're going full circle again, repeating a debate that was already made like three times over.

The answer: That depends entirely on the market. I can't answer that question for you.

No.3483183

>>3483178
Actually, I can answer to you, but only in a relative sense.

If it was me selling a page of comic, I would probably need to use something like 3-4 hours per cell, or about 24 hours to finish the whole page. The quality would not be very stellar because I'm not a practiced artist, so it would be amateur webcomic tier stuff. As for the writing, I'm not qualified to judge myself.

However, to make it worth my while, I would like to ask more than $10 per hour to spend my free time on it, So about $250 per page would be my minimum.

Now the question becomes will I be able to attract customers at that price point. The answer would probably be "no". I would have to be much better or much faster at drawing, or a brilliant writer to compensate, but assuming I were at least moderately good, I could see myself having 250 subscribers to my patreon, each paying a dollar and getting a new page to view.

I mean, people are already throwing $3-5 a month on patreons that offer very little indeed, like one drawing a week if they feel like it, or someone else's shitty sparkledog commissions that were already paid for anyways, and many of those people are just paying to suck up to the artist, hoping they'd get a little popufur rubbing off of them.

No.3483187

>>3483178
In the end, let me put it this way:

The prices are set by the market in any case, because we're trying to have a free market with competition. Whether the price is fair actually depends on whether the market is fair.

If the market is stacked in favor of the seller, or some of the sellers, it's not a fair market. The prices tend to be higher than they would, and the distribution of money and value becomes uneven, which leads to inefficiency.

The market not being fair leads to ill consequences, such as doing less trade because some sellers get overcompensated and the rest can't make a sale with no money left over. Some people benefit, but the market as a whole loses. That is the reason why it is called not fair.

It's never a simple matter of "well, then tell me how much we should be paying", because on the market everyone is free to price their products however they like, and everyone is free to pay whatever for whatever they want. There's a customer for every price, and a price for every customer. Where the average prices settle depends on how the tables are tilted and in whose favor.

No.3483188

>>3483179

>The answer: That depends entirely on the market. I can't answer that question for you.

I mean, specifically, you. You being the only person in the market, what would you offer for this kind of comic page?

No.3483191

>I would ask about $250 per page...

>will I be able to attract customers at that price point. The answer would probably be "no"

So by your own reconing, you couldn't get what you feel is a fair price if you did it your way. Yet using Patreon artists can and do.

I mean, look at this guy:
https://www.patreon.com/ZachWeinersmith

He draws like a Sunday paper cartoon and he gets 7 grand a month.

No.3483270

>>3483179

>That depends entirely on the market. I can't answer that question for you.

and the market already talked you fucktard.
They used patreon and they like the patreon way.
The only going full circles here is YOU.

No.3483273
File: not_a_tumah.jpg - (34.91 KB, 350x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
35752

>>3482967

>That's exactly what I'm trying to say, and you're still somehow making this about me. You're arguing my point.

Because you're the one making this entire fuckfest. You're the idiot who still do not understand that the market already embraced patreon and prefer it for delivery of things like art.
Its only YOU and a few fuckfaces who claim it is "unfair" (to YOU) while others are happy using that way.

again.. YOU are the problem. YOU cannot understand this.
YOU cannot accept that others like this way.
YOU are the one who are still going circles.
YOU are the one still bitching non stop on every goddamn thread related to art that mentions patreon.

To resume, you're a total fucking retard that cant proceed beyond basic logic because you're so fixated on getting shit for free or in the very specific way you prefer. Ignoring everyone else's tastes or choices.


Delete Post []
Password