Creative Commons license icon

e621 'closed down permanently' after legal threats

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (11 votes)

Mature furry imageboard e621 has apparently closed its doors:

Thanks to numerous threats to our host, false claims of illegal content, harassment and a few things that are much worse, e621 is being closed down permanently. It's been fun running it.

The closure is likely the result of allegations made earlier today that e621 hosted cartoon child pornography.

Update: All is impermanent. Varka (CEO of Bad Dragon) intends to take over the site.

Site owner Arcturus was also recently involved with a dispute over use of e621's mascot in an image hosted on Fur Affinity, which was discussed in various internet forums and may have triggered the allegations.

Arcturus said the risk of legal costs was too great to leave the site up, reasoning the attacks would continue even if material was taken down:

It's not a matter of 'letting an asshole win'. It's a matter of 'Not wanting to have to pay massive amounts of money I don't have for legal representation to defend myself in court over fictitious claims of cub porn somehow being real child porn'.

[...] I'd rather take e621 down than ban something just to appease trolls. Because then they'd move on to the NEXT thing they don't like. And the next. Until there's nothing left but foxes jizzing rainbows.

e621 is a popular site, currently ranked 19,590 on Alexa. It has attracted criticism for hosting works without permission from copyright owners.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (8 votes)

The wheel of drama continues to turn, and everyone is worse off and missing a useful resource because of it.

[facepalm_montage.tiff]

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

In what way is anyone 'worse off'? How are they missing a 'wonderful resource'? The art is still out there in the original artists' websites, most of whom are on Furaffinity. What's lost is a site that reposted work, usually without permission or the knowledge of the artists; what's gained is that maybe now people will actually visit the official websites and bring them some welcome traffic. Plus, maybe visitors will poke around and find the work that wasn't allowed on e621 because of the DNP lists.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (6 votes)

The tagging was quite good, often more accurate and comprehensive than the effort the original artist put in on categorizing his or her own work in some other database.

EDIT: BTW, there's a way to get around copyright issues yet still provide the same tagging service. Well, sort of. Someone with vaginal silicosis and a willingness to commit perjury (never heard of anyone being taken to task for false notices) can still take a properly thought-out site down for long enough to make a difference.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

All of which still doesn't justify reposting artists' work without prior permission.

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (9 votes)

Yeah, cept no one's ever gonna be able to find the current artists because they all are on FA.. a website with a failed search engine, a failed design... and something that's getting worse off every day/

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (8 votes)

I don't understand what's meant by a 'failed design', as the site is still up and functioning regardless of the current state of its search engine. I've never bothered with a search engine there anyway, and I've usually managed to find artists when I go looking for them -- provided that they're actually there and haven't changed their names -- in which case, a search engine wouldn't help anyway.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

If they do not spread out from furaffinity, A /good/ portion of furries will never know they exist. and by failed design... Have you looked at it recently? It's a mess! Add that plus two faced administration and you see that FA isn't a safe haven as every claims.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I look at it quite often, as I have a page there myself; I don't know about the admins being two-faced, other than that the admins of practically every website I know of is accused of being two-faced at some time or another, by one party or another, and I certainly don't claim that FA is a safe haven, which is why I have work in more than one archive. Quite a few artists are in more than one archive, for that matter.

What FA has to its credit is that it is a meeting place where everyone comes, and that actually makes it easier to find artists if there's a unique place to gather, as opposed to searching them out throughout the entire internet. In fact, the fewer such places, the easier it is (though I'm certainly not about to encourage the elimination of all but one active archive).

I'm still not getting this 'failed design' thing; could you explain more clearly?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (8 votes)

Solution: Inkbunny!

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! i love this site

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (7 votes)

Dumb trolls. Cartoons are not real. Why is that so hard to realise?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Seems like it was personal, you should read journal comments more carefully

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Rakuen don't start, if you are going to do this again, try putting actual substance to your arguments.

Actually is it just me or does this sound a lot like the 4chan drama a couple years back? For those of you who don't know what happened was that furries kept posting copyrighted images without the artists approval, so the artists threatened to sue and either they'd have to either remove the images, pay damages or take down the site and drama broke out.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Just note the allegations were about Shota/Loli depictions of HUMAN characters. It was not about cub art.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (6 votes)

Yes, cause rolling image boards like 4chan or /furi/ which actually DO post child porn and various pictures of animal crualty spiced with some little bit of dismembering and guro can go on free.

Now people bitch about drawn art and tomorrow we can "heil" back the thought police where you get to court for what you were "supposedly" thinking. I wonder where the fuck this so called democracy is going.

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (8 votes)

That's immaterial. The point is that it was drawn art, it had nothing to do with actual people being harmed. Lots of people play Call of Duty for example, but they aren't charged with murder because it is not real. If there is no real action taking place then there is nothing to punish.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2 (11 votes)

But you have to look at it from a mundanes point of view. If you were a mundane and you saw cub porn, what would be your first reactions? Its cartoon child pornography. Its still child pornography. Arcturus made the right decision in closing down the site.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (11 votes)

But no one is being harmed. Child pornography is bad because it's using children sexually. If you draw it, no one is being used. It's a victimless crime. It needs to be judged on whether anyone is harmed. People's reactions are not important because they don't change what was or wasn't happening and, from a decency point of view, they didn't have to go look at the site.

Would you be playing the whole "Its cartoon child pornography. Its still child pornography." card if someone were executed for drawing a picture of a man being shot? It's cartoon murder, it's still murder?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

No I wouldn't. The argument is that its depicting children sexually. It doesn't matter that a real child wasn't used to make it. And while I'm not saying this happens every time so don't condemn me for saying it, but sometimes simply viewing child pornography, even if its in furry form, Might lead to other things. You know what I'm talking about.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

It does matter that a child wasn't used just as it matters that when you play a video game someone doesn't die. If you will punish drawn child pornography for depicting the act then you should punish every person who kills in a video game for murder.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (5 votes)

You'll have to argue that with the lawmakers. Right now, it does legally matter. Illustrated child porn is just as illegal as photographed child porn.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (6 votes)

Uh yeah, I'm not sure what country you live in, but if you live in the U.S., you should really do your research before making claims like that. This issue was looked at by the U.S. Congress a few years back, where it was deemed that prohibiting fictional depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity, whether it be written or drawn, would be unconstitutional, the primary reason being that such depictions are very common in classic literature and and art (albeit much less explicit). So yeah, in the U.S. it's not illegal, can't speak for other countries like the U.K. or Australia though.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

The tide is changing on that opinion , though. Many courts are finding a different result.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

I have done my research.

The PROTECT Act, which was signed into law by George W Bush in 2003, includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. This is distinctly different from the previous Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which had been struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002 as unconstitutional.

You can read the particulars of the law here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003), but note the phrase that reads: "Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition."

Note further that there has already been one conviction through this law: "The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.[12] This was in apparent contradiction to a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stated virtual child pornography was protected free speech." That last line indicates that the matter and the issue haven't yet had their final day in the courts, but until it does go back to the Supreme Court, it remains the law in effect.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Giant pillar of comments unrelated to the topic discussing the legality of cub porn in 3...2...1...

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

It doesn't matter if it's actually illegal or not. Folks who see it generally respond with 'eww, kiddie-porn' and God help you if you're associated with it in any way because now you have the reputation of being a sexual predator. A pedophile. You can argue until the sun goes out about your 'legal rights' but now you have attracted every righteous person with some time to spare and they *will* shut your site down and ruin your good name.

That is, if you have one. I forbade my son to play GTA because of the encouragement to perform illegal acts and murder folks. Even fictitious folks. Call of Duty is different, in that you are assuming the role of a soldier - and their job is to kill the enemy.

I suspect this may start off a firestorm of controversy over whether soldiers qualify as murderers, but sod it. You folks argue about that and about legally depicting child pron by slipping through loopholes. No one out there is fooled in the least. I served for 22 years and I bloody well know that a soldier can murder, but no murderer will ever be mistaken for a soldier. There is a clear difference. You can dress the child up in a fursuit, but it's still pedophilia.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

"I served for 22 years and I bloody well know that a soldier can murder, but no murderer will ever be mistaken for a soldier."

Hi, I'm the 60s, I'm guessing we never met.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

I am REALLY going to miss this site, as I'm sure many others are too...

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (15 votes)

And nothing of value was lost.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Looking through the allegations, I note that, although the 'loli' charge is predominant, it was not the only one being brought against the site -- that there were also issues of copyright infringement, DMCA abuses and a lack of proper response from the admins in taking down images. In short, the site, like so many of its ilk, has been essentially 'asking for trouble' for quite a long time, so the inevitable result is not really a surprise.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Damn insane roo, this site, although mostly full of adult content, some gross, others controversial, was a bastion of free art distribution. It was shut down because some people ignore the whole and criticize the minority of the art. It's bollocks.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (6 votes)

I would say that it was a bastion of pirated art distribution, since most of the time art was posted without permission. That's quite a different thing than art being freely distributed, since that phrase suggests that it was done with the artists' knowledge or permission.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

Call it pirated if you like, but it's not easy to find all of that art. I have no idea where to find some of those artists, and some of the scanned comics were rare and do not exist elsewhere on the internet at all. Compiling all of that stuff in one place was a great service. I'm sorry to see it go. Not surprised, however. It's surprising that they were able to keep it running for so long.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (5 votes)

If it wasn't available, then there was probably a reason. Regardless of why, no one outside of the artist or the owner of the original work has the right to post any art or story to the net just because people can't find it anywhere. Demand does not override the rights of the creators/owners.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

in my eyes it was the best idea of taking it down... because if it really gets to an accusal this would atract much attentionand if media gets involved all theyve got to say is that the"furryfandom" is just a place for child porn and stuff... what it is absolutley not.

ps:
im sorry for my bad english :)

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

I hate child blah can't even say it without puking. But i like furry/anthro/human/alien.
I hate animal stuff too. its sick. I liked the site because it was easy to navigate and the new post was in the front.
Also cartoon stuff even if i don't like it. It is a victimless crime the person should only be punished if it goes from fake to real then they should be put in jail for the rest of there lives.
Its sad to see e621.net go. Its like losing a part of my fantasy:< (Those trolls wont stop until they killed all the cute little puppies and kittens in the world.)
On another note animals do not ware clothing are you going to arrest the owner because there pet is not dressed? AND another humans are a type of animal and have human quality's... wait! isn't that the definition of anthropomorphic? If that's so then isn't humans anthro? <-mind blown!

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

" AND another humans are a type of animal and have human quality's... wait! isn't that the definition of anthropomorphic? If that's so then isn't humans anthro? <-mind blown!"

1) I think everyone 'blows their own mind' because I think everyone egotistically likes the way they think of things over everyone else

2) Humans are not anthropomorphic because the definition of anthropomorphic contains that the human qualities have to be attributed to a non-human entity, and I've looked at pretty much every dictionary I can if you have another one that claims otherwise I'd like to see the link.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

Humans are anthropomorphic because anthropomorphic literally means "human shaped." You can't get much more human-shaped than a human.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropomorphic

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

You weren't reading your own sources carefully enough. They define anthropomorphic as 'ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human' or 'resembling or made to resemble a human form'. A human does not resemble a human -- he is human.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

Well, this is very sad. E621 got me into anthro art. It gave me the chance to see many different art types and ideas that led me to discovering new artists. It was not so much to try and steal others art, but to make their art known by many more new people that normally would have never seen it because of a paysite or such. E621, you will not be forgotten....

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

What a bummer, I used E621 as a way to find new artists personally, Can anyone recommend other sites that have a constant stream of new work with links to the artist like E621 had?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Yes. Furaffinity, Art Spots and Deviant Art, just to name a couple. As these are archives, they have direct links to their contributors.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

There are plenty of furry art sites that are not paysites; Furaffinity and Art Spots come foremost to mind. If you feel the need to see random selections rather than just poke at individual artists' pages, these sites do have browsing pages that display the most recent entries. And they do it with full knowledge and permission of the contributing artists, unlike e621 and the various chan sites.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (6 votes)

Wow this sucks. Hope those asshole trolls get what's coming to them...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

I think that this closure is a good thing, TBH. Not for the cub porn, that doesn't bother me, but the blatant disrespect for copyrights that was shown there. It's unfortunate that people needed to go to that level, but I know a TON of artists who were pretty pissed off that their stuff was being regularly reposted on e621 and no one seemed to do anything.

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (7 votes)

Really? People always posted the source of the image on the left side. So if it came from FA, there was a link right to their profile. Stupid trolls, the only time it was a problem is because of lack of tags + source link.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (6 votes)

It doesn't matter if they posted the source. You can't just copy and reproduce something somewhere and then claim "Oh, it's okay, I gave credit to the author/artist/creator."

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

Absolutely true. And it isn't true that the sources were always credited; they were only sometimes credited.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

No, they were always credited when the artist of the image was known. It was in the tags and in the "Source:" field. If the artist wasn't known at the time the image was posted, it would be found eventually. and corrected...

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (4 votes)

And all that doesn't matter a lick if the artist didn't post it. It's illegal to take people's work, without their permission, and repost it. PERIOD. DONE. NO FURTHER COMMENT NECESSARY.

Forget Cub porn, what they were doing already was illegal.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

Not that I ever saw. (I kept a watch on the site for any examples of my own art being reposted, and, yes, I did catch one and had it removed.) There were a lot that were credited, yes, but I saw just as many that weren't. Of course, I'm not referring to just the artist, but to the actual sources for the images... and most didn't even have their original file names, but were renamed with number strings.

No image should have ever been reposted without proper credits: artist, source, correct file name. These should have always been listed right from the outset, without the need of inserting such data later.

Of course, above and beyond that, no image should have ever been reposted in the first place without prior permission. (Especially the ones that specifically said, right in the image, Do Not Distribute.)

Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (5 votes)

...and all of you fail to realize that e621.net was an ART ARCHIVE. A place where people could go to to find hard to find images, or images from artists that left the fandom years ago and wiped their FA galleries in the process (Ebon Lupus and Java for example). E621 was kinda' like Wal-Mart...you could find everything you wanted in one place, instead of going from store to store running all over town to find everything you were looking for. You all talk like it was the enemy, it is (was) a very good website where you could find everything all in one place and if you wanted to find an image, it was searchable (provided all the appropriate tags were there) by artist, gender, species, whether it was color or B&W, etc...anything.

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (7 votes)

So it's okay to piss on artists and their rights just so you can get what you want?

Fucking furries ruin everything.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (7 votes)

Oh, how ironic....
I have better things to do than to argue with the likes of you. Why don't you all vent your feelings to the e-six staff such as mellis, deadjackal, or Arcturus. They will set you straight and correct your (wrong) beliefs in a more professional manner than I can.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

It has been argued with them repeatedly. I know artists who filed DMCA takedown notices (which, in the end, is what would get the site legally knocked off line.) and had nothing done.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

And, as noted, this was a part of the complaint that got the site to shut down in the end.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (5 votes)

No, it was NOT an archive. Furaffinity is an archive. It is a site where the artists voluntarily go to post their work for free viewing. e621 was a pirate site that disregarded the artists' interests or desires in favor of a mob rule mentality where anything was all right so long as it was what the 'mob' wanted. As an artist, I DID consider it and all similar sites to be the enemy, which is why I had my name put on the DNP lists -- to help enforce that my work wasn't going where I didn't want it to go.

If people don't want their art to be freely available anymore for whatever reason, that is their right, and no one has any right to post it in disregard of those desires, no matter how many people want to see those works made freely available again.

And it's not like there's an infinite number of bona fide furry archives to look at -- I can only think of three or four offhand -- so the loss of a pirate 'clearing house' should hardly be missed. If anything, it should be celebrated, because now the viewers can come directly to the artists, instead of through a disrespectful third party.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (5 votes)

You don't have to submit things to an archive. They collect and archive things, that's why they are called archives. If you put yourself on the DNP and someone posts then that's a problem. If not then what's so bad about it. If you ask me it's a complement that people think your work should be shared. If you're identified as the artist then you still get the publicity and there's no downside.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

Artists should be allowed to choose when they are marketed.. not the reverse. They shouldn't have to notify sites that they don't want their work illegally posted there in violation of multiple copyright laws.

I don't understand why people think that this is "advertising." It's NOT advertising. It's violation of copyright law. Let the artists advertise. It's their property and their right to choose to post or not post something.

I'm tired of people taking stuff that doesn't belong to them or exercising rights that are not theirs and then getting indignant when they are called on their unethical behavior. Respect artists, please.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

That's not an archive, it's a sponge. If I were to put it more politely, I'd call it a collection, that of acquiring other people's art.

The problem was that I felt it necessary to put myself on a DNP list at all; legally, it shouldn't have been necessary, as no art should ever be posted or republished (legally, this is considered an act of publication) without my PRIOR consent.

No, I am NOT complimented when people post my work without permission. It's rude and presumptive, not to mention illegal (yes, even on the internet). If they really wanted to share my work with the greater public, all they needed to do would be to post a link to any of my legitimate archives, and direct some traffic that way. I like to be a bit more careful where my work shows up and in what context. And there is a downside to publicity if my work appears on a site that puts my work beside those of far more questionable content -- that kind of publicity I can do without. I'm uncomfortable enough being on Furaffinity, but at least there I have my own page and can set the content as I please. I don't need other people making my decisions for me about where and when to present my art, unless there's a contract and money involved.

In a nutshell: NO ONE has the right to repost ANY artist's work WITHOUT his or her PRIOR consent. At any time.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Well part of the point of an archive is to store art that might otherwise be lost. Some artists ragequit for stupid reasons and others just move on. Over time sites close and the art stored on there is lost, particularly when the artists who used the site have left. This is a way to keep the art around for other people to enjoy. You don't have to ask Shakespeare to post his stuff wherever you want.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

a) Shakespeare's dead.
b) There were no copyright laws in his time (and his work was largely published by English printers who paid him absolutely no royalties at all as a result)
and c) his copyrights, had he any, would have expired by this date anyway.

If any artist wants to quit and vanish, whatever his reason, that's his right and our loss. If you have any of their art in your hard drive, then you were lucky and you should count your blessings. But NO ONE has the right to resurrect their work without their permission. Period.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

a) A site or an artist who has left is effectively dead in terms of the fandom.In any case this and c are both invalidated by "NO ONE has the right to repost ANY artist's work WITHOUT his or her PRIOR consent. At any time."
b) Fair enough, but a rather weak point.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Regardless of whether or not an artist is considered 'dead' to his community, his copyrights are still valid until 70 years past his actual death. You cannot repost his work without his permission, or, in the event of his death, the permission of his family or estate. When those rights do finally expire, the work becomes public property, but not until then.

B) is pretty much a strong argument for the existence of copyrights in the first place.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

I agree with the principle, but there are cases where reuse without consent is OK. For example, the article about Ursula Vernon's artwork contained a detail from that artwork. I didn't ask first, because such use is permitted by copyright law for news reporting purposes. Same for Krystal.

Copying the whole thing, replacing the need to get the work from the author? Yeah, that's not on.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Yeah, that's precisely the kind of thing that's covered by the Fair Use clause, intended for reviews and articles. No problems there.

Your rating: None

And Parody, which is ironically what Arc tried to attack on FA with the DMCA claim that started this whole mess.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

A pillar of the furry community has been toppled....

In the words of Jessi's father: "YA DUN' GOOF'D!!!"

Your rating: None

Heya, guys... just so you know, I'm covering the story live, and updating as new developments take place, at http://vom-dt.mobianlegends.com. Stay tuned to VOM-DT - Furry Television for more information on this matter.

~ The Legendary RingtailedFox

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

This is getting really annoying in all the wrong ways.

First I can't post my work for sale on Inkbunny because they'd rather ban all humans than actually take a stand on toon porn, and now this site (as cavalier and disrespectful to creators as it may be) is also disappearing because, again, they'd rather take down the site and drive everything underground rather than actually taking a stand on it.

At the risk of actually giving my opinion on this crap, either do without it or somebody take it to court already!

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Basically, it's not going to court because the legal fees would be prohibitive. In fact, the sites were likely counting on there be no major complaints from artists for that very same reason. No one wants to enter into an expensive court battle; even a short bout would still cost heavily. Essentially, this comes down to a game of 'chicken', and one side blinked.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Let this be a lesson to the site runners: You piss off enough people, and soon every individual wronged will work together against you, and you will still only be one.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The CBLDF (Comic Book Legal Defense Fund) exists for defending the rights of artists / collectors against censorship. It's not even the first time they'd have taken on this sort of case.

It'd still suck ass (and I sure wouldn't want to do it), but it's not impossible.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

They already have said they won't this with a 10 foot pole.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Eh this site has been a good site for quiet a while. Yea i dont see eye to eye with those who are into cub, but its is not cp, the United Stsates law says, if its animated or drawn, it is not cp....The court costs will most likely be $500+ and no a days, thjat justs isnt thinkable. I dont blame him for saying fuck it.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Okay. So what's the bad news?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

No love lost, to me it just a typical smut peddler ripping off other smut peddler. Sounds like the deal breaker was child porn more likely pissing off artist for work posted without permission. Sorry folk you may want to read Christopher Handley case which set up a precedent by the court in affirming previsions of the PROTECT Act prohibiting distribution or possession of "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting. Cub porn is a despicable loophole.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

The Hadley case doesn't actually set up a legal precedent because Hadley pleaded guilty as part of a plea deal; as such, there would still be room for a stronger legal defense on the same charge, if not for the Dwight Whorley case. I think the Whorley conviction, which had no such plea deal and stood up to appeals (and which I note was denied further appeal by the Supreme Court earlier this year) will actually stand as the legal precedent.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

What happened here?

Step 1) Someone posts a picture of E621's mascot on FurAffinity, owner of E621 confronts Dragoneer with a DMCA. Because of this threat Dragoneer threatened to ban him if he filed without working with him first (in private email).

Step 2) Arc goes "*Gasp* Dragoneer just threatened to b& me from furaffinity in a journal on furaffinity, in response Dragoneer posts the emails of his threat of copyright claim.

Step 3) This pisses off all the individual artists e621 ripped off over the years and not only do they file their own DMCAs against the site all at once in a group mob manner as opposed to just individually bitching which is the route they tried and failed to produce results(actually against the site's hosting service directly skipping the middle man). Not only this but they pull out the cartoon child porn of child persons (not 'cubs') fan smut of Digimon human characters were one example presented.

The morale? If you're gonna start a claims war, make sure you have more ammo then your opponent.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Actually, it doesn't help that your friend IK decided to email the site, and the datacenter owners, too, telling them that e621 has kiddie porn.

Including DMCA notices that were not his standing, apparently.

His reasons are the ones that Arc cites, not Dragoneer, and DMCA claims have been filed against e621 for years.

This is Insane Kangaroo's moment ;) Don't give it to someone else.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I have not seen the exact wording of the email in that regards, I understand the Insane_Kangaroo was involved in this incident. He does what he wants and is his own person, he told me about it I wasn't going to do anything to stop him. I do worry about him though, because even when it comes to people, they set up their groups and even someone like Arc has friends. It wasn't even 24 hours till people were harassing him enough on FA to have the admins step in. I haven't recalled this happening since Chewfox.

I just worry for him is all, so I wanted to give an overall picture while trying to not give him any more limelight then he already got from it, with things like this I think limelight isn't a positive thing. It's what makes him different then me I suppose. When I do the right thing, but I'd rather not take recognition for it. Because being recognized makes one an easier target.

I guess I'm not as brave as my words make me appear, in brutal honesty.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Well, when he goes around bragging about what he does, you're not really going to stop him. Besides, he's always been the type to look for a fight. He'll win them until one day, someone else will beat him, and then I imagine there will be guns involved. *shrugs*

You can't stop someone like that who is so intent on destroying other people that they don't notice what it's doing to them. You can only be there for them if they'll have you.

A fair warning , though. When people like IK finally meet their "end", be it life or just a fandom, it tends to be messy. I hope you're clear enough when that happens.

This is not a threat, personally, I stay far away from IK because I don't want any blowback to hit me. I intend to keep that distance forever. I just think that we should be fair. Arc said it was him, he's said it was him, others have said it was him. It's being dishonest to blame Dragoneer for something that he may have been involved in but was not the key player.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Didn't blame Dragoneer, I blame Arc for his prior actions which lead to the hypocracy that caused the light to be shined on him that attracted the attention for someone to get the better of him.

It was Arc's site, it was Arc's content, if he wasn't ready to defend it against people, perhaps he shouldn't have started something he couldn't handle.

I certainly don't entirely agree with the methods or the way they were used, but to say Arc was a victim of anyone but himself in the end would also be disingenuous.

Your rating: None

And now, apparently, it's NOT closing permanently.

So what does that teach us, really?

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

That e621 truly is a furry website: "Leaving the fandom brb."

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

And so, the piracy continues.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

That I was right to use quote marks in the title of this article. :-)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Not to freak out and panic over nothing...

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

..provided, of course, you consider perpetuating the same abuses and infringement as before as being 'nothing'.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

If that does occur at least artists will be able to boycott his shlong (+1 vag) factory if he does continue their behavior against copyright claims.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

http://www.flayrah.com/2921/anthrocon-bans-fur-over-open-carry

Like to make a note that in an environment of expedience and primarily ruled by verbal communication only (i.e., the internet), appearances do matter. The pictures you take of yourself are who you want to be perceived as and user images are your first impression. Because you have no inflection or body language to supplement your communication, your appearance is your only form of non-verbal communication on forums, message boards and the like. You communicate far more about yourself by what you look like and wear than one might believe. It goes back to the joke about dressing like a prostitute. If you don't want to be treated like a whore, don't dress like one. That's why civilians don't go around dressed like police officers every day. You don't do that unless you want others to perceive you and treat you as if you are actually a cop.

Same goes for our friend Insane Kangaroo, and I can't be the only one who's getting a serious Tim McVeigh feeling from that picture. Names and words also matter. If you don't want to make people think you're mentally unstable, don't put the word "insane" in your username. It's just that easy.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Personally, you're not going to convince me of that because of the way someone looks that they you know everything they are going to do. My high school friend was a 5'4" scrawny squeaky voiced pipsqueak who dressed in business casual on a regular basis and was a 4.0 student throughout highschool and his first 3 years of college.

He never finished his 4th year, in the summer prior to his senior year (still living at his mother's house) he snapped, bashed his mom's head with a clock when she was on the floor he went to the kitchen, got a knife, came back and stabbed her to death. He promptly turned himself in and plead guilty to 2nd degree murder.

The whole community was caught off gaurd... why? Because their family APPEARED perfect to the community. But really, my friend was a closet homosexual, he never even told me, he never told anyone until after a year in the slammer. But with the way his voice carried, his mother pushed him to try and speak deeper, tried to get him to be more perfect for their appearence, and because of such, he snapped.

The morales of this story: Sometimes its those putting up a 'perfect' appearence that should be the worry, and never try and forcefully change someone from who they are or you will probably drive them fucking crazy.

I mean think of it this way: If you're a furry, maybe people would think you're less crazy if you'd stop wearing fursuits.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Thank you for replying. This proves the point even more. Your friend dressed like a consummate professional to assist in the image he wanted to present to the public. A psychopath doesn't dress in a burlap sack or else people would know they're touched in the head. That Craig's List killer dressed extremely well, putting on the appearance he wanted the public to see. If he wore coattails, top hat and riding gloves and cane, totally selling to whole Edwardian look, maybe it would have been harder for him to succeed as a poor man's Jack the Ripper. Skinheads use their physical appearanc supplemented by a notorious reputation to intimidate and demoralize (primarily) minority groups. Timothy McVeigh was a 4.0 student, Valedictorian if I remember correctly, and left Desert Storm rather well decorated. At the time, he didn't look crazy, but due to his actions, we know this to be true. From that chosen image of Mr. Ross, he appears to be emulating McVeigh.

As for the last bit. Four words: big, blue, insane kangaroo.

That said, casual fursuiters kinda confuse me (I don't get the appeal outside of kaiju big battel), but they ain't got nothin' on kigurumi cosplayers. That shit is just downright terrifying.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

"Because you have no inflection or body language to supplement your communication, your appearance is your only form of non-verbal communication on forums, message boards and the like. You communicate far more about yourself by what you look like and wear than one might believe."

"Timothy McVeigh was a 4.0 student, Valedictorian if I remember correctly, and left Desert Storm rather well decorated. At the time, he didn't look crazy..."


So Ross is emulating McVeigh? You said McVeigh is a 4.0 student and was a military officer, is Ross? Since he's not he can't be emulating him because he's not emulating him by the definition of what emulation means. If McVeigh didn't seem crazy or insane at first, then Ross can't be emulating him if you believe he seems crazy or insane. After all, you said they don't appear crazy before they reveal themselves as such, and therefore if you believe they are before they do go crazy you are contradicting yourself.

Basically what you saying is "McVeigh didn't give off crazy feelings before he went crazy, but Ross is giving off crazy feelings which is why he's like McVeigh..."

So how someone looks matters, but how someone look doesn't matter because they're could be trying to blend in? Make up your mind it cannot be both. Either you can tell one's intentions entirely by how the look/dress or you can't.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

So Ross is emulating McVeigh? You said McVeigh is a 4.0 student and was a military officer, is Ross? Since he's not he can't be emulating him because he's not emulating him by the definition of what emulation means.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Appearances matter always. It's how you want others to perceive you. I in no way drifted from this point.

Killers don't want to look like killers or else they wouldn't be successful. Hardasses want to look like hardasses to intimidate others.

If McVeigh didn't seem crazy or insane at first, then Ross can't be emulating him if you believe he seems crazy or insane. After all, you said they don't appear crazy before they reveal themselves as such, and therefore if you believe they are before they do go crazy you are contradicting yourself.

Basically what you saying is "McVeigh didn't give off crazy feelings before he went crazy, but Ross is giving off crazy feelings which is why he's like McVeigh..."

is =/= appears to be

Your argument makes no sense. It presupposes everyone to ever "go crazy" just snapped and didn't have a long-standing history of mental illness or social problems. Not every person to get hauled off to the funny farm thinks alike. Some will try to blend in with society so as to look as normal as possible while other simply do what they want and wear tissue boxes for shoes and togas made from shower curtains. How one appears to others reflects how they want others to perceive them.
This is not counter-intuitive nor is it that complex of an idea.

Not saying he's trying to follow in McVeigh's footsteps. That's not the point. All I'm saying is that there's a bit of a resemblance:
http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/webpics/Timothy_McVeigh.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm207/GreenReaperLP/DavidRoss100px.jpg

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Did you think McVeigh "looked crazy" before he did a crazy action yes or no?

It's amazing how many people think someone "looks crazy" after they do something they think isn't sane. It's almost a law of society. It hasn't changed since Chaplin's song the Sniper where he mocks the people interviewed by the news going "Oh yeah, of course *I* knew he was nuts"

Seriously saying how close someone looks to someone who did something bad determines that they're going to do something bad is no different then doing it something a superficial as racial color.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It wasn't relevant to me because I hadn't gained even a remote interest in the news when that whole thing happened. Anyway, again, that's not the point. He looks now what McVeigh looked after he committed the atrocity.
This was a warning sign: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/ChoSh.jpg
This and the previous picture (notable for being the only two pictures of IK as well as having absolutely no change in expression) added with Mr. Ross' persistence towards open-carry when so much grief could be eliminated if it were concealed... well, it's understandable that questions may be raised: http://www.flickr.com/photos/insanekangaroo/3667416646/
This is ironic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/insanekangaroo/3552154649/

Actually, more often it's the "he was always so quiet and kept to himself, but he was so nice, he could never do this" that you hear rather than "I knew he had a screw loose."

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

IK is hardly quiet, and this current action kind of proves that he's hardly keeping to himself either.

By the way, the VT guy, was a religious freak as well, IK is not.

If you're trying to say that some people who carry guns are freaks then you won't get a disagreement there. But to say all of them are is exactly like those people protesting the mosque because all the Muslims were responsible for 9/11.

You know who else has that somber look and holds it for a long time? Soldiers. I guess we should let the government know cause they're all libel to kill us all following the logic of this pseudo-psychology.

You're good with the circumstancial evidence I mean what this picture of Barack Obama? Seems rather stern about as similar to those two: http://wonkette.com/373061/obama-opens-transcendant-national-conversation-on-the....

You're gonna say "It's not the same", its as much the same as IK and the VT dude's are, look at their chins, their noses, while IK's are relaxed, the VT dude's is scrunched with rage. Also the mannerisms in their dress style are vastly different. IK's is more pro-authority, while VT's is more anarchistic. Also, McVeigh became anarchistic before going off the deep end.

Should IK ever reach the point where he believes either he is personally the law, or that the government should burn if it tries to pass laws he doesn't agree with. I will be the first to submit that he might be capable of such awful things, but until that day comes, it's just hyperbole.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Context is important, and since you felt the need to make a pointless jab at the president, I can't see this conversation going anywhere but in circles. You're going to defend your buddy till the last breath and I'm going to point out that there are thousands of pictures of the president in all sorts of different manners of inflection. Your buddy, however, only seems to have two pictures of himself anywhere on the internet with absolutely zero inflection or expression in both pictures. Albeit in front of the beautiful Alaskan landscape, though I hear you can't take a picture anywhere in Alaska without a beautiful backdrop.

Should IK ever reach the point where he believes either he is personally the law, or that the government should burn if it tries to pass laws he doesn't agree with. I will be the first to submit that he might be capable of such awful things, but until that day comes, it's just hyperbole.

Sad to say, we're all capable of horrific acts. Constantly (and belligerently--most notably in his blog) making a point to wield a visible firearm at all times just makes it a little bit easier.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

No disrespect was meant to Obama by showing the picture, the picture was to show that a picture tells you nothing, if you read the CONTEXT (After all, it's important) I think you would have gotten that that was what I was trying to do. Especially only one or two.

When it comes to defending him I won't do it till the last breath but as long as he doesn't prove to me that he is as you say he is, if he were to pull a McVeigh I certainly would not defend him, if he gave me indication of any plans of such, I'd turn him in myself. But, in essence you'll probably be believing that you can spot a psycho until your dying breath, and certainly if you are an expert you wouldn't be on a furry board as if you had such a skill the Department of Homeland Security would probably have you locked away doing work for them 90 hours a week.

It doesn't matter either way really, cause in the end time will prove one of us wrong, and personally, I'm gonna laugh my ass off when he proves you wrong. Just like Bush proved the craziest of liberals wrong that he would enstate the draft, and Obama's probably gonna prove the craziest of rightys are wrong as he's not going to make children camps.

You can believe whatever you want sir, time will prove who is the fool.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Sorry, did his mother force him to wear business casual or did he prefer it, or? It may or may not have been implied one way or the other, or rather I may have made an inference one way or the other. In any case, clarity would be helpful.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I didn't hear him say one way or the other, we were friends, but apparently not good enough friend to tell me he was having trouble at home, so he obviously wasn't going to tell me if he was comfortable with what he was wearing.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Shame.

Parents should love and accept their children no matter their preferences. It's unfortunate that your friend felt he had no other way out.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Actually, people don't go around dressing like police officers every day because... it's illegal. Surprise!

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

And the frog is dead.

E.B. White would be disappointed.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Somehow, I feel a certain feeling of Furry elitists in some of these replies.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Glad its coming back. E621 was had the best tagged search engine around when it came to furry. 99.9% of the time it gives credit to the artist and posts a link to their FA or what have you.

People are far too sensitive to people posting their art. As an artist myself I understand that whatever I post to the net, is going to get downloaded and reposted. So long as they give me credit, who cares? All it does is advertise my art free of charge.

Even still, people always need a reason to complain and will continue to complain over something so trivial. So have fun.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I am a statistics whore, so I know that 99.9% of the time that when someone makes up a statistic they use 99.9% it's made up.

Why? Because when people show them examples they'll go "Well see I didn't say 100%".

Pretty much it's as close as you can come to 100% without being responsible for the exceptions.

I however, as a statistics whore, would actually like to see hard data.

My hypothesis is it might be somewhere in the 50 to 80 range (half pessimistically to 4/5s optimistically) of the time. Because if the artist was known it was probably tagged for archiving purposes. However, if the artist had past problems with the site, or if the artist simply wasn't known I'm sure they wouldn't be tagged. Which I'm sure even just the artist being unknown is more the .1% of the cases.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine, I've seen so many crappy statistics. When people use the phrase "Pretty much every/all the time" and interchange it with "99.9% of the time" it's trying to inflate the statement into a scientific context, when really it's just a gut feeling with no scientific basis.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"Glad its coming back. E621 was had the best tagged search engine around when it came to furry. 99.9% of the time it gives credit to the artist and posts a link to their FA or what have you."

That's entirely too high a percentage and giving them entirely more credit than they deserve. But regardless of how good their search engine may have been, it was still pirating art (or at the least, allowing art to be pirated) without obtaining permission from the majority of the artists it was leeching from.

"People are far too sensitive to people posting their art. As an artist myself I understand that whatever I post to the net, is going to get downloaded and reposted. So long as they give me credit, who cares? All it does is advertise my art free of charge."

No, this is more of a case of people being insensitive to anyone else's needs other than their own, specifically a website and its patrons whose only interest was in putting up as much art as they could get their hands on without concern or regard for the artists. If you, as an artist, intentionally post your art there, that is entirely your choice; but no one has the right to be making that choice for me or anyone else. The idea that they're giving me free advertising is a false idea. See my comments elsewhere on this page concerning that; I'll decide where, when and how to advertise my work and in what context.

"Even still, people always need a reason to complain and will continue to complain over something so trivial. So have fun."

There is nothing trivial whatsoever about people infringing upon anyone else's copyrights, which is why most artists are going to complain when it happens. If you really believe that it's trivial, then you really aren't very knowledgeable on the subject and haven't yet been properly impacted by it. Anyone who thinks it's a trivial concern is once again dissing the artists.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Yes, you hate the site, we get it now. But stop making crap up.. and when it comes back up.. Get your but on that DNP and shut up.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I AM on the DNP list (note that I remarked on that elsewhere on this page) and I am not making anything up. If you think there's something incorrect about my comments on artists' copyrights and their casual abuse on the internet by others, I recommend reading through the website of the Ten Big Myths About Copyrights (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html), and, of course, a perusal of the official Government Copyright website (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/) is always recommended.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

I've already read those. And am well versed in copyright law. Example, did you know things like fanfics and fanart break copyright law? It's true! Even your article mentions it.

Hell I know FA (and every other provider, no exceptions) breaks copyright laws by acknowledging that these fanfics exist and not doing anything about it... as well as refusal to do things like removing comments when asked (comments, emails.. all that is copyright as well).

A lot of artists also break copyright art by doing free art of some certain species, certain characters.. you know how many people who draw fender who don't, You know corporations are beginning to copyright dna strands?

I'm not saying its wrong or anything
And if you want to know, every artist I've ever uploaded to e6, I've asked first ;)

e621 isn't breaking copyright law by having these images posted. People POSTING to e621 might be by not asking artists if they want to or not, but the site itself isn't. They are a host, and (at least the past year) have responded calmly to every take down notice asked. And no, not ANYONE can make a takedown notice, it has to be the copyright holder (someone might ask, and someone else might think no one did). e621 only asks people to do it the legal way, which is through email.. so there is a paper trail to follow. Besides, I think Varka is gonna change the policy up to fit more into the legal workings.

And you know what's fucked up about all this.
the guy who got e621 pulled only put up the child porn accusation after Arcturus tried to get a trademark character pulled from FA, and dragoneer didn't want to have said legal procedure followed.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"I've already read those. And am well versed in copyright law. Example, did you know things like fanfics and fanart break copyright law? It's true! Even your article mentions it."

Not exactly. They don't break copyright law because they're not reproducing scripts, original stories or long reels of films and shows. They're producing new works involving characters owned by studios and corporations, which means they're breaking Trademark laws, which is another kettle of fish.

But this winds up in a legal gray area -- technically, it's illegal, but most corporations will turn a blind eye so long as it's not being done for monetary gain or that it's not doing some sort of damage to the image of the characters. Warner Bros isn't going to care if you draw fan pics of Bugs Bunny, but if you try to create your own Bugs Bunny paysite, their lawyers will swoop down on you. Same if they see a proliferation of of Bugs Bunny porn. (Sure, it's out there, but most of it is under their radar; but if it ever comes to their attention, watch out.)

"Hell I know FA (and every other provider, no exceptions) breaks copyright laws by acknowledging that these fanfics exist and not doing anything about it... as well as refusal to do things like removing comments when asked (comments, emails.. all that is copyright as well)."

See the above; they're getting away with it because they're not breaking copyright laws, but Trademark laws. And so long as they're harmless, the owners aren't going to blink. You want to stir up a hornet's nest? Send the website links of the offenders to the owners of the Trademarks; if they deem the offenses are great enough, they'll stomp on the offenders with both feet.

"A lot of artists also break copyright art by doing free art of some certain species, certain characters.. you know how many people who draw fender who don't, You know corporations are beginning to copyright dna strands?"

First off, characters aren't copyrighted. They're trademarked. You can copyright a character design, but you can't copyright a character. The stories he appears in are copyrighted, and the pictures drawn of him are copyrighted, but he himself cannot be.

The matter of copyrighting and trademarking DNA strands is currently undergoing review; natural DNA can't be copyrighted or trademarked, and it's being debated whether some corporate owned genetically engineered strains are really applicable, as in this case: http://www.townsend.com/Resources/legalupdates/Myriads_gene_patent_invalid

"I'm not saying its wrong or anything
And if you want to know, every artist I've ever uploaded to e6, I've asked first ;)"

Good for you! Did you note that with your submissions? "So-And-So gave his permission for this to be reposted here." Little disclaimers like that are helpful.

But you may one of the very few who got prior permission; and one in a thousand (or however many) isn't a good ratio.

"e621 isn't breaking copyright law by having these images posted. People POSTING to e621 might be by not asking artists if they want to or not, but the site itself isn't. They are a host, and (at least the past year) have responded calmly to every take down notice asked. And no, not ANYONE can make a takedown notice, it has to be the copyright holder (someone might ask, and someone else might think no one did). e621 only asks people to do it the legal way, which is through email.. so there is a paper trail to follow. Besides, I think Varka is gonna change the policy up to fit more into the legal workings."

Any website that knowingly allows infringement is likewise legally responsible for it; it's not as though websites haven't gotten in trouble or yanked for posting infringeable material. I know that they and F-Chan have both had their cages rattled more than once by Jeremy Bernal, who will absolutely not tolerate his work appearing on either site. I've seen the site and I'd read their rules; they were very liberal about how they allowed people to post anything they wanted; about the only thing they ever demanded was that folks pay strict heed to the DNP lists, which was a good start, but not good enough.

"And you know what's fucked up about all this.
the guy who got e621 pulled only put up the child porn accusation after Arcturus tried to get a trademark character pulled from FA, and dragoneer didn't want to have said legal procedure followed."

I don't really know anything about this, save for the few snippets dropped here and there in this discussion. Regardless of why it was done, it wasn't the first time, as other artists have complained to no avail in the past. This was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

I have to amend what I said about characters not being copyrighted -- it's a bit trickier than what I was thinking. Basically, a character is copyrighted IF he appears in a copyrighted story -- but he has to be a very distinctive character that is so realized that he takes on a life of his own. That is, Mickey Mouse (to use an example) is a definite personality who has a recognizable personality and character, whereas some goat named Nate who just does a walk-through with no lines is a complete abstraction. Mickey would be considered to be copyrighted, but Nate wouldn't be. But any character that is that well-defined is going to be further protected by Trademark, so the copyright protection alone is going to be pretty moot.

Further detailed info on this point is here: http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

"Good for you! Did you note that with your submissions? "So-And-So gave his permission for this to be reposted here." Little disclaimers like that are helpful."

Have you always noted that all characters in your works, all scenes and such belong to you? Or did you assume defacto that this was the case. e621 ran under the assumption that everything was legally allowed to be there, and anything else was squashed. When it comes back up I expect more artists to announce distaste for their works being there... so things should equal out.

"I don't really know anything about this, save for the few snippets dropped here and there in this discussion. Regardless of why it was done, it wasn't the first time, as other artists have complained to no avail in the past. This was simply the straw that broke the camel's back."

Or Arcturus couldn't take any more of the drama... Either way, it'll be back up tonight. Tell anyone you think doesn't want their art freely distributed on that site to get on the do not post list. If they stay only on FA (I visit a lot of sites, not just e621), I'll never hear from them again, so I don't really care.

"I have to amend what I said about characters not being copyrighted" Well yeah ;), if there is no story attached to the character, then it's not really a character, just a design.

Honestly, I'd like to see more people on inkbunny, then at least the artist has a better chance of getting paid for having their art up, but that's just me. :)

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"Have you always noted that all characters in your works, all scenes and such belong to you? Or did you assume defacto that this was the case. e621 ran under the assumption that everything was legally allowed to be there, and anything else was squashed. When it comes back up I expect more artists to announce distaste for their works being there... so things should equal out."

If e621 assumed that everything posted to their site was legally allowed to be there, then they were either criminally negligent, criminally culpable, or just plain stupid... especially given how often the entire copyright issue comes up, and has been coming up since the Internet went public, and especially given the extra caution they've given Jeremy Bernal. The very fact that they do follow a DNP list at all is evidence that they were very much aware that what they're doing isn't exactly kosher and that they are aware that there are penalties.

"Tell anyone you think doesn't want their art freely distributed on that site to get on the do not post list. "

I think it would definitely be a wise notion for all artists to keep a watch on them and all others of their ilk, but let us, rather, remind e621 that they cannot repost any artist's work at all unless they first secure prior permission -- and that if they proceed without it, then they are in violation of that person's copyrights.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Most of the issues stem with people NOT going to the admins about it, just posting an anonymous deletion request and whining when it got denied.

Let us remind EVERYONE, not just e621 that posting without permission is breaking copyright law. No matter what site you are on. Proactiveness and procedure will win the day on this on. Not causing drama.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

The issues stem from the work being illegally reposted to begin with. If they had not been, then there would never have been a need to post deletion requests or complaining to the admins. And, yes, you're right in that the posters are very much to blame to start with, but e621 bears as much of the blame by allowing and encouraging the reposts.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I thought artists WANTED their stuff to be viewed... i don't understand all this "view but don't download or share" crap... it makes no sense! do they want to NOT be popular?

as well, unless they have their furry characters registered at the copyright and trademark offices for legal protection, i doubt they can claim "copyright infringement" and use the DMCA Takedown clause for stuff that's not copyrighted.

~ The Legendary RingtailedFox

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"I thought artists WANTED their stuff to be viewed."

They do. That's why they post it to archives and to their own websites. That's not a license for it to be freely reposted or reprinted elsewhere.

"i don't understand all this "view but don't download or share" crap... it makes no sense! do they want to NOT be popular?"

Popularity is entirely a different matter from having their work viewed.

Think of it along the lines of them building a prototype for a new car and wanting to display it in a car show: they want you to see it, but they don't want you to suddenly drive away with it to another car show in another town so that you can display it there without you first telling them what you're doing -- or checking to see if they WANT to display in that town and not through some other venue.

"as well, unless they have their furry characters registered at the copyright and trademark offices for legal protection, i doubt they can claim "copyright infringement" and use the DMCA Takedown clause for stuff that's not copyrighted."

All artistic works, whether a painting, a cartoon, a song, a poem, a fursuit design, a dance step or a novel are all automatically copyrighted upon completion. You raise a good point concerning lawsuits, however; here's a snippet from the official U S Copyright website:

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law.

Basically, it means that, although you can bring a lawsuit against any infringer at any time, having those copyrights registered is going to simplify matters greatly.

Your rating: None

thanks for the clarifications, and for the snippets on United States Copyright Law. :)

~ The Legendary RingtailedFox

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

Listen. Listen 'closely'. Let's say that there is someone who likes child porn(as fucked up as it is). Would you rather them be satisfied by looking at fictionally drawn pictures, or feel deprived and going to to PERFORM IT? If anything, having such things on the internet, if not using real people, should be left alone for the SAKE of children, more than for the SAFETY.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

But, it still REPRESENTS the concept, the idea, the desire and the fetish. Child porn is child porn no matter how you disguise it! Young under age humans, creatures, anthro's, cartoons, etc. It still supports the concept and format of what it's about CHILD PORN.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

Child porn child porn if I use child porn emotionally charged words child porn often enough child porn it totally makes my child porn argument more child porn valid!

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

While that may be true in a few cases, despite some of the more poorly written laws that can punish the same for fake child porn as real child porn and hence dissolve the distinction between the two for an amoral person, this still seems to over-generalize and makes assumptions about those that look at child porn.

Why does it seem like people assume all people that look at child porn are so fundamentally and entirely different than people that look at other porn? It is like some kind of dehumanizing of those that are too different, almost as bad of a caricature in some cases as picturing criminals as black-cloaked, moustache twirling villains. Does every person who has an interest in rape porn go out and rape someone? Or does every married man that looks at vanilla porn go out and cheat on their wife given the chance? Why are people with paedophilia assumed to be the only fetish that cannot have self-control, a sense of the boundary between fantasy and reality, and hence must have no free will to live a moral life?

Viewers of any kind of porn can go too far, violating consent to fulfil their desires, and of course should be punished for their actions upon a victim. But many viewers of various kind of porn don't go too far, and are not representable by those that cause the real problems. You can find some fake child porn viewers stating their own case where they know doing anything to a real child is immoral, regardless of punishment, etc., and hence would not even consider bringing down the barrier between fantasy and reality. But you may have to look hard, as such people often get treated exactly the same as those without self-control or morals, giving a strong disincentive to even discussing such a position. And potentially, this is a reminder to paedophiles that people don't care if they switch from fake child porn to real children, because it is all bad and that is more important than actually trying to stop the molesting of real children.

Sometimes it seems like those that rally against paedophilia have ulterior motives than trying to effectively stop molestation of children, thinking that they have more important, grander goals to champion via such problems, and, to me, that is almost as sick of an idea as those that want to molest the children.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Where is the guarantee that they're satisfied simply by looking at fictionally drawn pictures? A person who loves steak is not going to be satisfied by looking at a picture of a steak.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-...

Because Social Science has indicated that that is actually the case?

I'm a virgin, I've had steady access to porn for well over a decade.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Social Science is still in debate over the issue. To your link, I counter with http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11428171 and http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Background_reading/Theme_papers... and throw this one (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/child-abuse.aspx) in for good measure.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Your 2 studies for a vast majority are pointing to cases where actual children were involved and the effects on those children and society.

Mine is dealing with fictional pornography in the forms of manga, and other such forms and its effects on society.

It's not even apples to oranges comparison, it's more like apples to concrete bricks.

The one link(en.academic.ru) is not a study, and simply defines the laws of it, and doesn't talk about the impacts at all, which isn't a counter. That's like saying I counter your argument on the effects of alcohol by giving you a link to a dictionary on what alcohol is defined as.

In your second one, (The PDF) page 15, they cite 3 studies, and the only one that doesn't use "weasel words" is the third study which says:
"In a third study, carried out by the US Postal Inspection Service 19 , since 1997 ?of the 828
individuals arrested?..for using the mail to sexually exploit children, actual child molesters were identified in 36% of those cases.?" (which seeings as 25% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, I'm hoping that isn't a significant number)

I'm not gonna site the other 2 studies because they use terms such as "at least" and other such nonsense which means they did a shitty job at data gathering since they can't give an exact number.

Hell the conclusion of that section isn't even ready to turn them in and lock up the key: it says, "whenever the authorities uncover someone in possession of child pornography,
they are also identifying someone who is potentially a real and active danger to children." So in such a use of this word their conclusion is also potentially incorrect, which means they are potentially unsure of how much potential they are potentially attributing to the thoughts of cause and effect. None of these studies done distinguished weather or not the items in possession were real or fictional, in fact, since most of these were done by the paper's admission pre-1990, then I can conclude it probably wasn't digital works in most cases.

But arguing over this stuff is moot, the fact is it was illegal to have loli porn on the servers which e621 had them, which is what ended up being it's undoing. Whether people agree or disagree with that law isn't the point, the point is it was the law, they didn't follow it, and thus they were confronted by it. If one disagrees with the law, breaking it is not how you oppose it. You oppose it by filing court dates and trying to convince the judges and/or lawmakers to change it.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"Your 2 studies for a vast majority are pointing to cases where actual children were involved and the effects on those children and society.

Mine is dealing with fictional pornography in the forms of manga, and other such forms and its effects on society.

It's not even apples to oranges comparison, it's more like apples to concrete bricks."

All three of the links I posted carry sections that define precisely what child pornography is and cites not only the close connection between child porn and molestation, but demonstrates that possessing or viewing such material on a regular (I would say 'obsessive) basis only heightened their need for the actual experience rather than remaining satisfied with the virtual. As per this quote: "At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires - exactly the opposite: 'Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it.' he said."

This puts the lie to the notion that viewing CP would likely keep an offender from going out and doing the real thing. Even if some did relieve themselves entirely through fantasy, it's not keeping them all satisfied, and even one is too many. And it doesn't matter whether the imagery is fictional or real, drawing or photography or even human or furry; it's the underlying intent that really matters -- that it is the representation of children being molested, for the sake of the pleasure of the molestor, whether he be the real thing or a voyeuristic wannabe.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

"And it doesn't matter whether the imagery is fictional or real, drawing or photography or even human or furry; it's the underlying intent that really matters -- that it is the representation of children being molested, for the sake of the pleasure of the molestor, whether he be the real thing or a voyeuristic wannabe."

How is that what really matters? I thought it was stopping kids from getting molested what really mattered, not what people think about when looking at such things...

Not to mention that people can look at such things for multiple reasons, like say identifying with the under age person in such pornography, analogous to those that identify with victims in rape pornography.

Also, asking what affects child molesters is a dangerous half of a correlation, as it doesn't say what happens to those with pedophilia that didn't molest children. A position based on such statistics would lose a lot of ground if it turns out for every child molester created by child porn, two child molesters were prevented. And that doesn't even address questions of how to handle things that might only spur a minority of people to bad things, as there are plenty of things that could be banned because they cause the even-one-is-too-many violent crimes due to unbalanced and crazy people around.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"How is that what really matters? I thought it was stopping kids from getting molested what really mattered, not what people think about when looking at such things..."

You need to keep the quote in its proper context. Reread the entire paragraph: what doesn't matter is whether the CP was photography or drawings, etc, because the purpose and the results are always the same: it feeds the obsession and the need to commit the actual physical deed.

"Also, asking what affects child molesters is a dangerous half of a correlation, as it doesn't say what happens to those with pedophilia that didn't molest children. A position based on such statistics would lose a lot of ground if it turns out for every child molester created by child porn, two child molesters were prevented."

And how would you prove such a ratio? The majority of pedophiles are an unknown quantity by practice (as admitted in studies, such as a report produced by the Mayo Institute). So are molesters, until they're finally uncovered. The data in hand was obtained through interviews of those incarcerated, who give first-hand info. How many undocumented (read: not yet arrested) pedophiles do you know that you can survey with the question, "Do you still feel like molesting children after fapping off to a stack of child porn?" -- and how many do you expect to honestly answer in the affirmative?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Some data can be gathered on pedophiles that doesn't involve arrests or threat of arrests, since having pedophilia itself is not illegal, but only various forms of acting on it is. It would be similar to research into other socially stigmatized things, parallel say to trying to research those interested in bestiality porn which outnumbers those that actually commit bestiality.

But which way individual studies go isn't the point, since they are all over the board on such issues, the point is it is a mess and there are still a lot of big issues and holes unaddressed. If such studies are so messy, data hard to accurately collect, etc., why do people on both sides so adamantly use cherry picked studies to defend their side then? If the impact of such pornography is uncertain, maybe it shouldn't be made to be a frontline of the battle against child molestation, and efforts put towards better understood approaches.

For such important cause of helping children, people in general seem awfully cavalier about what they attack, ignoring if they are helping or hurting.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"Do you still feel like molesting children after fapping off to a stack of child porn?"

That's akin to asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

The point was that, given that most pedophiles don't want to be outed if they can avoid it and don't want to incriminate themselves at all, you aren't going to get an honest affirmative answer no matter how delicately you want to phrase it.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

You're not ever going to get honest answers if you insist on asking loaded questions. Apparently your preferred survey style is exactly what's wrong with published statistics as a whole these days.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the subject and the people involved, the only questions you're going to be able to ask in this regard are going to be considered 'loaded' questions. There's no way around it.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

How uncreative. Perhaps the only questions you can think of are loaded questions because you're emotionally invested in getting a particular response.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (5 votes)

Once again the quote you provide is not talking about fictional pornography but actual child pornography. Once again you keep trying to connect the two as if they are equivalent when at no point other then the laws in some particular areas are they seen as equivalent and have provided no sociological evidence or quote to prove that they are equivalent. It's ironic that you quote me claiming they are two different things and then make a quote which says they were looking at images of actual children, which once again emphasizes they are two different things being looked at. In no way did the quote say the children were fictional children.

You stated the last paragraph as your evidence, yet that is not from any of your studies, that is from you. I never stated the believe that looking at porn of any kind would in any way keep someone from doing something, the study I had didn't show the elimination of sexual crimes. To say creating or getting rid of anything would cause an absolute change in humanity to the point of crime elimination is probably the result of hallucinogenics.

However if the point of fiction is truly simply the extension of extending things that people actually want to do IRL into a temporary fantasy state. I'd say we best watch ourselves. With how many 'vorephiles' there are we certainly have a lot of Hannibal Lectors running around.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

"Once again the quote you provide is not talking about fictional pornography but actual child pornography. Once again you keep trying to connect the two as if they are equivalent when at no point other then the laws in some particular areas are they seen as equivalent and have provided no sociological evidence or quote to prove that they are equivalent."

And as I said, the difference between actual and fictional child pornography is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The former is more vile because of the use of actual children, but both serve the same purpose and feed the same obsessive need.

"In no way did the quote say the children were fictional children."

In no way did the quote say they were not, either. I agree that it's more likely that the study mentioned did, in fact, involve photos and videos, but if you're going to hang on the exact letter of the quote, then please note that it does not specifically state so and for all we know there very well might have been fictional content (drawings, photo-manipulations, etc) in there as well.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

And as I said, the difference between actual and fictional child pornography is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The former is more vile because of the use of actual children, but both serve the same purpose and feed the same obsessive need.

You keep saying that. We keep asking you to provide evidence. You instead repeat that, providing no evidence. What is this to you, a religion?

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

And as I said, the difference between actual and fictional child pornography is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

The difference between actual and fictional child pornography is that one involves the abuse of a real child and the other does not. Are you saying that child abuse is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent?

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (5 votes)

No, you're playing games by ignoring the rest of the statement. Both virtual and real child pornography (the former meaning drawings, etc, and the latter meaning photos, just so that there's no confusion as to what the word 'real' means) serve to visually excite the pedophile in possession of them; therefore, to all intents and purposes there is no real difference to them. Both are vile; one moreso than the other.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Both a bicycle and an airplane serve to transport people from one place to another. Since I'm able and knowledgeable in how to ride a bike, that obviously qualifies me to be a pilot, since by your logic the two are one and the same by virtue of similar function.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

No, you're playing games again. That is nothing at all like what I said; trying to say that it is doesn't make it so.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

You're saying that drawing parallels between the functions of two objects proves their equivalence for all intents and purposes. I'm drawing a similar analogy to show how fallacious this reasoning is. Now you're saying that what I said is "nothing at all like what [you] said".

Please, tell me... how is it different? Apparently if it falls to me to prove that furry cub art and child pornography are different, then by the same burden of proof it is YOUR responsibility to show how my example differs from yours.

But from what I've seen so far, I'm not likely to get that evidence. You'll just appeal to emotion again, showing no evidence except false analogies and calling my arguments "playing games" instead of refuting them.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"You're saying that drawing parallels between the functions of two objects proves their equivalence for all intents and purposes. I'm drawing a similar analogy to show how fallacious this reasoning is. Now you're saying that what I said is "nothing at all like what [you] said"."

And it isn't.

"Please, tell me... how is it different? Apparently if it falls to me to prove that furry cub art and child pornography are different, then by the same burden of proof it is YOUR responsibility to show how my example differs from yours."

That's already been done throughout the course of this discussion.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

That's already been done throughout the course of this discussion.

CITATION NEEDED. I just made the example and you say that you've somehow refuted it before I made it. This is a long discussion, you need to back up your claims with evidence. Copy and paste is not all that difficult.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

One more thing: "Child pornography visually excites pedophiles. Circus acts visually excite most people who watch them, including pedophiles. Therefore, ban the circus because there's no real difference between a three-ring act and child abuse."

THAT IS YOUR LOGIC.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

All right, forgive the inelegance of my statement. I'll correct it to improve your understanding: "The two forms of child pornography, the virtual and the real, serve only to sexually excite the pedophile in possession of them through visual means."

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Then since the artwork, what you call "virtual child pornography", is a form of artistic expression, your statement that it can possibly serve ONLY to sexually excite pedophiles is false. Thank you for clarifying.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

You persist in being deliberately obtuse, since there is nothing in my statement to even suggest that conclusion. Pornography, the general as well as specifically child pornography, is not a valid form of artistic expression, as it would require being able to inspire or move the viewer's intellect or emotions as opposed to simply stimulating his glans. And, as already noted, CP's only purpose, regardless of whether it's a photo or a drawing, to get the intended viewer hot and excited over children.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Pornography [...] is not a valid form of artistic expression

WRONG. Period.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Drawing any general conclusions about the effects of CP on their viewers based solely or primarily on interviews with child molesters is fundamentally flawed, for the simple reason that it doesn't properly account for the people who view CP but aren't seriously tempted to engage in sexual acts with children because of it. It would be like interviewing violent criminals and asking whether violent movies and video games increase or reduce their inclination to commit violent acts, and concluding that violent movies and video games should be banned based on the findings. What it ignores is that the vast majority of people who partake of these movies and video games are not seriously tempted to engage in the acts portrayed in real life.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

But what your comparison ignores is the matter of context. A movie or a game have a much larger range in which violent acts are not the primary focus, but are merely a part of the whole. There is a larger story involved that engages in theme, characterization, situation, repercussion, philosophy, resolution, etc, etc. Anyone who does become motivated to violent actions as a result of a movie or a game is generally missing the larger points of said story or game and is obsessing on a narrow focus -- or else the story or game itself has a narrow focus that promotes that obsession. But child pornography, like all pornography, has only that single context, that narrow obsession with its subject for the express purpose of sexual excitement along specific interests.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

So if child pornography is put in the context of an overarching, epic story, then that makes it okay, right? I recommend you go here: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/547259/ and also read the six full-length sequels to that work of literature.

Seriously, I don't think you want as your defense that child porn is wrong because it has no plot. Child pornography is wrong because in order to make it you have to ABUSE a CHILD. That is why we are able to draw a distinction between fiction and reality here, and you apparently are not.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

You're going to have to go to some length to prove that the material at that link actually had a plot to it. From the looks of it, it falls under what I was referring to as having a narrow focus promoting an obsession. ...not to mention badly written. I mean, what's supposed to be the larger overall theme or philosophy here other than a pornographic one?

Child pornography isn't wrong simply because children are abused (God knows that's reason enough) but because it also promotes, defends and attempts to justify that abuse. Even through fiction.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

You're going to have to go to some length to prove that the material at that link actually had a plot to it.

Actually reading it sufficed for me--obviously a length you weren't willing to go to.

...not to mention badly written.

Say that to Alex's face. I dare you.

I mean, what's supposed to be the larger overall theme or philosophy here other than a pornographic one?

Further proof you didn't read it. The theme is broadening one's horizons, in being willing to accept new experiences rather than shutting oneself away in routine and boredom for fear of experiencing a little discomfort. The philosophy could best be described by cribbing from Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to one another, and party on."

Child pornography isn't wrong simply because children are abused (God knows that's reason enough) but because it also promotes, defends and attempts to justify that abuse. Even through fiction.

Again, I dare you to say to Alex Reynard's face that he is promoting and defending child abuse. Before you do that, however, I recommend you read another of his novels: "Dangerous Lunatics". Pay special attention to the part where the only actual child molester in the story gets punched to death by a six-year-old girl.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

"The theme is broadening one's horizons, in being willing to accept new experiences rather than shutting oneself away in routine and boredom for fear of experiencing a little discomfort."

That you would see that as a theme in that piece is really beyond my comprehension, and certainly tells me a lot about you (and about the writer as well, if that was really his intended theme)if you really think that this is what it was about. All I saw was a series of candy-coated fetishist porn scenarios strung together. It was pretty much a prime example of stereotypically bad furry writing, with a stronger emphasis on underage 'hero'/victims.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

That literary themes and philosophies are beyond your comprehension really tells me a lot about you. ;)

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Hiya, Chucky.

"You're going to have to go to some length to prove that the material at that link actually had a plot to it. From the looks of it, it falls under what I was referring to as having a narrow focus promoting an obsession. ...not to mention badly written. I mean, what's supposed to be the larger overall theme or philosophy here other than a pornographic one?"

Alfador asked if you'd be willing to say those things to my face. Since you haven't, I thought I'd bring my face to you.

I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland. That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?

Badly written. If that's your opinion, fine. Narrow focus, though? Were you drunk when you wrote that? I bust my ass trying to include as wide as possible a spectrum of ideas, and you think it's focussing on only one thing? Gee, is it possible that YOU are the one with the narrow focus? You remind me of a friend of mine who utterly hates pornography. He freaks out and covers his eyes whenever he sees boobs in a movie. Really! So naturally, he sees boobs and genitals everywhere. If we see a movie together, and there is any nudity at ALL in it, he will spot it. Guaranteed. Even if I've seen the film multiple times and never noticed it myself! And he sees plenty that isn't there at all. He absolutely reminds me of people like you who focus so intently on your pet hatred that it becomes all you can see.

I've got some questions for you.

First off; Stephen King's book IT has a scene near the end where six young children all have sex in a sewer. Does that mean the book is pornography? Should it be removed from library shelves? Do you think there is any difference between King and me? If so, what difference? That he has more money? That he writes about things other than that? (Child sexual abuse has popped up in a LOT of his books, and I've written novels and stories with no pornographic content.) Maybe it's that my story has a higher porn-to-story ratio than his. So what then is the acceptable ratio?

Secondly: You say that child porn only feeds an obsession. You're assuming that there IS an obsession in the first place. If someone has a deep-rooted fetish to molest children, pornography isn't going to make a difference one way or another. But if someone has no desire to molest real children, then do you think pornography can create that obsession in them?

Thirdly, If people who look at cub porn want to rape real children so much, then why do they bother with cub porn? Why wouldn't they look at loli art? Or photos of real children? Or actually go rape real children? Which makes more sense; that they're choosing to indulge in a completely diluted form of their fetish, or that cub porn IS the fetish? To use your steak idea, does it make any sense that I'd eat spam if I wanted steak and could easily get steak? Can you conceive of the idea that a person could be attracted to furries but not humans? Can you conceive that someone could be attracted to cubs BECAUSE they don't exist, and are therefore 'safe' to fantasize about?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland.

Given Lewis Carroll's photographic habits, I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck argued that Alice in Wonderland was kiddy porn, too.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

That'd actually be really interesting; to go through Alice trying to turn everything in it into some kind of deviant sexual metaphor. The Caterpillar's obviously a phallic symbol. Tweedledum & Tweedledee are a round pair obviously representing testicles, and thus male testosterone-fueled stupidity. And what could the Red Queen possibly be than a woman's period? With the White Queen representing the tampon or pad; locked in eternal combat!

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

More ominous: The Cheshire Cat represents Stranger Danger, a threat virtually undetectable except by their lustful grin, prone to giving perilous advice. You could say the same about Carroll's standalone poem "The Hunting of the Snark", where any seemingly innocent stranger (Snark) could turn out to be a predatory rapist (Boojum) who makes kids "softly and silently vanish away".

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

There have long been questions and suppositions about Carroll's interest in children, but I believe those have long since been dispelled.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I believe they have not. A few scholars have brought up possible alternative interpretations of the evidence, but nobody's been able to prove anything definitive one way or the other.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

"Hiya, Chucky."

Off the bat, you're winning no friends here.

"Alfador asked if you'd be willing to say those things to my face. Since you haven't, I thought I'd bring my face to you."

In general, I don't like doing critiques online, but prefer to do them in private. I broke that rule only because Affador brought your story up as a means of defense for his argument, and I found it lacking and felt it necessary to explain why. Still, if this is where you want to go...

"I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland."

Incorrect. The Alice stories were an allegorical 'fairy-tale' of life's changes, both the physical and the emotional. It's themes had to do with the loss of childhood innocence and dealing with the chaotic nature of life, and her exploits were plotted to reflect those aspects. (Alice spends a great deal of time trying to make sense of the various riddles and contradictions of Wonderland.)

"That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?"

Which is precisely what it is, since it focuses only upon scenarios that are sexually fetishist at heart, and does so in a way to dress it as a pleasant experience, like a sunny excursion in the park. I mean, if Hell is meant to be an eternal pit of punishments, why are the only ones represented sexual in nature? Where are theft, avarice, blasphemy, murder (Dante had several categories of murder represented), betrayal, etc. The slant is very obviously toward the sexual, defining it quite clearly as a fap story.

Affador tries to pass this story off as a tale about 'broadening one's horizons by trying new things'. Maybe on Bizarro World, but -- really? Srsly? One broadens one's view by being molested, cannibalized, mutilated, etc? (Of course, everything's 'okay' because the character 'reforms' or 'regenerates' afterward, but what does he really learn from the experience?) Maybe this would work if there was some contrast at play, but you seem more intent on trying to portray darkness as sunlight, and that just doesn't play. I mean, what's the philosophy supposed to be in this story, that it's okay to be fucked up!?

Journeys through Hell have been done for centuries, and usually done with a point. Dante's DIVINE COMEDY is still best, and his depictions of Hell's horrors were done with specific religious and political barbs towards the prominent people of his time. The more recent INFERNO by Niven and Pournelle (well, more recent than Dante...) tackles the same territory with more modernistic horrors and wit, examining much of your own premise of 'God as a bully' but more thoroughly, and asks the question, 'is there a point to this?'. Both stories are trying to define or at least seek a morality in life; yours discards it entirely and relegates the thematics to an indulgent sex RPG scenario.

Your story has no point, except to tittillate.

"I've got some questions for you.

"First off; Stephen King's book IT has a scene near the end where six young children all have sex in a sewer. Does that mean the book is pornography? Should it be removed from library shelves? Do you think there is any difference between King and me? If so, what difference? That he has more money? That he writes about things other than that? (Child sexual abuse has popped up in a LOT of his books, and I've written novels and stories with no pornographic content.) Maybe it's that my story has a higher porn-to-story ratio than his. So what then is the acceptable ratio?"

I can't directly respond to the example, as I've never read the book, only seen the TV mini-series (which I believe cut that episode out, since I don't recall it). I haven't read much King at all, for that matter, outside of a short story or two. But I will assume that King, like any decent established writer, will have tied the sequence and its events to some other events, major or minor, within the overall story -- an emotional connection, a love relationship, some personal repercussion, etc. Since I haven't read it, I don't know and can't say; I can only speculate based on the tenets of good writing and the belief that King's publisher would never have let the scene fly if it didn't serve a specific literary purpose.

What is the difference between King's writing and yours? Besides the years of trial-and-error experience, I'd say that your follow-up questions, and the fact that you asked them, answer sufficiently.

"Secondly: You say that child porn only feeds an obsession. You're assuming that there IS an obsession in the first place. If someone has a deep-rooted fetish to molest children, pornography isn't going to make a difference one way or another. But if someone has no desire to molest real children, then do you think pornography can create that obsession in them?"

The examples I've already cited elsewhere in this discussion have already shown that child pornography only feeds the prevailing interest; one molester is directly quoted as being unable to control his urges after viewing CP material. It's akin to poking a maddened bull with a red-hot poker: he was already incensed and ready to gore something... did you really need to poke him?

And if someone has no sexual interest in children, then they're not going to be looking at CP to begin with. CP doesn't create the obsession; it feeds into whatever's already there.

"Thirdly, If people who look at cub porn want to rape real children so much, then why do they bother with cub porn? Why wouldn't they look at loli art? Or photos of real children? Or actually go rape real children? Which makes more sense; that they're choosing to indulge in a completely diluted form of their fetish, or that cub porn IS the fetish?"

Why does the average furry look at any kind of furry porn? Or furry art in general for that matter? The furry characters are only surrogates for the real thing. The dogs and cats and horses and skunks and bears and whatever else are only shells for the personalities within, or symbols for ideals. Then too, the physical sexual attributes have a lot to do with it; most care less about whether it's a fox or a horse, so long as it's female. (Or male, depending on your preferences.)

"To use your steak idea, does it make any sense that I'd eat spam if I wanted steak and could easily get steak?"

'My' steak idea -- it wasn't mine, actually, it was an appropriated quote on the same subject from a source I can't now recall -- is more akin to the idea that you're not going to settle with just reading the menu at a restaurant and be satisfied with just looking at the pictures of a steak; your appetite is now whetted and you're going to get that steak.

"Can you conceive of the idea that a person could be attracted to furries but not humans? Can you conceive that someone could be attracted to cubs BECAUSE they don't exist, and are therefore 'safe' to fantasize about?"

I can conceive of the former but not the latter (I consider the argument that it is a 'safe fantasy' to be delusional). Both involve being attracted to some ideal within the concept, even given that neither is an actuality; as such, the former implies being attracted to an adult and the latter still involves being attracted to a child, and that is decidedly not safe to fantasize about.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

> "Hiya, Chucky."

> Off the bat, you're winning no friends here.

That's fair, you're winning no friends among us.

> "I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland."

> Incorrect. The Alice stories were an allegorical 'fairy-tale' of life's changes, both the physical and the emotional. It's themes had to do with the loss of childhood innocence and dealing with the chaotic nature of life, and her exploits were plotted to reflect those aspects. (Alice spends a great deal of time trying to make sense of the various riddles and contradictions of Wonderland.)

I fail to see how that's substantially different from Bartleby's Descent. It's at least as similar as you claim cub porn and photos of children are.

> "That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?"

> Which is precisely what it is, since it focuses only upon scenarios that are sexually fetishist at heart, and does so in a way to dress it as a pleasant experience, like a sunny excursion in the park. I mean, if Hell is meant to be an eternal pit of punishments, why are the only ones represented sexual in nature? Where are theft, avarice, blasphemy, murder (Dante had several categories of murder represented), betrayal, etc. The slant is very obviously toward the sexual, defining it quite clearly as a fap story.

Proving once again you didn't actually read it. Explain to me how Llywyalla's curse is sexual. (Moreover, as the story is set in the Naughty level, we're unlikely to encounter any murderers, and blasphemy is laughably unworthy of punishment.)

> I mean, what's the philosophy supposed to be in this story, that it's okay to be fucked up!?

That's part of it, yes!

> Both stories are trying to define or at least seek a morality in life; yours discards it entirely and relegates the thematics to an indulgent sex RPG scenario.

> Your story has no point, except to tittillate.

You're kidding, right? The author of a story comes and tells you the point of his story, but you say "Oh no, I know better than you after skimming it, your story has no point even if you say it does."

That's about the most arrogant thing I've ever heard.

> I can't directly respond to the example, as I've never read the book, only seen the TV mini-series (which I believe cut that episode out, since I don't recall it). I haven't read much King at all, for that matter, outside of a short story or two. But I will assume that King, like any decent established writer, will have tied the sequence and its events to some other events, major or minor, within the overall story -- an emotional connection, a love relationship, some personal repercussion, etc. Since I haven't read it, I don't know and can't say; I can only speculate based on the tenets of good writing and the belief that King's publisher would never have let the scene fly if it didn't serve a specific literary purpose.

I have read the book, and I assure you, it was more in the nature of "Well, we've got no idea how to seal this ancient evil... let's try having an orgy and see if that works!" It was quite out of left field and had very little ties to the (nonsexual) violence of the rest of the book.

> What is the difference between King's writing and yours? Besides the years of trial-and-error experience,

Wrong. Alex Reynard also has years of experience writing.

> (I consider the argument that it is a 'safe fantasy' to be delusional)

That's fine! We consider your argument that drawings of fictional characters are equivalent to real child abuse to be delusional, too! :D

(Yes, I'm aware I didn't respond to all of your points--I'll leave that to Alex, since it was his comment you were replying to in the first place.)

(P.S. Edits have been made to more clearly separate your comments, Alex's, and mine, since the quote tag wasn't working quite right in the quotes-of-quotes.)

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

>Off the bat, you're winning no friends here.

If your skin's so thin you can't even handle me calling you 'Chucky', then maybe you shouldn't be on the internet.

>Incorrect. The Alice stories were an allegorical 'fairy-tale' of life's changes, both the physical and the emotional. It's themes had to do with the loss of childhood innocence and dealing with the chaotic nature of life, and her exploits were plotted to reflect those aspects. (Alice spends a great deal of time trying to make sense of the various riddles and contradictions of Wonderland.)

So, because my themes aren't absolutely identical, you insist I have none? Some of the themes in this story were dealing with an abusive parent, facing one's fears, making friends, learning that what someone enjoys sexuality doesn't define them as a person, learning to look beyond first impressions, dealing with coming out as gay, helping yourself by helping others, and learning to understand and accept when someone's been hurting you.

>Which is precisely what it is, since it focuses only upon scenarios that are sexually fetishist at heart, and does so in a way to dress it as a pleasant experience,

Well, duh. Sexual experiences do tend to be pleasant. If they weren't, no one would engage in them.

>I mean, if Hell is meant to be an eternal pit of punishments, why are the only ones represented sexual in nature? Where are theft, avarice, blasphemy, murder (Dante had several categories of murder represented), betrayal, etc. The slant is very obviously toward the sexual, defining it quite clearly as a fap story.

YOU DID NOT READ THIS STORY. A core idea here is that Hell is NOT an eternal pit of punishments. That Satan has changed things so that souls in Hell suffer only as much as they deserve to. Murderers and rapists are in lower levels than where Bartleby is.

>Of course, everything's 'okay' because the character 'reforms' or 'regenerates' afterward, but what does he really learn from the experience?

Not every last little thing in my story has a deep moral lesson. Y'ever heard of fun?

>I mean, what's the philosophy supposed to be in this story, that it's okay to be fucked up!?

YES. And that it's people like you, who condemn others who've done no wrong to you, who will face a harsher punishment than people whose sexuality harms no one.

>Since I haven't read it, I don't know and can't say; I can only speculate based on the tenets of good writing and the belief that King's publisher would never have let the scene fly if it didn't serve a specific literary purpose.

Here we come to the root of your problem. You're admitting that you haven't read something, yet you still arrogantly insist that you know better than I do. And I'VE read the damn thing! Twice! Alfador's right; that scene with the kids fucking in the sewer comes right out of left field and only barely makes sense. You're siding with King because he's a published author, and I'm just some furry on the internet. You're saying a book you haven't read has more literary merit than mine, which you didn't read either. Man, you just know everything. Let me give you an example: Several days ago I got in one little fight and my mom got scared and said 'you're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air'. I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the
license plate said 'Fresh' and it had a dice in the mirror. If anything, I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought now forget it, 'Yo, home to Bel-Air!' I pulled up to a house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo homes, smell you later'. Looked at my kingdom I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

Pingas.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I Could Say That This Cache Was Rare.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Idea time! If getting published automatically makes you right, why don't we get Bartleby's Descent published, so you can win arguments on the internet, too!

...Oh wait.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

So steak gives people erections and people who look at child porn will eat babies. Got it.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None

*munches on popcorn, watching this rather interesting turn of conversation, not quite sure how it went from e621.net to the (il)legality child pornography* (I in no way endorse or promote CP. it disgusts me and enrages me that children are harmed, and will report it to the appropriate authorities if stumbled upon)

~ The Legendary RingtailedFox

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I think it's the furry version of Godwin's Law. Only Nazis is Zoophiles, and Hitler is a cub fan.

The actual topic is that a loli/shoota (that is an anime style child, not a cub) image was used to take the site down.

But never let a good "close enough to what I wanna gripe about" go to waste, in essence.

Your rating: None

Godwin's Law. time to talk about something else or stop arguing.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Topic drift. It happens even to the best and most tranquil discussions.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

It actually seems to happen a lot with YOU.

You've got an unhealthy obsession with Kiddie porn.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

The problem is the exact opposite. I'm the one who doesn't have the obsession. I'm not the one publishing it or defending it.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

For someone claiming not to be obsessed with something, you sure are vocal in your opposition to it.

Here's a suggestion:
If you REALLY care about the welfare of children...
If your crusade against cub porn is REALLY motivated by its similarity to child pornography that's evidence of actual child abuse...
Then why don't you take all the time you've been devoting to bitching about ARTWORK that has NOTHING to do with REAL children, and instead work to prevent REAL child abuse in your community or the world.

I don't expect this suggestion to be followed. It's a rather difficult task. It's SO much easier to just whine and complain about cub art, because you don't have to actually do anything strenuous. Why, you don't even have to log in when you can just type your name in as a visitor, how easy is that!

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

While not all furs are fans of cartoon depictions of underage characters, most don't feel the issue worthy of continual debate, and are understandably annoyed when you hold forth on it in every other post.

For someone worried about public association of the fandom with such material, you're awfully keen on bringing it up. Indeed, you're getting a reputation as "that guy with an ax to grind about cub porn" — and I doubt you want this topic coming to mind when your name is mentioned.

You have an account; why not try logging in and submitting a story or two on material you feel does represent the fandom, rather than constantly arguing with others about what doesn't?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

"While not all furs are fans of cartoon depictions of underage characters, most don't feel the issue worthy of continual debate, and are understandably annoyed when you hold forth on it in every other post."

I doubt most furs are even aware of any debate here, considering how fractured the fandom is these days; it's not like the days of alt.fan.furry when there was only one or two pipelines of news and data, and everybody knew what was going on.

And I wouldn't need to hold forth on every post if there wasn't reciprocation with something further to correct or address. It's not like I'm alone in the conversation.

"For someone worried about public association of the fandom with such material, you're awfully keen on bringing it up. Indeed, you're getting a reputation as "that guy with an ax to grind about cub porn" — and I doubt you want this topic coming to mind when your name is mentioned."

I'm not the one who brings it up. I'm not the one publishing cub porn and I'm sure as heck not the one drawing it. I'm not even the one who brought it up in this discussion; go back to the beginning of the threads and see for yourself. I just don't avoid it or pretend that it's something even mildly harmless or acceptable when it does come up.

I don't particularly have 'an axe to grind about cub porn', but if people want to think so, I'm okay with it. Why should I mind if people think I'm against cub porn? Throw in bestiality while you're at it; I'm against that as well.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I'm not the one who brings it up. I'm not the one publishing cub porn and I'm sure as heck not the one drawing it. I'm not even the one who brought it up in this discussion; go back to the beginning of the threads and see for yourself. I just don't avoid it or pretend that it's something even mildly harmless or acceptable when it does come up.

No, you're just the one who always trots out a steady stream of monumentally flawed arguments with the intended conclusion that pencil scrawlings of fictional characters are morally equivalent to raping children. If you're really not obsessed with cub porn, you could always ignore the debate. Since you're not a cub porn artist, it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

We, on the other hand, have to respond, and point out the logical fallacies you make time and time again, because, regardless of how many people actually read through the comments, this IS a public forum, and leaving your spurious arguments unopposed is, in the eyes of much of the public, tantamount to agreeing that they're true.

Is that right? No. Is that logically valid? No. But it is how many people think, and it is why we MUST oppose you, in order to defend ourselves from libelous portrayals of us as child molesters. YOU have no such investment here, since you yourself, as a non-cub artist, have nothing to fear from equating cub porn with child rape. Therefore, it's up to YOU to ignore these discussions and keep out of our lives.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

It's a bit more complicated then that. Because he believes the cub porn = child molester, and cub porn is in the midst of furries he actually does fear that if he doesn't get rid of cub porn he'll be seen as a child molester when he says he's a furry.

He fears those that would make false connections, by making similar ones himself. So he thinks if he's not vocal against cub porn that people will think he condones it. Like if you don't counter his attempts to equate the two people will think cub porn people are child molesters.

That's where this circle comes from. Both sides are worried about how the public will view them to the point where they are looking foolish to the public.

But as it comes to this topic, I think I've spent more time discussing it then it really needs, so this is the final post I'll make on Flayrah about it. People will make their false perceptions and that is something that never changes, so I'll probably leave it at that. If I were to explain to them in a calm manner why their perceptions are false and continue to persecute, they were never interested in understanding in the first place.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

This discussion is old, and has happened over, and over, and over.

I've asked GR to close this thread, as there's nothing to be really hashed over.

Chuck, you're absolutely obsessed with pornography, specifically kiddie porn. E621 was closed because of DMCA violations. That has been proven. It also is coming back under the promise to clean that aspect up.

Everyone else, you're fighting a battle that just cannot be won. How many threads here do you have to have to discover that?

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

I'm well aware of the DMCA violations; in fact, I was the one who brought up that aspect in this discussion and participated in that sub-thread as well. I've seen e621's post about trying to 'clean that aspect up' and all I really see is that they're still not getting the point.

Your rating: None

This thread officially has more topic posts than the argument on the story about Boomer the Dog. I think its a new record.

Your rating: None

Please disregard that last. It ALMOST has more than Boomer the Dog.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

And what do these two articles have in common? Let's see...

First, we have Chuck Melville swooping in and assuming moral authority as the ultimate guardian of wisdom, whereupon a few of us mere mortals wave our hands in front of his face in a futile attempt to show him where his logic utterly fails...

...and actually, there doesn't need to be anything more, that's plenty enough to guarantee a lengthy set of comments. One person convinced of his own superiority declaring that any who dare disagree with him must be either delusional or monsters, and a few foolhardy souls who wish to challenge such a behemoth with only a pathetic clue-by-four in our arsenal.

Smile! The world could use another happy person.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

I think a clear and obvious answer to this is simply to boycott the site until something is done about this repeated level of thread-jacking, moral superiority, and harassment. I mean, it's just gotten old. It happens on seemingly every thread, and it's just turned this site into a shithole. Nobody wants to really comment for fear of getting blasted. Are you having fun here? Because I don't think many are. Are you feeling more informed? Because honestly, this story was dead within 48 hours and the trolling and fighting has continued to this day, completely off point.

Flayrah's failed if someone like Chuck can just get in and do this at every turn.

Is there a good alternative?

Your rating: None

What would you have me do? It takes two to tango. If you disapprove of a line of conversation, the solution is to vote all posts within it down, just as you might vote Offtopic or Redundant on Slashdot. Unfortunately, a mature Slashdot-style moderation system isn't available for Drupal, although there have been attempts to create one.

As for email, you can turn off subscriptions per-story if you feel the comments are no longer worth following.

There's more I can do to make comment ratings matter, and I intend to, but my time is currently in very short supply.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

But all posts aren't the problem, just some. I can vote them down, but what does that get me? I can't choose to view things by points, and even if I could, we likely don't have more than four or five people voting per.

Even if that all were okay, Chuck comes in as Visitor, which means any voting on his comments won't stick to his account, so even if I did have the ability to ignore his account, he'd just post his 300+ comments on how cub is evil and furry is full of pedos as that visitor account. Thus, he'd walk around the edge.

Here's what I'd recommend:

Per user ignore.
and
Guest ignore.

I think both of those would solve the problem that most people here have with Chuck. It wouldn't , however, solve the problem of getting new users in that would think this is a welcome place.. because honestly, for most people, I'd imagine it's quite a threatening place.

Your rating: None

There we go. Ignore User usually doesn't work on visitors, but I hacked together support just for you.

I'd urge Chuck and all regular posters to log in. There is no benefit to posting as a visitor, and many useful features - like this one - are unavailable to them.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Thank you :) And it works well. I suggest everyone turn on Ignore Visitors :P It makes the stories somewhat nicer around here.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I think I'll do that, if someone is too lazy to sign up, I'll be too lazy to read their stuff.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Good idea, glad you thought of it.

I'll be ignored in 3...2...1... XD

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

"Nobody wants to really comment for fear of getting blasted."

It is not like there is massive random trolling like more popular websites. Although if you comment about a controversial topic like child pornography, you can expect there potentially to be strong responses. And actually a large amount of the comments here have to do with copyright law, relevant to what happened to the site in the news article. One shouldn't be too surprised of corrections/responses if they post something wrong that would have been known if they actually read up on the subject, especially in cases when boldly making such statements. I thought it is kind of common sense that controversial subjects or excessive confidence can stir up trouble, and those are pretty easy to avoid. Unless one wants to make posts with no chance of someone disagreeing or pointing out potential mistakes, in which case public forums might be best to be avoided.

Otherwise, I thought the beauty of threaded comment system is branches can just be ignored...

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Look, don't be blaming me. I'm not the one who brought up this sub-thread and topic, and I wasn't the one who began it with a position in opposition to yours. I would have been just as happy had the topic never arose. But when it comes up, I'm not about to stand aside and not speak my mind. I entered with a challenge to an assumption and it steamrolled from there, and I'm not the only one who was giving as much as he was getting or who had a position to voice.

Hot button topics exist and have been on this board before, in both this and the previous incarnation, and go back to the days of heated discussions in the heyday of alt.fan.furry. If you don't want these discussions, don't bring up the topics (and good luck with that, by the way), or else accept the heavy hand of moderation. But Flayrah fails if it does not allow for disagreement and argument; it would then just be a 'happy chatterbox' that would serve as a rubber stamp of approval for one side.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

Well, it seems that a lot of you are butt hurt over the loss of E621, where as others are glad. I'd like to state in case, a few points that have been mentioned throughout the various arguments that have taken place in this post, as it were. Several of you have begun arguments over "cartoons are not real", well, that's a given, more or less, a "no shit, Captain Obvious". See, the part those people fail to understand, is that, despite the fact that it's a cartoon, it does not change the illegality of the art. The artist decided to create such a picture, and for that, they could too, under-go legal action. "Child Pornography" is ILLEGAL, whether it is cartoon, or real. It depicts a minor, in the nude, or being sexually harassed, seeing as no minor could -in the laws eyes- think for themselves when it came to sexual matters; they feel as if they could be pressured or raped. It's clear that if you post any type of child porn, whether it revolves around humans, animals or aliens- zombies even!, it's going to get reported, and/or taken down. The site publishers of E621 obviously didn't take that into consideration. They didn't think of the fact that, even though it's a cartoon, as I've explained before, it's still child pornography, and if not even that, it's still a provocative image implying that a child is as okay as an adult during sexual intercourse, when they are in fact, not quite okay.

As for the discussion revolving around whether these archives are good or bad, or whatever, it's as simple as this; archives, are archives. Deal with it. I mean, you go to websites like Pornhub, or Redtube, you're going to obviously see a lot of images or videos of things posted on other websites; ffs, they even have water marks! Point is; whether they have permission or not, it's one extra source to have the images archived on. E621 was one of those archives which people could go to, rather than meticulously searching all over the internet for what they wanted to see. It's as simple as entering the site, using the search engine to find a particular subject, and start browsing, much opposed to, looking all over the web for something that may not even be published- let alone, even exist.

We have archives, such as E621, Gelbooru, Safebooru, etc. all for the convenience of such things! What would we do without them? What would we have without them? Well, not a lot, I don't think. I mean if you think about it, most of your images in your "fap folder", or most of the general ideas you get, come from these archive-sites which hold all the images, stories, etc. that you could ever imagine. More-over, websites like FurAffinity aren't as popular as things such as the aforementioned websites, not only that, but the aforementioned archives are much easier to navigate; easier to navigate than FA, easier to navigate than the internet as a whole. Google, Photobucket, Yahoo! Search, none of it suffices for how well these archives perform in the delivery of the images we all seek.

As a closing statement, I'd like to say...

The trolls have won, not just a victory, but the pure anarchy is more for them; you guys seriously need to take into consideration the idea of shutting up and accepting the facts.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

shame this didnt actually happen as the site is back up again.. and has been up for what three years? after this? Maybe if they get one of these again people will stop posting my art >:U

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

well, you could either ask to be placed on their Do Not Post (DNP) list... or... you could enjoy the fact that people love your art and want to share it, and be grateful for the popularity... it could be a LOT worse.

~ The Legendary RingtailedFox

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

asked to be placed on the DNP they wouldnt do it due to things being "too similar" 8I frustrating.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

GreenReaper (Laurence Parry)read storiescontact (login required)

a software developer and Norn from London, UK, interested in wikis and computers

Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.