/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>43778019
yes

It's been fun lads. Back to 2hu purging

>>29584000
>Maybe that can change, then?
No, it cannot. Never.
>Inb4 DRM lockdowns. I can see the same system for video games go for art.
Nope, because art itself is much more easily pirated than video games.
Video games themselves get cracked all the time, it is inevitable for large releases even, always online logins and registrations to run video games are very
unpopular.
Even then, a video game is like a virtual device, but a piece of art is a static virtual immutable object.
How the hell can you "lock down" a piece of art with DRM if "cracking" it is as easy as having long enough access to it to press PrntScrn?
>Will it take nuking Yiff.party and other sites to get the message across?
Nope, because other sites will spring up as soon as a vacuum in the "virtual market" opens up. And if it's not public websites, it's going to be private trackers with logins.
Multibillion dollar corporations get their stuff pirated all the time, some basement dweller selling his furry futanari orgy cartoons on the internet has even less resources at hand.
The reason sites get nuked is because publishers go after them, those that publish the work of artists, who by themselves don't do anything of actual weight.
>Maybe something even harsher than DMCA's? Content creators already have the law on their side, tweaking it to better suit evolving tech is no issue.
I don't know about you but I'm personally not very fond of extremely restrictive and controlling laws being put in place on the internet or anywhere else, government bootlicking to fight against the spoopy pirate menace.
>Is it implicitly available only because your browser allows it? Despite possibly being explicitly unavailable because the artist says so? Then lock down the browsers or the site which hosts it. Unlike a street corner this is more my own backyard. Get off my lawn.
It is implicitly and explicitly available by nature of being accessible on a website that has no restricted access, no identification and no passwords.
If the artist implicitly allows people to save and copy their art, by nature of placing it on a freely accessible website that lets browsers copy the files onto their computers, which is how browsers work, but then explicitly reject the saving and copying of their art through a verbal agreement, then the artist is a complete fucking moron.
It's the equivalent of walking around nude outside and then getting mad at people making photographs.
The internet isn't your lawn, your website isn't your back yard since you directly allow everyone on the internet access to it, by nature of it being an addressable website.
>So nuke the sites that host it
See above.
>or lock down your own
The actual smart thing to do, since you then don't actually release your art on the internet.
>I can only see this happening over time, DRM expanding to content hosts everywhere.
Do you desire this?
Would you think that it's a fair exchange to gimp and destroy the entire internet just to quell the whining of morons who don't know how file distribution and privacy works and pretty much got what they deserved?
>I'd say it's split between the users who redistribute it, and the failings of the platform to stop them.
If you place a 1:1 high definition scan on the internet and then whine about people distributing it, IT IS YOUR FAULT, for making it available to them.
If you don't want your art to be saved, then DON'T SHOW IT TO PEOPLE, how difficult is that to understand?
Taking responsibility for their own actions instead of crying that they got suckered, is that so difficult?
Instead of getting smart, they whine about something their actions directly ENABLED.