Culture Patreon Can't Solve Its Porn Pirate Problem - Paywalls and DRM don't work, more at 11

Last fall, a prolific photographer who asked not to be named noticed a sharp, unexplained drop-off in earnings on his Patreon page, where fans shell out cash for tiered subscriptions to his photos of well-lit nude models. Then, in December, he received an anonymous email with a link to a website called Yiff.Party. When he clicked, he blanched: Thousands of his photos were laid out on the open web for free.

For five years, the libidinous pirates of Yiff.Party have siphoned masses of paywalled Patreon porn off of the platform and shared it for free. Two years ago, Patreon was determined to shut them down. Instead, the platform has effectively given up, despite desperate protests from affected creators.

Yiff.Party doesn’t look like much: a basic, blocky, white and lavender website with a changelog documenting the latest free art dumps and their respective creators. There might be eight new posts an hour, as well as calls for patrons to help fill out incomplete collections. A lot of it is furry porn—“yiff” is a term in the furry community referencing sexual activity—but Yiff.Party hosts anything that falls under the category of “lewds.” That includes smutty cosplays, vanilla softcore, hentai comics, 3D sci-fi sex stills, plus whatever Patreon-hosted art pirates dump there. (Patreon’s guidelines on adult content prohibit “real people engaging in sexual acts such as masturbation or sexual intercourse on camera.”)

“I am an artist, I live off my work, and sometimes Patreon is the only income I have,” the photographer whose work had been stolen tells WIRED. In bold, capital-lettered text on his Patreon page, he warned “WHOEVER IS DOING THIS” to “PLEASE STOP FUCKING ME OVER.” In the meantime, he can only hope that whichever fox has been gifting him cash with one hand and pirating his works with the other grows a conscience. Because one thing’s for sure: Patreon isn’t helping him, despite a 2018 pledge in Kotaku that it would fight Yiff.Party “vigorously” and “on behalf of our creators.”

This month, the owner of Yiff.Party, who goes by Dozes, sent WIRED a screenshot that he says contains the only two messages in his inbox from the domain @patreon.com: one “Notice of Infringing Material” on July 18, 2018, and a polite follow-up on September 26, 2018. “Patreon has definitely been aware of yiff.party since 2015, but that's the only instance of them directly contacting me,” Dozes says.

Dozes says Yiff.Party receives about unique 95,000 visitors daily and that it’s only growing. He started it, he says, “to archive content,” in part, for fans whose favorite artwork disappears once a creator leaves Patreon or gets banned. In a 2018 interview, Dozes provided a different rationale—“simply to make paid Patreon content available for free”—but said both then and now that he’s not out to get creators or cost them income. Despite this, those whose work has ended up on the site have described reactions ranging from existential sadness to financial anxiety.

Patrons scrape huge amounts of premium Patreon posts and import them onto Yiff.Party, where they are accessible to anyone with at least one click. Dozes says that the site currently stores over 20 terabytes of data and accepts donations that go toward server upkeep.

Despite its gung-ho statement to Kotaku two years ago, Patreon now says its terms of service effectively tie its hands. “We can’t do anything,” says Colin Sullivan, Patreon’s head of legal. “We don’t enforce [copyright] because we don’t have a license to the content.”

Sullivan didn’t hear back from Yiff.Party after those two cease and desist notices; he still hasn’t. Patreon says it also appealed to the company that hosts Yiff.Party, which, according to Sullivan, was based in France. “International hosting companies often turn a blind eye to a lot of things,” he adds.

In May 2019, months after it reached out to Dozes, Patreon posted a blog describing its stance on piracy. “Protecting the works of our creators across the entirety of the internet is not something our policies or enforcement efforts are equipped to handle,” wrote Patreon copyright lawyer Weston Dombroski. He further compares Patreon to a landlord, “limited in both responsibility and the remedies they can seek when theft occurs in your apartment.” Patreon’s “trust and safety” guidelines “give creators as much control of their businesses as possible,” which includes 100 percent ownership of their work.

In other words, it’s legally on Patreon’s creators to enforce copyright on their own work. As Sullivan notes, it’s a good thing that their creators maintain that copyright and not the platform. And yet, with a new post dump every seven minutes or so, Yiff.Party is an increasing menace to Patreon porn society. At least some rental contracts give tenants the power to impel their landlord to install window guards against theft.

Individual attempts at action have also proven fruitless. In what looks like a nod toward generosity, Yiff.Party offers a “Contact” button on the bottom right of its page. Creators have sent DMCA takedown notices to the linked email address—sometimes several—and received no response. As a next step they might try to find Yiff.Party’s host and registrar information to lodge a complaint, which is where things get even more confusing.

Yiff.Party’s backend is a bit of a chimera by design. Dozes employs a bit of tech called a “reverse proxy.” A typical proxy obfuscates the identity of the user accessing a server; a reverse proxy hides the identity of the server the client accesses. Between Yiff.Party’s server and the yiff.party website sits another server. “Yiff.party's main server stays hidden because the ‘real’ IP address isn't being exposed since traffic is routed through a proxy,” says Dozes. Reverse proxies aren’t uncommon; large sites might use one to help them run faster.

“It’s essentially a VPN, but for a website,” Dozes adds. “If our real hosting provider found out they hosted the site, we would be at risk of losing all our data.”

Going through Patreon has not helped much either. One model and content creator who asked to remain anonymous has twice emailed the platform about removing her content from Yiff.Party. One time was in reference to a DMCA takedown request; in the other, she reveals the identity of a suspected pirate patron. In screenshots from January 2020 shared with WIRED, a Patreon support representative told the model that the company “has been made aware of this website and has been taking action against it.” The representative declined to provide a timeline for resolution, and did not share the results of the investigation into the suspicious patron. Her content continues to show up on Yiff.Party.

Platforms large and small have for years relegated responsibility for bad things that happen to their users onto those same users and their personal networks. In the case of Yiff.Party, Patreon appears to be following that same playbook. “For creators, we encourage them to focus on connecting more with their fans and focusing on their patrons who care about them, and not the ones who are going to upload [their work] somewhere else,” Sullivan says.

Creators could use software watermarks or other techniques to root out the culprit. But even that doesn’t provide a solid indicator of who did what. In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America filed 261 lawsuits against pirates for allegedly sharing songs over P2P networks—with some misfires. IP addresses weren’t immensely helpful in identifying pirates, and sometimes led to false allegations. Patreon says it collects some information that could point to who’s pirating, but that it’s difficult to nail down the culprit or prove their intent.

The head of piracy-focused publication Torrentfreak, who goes by Ernesto Van Der Sar, doesn’t consider what’s going on at Yiff.Party a security issue. He also agrees that it’s nearly impossible to prevent patrons from leaking content, despite identifying software stickers. “You can compare it to Netflix perhaps,” he says. “People with an account there can download and share the content with specialized tools. This is content from major companies that's worth billions of dollars and protected by high-grade DRM. If that's still possible, it will be hard for Patreon to prevent it from happening.”

Last May, a person who went by Jane posted on Yiff.Party’s forum to say they’re the mother of one of the models posted on the site and owns the photos as well. “What is the process of removing these,” she asked. Ever since, Yiff.Party regulars have dutifully shitposted in the thread, some wondering whether it’s a troll post, and others earnestly explaining the ideology behind their piracy.

“There’s really nothing you can do once you post some good stuff online,” said one. Said another, “Nothing you can do. It's a catch22 scenario: if you don't remove it people continue to pirate but if you do take it down the piracy just increases.”

Said a third, “Hi Jane. Welcome to the Internet.” They continued, echoing the first commenter’s sentiments. “Even if you delete it from a website someone somewhere still has a copy of it. This is especially true if it’s hilarious, embarrassing or pornographic in nature. The bigger the deal you make out of it the worst [sic] it gets for you and anyone else involved.”
 
Artists on the internet have some of the worst martyr complexes out there. There's an endless supply of naive twentysomethings who don't get that freelancing work isn't new and you should expect it to be difficult and unfair if you want to make it into your career. Either you learn to cope with that or find a stable job.

It's not a coincidence that many of the internet's better known laughingstocks have been artists.
 
The alleged images are quite mediocre and there are better models to be found around the internet for free.

Patreon or not, watermark your images. I'm sure your supporters will understand. If one has the clean images, charge them extra.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JoshPlz
I am feeling optimistic enough now about human nature to hope that most, even if they jerk off to this degenerate shit, have the good sense not to financially support it

wait that's stupid
Be happy about the small things in life. For example, I'm happy that RLM's stuff is on there.
 
I found the artist who has been whining to wired.com by searching for his quote:




View attachment 1118295
:story:

I like how he doesn't even reveal what amount of money is supposed to "save him from poverty". Might be 10000$/month for all we know.
Here's his yiff.party page, just for completion's sake.
 
Artists on the internet have some of the worst martyr complexes out there. There's an endless supply of naive twentysomethings who don't get that freelancing work isn't new and you should expect it to be difficult and unfair if you want to make it into your career. Either you learn to cope with that or find a stable job.

It's not a coincidence that many of the internet's better known laughingstocks have been artists.
There's something about being an artist or "creative type" that seems to go hand in hand with no small degree of melodramatic narcissism. As far as I can tell it comes from this presumption that true art only comes from people who just feel things so strongly and they feel their way through life (this is my unflattering translation of what several artist apologists have said to me). Or to put a finer point on it, I think it's because people who want to create art grow up with this romantic image in their heads of artists who suffer and starve just to get their work out there.

Which has plenty of basis in history, but a fact they forget is that there is always a complicated reason why a lot of famous artists lived stunted, povertous lives. Off the top of my head, people like Jonathan Swift and Emily Dickinson were mentally ill autistic recluses who couldn't really function in society very well. Others grew up in societies wracked by plague, or were persecuted by governmental forces. Just look at the black artists and writers in the US who came out of poverty in the south or in Harlem, or even the rap industry birthed out of LA - all using their art, whatever form they gave it, to amplify their voices against oppression and inequality they felt.

But like every other subject in school, art also gets the theme park version, so kids growing up just hearing "true art comes from suffering" without examining the implications of that concept. So I think a lot of wannabe "artists" grow up getting it backwards, they think because they develop a little talent at drawing or singing or whatever then it must mean they are suffering even if they don't realize it (because they're not) and thusly they need to turn everything into a dramafest. "My mom wouldn't go halvesies with me so I could get the latest Wacom tablet to draw my webcomic? Why, that's just like when Vincent Van Gogh cut his own ear off! I've passed the suffering threshold, everyone please donate to my patreon!"

Then there's stuff like this. Living homeless in skid row because you're mentally ill or a drug addict or just because you've made terrible life choices doesn't necessarily make you an artist. Any art major can name you a dozen famous names who were basically homeless bums during their lifetime, but I doubt anyone knows the names of the thousand other homeless "artists" who no one cared about for every name that would be revered in galleries a few hundred years later. In this particular story it looks to me like homeless people just identifying as "artists" because they can't think of any other strategy to get attention/donations. The fact that there's grey area and I can't just shut down their claims might be good for homeless people but it's not so flattering for the concept of being an artist.

I doubt your average furry porn artist knows the trauma of growing up with scarlet fever or losing family to the war or the flu or being silenced because they're expressing black or gay issues or whatever else the local flavor of bigoted government wants suppressed. They're just drawing because they like drawing and they figure they can turn a buck from it. And that's fine! Except they have to turn it into more because they feel like they're owed a certain place in some grand legacy. A lot of these people are objectively good at drawing. It's certainly easy to pass Alec's BTA (better than asperchu) test. But what are they using it for? To make wank material? That's not challenging society to grow or change in any way.

Tl,dr: privileged kids grow up hearing about the respect and adoration historical artists get, they want that same award without sacrificing or even understanding what kind of sacrifice earned those other guys their respect in the first place. Dramawhores gotta dramawhore because they're larping to cover for the fact their lives are cushy and they have no money only because they made stupid choices, not unlike SJWs.
 
I found the artist who has been whining to wired.com by searching for his quote:




View attachment 1118295
:story:

I like how he doesn't even reveal what amount of money is supposed to "save him from poverty". Might be 10000$/month for all we know.

My guess is that his goal is roughly $6000 and at 16% complete he's currently pulling in ~960 and I'll explain why.

He's got three tiers listed at 5, 30 and 60 bucks. 5 bucks gets the patron five single photos per week, at 30 it gives them "more than 40,000 images" of his outtakes, $60 gives them 25,000+ images of something, there's no real description there of what that means or if it includes the previous tiers outtakes/casting couch photos(he's trying to be Terry Richardson after all).

The best value is in the $30 tier.
Graphtreon agrees.
gershon1.JPG gershon2.JPG

Here's the math.
16% of $6000 is $960.
$960 divided by $30 gives us 32(patrons). That's in line with Graphtreon.

He's currently at 13% and doing the same math, 6000 / 100 * 13 = 780. 780 / 30 = 26 patrons. Also in line with how the number of patrons bounced around.

It's just speculation, of course.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that his goal is roughly $6000 and at 16% complete he's currently pulling in ~960 and I'll explain why.

He's got three tiers listed at 5, 30 and 60 bucks. 5 bucks gets the patron five single photos per week, at 30 it gives them "more than 40,000 images" of his outtakes, $60 gives them 25,000+ images of something, there's no real description there of what that means or if it includes the previous tiers outtakes/casting couch photos(he's trying to be Terry Richardson after all).

The best value is in the $30 tier.
Graphtreon agrees.
View attachment 1120984 View attachment 1120985

Here's the math.
16% of $6000 is $960.
$960 divided by $30 gives us 32(patrons). That's in line with Graphtreon.

He's currently at 13% and doing the same math, 6000 / 100 * 13 = 780. 780 / 30 = 26 patrons. Also in line with how the number of patrons bounced around.

It's just speculation, of course.
Good thinking! I was already expecting his idea of what amount of money equals to not living in poverty to be excessive.

That said, $960/month is a LOT of money for what mediocre crap he produces. I'm surprised he is getting even that much.
 
There's something about being an artist or "creative type" that seems to go hand in hand with no small degree of melodramatic narcissism. As far as I can tell it comes from this presumption that true art only comes from people who just feel things so strongly and they feel their way through life (this is my unflattering translation of what several artist apologists have said to me). Or to put a finer point on it, I think it's because people who want to create art grow up with this romantic image in their heads of artists who suffer and starve just to get their work out there.

Which has plenty of basis in history, but a fact they forget is that there is always a complicated reason why a lot of famous artists lived stunted, povertous lives. Off the top of my head, people like Jonathan Swift and Emily Dickinson were mentally ill autistic recluses who couldn't really function in society very well. Others grew up in societies wracked by plague, or were persecuted by governmental forces. Just look at the black artists and writers in the US who came out of poverty in the south or in Harlem, or even the rap industry birthed out of LA - all using their art, whatever form they gave it, to amplify their voices against oppression and inequality they felt.

But like every other subject in school, art also gets the theme park version, so kids growing up just hearing "true art comes from suffering" without examining the implications of that concept. So I think a lot of wannabe "artists" grow up getting it backwards, they think because they develop a little talent at drawing or singing or whatever then it must mean they are suffering even if they don't realize it (because they're not) and thusly they need to turn everything into a dramafest. "My mom wouldn't go halvesies with me so I could get the latest Wacom tablet to draw my webcomic? Why, that's just like when Vincent Van Gogh cut his own ear off! I've passed the suffering threshold, everyone please donate to my patreon!"

Then there's stuff like this. Living homeless in skid row because you're mentally ill or a drug addict or just because you've made terrible life choices doesn't necessarily make you an artist. Any art major can name you a dozen famous names who were basically homeless bums during their lifetime, but I doubt anyone knows the names of the thousand other homeless "artists" who no one cared about for every name that would be revered in galleries a few hundred years later. In this particular story it looks to me like homeless people just identifying as "artists" because they can't think of any other strategy to get attention/donations. The fact that there's grey area and I can't just shut down their claims might be good for homeless people but it's not so flattering for the concept of being an artist.

I doubt your average furry porn artist knows the trauma of growing up with scarlet fever or losing family to the war or the flu or being silenced because they're expressing black or gay issues or whatever else the local flavor of bigoted government wants suppressed. They're just drawing because they like drawing and they figure they can turn a buck from it. And that's fine! Except they have to turn it into more because they feel like they're owed a certain place in some grand legacy. A lot of these people are objectively good at drawing. It's certainly easy to pass Alec's BTA (better than asperchu) test. But what are they using it for? To make wank material? That's not challenging society to grow or change in any way.

Tl,dr: privileged kids grow up hearing about the respect and adoration historical artists get, they want that same award without sacrificing or even understanding what kind of sacrifice earned those other guys their respect in the first place. Dramawhores gotta dramawhore because they're larping to cover for the fact their lives are cushy and they have no money only because they made stupid choices, not unlike SJWs.
it also doesn't help that humans are inherently susceptible to the halo effect. impressionable and naive people enable these dumb cocksucker artists because they think that, just because an artist in question is more competent at drawing than them, the artist must also be competent at everything else: politics, philosophy, morality, values, and so on. all that in spite of the fact that almost always the opposite is true with internet artists. needless to say, that doesn't help with their narcissism. such worship of skill and talent (which might not even always be there) over principles and values of internet artists, in my opinion, is the crux of what makes these people so insufferable.

cults of skill and talent are the worst thing there is, but it is especially prominent with internet artists who very easily can make their own echo chamber and forever believe that they are the centre of the universe with no repercussions whatsoever - at least until a tax revenue service comes knocking at their door, or any other reality check.
 
Good thinking! I was already expecting his idea of what amount of money equals to not living in poverty to be excessive.

That said, $960/month is a LOT of money for what mediocre crap he produces. I'm surprised he is getting even that much.

Well, he's got a lot of overhead. He must pay for the sets, outfits tailored for each model... It adds up.

I wonder if he pays his models in sandwiches or in "exposure".
 
it also doesn't help that humans are inherently susceptible to the halo effect. impressionable and naive people enable these dumb cocksucker artists because they think that, just because an artist in question is more competent at drawing than them, the artist must also be competent at everything else: politics, philosophy, morality, values, and so on. all that in spite of the fact that almost always the opposite is true with internet artists. needless to say, that doesn't help with their narcissism. such worship of skill and talent (which might not even always be there) over principles and values of internet artists, in my opinion, is the crux of what makes these people so insufferable.

cults of skill and talent are the worst thing there is, but it is especially prominent with internet artists who very easily can make their own echo chamber and forever believe that they are the centre of the universe with no repercussions whatsoever - at least until a tax revenue service comes knocking at their door, or any other reality check.
Which is precisely why Hollywood actors think it's their divine mandate to tell us all what to think about politics.
 
The only people paying for their porn anyway are autistic fans. There's so much porn available on the internet for free that there's no conceivable reason to pay for it.

Porn drawings, like most shit on Patreon, is stuff people made and put online for decades and didn't even think about charging money for it before Patreon's existence. Yes it's nice to dream that you'll make a living off your drawings of cartoon characters raping each other and that only your loyal paypigs will set eyes upon your work but it's unrealistic in the long term. Charge for commissions, and be thankful for the people who are nice enough to donate money every month. Anything beyond that falls into the realm of unrealistic expectations.

Then again, there are several porn comics creators who get reasonable amounts of money from Patreon. Reinbach(3k+/month) and James LeMay(~1,5k/month), for example. Thing is, both of these guys works can be seen for free in several places in the net, and I'm quite sure these artists are very aware of this, if not even behind it themselves. Their success with Patreon, in my opinion, is due to fans wanting to keep the good stuff coming, and thus throwing dollar or two at their way just because they want to see more of similar content.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Back