PAYPAL?

[Reese Tora]

Or donate to Amber.

Or buy stuff on e-bay.

Or order a an art-commission.

Or just don't right now and wait for inspiration.

Highlighted things that are not a waste of money.

[Tapewolf]

Or buy stuff on e-bay.

Highlighted things that are not a waste of money.

Almost my entire studio was purchased on e-bay.  It's a godsend for collectors of vintage equipment.

That said, giving money to Amber, Zina, RJ or any of the other starving artists is a much better idea if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket.

[bill]

It's a godsend if you like amazingly overpriced vintage electronics. How the hell they can charge $300 for an old HP 15C (don't ask about the 16C) is beyond me.
*hugs HP 41CV*

[Tapewolf]

It's a godsend if you like amazingly overpriced vintage electronics. How the hell they can charge $300 for an old HP 15C (don't ask about the 16C) is beyond me.

Well that's just natural selection.  If you put a Tascam 38 up for £750 (this happens surprisingly regularly), people will ignore it and bid on the £75-£200 ones instead.  But if you try to find one in a magazine or through a broker, you'll be paying at least £300.

[bill]

Except that there are no low priced HP calculators available unless you're amazingly lucky. To make it worse, most of the good deals are purchased by a buyer who sells the calculator for 3-4 times the price a week later. For fun, try searching eBay for "HP 42S". I was lucky to get an incomplete 41C for $150.

[Tiger_T]

Highlighted things that are not a waste of money.

Right you are.

Re-think my answer I should.

*nods*

[Tapewolf]

Except that there are no low priced HP calculators available unless you're amazingly lucky. To make it worse, most of the good deals are purchased by a buyer who sells the calculator for 3-4 times the price a week later. For fun, try searching eBay for "HP 42S". I was lucky to get an incomplete 41C for $150.

Oh wow, my Dad used to have a 41C.  I wonder what happened to it?
And yes, it seems these things are incredibly rare and expensive.  But is that just ebay, or would a classified ad be even more?

[bill]

That's the worst part. There definitely isn't a shortage of HP 15Cs, they were amazingly popular. They still are priced like Honus Wagner baseball cards, though. (I had one, and LOST IT.  ) Most HP collectors will tell you to stay the hell off eBay. Other methods are cheaper, but much more difficult.

[Reese Tora]

It's a godsend if you like amazingly overpriced vintage electronics. How the hell they can charge $300 for an old HP 15C (don't ask about the 16C) is beyond me.
*hugs HP 41CV*

charging and getting are two different things...

My company is/was selling off some 'vintage' cell phone testing equipment, and no one even bid one penny on any of it!

Then again, the cost of shipping would have far exceeded the ammount of whatever bid we might have eventually drummed up, so there you go. *shrug*

[bill]

Oh, they get it. As evidenced by the "buy it now" price being astronomical.

Main reason being that nothing sold today fits in the market segment that old HP calcs filled.

[Reese Tora]

Oh, I have no doubt they do, after those other posts that happened while I typed mine.  I was more relating how other electronic stuff doesn't. (yays, we got $40 for our purchase price $40,000 equipment!)

[Destina Faroda]

The reason why I hate PayPal is that it makes it too easy for people to give people money to each other electronically.  The fact that people are using it as a gateway for donations absolutely sickens me.  It's not PayPal, but StickEmUp!

[Tiger_T]

What other way of transfering money would you suggest?

[Reese Tora]

The reason why I hate PayPal is that it makes it too easy for people to give people money to each other electronically.  The fact that people are using it as a gateway for donations absolutely sickens me.  It's not PayPal, but StickEmUp!

May I ask, what exactly is it about the ability to easily make donations that sickens you so?

[Xuzaf D]

Or donate to Amber.

Or buy stuff on e-bay.

Or order a an art-commission.

Or just don't right now and wait for inspiration.

Highlighted things that are not a waste of money.

Amber... Art commission... waste... right... got it.

[Destina Faroda]

What other way of transfering money would you suggest?

I'd say get a money order and send it through the postal service.  Inefficient, yes.  But at the same time, it makes you think a few seconds before clicking the little button to add money.

May I ask, what exactly is it about the ability to easily make donations that sickens you so?

Because I believe the Internet should be free aside from the cost to transfer and to access the material. (That's one reason why I'm against Net Neutrality.  ISPs, as gateways to the Internet, do have the moral right to charge you to access it as they see fit.)

Realiztically I know that's impossible and that companies and individuals will charge for content on the Internet, but what bothers me about donations is that it changes the "free" market into a pay one.  At least with the content that one has to pay for, one can abstain or subvert the system.  Unfortunately, the donation system is hard to subvert.

Donations, in my opinion, should only go to the needy and those providing a public service.  The fact that many sites use donations as a source of income bothers me, because that's capital that's being drained from some other source.  It also offends me because the idea is that people are paying for something that is free.  It is morally wrong, in my opinion, to be compensated for something that you have chosen to provide at no charge.  Imagine if someone gave you a present, then asked you to give them money.  Wouldn't that suggest the person shouldn't be giving away gifts but to save their energy on making money?

It also destroys the inherent balance of the Internet.  Let's say you have a really, really popular site and as a result you get a bunch of over-the-limit bandwidth fees.  Either you have to make your site less popular (by shutting it down, reducing access, etc.), or you have to pay for a different web hosting package.  Even if there's no monetary penalty for having visitors, shouldn't the fact that you do have people visiting your site be its own reward?  Adding money to this equation only heightens the difference between those who receive donatons and those who do not, as there is a positive co-releation between popular sites and the amount of money the author/artists receives in donation.  This also shuts out those who have no voice on the Web at all -- those who neither have the time nor the money to actually have a site.

[Damaris]

To some extent, I actually agree with you.  I'm probably going to phrase this badly and get flamed, but oh well...

I see no harm in people selling merchandice, that's good old captialism talking, and I don't see any harm in a passive donation meter that rewards all for any donations, whether they donated or not (Darkmoon and I spent a lot of time discussing how his reward meter would work- we really didn't want to go with something like the Loserz guy.)

But I do hate the pay sites, or the sites that only reward those who have the money to donate.  I also dislike people who hold their sites hostage for money (I had an online aquaintance who did that to raise money for travel, while expecting to stay with us.  I was of the opinion that with the influx of money that he would be more than solvent enough to get a hotel room.  Thankfully, he got a job and ended the hostage situation, so we didn't have to recind our offer of staying at our home)

The Loserz guy, specifically, is one that annoys me the most.  I feel that if you expect your reading constituency to support you, or provide for you, you are technically no longer providing something for free, and therefore have more of a responsibility to put out regular, high-quality updates, without the bitching about how you have no time.  If you want to support yourself with your comic, then you should treat it like a job- you don't go whining to your boss about how you're tired and busy and don't think you should have to come to work, so you shouldn't do it as an artist either.  Suck it up and get it done.

But, that is the end of my rant.  Obviously, Destina, I don't agree completely with you, but on some levels I do.

[Destina Faroda]

I too don't like the pay sites and wish they would go away.  However, there are ways to undermine them.  A person could sign up for the service, then distribute the comics through the interwebz for free.  Illegal, yes, but it can be done.  More legally, one could simply not sign up for the service.  One could provide a similar or better product for free.

The problem is as follows:  What is to prevent those who provide material for sites that attract mass quantity of donations to go either the pay or to move to a system that is all but pay-only?

One can cite "fan revolt" but the truth is once a fan is committed to continually putting money into the author's tip jar, it's darn near impossible for them to actually walk away from the product.  There are, of course, the one or two people who will make a large donation and feel the author "owes" them and them alone, but most people who donate do so because they like a product so much they're willing to pay for it even though its free.  It's an irrational devotion, one that will ignore criticism.  Even if your non-paying fans bail on you,  most of those devoted ones will still come around, and while the audience is more exclusive, it's also more cost-effective.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

It depends, Destina.

If your "non-paying" fans are those who would pay, but can't... and will pay you next year, when they get a job...

Or will start buying your books, and start you on a career in such a way that your bills get paid in 20 years?


Sure, these aren't likely scenarios, but they -are- valid scenarios - and they're a reason why people keep the non-paying fans around, and keep providing them with content...

There's arguments both for and against, I guess. I think I disagree with you, with respect, obviously, but I'm not sure -why-. I'll think on it, and see if I can become coherent... Speaking specifically about webcomics, what you've said has merit, even if I think it's missing something somewhere (that's both this post and the previous one, there) - with a wider net, covering the other, vast array of websites out there... I think you're missing something of the reason for the 'Net being there, and how it works, or something.

But, as I said - I'm feeling a bit tongue-tied just now. Let me get back to you on that :-)

[superluser]

Because I believe the Internet should be free aside from the cost to transfer and to access the material. (That's one reason why I'm against Net Neutrality.  ISPs, as gateways to the Internet, do have the moral right to charge you to access it as they see fit.)

That's not what net neutrality is.  Net neutrality is the principle that all packets are created equal.  If, for example, I want to access missmab.com from my home, I have to cross Cogent Communications' backbone.  If I want to access att.net, I have to cross AT&T's backbone.

Now, let's say that my backbone (Which is NOT my ISP, but rather my ISP's ISP) decides that Cogent isn't pulling its weight, and stops accepting traffic from Cogent altogether.  That means that if I want to access DMFA, that traffic now has to go through another, longer route to get to me.  This means more latency, slower data transfer rates, and lost revenue.

What network neutrality means is that companies can't stop accepting traffic just because a different source is more valuable.  In other words, it means that Qwest can't block YouTube just because it wants to support DailyMotion.  Podunk Dialup Internet and Renegade BBS can still block YouTube, because it's not a backbone (or at least, this legislation has nothing to do with whether they can).

Edit: Dernit!  Qwest, why must you be spelt thus?

[bill]

I've never really been a fan of "Net Neutrality" since it became a buzzword. As it is, I seriously don't see any abuse of the current system going about.

Reading: http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/10/whitacre_wins_big/

[Destina Faroda]

It depends, Destina.

If your "non-paying" fans are those who would pay, but can't... and will pay you next year, when they get a job...

Or will start buying your books, and start you on a career in such a way that your bills get paid in 20 years?


Sure, these aren't likely scenarios, but they -are- valid scenarios - and they're a reason why people keep the non-paying fans around, and keep providing them with content...

There's arguments both for and against, I guess. I think I disagree with you, with respect, obviously, but I'm not sure -why-. I'll think on it, and see if I can become coherent... Speaking specifically about webcomics, what you've said has merit, even if I think it's missing something somewhere (that's both this post and the previous one, there) - with a wider net, covering the other, vast array of websites out there... I think you're missing something of the reason for the 'Net being there, and how it works, or something.

But, as I said - I'm feeling a bit tongue-tied just now. Let me get back to you on that :-)

I'm not saying that the artists are going to drop their audience as soon as they receive a donation.  Over time, though, if the drive for donations is successful, and in that time the producer will have gained even more power over people.  There's also the number of fans who will lose interest over time due to the fact that the product is no longer new, and also the people who will join in on paying once the move occurs (see Howard Stern).  Believe me, it takes a lot for people who are devoted to turn their backs on their devotion.

But one of the most damaging aspect about the donation system, is the self-sustaining nature that makes it impossible to get around it outside of some sort of law imposed on it.  It makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, and there's is no action one can take against it except to not donate.  Since the whole system is dependent on making people think they have a true choice, then like compulsive gamblers, people put money down, except they're not even getting a chance at money as a reward.

Then again, I believe anyone who uses their "free" Web activities to promote their "pay" product is also shameful, just not to the same degree as someone who accepts donations.  The former is a matter of poor taste; the latter is a form of extortion.

[Xuzaf D]

From what I'm getting; the short version is this:

If you have to pay for a "free" thing, it is obviously not free.

Did I do good?

[Amber Williams]

*quirks brow*

So basically I'm a big meanie because I take donations in exchange for extra updates or bonus material?


Actually that's not the reason I am posting.  I'm just forwarning that talking about how to be a sneaky meanie against pay-content sites and how to distribute their content from underneath them is treading dangerous grounds.  *edit note* Having re-checked rules, there isnt anything against it...but its a very narrow track.  I dont mind if people want to rail on me or paysites or talk about how they suck...but suggesting ways in which to one-up them is a bit...uncool.  *edit note end*

[Damaris]

Yeah, you're a big meanie.  But, you get used to it the longer you know Destina. 

She just has very definite views on things.  It's admirable to have (and maintain) such strong views.  Most people I know couldn't.

[Amber Williams]

Can I be a blue meanie?

[Reese Tora]

Because I believe the Internet should be free aside from the cost to transfer and to access the material. (That's one reason why I'm against Net Neutrality.  ISPs, as gateways to the Internet, do have the moral right to charge you to access it as they see fit.)

That's not what net neutrality is.  Net neutrality is the principle that all packets are created equal.  If, for example, I want to access missmab.com from my home, I have to cross Cogent Communications' backbone.  If I want to access att.net, I have to cross AT&T's backbone.

Now, let's say that my backbone (Which is NOT my ISP, but rather my ISP's ISP) decides that Cogent isn't pulling its weight, and stops accepting traffic from Cogent altogether.  That means that if I want to access DMFA, that traffic now has to go through another, longer route to get to me.  This means more latency, slower data transfer rates, and lost revenue.

What network neutrality means is that companies can't stop accepting traffic just because a different source is more valuable.  In other words, it means that Quest can't block YouTube just because it wants to support DailyMotion.  Podunk Dialup Internet and Renegade BBS can still block YouTube, because it's not a backbone (or at least, this legislation has nothing to do with whether they can).

what he said.

The fact is, the big ISPs claiming that they don't make any money are charging all thier subscribers a fee for bandwidth and access speed.  The services that pass through those already paid for pipes are not in any way under the conrtrol of the ISP providing bandwidth.  Net neutrality is the idea that the government should enforce the seperation of content and media control, and it's been brought up because many ISPs are now begining to dabble in the more profitable services offered by other sites, and have the ability (and, soon, the temptation) to degrade the services of thier competiters that pass through the portion of the internet they control.

For instance, what would you do if your current ISP blocked you from accessing DMFA because they wanted you to only visit thier sponsored web comics (ie: the ones they make money from you viewing)

Now, the net neutrality thing is controversial, because there are some services that ISPs want to offer that would have priority over other traffic(VoIP radio between hospitals and emergency systems, for example), and these services would not be legal under net neutrality.

It's a pretty tricky issue.  Me, personally, I support the idea that the government could keep my ISP from stopping me accessing thier competitors.

[Damaris]

The other happy thing is that there are quite a few ISPs out there.  If one screws you over... you get a different one.  It's usually not the end of the world.

[bill]

Added to the fact that no ISP is seriously screwing anyone over, relatively speaking, as it is.

[Aridas]

Can I be a blue meanie?

You want to be a magic mushroom?