Before I forget. I need to make a thread about PayPal so I can ask people about it. Get around to reminding me about that, won't you?
Or just start talking about it here, it doesn't matter.
::goes to bed::
I'm happy with it.
Works like a charm.
It's worked well for me so far. The help desk isn't very helpful, but if you don't mess up, things should go well.
My mom always insists on using it, save for some companies she trusts. Can't say we had any problems I know of.
No problems here, either. But I just use it to pay for a few eBay auctions, so I'm not exactly a power-user. :P
Yeah, I mostly use it for eBay and art commissions and nothing has gone wrong as of yet. :) So I'm happy with it.
No problems with it except one time when I tried to use an expired card as the payment source :B
It works fine, unless you're doing something unexpected.
Like, say, linking to an account to collect money for charity, on the front page of your webcomic.
And pulling in over 30 grand in 3-4 hours. Once you do that, they get all shitty about it and disable the account, and won't let you take the money - not even pass it directly on themselves. As I recall, that was a massive furor, since the money was supposed to end up helping out those in NO... and they'd happily give it to one of the charities that had, IIRC, something like 80% going in overheads, and not ending up at the people who it was intended for, and wouldn't give it to any of those that had less than 15% for overheads - particularly the one they were trying for, which was 2-3% overheads...
'course, personally, I haven't had any trouble at all...
If you use it to pay, make sure to select a credit card (or debit) to go through, rather than having money taken directly from your account.
A fan convention group (Booster Entertainment, who was Buffy/Firefly/Veronica Mars related) took quite a few orders using paypal, canceled the con 24 hours before it started, and quite a few people can't get the money back, because Paypal refused to see that as fraud, as the money was "authorized."
It's not Paypal's call to give that money back. They just handled the transfer. The responsibility lies with to the people who took the money, in this case Booster Entertainment.
I've not heard of any problems paying via paypal, but mabey about a year back one websites problem getting there money from paypal quickly produced 5-10 links to other sites and people who essencially got their money held by papal for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure of some of them ever got their money. So be carefull, also take a carefull look at some of the possibly high money transfer charges for your country.
AFAIK they probably aren't a "bank" either so your money may be protected/guaranteed by any government,
Actually, Gabi, if a product is not recieved it can be Paypal's call to give you your money back. There is a time limit on this, much of the time.
If they won't, and you paid with a credit/debit card, a chargeback could be initiated through your bank, but if you use your actual account, and Paypal decides not to help you, then you're out of luck.
Did I mention I hate PayPal?
Just now.
Why is that so?
Alright then. I have an account now, but I need to put my money in it now, so I'd like to know what methods are best.
a couple years ago, I recall coming across a site that showcased problems people have had with paypal.
This is not that site, but it may be an interesting read anyway.
http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
They certainly do push a lot of Free Merchant on you, don't they?
Quote from: Warlike on February 04, 2007, 04:57:11 PM
Alright then. I have an account now, but I need to put my money in it now, so I'd like to know what methods are best.
You can put money in it, but I've never tried that. What I think most people do is connect it to a payment source so that it takes the money as you need it. The payment source can be either a credit/debit card or a direct bank account transfer.
In either case, it needs to be 'activated' before you can use it properly, which can take a week or so. Basically, you give it the details of the payment source and it makes two very small withdrawals.
When you get the bank statement, you enter the size of the two withdrawals so it knows that the account details are valid and not from a stolen card or something. Then you can use it as normal.
There are safety advantages to using a credit card as the payment backend, but it is not without problems. Zina for instance, can't take Paypal payments which originate from a credit card, as I discovered on my first commission.
Quote from: Warlike on February 04, 2007, 06:32:42 PM
They certainly do push a lot of Free Merchant on you, don't they?
Ah yes, an information site that claims that they are not afraid of PayPal... and their WHOIS only points to a "Privacy Protection" agency/proxy whose website has been claimed by a domain squatter. Right. That is completely trustworthy. These are not the droids I am looking for.
If you check the HTML source of http://www.free-merchant.com/ http://www.merchantinc.com/ http://www.paypalwarning.com/ and http://www.aboutpaypal.com/ you will realize that all four sites were done with the same template kit site (very odd CSS paths, hotlinked background from a site that is a placeholder domain for a template site, etc.)... of course, a complete coincidence ;)
Seriously, though. While I'm not saying that PayPal is perfect, I'd look for independent reviews and not sites that only exist to shove you to competitors.
I'd suggest Western Union's Bidpay, which was backed by a rather old and fairly reputable financial services company, but they seem not to be a Western Union service anymore.
Quote from: superluser on February 04, 2007, 07:25:35 PM
I'd suggest Western Union's Bidpay, which was backed by a rather old and fairly reputable financial services company, but they seem not to be a Western Union service anymore.
Really? In this country they are synonymous with scams, to the point at which no-one on ebay will accept it
and 'Western Union' is like some kind of swearword.
Of course, this might be because no-one here had ever heard of them before they were used in all the non-payment scams...
Quote from: Tapewolf on February 04, 2007, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: Warlike on February 04, 2007, 04:57:11 PM
Alright then. I have an account now, but I need to put my money in it now, so I'd like to know what methods are best.
You can put money in it, but I've never tried that. What I think most people do is connect it to a payment source so that it takes the money as you need it. The payment source can be either a credit/debit card or a direct bank account transfer.
In either case, it needs to be 'activated' before you can use it properly, which can take a week or so. Basically, you give it the details of the payment source and it makes two very small withdrawals.
When you get the bank statement, you enter the size of the two withdrawals so it knows that the account details are valid and not from a stolen card or something. Then you can use it as normal.
There are safety advantages to using a credit card as the payment backend, but it is not without problems. Zina for instance, can't take Paypal payments which originate from a credit card, as I discovered on my first commission.
So let's just say I pay myself with my actual bank account. I could give PayPal money without them being able to access my account, correct?
Quote from: Tapewolf on February 04, 2007, 07:48:22 PMReally? In this country they are synonymous with scams, to the point at which no-one on ebay will accept it
and 'Western Union' is like some kind of swearword.
Of course, this might be because no-one here had ever heard of them before they were used in all the non-payment scams...
That's weird.
Western Union invented the crime-proof money order Nevermind, it was American Express. I actually used to be an agent for Western Union, sending money transfers from a convenience store, and I'm not familiar with any scams. Looking around, I see a site that references a scam that can be done with any wire service (http://scams.flipshark.com/westernunion.html) (Moneygram, for example).
In reality, the method of payment is irrelevant; it's mainly just social engineering.
I'm also confused as to how I might send money to my account on paypal. Isn't there some sort of account number somewhere?
Grrrr... If I grab even one payment through PayPal from my bank account, it defaults on that account letting PayPal grab money as they please. That's bullshit. I'm trying to go the other way around by sending money through my bank to the paypal account as oppose to that. I just don't know who I'm sending it to since my paypal account doesn't seem to have a number or address; just the email address I gave them.
I'll just edit this time:
It seems they only go to my acount for money when my paypal account is empty. I geuss I'm good to go with that then.
edited again:
Online account confirmation failed. Paypal is going to make those two small transactions happen. I wait and hope the item I'm after will still be available since it can only be purchased using paypal.
My experiences with PayPal are up-and-down.
On one hand, they froze my account for four months with no real explanation and it took them two weeks to resolve when I did press the issue.
On the other hand, I didn't really need to use it during that time, and whenever I DO use it (donations, porn, secondlife, ebay, WoW gold, more donations), it works very fast and very efficiently by just using a credit card.
Quote from: Warlike on February 04, 2007, 06:32:42 PM
They certainly do push a lot of Free Merchant on you, don't they?
yeah, I went back after I posted the link and looked at it a bit, and looked around a bit... everything is on their site and for thier own offering.
I would definently take any advice from them with a grain of salt, but they're describing the same things that the other site I'd mentioned did, which was why I posted it.
For someone spending thier own money, a credit card is preferable to paypal, IMO, because there are a number of protections in place for card users(protection against fradulent charges, for one) that paypal lacks.
I finally made my purchase. Now we play the waiting game...
Also, if any of you have any intiresting ideas as to how to waste money with paypal, I'm all ears.
You could always send me some. :-)+)
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. ;)
Quote from: Tiger_T on February 10, 2007, 09:46:15 AM
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. >:3
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 10, 2007, 01:33:16 PM
Quote from: Tiger_T on February 10, 2007, 09:46:15 AM
Or buy stuff on e-bay.
Highlighted things that are not a waste of money. >:3
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.
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*
Quote from: BillBuckner on February 10, 2007, 01:53:06 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 10, 2007, 01:33:16 PM
Highlighted things that are not a waste of money. >:3
Right you are.
Re-think my answer I should.
*nods* :3
Quote from: BillBuckner on February 10, 2007, 02:02:11 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: BillBuckner on February 10, 2007, 01:53:06 PM
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*
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.
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!)
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!
What other way of transfering money would you suggest?
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 10, 2007, 03:06:11 PM
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?
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 10, 2007, 01:33:16 PM
Quote from: Tiger_T on February 10, 2007, 09:46:15 AM
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. >:3
Amber... Art commission... waste... right... got it.
Quote from: Tiger_T on February 10, 2007, 03:59:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 10, 2007, 04:51:02 PMMay 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.
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.
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.
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 :-)
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 14, 2007, 10:55:12 AMBecause 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?
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/
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 14, 2007, 01:08:24 PM
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.
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?
*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*
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.
Can I be a blue meanie? :3
Quote from: superluser on February 14, 2007, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 14, 2007, 10:55:12 AMBecause 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.
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.
Added to the fact that no ISP is seriously screwing anyone over, relatively speaking, as it is.
No she's not a blue meanie. The Blue Meanie actually lost weight. :mowwink
Quote from: Amber Williams on February 14, 2007, 10:09:15 PMSo basically I'm a big meanie because I take donations in exchange for extra updates or bonus material?
Actually, yes you're a big meanie, and this one sentence just proved it.
Quote from: Amber Williams on February 14, 2007, 10:09:15 PMI'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.
Okay, Mab, I can understand you might not want to encourage such activity. But not to talk about it and act like it doesn't exist? That's really scary.
I mean there are people who distriubute illegal content every second. There are people who rip movies from DVDs then spread them through the Internet. I can understand against linking people to sites or mentioning specific instances and such, but if you think even mentioning the fact that it could be "dangerous" then that goes beyond the common sense rules we have for getting along. That's limiting the conversation based on possibilities and to suggest that even possibilites shouldn't be talked about at all is very scary. That's the sign of someone who wants to user her power to stamp out anything that is perceived to be a threat.
Sorry, Mab, but you just proved why donations are a bad idea. Money is power, and couple your power with those views means the end of discussion as we know it.
But back to Net Neutrality.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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.
They probably aren't making as much of a profit percentage wise as you'd think. The problem is that even though they offer a decent amount ofbandwidth and speed, enough people are using these services to clog up the system with their large files and are abusing the system. Unfortunately, it's too difficult to go after all the people who upload and download (and it doesn't help when the RIAA and MPAA use stupid "blanket" tactics instead of using effective methods). Let's not forget, of course, those idiot spammers and malicious hackers who generate traffic for no good reason By restricting access it kills two birds with one stone. It limits piracy to a severe degree and it also allows them to make more money.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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.
Yeah, but that's like saying the cars that are passing from the United States to Canada ay Niagra Falls are not necessarily under the control of the state of New York and as a result, the state of New York shouldn't charge for the turnpike that connect since people are paying for the roads with taxes.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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)
Then that's their right. I might not like it, but that is definitely their right, because the ISPS are providing the service presumably for a profit.
If you subscribe to a cable television company, there are some channels that cable company won't cover. You might lobby for them to cover it, but you know you're not going to get this channel unless you switch to another provider, who may not provide channels that
Now usually, because of competition and because it's profitable for the companies, they offer the widest selection possible. However, this is simpler with cable because it's a one-way stream. The internet is user-driven in terms of content choice. Unfortunately, people tend to make bad choices, one of which is forking over money over the Internet to other companies and people. Let's face it, if people weren't willing to pay for matierial either through pay-only porn sires or donating to their favorite artists, then this wouldn't have come up with a way to make more money, because there would have been no market. But as soon as people, the ISPs begin to think that they want a piece of this action. Combine this with the rampant piracy and you have a recipe for disaster. A dream for a "free" Internet is a now a fading memory.
I'm not against government intervention, but when it comes to the Internet, cable, video games, and digital media, the government should butt out. Remember, it's the governnment's fault we have DMCA, ratings on video games (which I argue actually allowed for more violent games instead of restricted them), and other crap. The government wants to force cable companies to carry channels a.l.a. carte. That would only raise prices.
Sorry, unfocused rant over...you may return to your normal dose of insanity.
I agree that money is power, in that it allows you to do things you can't do without it. But working to gain power is not a bad thing, nor is accepting it from those who offer it willingly. I love DMFA and I intend to keep supporting it in different ways, but I haven't made any donations because I don't have money to spare, and I doubt Amber or anyone else will think any less of me because of that. And if they do, it's their problem, not mine.
I myself have been accepting donations to help me go to AC. I wouldn't have been able to afford the plane tickets without them, and now I can, and I'm enormously grateful to those who helped me. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and I don't think any less of those who didn't. Moreover, many have done other things for me which I'm also grateful for, like making me feel welcome last year, making drawings of my character, sending me a teabag or just being nice. Giving money isn't different from giving other kinds of help. You're actually saying helping others and asking for help are bad things?
Asking for help is fine if you really need the help. If you can't find a job that can actually pay your bills like a LOT of people I know, then it's okay to accept charity.
The problem is that a lot of people who ask for help really don't need the help, it just makes things a lot more convenient (and in the case of "donations" it's really income), and a lot of people who could use help don't get it. If you have a lot of people who visit your blog/comic/site/whatever, you really don't need any help. The readers themselves bring you with the feedback you need to continue.
Asking someone for monetary aid in these cases indicates that the author/artist does look down on the people who view their product. Once money gets involved you start to attach a tangible worth on people, like it or not, and try as you might, it is impossible to treat people equally from that point. This devalues those who don't give and elevates those who do. It also places a value on the author/artist compared to others who draw or fail to draw money in. As a result, the act of asking for donations affects both other readers and other creators. It needlessly ruins the entire community.
My point is there isn't a whole lot of power, at least not that I've been seeing. Maybe you got majorly smacked by some people for some reason...but a lot of the time I find most people have varied reasons for their doings. The reason I was wanting to avoid the discussion of undermining pay-sites before it started was not because I don't think it exists, but because I know a few good (and really nice) people who I consider friends...who also happen to run full paysites. The ones you need a subscription to view. And I respect them and their choices...albeit I don't agree with them personally. However, I know for a fact they aren't in the very least rolling in money or power. In fact it's almost the opposite since they are pretty much grabbed by the balls to produce content at a higher rate at risk of not losing support. And for that, the discussion of distribution makes me uneasy. Mostly because I feel I'm insulting them behind their backs without a real way for them to defend themselves.
This isn't me going "la la la. piracy doesnt exist. Stop talking about it." This is me going "I have friends who have paysites. Please dont diss them." Its more about respect than anything. People can take potshots at me and how I handle my site all they want, since I'm actually around to take defense or respond.
In that sense, I won't argue that I do have a somewhat easier time. While I am morally obligated to finish all the things I have promised, at the end of it all, if I was to give up the comic I wouldn't be bound to continue onward. I offer things yeah, but I keep in mind to point out that they aren't things that people wouldnt likely be getting sooner or later anyways. The only time that was a major exception was last summer when I both got rejected from the border and my computer blew out on the same day.
However I dont have little dollar signs over my readers, and no one who donated has ever gotten anything more special than those who dont. I've gotten a lot of slack from some people about how I don't bend over backwards to people because they may donate. At the time it takes me around 4-8 hours a night to do a single comic. And once I get legal residence in Canada I'll likely actually look for a normal job. But right now the only way to pay my car insurance/websites/Sallie Mae loanshark is through my old bank and the only thing I have attached to that is paypal...
It's a meh situation. I don't like it. I intend to fix it. But at the time everything is in paperwork and so its the sit-n-spin game.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 15, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
No she's not a blue meanie. The Blue Meanie actually lost weight. :mowwink
Quote from: Amber Williams on February 14, 2007, 10:09:15 PMSo basically I'm a big meanie because I take donations in exchange for extra updates or bonus material?
Actually, yes you're a big meanie, and this one sentence just proved it.
Quote from: Amber Williams on February 14, 2007, 10:09:15 PMI'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.
Okay, Mab, I can understand you might not want to encourage such activity. But not to talk about it and act like it doesn't exist? That's really scary.
I mean there are people who distriubute illegal content every second. There are people who rip movies from DVDs then spread them through the Internet. I can understand against linking people to sites or mentioning specific instances and such, but if you think even mentioning the fact that it could be "dangerous" then that goes beyond the common sense rules we have for getting along. That's limiting the conversation based on possibilities and to suggest that even possibilites shouldn't be talked about at all is very scary. That's the sign of someone who wants to user her power to stamp out anything that is perceived to be a threat.
Sorry, Mab, but you just proved why donations are a bad idea. Money is power, and couple your power with those views means the end of discussion as we know it.
I believe that was meant more as a 'you are approaching a line, do not cross it' warning, rather than saying don't talk about it at all.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 15, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
But back to Net Neutrality.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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.
They probably aren't making as much of a profit percentage wise as you'd think. The problem is that even though they offer a decent amount ofbandwidth and speed, enough people are using these services to clog up the system with their large files and are abusing the system. Unfortunately, it's too difficult to go after all the people who upload and download (and it doesn't help when the RIAA and MPAA use stupid "blanket" tactics instead of using effective methods). Let's not forget, of course, those idiot spammers and malicious hackers who generate traffic for no good reason By restricting access it kills two birds with one stone. It limits piracy to a severe degree and it also allows them to make more money.
No, probably not, but if they aren't making the money to support themselves, they can raise it by other means than extortionate tactics and unfair buisness practices.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 15, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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.
Yeah, but that's like saying the cars that are passing from the United States to Canada ay Niagra Falls are not necessarily under the control of the state of New York and as a result, the state of New York shouldn't charge for the turnpike that connect since people are paying for the roads with taxes.
they do that? that's despicable. The idea that a road paid for by the government is not recieving adaquite funding for maintanance to the point that extra revenue needs to be extorted through tolls is a failure of government. Either charge me to use the road, or tax me for repair funds. Either or. I have no problem with toll roads, those that want to pay for convenience are welcome to, and many private compaies operate them for profit, but if I already paid for the road to exist, I should not be charged AGAIN for the priveledge to use it. I would as soon pay rent for a house that I own and pay a mortgage for.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 15, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 14, 2007, 10:57:03 PM
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)
Then that's their right. I might not like it, but that is definitely their right, because the ISPS are providing the service presumably for a profit.
If you subscribe to a cable television company, there are some channels that cable company won't cover. You might lobby for them to cover it, but you know you're not going to get this channel unless you switch to another provider, who may not provide channels that
I do not find it at all acceptable that I might be restricted in the content I am allowed to aces and I ahve already paid for the right to access. by signing up wih an ISP, I am paying for a specific level of access ot the world wide network that is the internet. The equivalent in cable television would be to pay for basic cable, and have your cable provider turn off the local channels durring prime time to force you to watch thier prime times shows(and support thier ad revenue) or watch nothing at all. Sure, you always have the option of switching cable providers, or switching back to your antenna, but those are not acceptable options.
Quote from: Destina Faroda on February 15, 2007, 12:32:36 PM
Now usually, because of competition and because it's profitable for the companies, they offer the widest selection possible. However, this is simpler with cable because it's a one-way stream. The internet is user-driven in terms of content choice. Unfortunately, people tend to make bad choices, one of which is forking over money over the Internet to other companies and people. Let's face it, if people weren't willing to pay for matierial either through pay-only porn sires or donating to their favorite artists, then this wouldn't have come up with a way to make more money, because there would have been no market. But as soon as people, the ISPs begin to think that they want a piece of this action. Combine this with the rampant piracy and you have a recipe for disaster. A dream for a "free" Internet is a now a fading memory.
I'm not against government intervention, but when it comes to the Internet, cable, video games, and digital media, the government should butt out. Remember, it's the governnment's fault we have DMCA, ratings on video games (which I argue actually allowed for more violent games instead of restricted them), and other crap. The government wants to force cable companies to carry channels a.l.a. carte. That would only raise prices.
Sorry, unfocused rant over...you may return to your normal dose of insanity.
Quote from: Reese Tora on February 15, 2007, 04:20:38 PM
I believe that was meant more as a 'you are approaching a line, do not cross it' warning, rather than saying don't talk about it at all.
Pretty much. Though Destina didn't really answer my question so much steer it around to something different. I asked if I was a meanie for donations, not if I was a meanie because I was warning caution in regards to posting about undermining pay-sites. The two aren't really related as I could have made the same request even if my comic never took donations. Me being a meanie because I'm a mod? Thats a given. :U
Huh. Looks like cabin fever is making everybody squirrelly. Well, I'd better add to it.
I'd note, Destina, that the donation/sponsorship system has worked pretty well throughout history. François-Marie Arouet, for example, was pretty much an idler, and his main source of income came from bumming money from nobles. Every so often, he would wear out his welcome and be forced to find a new patron. Despite all of this, Arouet (better known by his pen name, Voltaire) was considered one of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of the 18th century.
NPR and PBS are supported by the US taxpayers, but also by donations solicited by interrupting your favorite shows (or in some cases, Mr. Bean (http://www.kibo.com/photos/toys_2_action_figures/)). I'd rather have TV detector vans.
As to whether it's a good idea, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to harm the quality of the work. Anybody know if Samuel Johnson took donations?
Every time I forget to say "don't post this" in a thread I start, it always get buried by unrelated junk. This is why I can't start a game in the RP section; I'd have to post fifty damn rules just to avoid forum whores and spammers and the like.
Well, at the point the topic really started to drift, you'd already gotten a paypal account, right? So it's not like the thread hadn't already served it's purpose by the time it got derailed.
Not that staying on topic isn't a grand ol' goal, mind you.
Yeah sure... it's not like we have to own up to what we do, what with the thread starter around to blame.
And yes, I know you "didn't say that," but acting like you all have the right to just bump me off my own threads makes you sound like an ass.
:tmyk
I didn't mean it like that, but I can't really say anything else without making myself look like an ass. (Atleast, everything I could think of sounded assinine to me.)
I am not saying that it was right or justified to take over your thread, but I'm used to posting in forums where it's almost expected that the original topic for a thread not last beyond the first page(if it even reaches the bottom of said first page!)
--edit--
*appologoes not being his forte, Reese shall not be causing further damage making further posts in this thread*
There's a big difference between PBS and most sites that ask for donations.
Public Television provides a public service. It provides educational programs for the general public in addition to providing entertainment. Now there are some sites that do provide a public service, but most sites are for entertainment, informational purposes, or promote an agenda.
Just because Voltaire was a bum doesn't make his bumming right. Thos Jefferson laid much of the foundation for American government, but he was still a proud owner of slaves.
Yeah, I'm the miser, all right.
Now Mab, I think you claim I didn't answer your question. What I'm saying is that yes, you are a meanie for accepting donations. Accepting donations is, among other things, a status symbol, whether you want to admit it or not. It's an easily quanitifiable measure that is very public. While one can measure the hits and visitors a Web site reaches, visually one can't tell from the site itself how popular it is. However, with a donation bar, one has an instant measure of worth. This makes you, Mab, worth more than any of your reader and your fellow comic creators in a fashion that can be considered objective rather than that of an opinion people share. Instead of trying to make people feel worth in of themselves, it's another way of lording your superiority over them. That is mean, and in my opinion, an abuse of power.
This abuse of power shows up, in more ways than being a mod. An example of abuse shows up when you "stick up" for your friends.
Now, as an aside, a lot of people have accused me in the past of asking whatever friends I had at the time to agree with me 100%. I actually would like friends such as yourself who would defend me so vigorously when I wasn't even mentioned by name. But no one dares step up for me in such an instance, and I'm free to be mocked in my absence, and abused in my presence.
However, while admirable for you to stick up for your friends, the fact remains that you're a powerful person (if you deny that you are, I dare you to disappear from any on-line activity for as long as I have and see what happens). This means you can only be friends with other poweful people. When powerful people form relationships with other powerful people, this friendship is an affiliation, another means of controlling those who do not have such power. I could make a friend right now and no one would ever listen to either of us. You can make a friend with another person of your level and both of you would wield a collective, unstoppable influence. This makes you mean. The fact that you want to throw the donation meter in one's face is just an externsion of said meanness. The fact that you think of yourself as an equal and a friend to those who who charge for their sites makes you no different than one who charges for a site. If you don't challenge them on it, you're encouraging it.
And now, the cherry on top of this sundae...
QuoteBut right now the only way to pay my car insurance/websites/Sallie Mae loanshark is through my old bank and the only thing I have attached to that is paypal...
It's a meh situation. I don't like it. I intend to fix it. But at the time everything is in paperwork and so its the sit-n-spin game.
If you're having money troubles, why not just put your websites aside? Why have the people help you monetarily so that you can continue to do what you do? What about all the people who do have full-time jobs and update their comics on a regular basis? Should they beg for money too so they can stop working? Furthermore, will you stop accepting donations when you do get back on your feet?
*edity note:* Nyar. Since Gabi is love, I'll step down from this discussion. The main reason I'm removing this post is because I don't want it to seem like I'm demanding the last word. (Cause we all know that this type of thing will just go back and forth for pages) So I'll cut myself off here so the thread can die proper.
If anyone is really bent up for it though, feel free to PM for it. *end edity note*
I think this discussion is becoming a bit too heated. We have different opinions and I doubt we'll come to an agreement on this, but we should all at least try not to offend the others.
We live in a human society. Everything we do determines how other see us, and every action can cause you to gain or lose some power. The only ways to get out of that scheme would be by either dying or becoming a hermit, and I don't think that would do anyone much good.
And Destina, we don't agree on most things but I value you as a person and, if I thought someone was attacking you, I would stick up for you.
You win this round all purpose vixen. But one day, I shall remember which country of South America you live in and try to invade! ONE DAY.
Sooo...net neutrality eh?
It's okay Amber, we all know that your actual plan is to take the souls of your fanbase and use them to power your death weapons.
:goodtimes
Shhh! I promised you Russia for your silence! D:
Quote from: Amber Williams on February 16, 2007, 05:40:43 AM
You win this round all purpose vixen. But one day, I shall remember which country of South America you live in and try to invade! ONE DAY.
Sooo...net neutrality eh?
It's Argentina. Do come, please. I'm sure you'd be better at running it than the self-centered leeches who run it now. (The unofficial motto of all politicians here is "grab everything you can while you have the chance".)
Quote from: Gabi on February 16, 2007, 05:57:00 AMIt's Argentina. Do come, please. I'm sure you'd be better at running it than the self-centered leeches who run it now. (The unofficial motto of all politicians here is "grab everything you can while you have the chance".)
Oh, yeah. The Argentinean economy thing. I'll kick the IMF for you.
Obviously, you don't pay attention to US News. That's pretty much the motto of the politicians here, especially when relating to that country that starts with an I that we probably shouldn't be talking about.
Oh, I don't want US politicians to run my country at all. The ones we have now are corrupt but at least if they sink the ship they have nowhere else to run to. I was inviting Amber, not Bush.
And I'd appreciate the kick in the IMF's backside (or frontside, even), thanks.
God, this thread is fuckin' gold.
Quote from: Netami on February 16, 2007, 08:38:05 PM
God, this thread is fuckin' gold.
Ah dangit. Now I owe DMoon money.
:mwaha
For those that are curious:
I purposefully stayed out of this thread for a few reason, not the least of which is that Destina is my friend and anything I say would have been biased.
Another reason is that I take donation on CVRPG. My status symbol and power are pathetic. I get, most months, $0 in donations (the last two months not-with-standing). I'm biased on that side because I take donations and give rewards to everyone.
I stayed out because I didn't want to read a huge thread and see a heated discussion I've had with Destina a few times before. It wasn't worth it, honestly.
And, I stayed out because Destina is a big girl and can take care of herself in these matters.
That said, this discussion is QUITE heated and needs to calm down. All involved that have not already stepped away should do so and give this thread no less than THREE DAYS to simmer down and for all involved to cool.
I won't lock this thread, as others may want to comment, but anyone that was a part of this discussion needs to leave it alone for three days or you will be baneed for NO LESS than 1 week.
okay- that was all spelled correctly. Who logged in as you? :p
:(
...
Poohead.
My paypal order hasn't come in yet...
Yeah, that's right... I went there... trying to put the thread back on track like the evil penis I am...
Someone say penis? Oh.
So what order did you place, exactly?
My only gripe with paypal is how long it can take sometimes. One day, the transactions are instant, another day and it'd be some sort of huge wait for even the simplest of things. I find it's often tied to the merchant involved, however... Also method of payment is a big one, especially if you use something besides a bank account or credit card. E-money transfers can take a long, long time.
Quote from: Netami on February 22, 2007, 10:23:01 PMSomeone say penis? Oh.
So what order did you place, exactly?
Uh...the juxtaposition of those two sentences is not good for my sanity.
Would you like to order some penis?
:veryevil
Alright, alright, back on track, please. Has anyone ever withdrawn money from a PAYPAL account via cheque? I'm afraid I'll probably have to take some of my money that way because I accidentally created two accounts (BOO, I know) and some of the money was sent to the wrong one and I don't have 2 trustworthy relatives who have a bank account in the USA. So, do you think the cheque will arrive safely if I request it? Because the only other way would be to transfer all my funds from that account to the other, but with a fee of 5.4% it would cost more than the cheque.