What bubble_blunder said. The released the new ToS right around the same time as the perm account sale. When people read over the ToS and went, "Hey! Wait! What does this mean?" Someone for LJ/6A went, "Well, it's not that draconian. We meant this." or "What we really mean is this."
But (and this is the big but), when people pushed them for details beyond the vague, "Well, we really mean this even though the ToS says this" there was no straight answer.
Frankly, I did find both pieces of art on the offensive and/or squicky side. And I agree that neither one of the artists were smart about how they went about posting those images or even hosting the images (I think LJ Scrapbook was used in at least one instance).
Now 6A/LJ has the absolute right to decide not to host something. But they kind of need to be upfront and honest about what they will and will not host, which they haven't been.
I can also understand if someone's a repeat offender and a journal is suspended after, say, three warnings within a given time period (to be really draconian, let's say 6 months). However, to suspend without warning, and then not refund the money prorated for that person's remaining time, that's just fishy. Yes, they've got the absolute right to shut down a journal, but if they're not willing to fulfill a contract, than they pretty much owe the customer a refund for the unused portion of that contract...which they don't.
Plus, the way LJ/6A is going about laying down the rules and enforcing them is not exactly endearing them to their customer base. It's a case of: this could happen to me/my friends/etc.
no subject
But (and this is the big but), when people pushed them for details beyond the vague, "Well, we really mean this even though the ToS says this" there was no straight answer.
Frankly, I did find both pieces of art on the offensive and/or squicky side. And I agree that neither one of the artists were smart about how they went about posting those images or even hosting the images (I think LJ Scrapbook was used in at least one instance).
Now 6A/LJ has the absolute right to decide not to host something. But they kind of need to be upfront and honest about what they will and will not host, which they haven't been.
I can also understand if someone's a repeat offender and a journal is suspended after, say, three warnings within a given time period (to be really draconian, let's say 6 months). However, to suspend without warning, and then not refund the money prorated for that person's remaining time, that's just fishy. Yes, they've got the absolute right to shut down a journal, but if they're not willing to fulfill a contract, than they pretty much owe the customer a refund for the unused portion of that contract...which they don't.
Plus, the way LJ/6A is going about laying down the rules and enforcing them is not exactly endearing them to their customer base. It's a case of: this could happen to me/my friends/etc.