Ahhh, thank you. That's what I was thinking, but you put it better than I did.
The thing is, LJ during its various "clarification" posts have said that they'd only act on content that's physically on their servers and they pointed to this very link to show they were telling the truth.
When it came out that at least one of the artists was serving the image from DeviantArt, the stance changed from "on our servers and if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere." From there, it's escalated from "on our servers, if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere, and any link even though you can see it/read it on LJ."
Plus, I don't know of any massive site like LJ policing for links to offsite material. Granted there's room for abuse there (i.e., linking to child porn sites, etc.), but LJ has already shown that they're not actually interested in dealing with that. They're interested in removing material that LJAbuse deems "objectionable" without actually telling the membership what is objectionable and actionable in LJ's eyes.
no subject
The thing is, LJ during its various "clarification" posts have said that they'd only act on content that's physically on their servers and they pointed to this very link to show they were telling the truth.
When it came out that at least one of the artists was serving the image from DeviantArt, the stance changed from "on our servers and if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere." From there, it's escalated from "on our servers, if you can see it on LJ even if it's hosted elsewhere, and any link even though you can see it/read it on LJ."
Plus, I don't know of any massive site like LJ policing for links to offsite material. Granted there's room for abuse there (i.e., linking to child porn sites, etc.), but LJ has already shown that they're not actually interested in dealing with that. They're interested in removing material that LJAbuse deems "objectionable" without actually telling the membership what is objectionable and actionable in LJ's eyes.