I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

[liz_marcs]

Right now, an awful lot of people are saying LiveJournal will ToS your journal if you provide even a link to material LJAbuse would deem ToS-worthy (using, of course, LJ's invisible guidelines that we — the customers and content providers — have yet to see) as if you were hosting the content on the LiveJournal servers.

I'm not talking about displaying images that are hosted on another site (i.e., Photobucket or DeviantArt) using the <<img>> tag.

I'm talking about just providing a link to content or an image using the <<a href>> tag that LJ Abuse deems ToS-worthy.

See the response this user got when he/she asked that question.

Another LJ user asked the same questions and got the same response from an LJ/6A employee. (H/t to wesleysgirl for the link.)

Note that this new off-site linking stance is in direct violation of LJ's own abuse policies.

I want to be clear: I'm not calling the OP a liar, but this response beggars belief as far as I'm concerned,  especially since Web sites change all the time and it's not that hard to imagine a once-innocent link to, say to an article on SuicideGirls (warning link may be NWS), could suddenly become rife with problems.

So I decided to ask Support for myself.

Within seconds of me posting my request Support tagged it as private, so good luck seeing Request#: 797739 if you want to confirm that I did, in fact, do this.

I'll just have to give you the text of what I asked:

There is currently a rumor going around the user base that LJ/6A would delete or suspend a journal if the user links to a Web site or Web page that contains content that the Abuse Team deems as objectionable.

I'm not talking about displaying an objectionable image hosted on, say Photobucket, and linked using the "img" tag.

I'm talking about linking to a site or an image using the "a href" tag.

So, for example, I post a link to a Web site( a link and nothing more) and say someone reports the entry to LJ Abuse.

If LJ Abuse deems that I have, indeed, linked to material that would otherwise get me ToS'd if LJ servers were hosting it, would my account be suspended/deleted because I merely posted a link to another Website?

Thank you for your prompt response on this matter.

As soon as I get a response, I will post it here.

Either that, or LJ is going to ToS me for posting a link to SuicideGirls.

Screw it. If this journal disappears, that's a pretty much solid answer, don't you think?

Comments

[elfgirl.livejournal.com]

And this, boys and girls, is what happens when you FUBAR your common carrier status.

For those that don't know, the common carrier exemption (in relation to ISPs and webhosts) provides a limitation of liability to a host in the transmission, storage and linking of material on their servers. This was originally meant to cover transmission of copyrighted material, a la mp3s, but has since been used to cover other types of material, such as pornography.¹ This exemption is part of title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.”

There are two parts that directly apply to what's going on now:

• The limitation for storage of information on systems or networks limits the liability of ISPs for infringing material on websites hosted on their systems.
  
• The limitation for information location tools relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines, and similar applications. This provision limits ISP liability for linking to a site containing infringing material.

In order to maintain their exemption of liability, ISPs and hosts must:

First, upon notification of infringing content, the ISP must take down or block access to the material (“Notice and Take-Down”). In addition: (i) ISPs cannot be the initiator of the infringing material or be actively involved in the transfer of such material (i.e., all activities must be automated), (ii) the content of the material transferred or retained may not be modified by the ISP, and (iii) the ISP cannot receive direct financial benefit from the infringing material. [source (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01089e.html)]

Here's where LJ/6A current behavior comes in--up until now, when something has been reported to LJ, the standard response has been to say it's freedom of speech, they can't do anything about it. This has been the standard response in such cases for the vast majority of ISPs and web hosts. Instead, most carriers will wait until presented with a court order, law enforcement order, or C&D from a copyright holder. Why? Because if they don't put themselves up as the arbiters of what is and is not legal to have on their servers, then they have plausible deniability.

As soon as an ISP or web host starts removing content without a legal order, they are taking legal responsibility for a) knowing what is illegal for them to have on their servers and b) for making sure it's taken off. This is the slippery slope that 6A is now on.

If it's really a case of them not wanting this type of content on their servers, the smart thing to have done would have been to report the content to WB for copyright violation or, if they really thought it violated obscenity laws, to a law enforcement agency who would have then ordered them to take it down. I suspect, however, that 6A is trying to keep a lower profile than that and instead decided to remove it themselves rather than risking a stink over copyright or obscenity violations on their servers.

Unfortunately, in doing so, they may have sealed their fate in terms of their legal status.

¹ I don't know if this has been tested in court yet.

[kudra2324.livejournal.com]

iiiiiiinteresting. that makes sense, of course, from a logical standpoint. i wonder if lj has even played that issue all the way through in their heads (last week i would have assumed so, but at the point, who knows)?