liz_marcs | I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

Current Mood: frustrated

I Just Pinged LJ Regarding the Issue of Linking

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?

Threaded | Flat

I absolutely saw info (I'm pretty sure it was in comments to a post and not a post on its own) today where someone else also asked that same question and was told the same thing (that linking to unacceptable material was the same as posting it yourself.) (There's a small possibility that it was the same OP that you linked to, discussing the same discussion with LJ staff, but I don't *think* it was. I think it was someone different.)

I'm very curious to find out an answer (or at least an answer until the next phase of the moon when 6A/LJ changes their mind again) as I'm particularly concerned about links to stories/art/video that we list on

stop_plagiarism in the course of case. Clearly, we're not creating any of the content, but do they make that distinction?

//is all out of WTF, now waiting for next shipment

I've been thinking about this one and believe that they may do it, because they do with copyright violations.

I don't have community names, but I've heard that some download communities had been shut down for passing links to copyrighted material -- for instance, someone upload a TV episode or movie to one of the storage sites like Mediafire and then posted a link in a community.

Copyright holder contacts LJ about someone promoting theft of their material and LJ has to act on it because of the DMCA - federal law that requires them to act.

This is not necessarily the same though, because the obscenity and child porn laws do not necessarily have the same rules and the DMCA. At the very least though, they may have been thinking along those lines until we questioned them hard about it.

So basically;
1. Anyone who posts material that LJ deems offensive gets suspended.
2. Anyone on their flist or in the same comm who wants to explain why this person got suspended by linking (for instance, everyone who's linked to ponderosa's pic and new journal over the last week) also gets suspended.

If I were paranoid, i'd say this sounds like a perfect continuation of the ~~strikethrough~~ code change; not only will people get banned, but nobody else will be allowed to see what it takes to get banned; if they want to find out, they'll get banned.

Ooooh, and check this out: anyone who links to material they THINK should be banned - "Here, check out this pro-ana community, think I should report it?" - will, I suppose, have to get banned. If they ever started banning pro-ana comms, that is.

If this is true, it's insane.

I just... *throws up hands*

6A is exhausting me and trying my bleeping patience. I've sent them three emails regarding this situation. The first one was actually when I turned off my auto-payments (on the 5th) and got the confirmation notice.

The closing read: Thank you for supporting the site,
LiveJournal Team

It irked me so I hit reply and wrote: I assume that you realize, I requested that my auto-payments be stopped because I no longer wish to support a site with such poor customer service. If there's any doubt, yes, I am referring to the way the deletions were handling, the lack of clarification regarding the ToS, the contradictory statements made by LiveJournal staff and the silence from LJ/6A regarding said matters.

Sincerely,
Adis723

That was the 5th and got a real cheerful 'check out our lj_biz post' answer yesterday morning. *headdesk*

Actually to quote: In regards to this specific incident, LiveJournal management has made a statement, which can be found at http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241884.html, to clarify the question of material dealing with the sexualization of minors.

Where did I mention sexuality or minors? And I'm still waiting on anything regarding the other two emails I sent (one on the 6th and one yesterday). So, yeah, 3 Support requests and... no support as of yet.

Actually, a careful reading of that part of the abuse policy makes things clearer. What they're talking about is not linking to offsite content but reporting Livejournal users for things they do on other sites. For example, if I were to post your entry with some sort of insulting mockery on another site or forum, you couldn't report me to the LJ Abuse team for that and get me suspended from LJ. THAT'S the type of offsite content they're not policing. Links, however, are content on LJ - the linked material is offsite, but the link ITSELF is LJ content, and they're policing that stuff if people complain. It may not seem entirely fair, but at least it's not a contradiction.

O_O ... Well, fuck that!

God, LJ. They're really taking it too far now :/

~melle

I just switched to Horizon so I can see the "Report Abuse" menu item at the bottom of the page. It appears to be very user-friendly. I'm awfully tempted to go through the lj_biz archive and use it on every post.

I guess that would be wrong, though. Funny. But wrong.

LJ-6A: There's always more down.

This is getting completely insane.

I truly cannot believe how much deeper and deeper they are digging themselves into the huge pile of wtf we are all throwing at them. I'm flabbergasted. I mean, I know that LJ has to have rules about such things - with foundation or not, a law suit that they were negligent could cripple the company with legal fees alone - but it sounds like they're being so dominated by fear (and possibly a latent puritan streak) that their common sense - and ability to read the law and logical commentary - has been totally lost.

At this point even if they all started making reasonable decisions I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw my car not to go crazy again. Like I said to WG, if it were April I'd think this was the most thorough April Fool's Joke ever. It just keeps getting worse and worse and more and more bizarre.

I know I've linked to offensive material. Looks like I'm violating the ToS anyway.

I asked them what about RSS feeds. I'm trying to write up a walkthrough-type thing for RSS feeds on LJ and all the LJ-clones, and it suddenly came to me: can they go after RSS feeds in any way?

If you go to a syndicated page on LJ, it reads: "LiveJournal.com makes no claim to the content supplied through this journal account. Articles are retrieved via a public feed supplied by the site for this purpose."

And on their RSS FAQ, it reads this: "Syndicated accounts are not owned by anyone; they automatically collect content from the source feed. You cannot log into a syndicated account, nor can syndicated accounts be deleted or renamed."

So what would they do if an RSS feed that LJ provided a subscription suddenly had a post that said "I LIKE TO WATCH DOGS FUCK BABIES" or something else violating their ToS?

The fact that they say syndicated accounts cannot be deleted makes me curious.

I seem to remember a syndicated account being deleted once - a subscription page for daily Calvin & Hobbes comics. Bill Watterson is a royal stickler for copyright violations (NO ONE CAN STEAL HIS COMIC EVER), though, so honestly I'm not sure WHO put a stop to that. I never looked into it.

Anyway. I thought it was interesting, and submitted a support request... and haven't heard anything yet. I wonder if they're debating it.

I really get the feeling that they are now trying to cover ALL possible bases in order to keep from getting their asses taken to court, even things that are patently ridiculous.

One thing they did make clear in one of those posts was that a link to a site that did not have objectionable content when the link was posted but acquired it later would not necessarily get the linker suspended, but one would be told to remove the link. In short, benefit of the doubt, I reckon. The problem would be determining if it had changed, or not. So it's one of those things that sounds reasonable on paper, but when you actually start thinking about it, has lots of holes, but are they just not thinking about how the web changes (which is really hard to believe of a bunch of techies), orholes on purpose -- e.g., LJ is offering people with links who get reported for it the chance to claim 'they changed it!' and remove the link in order to avoid dealing with it? That is, I wonder if they're doing a wink, wink ... go ahead and link to stuff outside, it's not on our servers, if somebody reports you, we'll warn you and you can move it. Although really, if it's your OWN story (or art) one's linking to, that's a bit hard to argue. So OTOH, I find it hard to believe a bunch of *techies* haven't thought about how the web works, but OTOH, if this is shadow boxing in order to avoid hitting anybody, they're doing it REALLY badly.

As far as I know, they can't be held legally accountable for material on other websites as long as the person providing the link makes it clear the link contains objectionable material? The linker might, but they can't? But this is where things get really shady, and I'm a historian, not a lawyer.

One other thing worth noting here: If this is true, it proves that Six Apart's party line of "We're just trying to cover ourselves legally" is BS, because there's no way they could be held legally responsible for content that's not hosted on their servers.

Likely, their intent is to stop people from going, "Oh, I can't post my porn? Fine, I'll put it on my personal web site and link to it."

Problem with that approach is that it isn't going to WORK. Because fen will promptly find ways to uphold the letter of the restriction while violating the spirit of it. They can do things like,

"Hey! I have a new Snarry picture! It's on my website, www.mysite.com, under the 'new content' tab." With no actual direct link to it, just a path to find it.

So Livejournal has to say you can't link to a page that links to a page with porn on it, or the fan posting smut wins that round ...

And I'm sure you can think of other ways to tell people how to find the porn without directly linking to it. Know what I mean?

At some point it could devolve into, "I drew a Snarry. You know where to find it ... e-mail me if you don't," being bannable. Or, "E-mail me if you want me to e-mail you my latest Snarry."

So either they have to get absolutely ridiculous about restricting any mention of smut whatsoever to prevent fans from passing it around or they have to turn a blind eye to fans who are making end runs around the rules.

Meanwhile, some poor newbie who doesn't know about the rules gets banned because she linked to a pic showing Harry Potter's wang and the purity police have a cow.

Leva Cygnet
leva@firefox.org

I asked pretty much the same question. It was also punted to "private" within minutes.

It is very much starting to look as if the writing is on the wall. 6A doesn't appear to know how to handle customers who don't fit into their neat little boxes.

A year's membership costs $20 for LJ; Typepad, their "professional" blogging service starts at $9/month, which has much in common with the features LJ offers and is actually a bit more restrictive in the area of customizing. The "premium" service, which is what you have to have to get "priority service" as well as full customization, etc., costs $30 a month. Yes, a single month costs as much as a year on LJ. Moveable Type, their enterprise-level package, boasts such users as ABC, NBC-Universal, Time, Inc., GE, Mattel and the Huffington Post. Given what these people probably pay for their software, Lj is chump change. If they lose a bunch of us, they may well think "good riddance."

Hmmm. Anyone know anyone over at the Huffington Post who'd be interested in knowing how their software provider treats its smaller customers?

I fear we may end up being too much trouble for them and they'll make their rules as restrictive as possible to rid themselves of the trouble.

What I am wondering is ... what if someone simply typed in an URL but made it unclickable? Not a link. Just text.

So it'd have to be copied and pasted into the browser address bar (and a few adjustments made) before whatever-it-was could be accessed.

SO ... no one would be getting to the site "from" LJ. LJ wouldn't be anywhere in the electronic "footprint" or what-the-hell-ever the terminology would be. I am sure there's some way for Site B to see it was Site A someone was at when they clicked on the link that took them to Site B. ... I've no idea if that would be something LJ is worrying about.

But I *am* wondering if that's a way to avoid "breaking" their chameleonic TOS without completely crippling online communications.

(Frex: putting "dot com" or "dot net" so the address doesn't become a hyperlink. Like so: livejournal dot com.)

Please don't mistake this as being in support of LJ because it's not and I don't want to get flamed but...

I really don't envy the position they find themselves in. It seems to me that formulating a policy that will cover every possible permutation of what's permissible and what's not is a damn near impossible task. If I were in their position I'd be wishing I'd never opened this particular can of worms!

PS. If you're wondering about the icon, it's a photo of a sculpture from Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, Italy courtesy of a posting discussing "artistic merit and LJ" here (gakked from [Bad username or site: http://www.greatestjournal.com/community/fandomtossed/63375.html @ livejournal.com]).

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

Then they'd have to bounce Warren Ellis - and that'd be really stupid.

(realizing, however, that "that'd be really stupid" is clearly no longer a bar to action on SA's part)

Wow. this is just...wow. it seems less and less likely that fandom will stay on lj. this policy is just asinine. i hope it turns out to be a miscommunication though i sort of doubt it. i'm anxiously awaiting their response to you.

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.

Since I think we could all use a slogan for this latest challenge to fannish users, I took the trouble of making this:

This is OT:

I don't know if you noticed or not, but

a2zmom will be in Boston on Sunday night and wants to meet up with some folks for dinner. Are you free? I'm sure she'd love to see you.

Threaded | Flat

Page 1 of 2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject