I keep getting email about my banning and the subsequent fandom issues on Livejournal, so I figured I should probably address it all in one fell swoop.
1.) Me getting banned.
I was banned from Livejournal for being, under their terms of service, a “serial copyright offender.” The offenses in question were:
1.) A single image on Improved Archie, which I removed at their request;
2.) The Harry Potter review, which I also removed at their request;
3.) The entirety of the rest of Improved Archie, which earned me the SCO tag and instant suspension.
Now, to answer some quick questions:
Were these “offenses” cause for legitimate complaint? I’ve done some study of the copyright laws in question, and my conclusion is that the Potter post probably was cause for legitimate complaint, on the basis of the use of quotation prior to publication of the work. I’ve also concluded that if I hadn’t quoted the work at all, Scholastic would have had very little cause at all to issue a DMCA notice. (Not that this would have necessarily stopped them from doing so, of course, but let’s not get into hypotheticals here.) The Archie posts are a different kettle of fish, being determined by a number of things (for example, is one panel from a comic “a complete work” in and of itself – I believe not and there’s some precedent to back me up, but there’s also some precedent arguing the other way), but my conclusion there is that, yes, it was transformative parody and I was in the right under fair use.
Should I have contested the notices? Well, if I was rich, then sure. Even if the Electronic Frontier Foundation decided to take on my case, they probably wouldn’t pay for me to go to the United States to contest the case, which would have been A) necessary and B) probably run into the thousands of dollars in court costs. Moral of the story, kids: challenge copyright law under the laws of your own country if you’re going to do it. (The astute will note that this site is hosted on a Canadian server for a reason.)
Was Livejournal in the right to suspend me? “Right” doesn’t quite enter into it; under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act LJ/SixApart is required to prohibit use to anybody they consider a serial copyright offender, and no, compliance with previous DMCA notices affects this not at all. Given the ridiculous amount of image posting on Livejournal, this means that many a user is probably a serial copyright offender already and doesn’t even realize it. The problem is not Livejournal in this instance: the problem is that the DMCA is a bad law, not just in this respect but in many, many other ways as well (it’s been argued repeatedly that it is unconstitutional).
2.) Okay, what about the Harry/Snape thing?
I’m not sure why people started contacting me about this, considering my most notable contribution to Harry Potter’s online frenzy has been taking the piss out of him, but they did. A Livejournal user was summarily banned for posting an image of pictorial art she had done up, namely of Snape and Harry having gay sex. I’ve seen the work (and, although my personal inclinations as regards the work are irrelevant to its legal merits, let me just say: ick). In fairness to the artist, I will admit that the depiction of Harry is of indeterminate age – he could be sixteen, he could be twenty.
That having been said, people ragging on Livejournal for banning this user summarily are on crack. This rant covers most of what I would say, but let me retouch the high points: given the incredibly hostile state of American law to questionable online content, social networking sites (like Livejournal) have to self-police themselves and strictly, lest some governmental agency decide to take matters into their own hands.
3.) Pro-anorexia comms are okay? WTF?
This is a fairly recent development that seems to have emerged out of the furor from various fandom groups on Livejournal, attempting to point out hypocrisy on LJ’s part by allowing communities that encourage their members to be anorexic – which would violate LJ’s terms of service by “encouraging harm” to a person or group. I get that people are pissed off at Livejournal, and that pro-anorexia communities are fucking creepy – but this argument just doesn’t fly, folks.
All the anorexia comm has to do is say that they’re encouraging anorexia for a perceived positive purpose. (“Social acceptance” and “self-esteem” would be, I suspect, the likely candidates.) You don’t think it’s that easy? Because, trust me – it’s that easy. Everybody makes tradeoffs every day “encouraging harm” to a person or group.
On Livejournal I can find communities devoted to fattening women to ridiculously unhealthy levels (“fattenwomen”), and yeah, that is some seriously freaky stuff there, but they’re not shortening women’s lifespans for a whim, they’re doing it for mutual sexual gratification. I can find communities devoted to smoking (“pro_smokers”), but they’re not trying to promote lung cancer and emphysema – they enjoy the pleasurable experience of smoking. I can find communities devoted to heroin use (“opiate_affair”) and cocaine use (“4evr_nosebleed”) and fucking crystal meth (“spun_psychosis”), and they can just say “we’re discussing in a scholarly manner the personal experiences of use of these drugs, dude. Hey, you know where we can score some more? Uh, for scholarly purposes?”
And that’s just the obvious stuff. How about skydiving? (“skydiving”) I mean, come on – you’re throwing yourself out of a perfectly good plane and if your parachute doesn’t work, you die! Sadomasochistic sexual practices? (“bdsm_news”) Anybody who’s done even a little of that knows that things can go wrong if you’re not careful. Hell, your sneakers encourage harm to a person or group (Chinese sweatshop workers). Let’s ban all communities about sneakers. And anybody who lists “sneakers” as an interest. Come to think, since most people who run wear sneakers, let’s ban the running and jogging comms as well.
And then, whoops, some jogger gets pissed off that his community got nuked, and sues Livejournal for breach of contract and wins eleventy million dollars and suddenly there isn’t a Livejournal any more.
I’m purposely being a bit ridiculous here, of course, but the point is really simple: people complaining about Livejournal are complaining stupidly. Their complaint is not with Livejournal, who are simply being gutless in the way that any major corporation is going to be gutless. Their complaint is with various aspects of intellectual property and/or copyright law and how, in everyday life, those aspects end up being exercised. And that anger should be directed productively, which is to say at changing those laws. Kvetching about Livejournal is a waste of time.
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
Their complaint is not with Livejournal, who are simply being gutless in the way that any major corporation is going to be gutless. Their complaint is with various aspects of intellectual property and/or copyright law and how, in everyday life, those aspects end up being exercised. And that anger should be directed productively, which is to say at changing those laws. Kvetching about Livejournal is a waste of time.
Well said.
LJ being dicks? Leave. Simple. I am.
Don’t like the laws and “laws” they are touting? See MGK’s post above. Change it.
mynn — I don’t know if leaving LJ would change anything, but I’m sure there are other (and maybe better) ways to fight it or, rather, get the message across. When it all comes down to it, LJ is it’s own business, it can do nearly what it wants to, legally. But it has it’s limits. I suggest we push those limits.
I agree 100% – they are being dicks. I take the lower moral route by being a dick back (ie. letter writing and general loud-mouthery) rather than leaving.
I like my livejournal too much to let livejournal take me down. If that makes any sense.
Love the Star Wars, hate the Lucas. Yes? I’m appropriately nerdy for my day thus far.
As I recall, LJ_Abuse is always looking for more volunteers. Rather than working at coming up with new ways to make life hellish for the rank & file working the customer support desk (and turning what’s naturally a difficult job on the best of days into a real meatgrinder), perhaps there’s a way for those who are staying there to effect change from within–“be the change you wish to see in the world”, as it were.
I just wish they’d say “no porn” and be done with it. I don’t like porn, all the ridiculous whiners would leave, and the reasonable people would accept it and move on. They certainly don’t NEED to host ANY.
I don’t like the idea of permanently suspending an account (with no previous violations) on account of an ambiguous image. Since there was indeterminate age, that seems to me like the textbook example of when to warn, remove, and reinstate and flag the account. If it’s not ambiguous, go all gung-ho, by all means.
…I’ll admit I’m biased on the pro-ana thing, because I was a member of anti-ana for years, just trying to get the word out about the communities being harmful. My problem is by policing content as far as to permanently banning ambiguous borderline cases who’ve given no problem in the past, I think they are opening themselves up to criticism. Since they’re talking about harmful content, and what they choose to host, I don’t think that it’s out of line to be required to check in on the content of those communities. Maybe not permabanning pro-ana, but by laying down the line on what’s allowed in terms of posts. And being more mindful of cyber-stalking, and harrassment, and things that cause harm.
Aardy, you just cited the problem:
Volunteers. 6A is a corp. It should act like one. It should hire a team for its abuse department, pay them, and then enforce.
As for the pro-anorexia community? They’re not going for social acceptance. They’re saying anorexia isn’t a disorder, it’s a lifestyle. And when you’ve got a woman over 6 feet tall at 105 pounds, and people are encouraging her to not eat, that’s not encouraging social acceptance or bolstering self esteem. That’s assisted suicide. Which last I checked the law — is illegal.
Nobody’s making things more hellish for LJ/6A. They made it that way for themselves. Because, see, the hue and cry against pro-anorexia communities and hate communities and abuse and drug communities, and genuine pedophile journals and stalker journals has been going on for years; –years– before the first strikethrough thing happened in May.
And LJ has been historically, until May, been saying, “sorry, free speech, nothing we can do,” to stuff that was in violation of their pre-Strikethrough TOS [which is the same as their post-Strikethrough TOS because they won’t update the TOS after announcing the changes and the so called clarifications].
Indi– the thing is, the women on the pro-ana groups would argue that they aren’t seeking advice on how to kill themselves or commit suicide… they’re just trying to lose weight. *rollseyes* Unfortunately, that means that it’s a lot harder to pin them down.
Quinctia– It isn’t as simple as “no porn.” They’re apparently quite happy to host adult porn, as long as it’s clearly adult porn and it’s kept in over-18 communities that are locked and moderated to prevent the under-18 set from showing up. Similarly, it isn’t as simple as “no fan art” or “no fanfic.” People keep trying to pin them down with generalizations, and it just isn’t that simple. There’s tons of debate as to whether ponderosa121’s Harry/Snape image was clearly of an over-18 Harry. Without context, one has to guess. To me, just in looking at the image, he could have been anywhere from 15 to 21+.
One thing that continues to bother me is that people keep bringing up Romeo and Juliet, or Buffyverse scenarios… and just Not Getting The Point. It’s fine to talk about sex. It’s fine to describe the fact that people or characters are having underage sex. What isn’t okay is the point where it’s become graphic. Nobody can point to any episode of Buffy where viewers were shown anyone’s genitals, much less shown those genitals in action. Ditto your average R&J performance. You might see two naked people getting out of bed, but you aren’t seeing them actually have sex, sheets-off, close-up enough to where you can see their naughty bits. (Yes, I’m sure there’s some wacky R&J porn out there. I’m talking about the actual text, the usual stage performances, and the usual film performances which are generally using over-18 actors anyway.)
And when you’ve got a woman over 6 feet tall at 105 pounds, and people are encouraging her to not eat, that’s not encouraging social acceptance or bolstering self esteem. That’s assisted suicide.
And that’s your opinion, Indigo. I happen to share it, but take that to court and you’ll have a tough time of it, precisely because “people on the internet are telling her to do things to herself that are probably bad for her” is shitty causation. They’re not forcing these girls down on the floor and preventing them from eating – they’re powerless to do anything without the participant’s consent and cooperation.
[…] for being what they called a “serial copyright offender”. He explains the situation here and personally, I’d just make a little banner letting people know that you’re on his […]
So I guess that means no more Improved Archie, anywhere? Man, that sucks. I really enjoyed the comm and it was a great idea. Guess it was fun while it lasted.