Has anyone asked lj....

[heidi]

While driving today it ocured to me that doing an img-src tag to incorporate an image, or even linking to something you don't host, can be catastrophic for an lj user who's had his or her site for years

I know some of the domains I linked to or did img srcs on, or some of the memes I posted in my lj over the last almost-six years have changed domain names and/or owners since then and I don't know the current content on those pages.

So given that lj has now said that linking to something can generate a suspension if the linked-to content, then some content that has changed since originaly linked to can result in suspension and deletion of your lj and every comment and post you've ever made. I know that the content can change because one of the thebadplace registrations from circa 2001 lapsed in, iirc, 2004, and was bought by someone who did some technological trick to make any link to the site or anything at the domain show a close-up of an extremely private place on his anatomy.

If you link to a thread that gets a comment later that lj deems obscene, or where someone later does an img src of "obscene" or "underage-sex" content, are you violating the ToU? Are you responsible for continuously checking the urls of things you linked to 2, 3, 6 years ago?

I can understand LJ concluding that such links and/or img src's are a ToU violation under their current policies, and either asking for them to be removed or even locking the user's account until s/he signs in next or clicks an url in an informing email but at this point, LJ says they have the option to ban/delete and that?

Overkill. To put it mildly.

Comments

[folk.livejournal.com]

they have the technology to make individual entries unseen

O RLY? Proof, please.

[ancarett]

Ya, rly. It's built into the LJ system as an administrative privilege that can be activated by certain superusers: contrib_edit

We also know that the LJ administrators can look at any entry that any user makes, even if it is private (which makes the whole plan of flocking questionable entries a futile endeavour). I'm not sure if their screening function would allow them to take a page "offline" without changing the URLs, mind you (since they would also, at the same time, want to freeze the ability of the original author to edit the work subject to administrative decisions), but they have the ability to yank individual entries, yup, yup!

Way back when I used to work as website community manager for another dotcom, I had the ability to get into any user's account and yank individual pages, images or the whole damned thing (we did the latter only when the accounts were spam or warez sites). It's standard operating procedure in any of these sites to have a pretty clearly coded backdoor which should, ideally, be accessible only by trained and responsible personnel.

[folk.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the details.

Heidi, what's the legal position with DMCA SH/CC stuff wrt "editing" of content via taking part of it offline?