The service recently deleted at least two accounts housing drawings of imagined intimate encounters of popular fictional characters from the "Harry Potter" universe, and users cry foul.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
We know that this is their sandbox, we know what it says in their TOS. But we'd really like to know where we stand. We want to know what is and isn't allowed, clearly, not vaguely. If they're going to stick to vague, they need to stick to handing out warnings, instead of perma-banning users without warning based off small offenses. Especially since *we don't know* what will or will not get us banhammered.
For many this feels like a sudden change in policy, in how LJ/6A handles things, even though they've promised this wouldn't be the case. Interesting how they tried so hard to reassure us and apologize before their big permanent account sale, and then do this once it's over.
Yet despite this Six Apart have stigmatised the mostly young and female demographic of these fan groups as potential paedophile menaces. It's a huge insult to a surprisingly loyal and sizeable part of their customer base, but they seem to be gambling that they can draw in more mainstream advertising money by sacrificing the fan demographic, hence the utter and unprofessional contempt with which they are treating their customers.
SixApart seems to want to change the TOS willy-nilly and make up policy as they go along. And while they have the right to alter their policies, as a California-based company they also have the legal obligations that come with said changes. See: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028240&source=rss_news10
It all boils down to money: SixApart is shopping for a new buyer, since the current management has borked the company and they want to bail out. Part of finding the next owner is "cleaning up" the community to avoid potential embarrassment in discovery during the purchase. All they need is people like Warriors for Innocence coming along to a potential buyer and presenting a list of 1000 ?pedophile? members pushing underage sex and imagery. Makes good business sense to clean it all up. But does it make good business sense to drive away all your longest-lived customers?
This article -- http://www.darksiderainbow.net/dr-weekend-edition-080507-livejournal-arouses-the-ire-of-its-usersagain/ -- provides a much clearer overview of the entire mess.
As a company, it's their responsibility to update their Terms of Service in a clear manner, and inform users of these changes so that they can comply or else bring their business elsewhere. Their ToS have not been updated, and requests for clarification have gone unanswered. It's poor business practice, and allowing this problem to go on for so long without an official statement is even worse.
Actually, that should read, "a number of users who have absolutely no interest in Harry Potter whatsoever" etc. Per se means "by itself" and taken with "wouldn't consider" implies that you still think that those concerned are all from the Harry Potter fandom really. There are some people left on this planet, including irate livejournal users, who haven't even read the books. You don't need to be a Harry Potter fan (or even a fan at all) to be annoyed at shoddy business practices.
Anil Dash, a VP with Six Apart, LiveJournal's parent company, is calling people names in his own LJ:
http://anildash.livejournal.com/25989.html
"And a big hearty ****-you to rumormongers who stir **** up just to demoralize people who do good work. If you don't have enough drama in your life, go make something that millions of people think is valuable."
I'm aristaea on LJ.
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_biz/241884.html
- why is LJ trying to define what is "art?"
- by inkydoo August 8, 2007 5:03 AM PDT
- it seems to me that it would be much easier to make the case that these accounts were deleted because, well, fanworks are basically plagarism. Art is impossible to define, but copyright laws are not.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(13 Comments)