redline of TOS and Social Contract

Jan 07, 2005 20:45

If somebody's already generated an HTML diff ("redline" in lawyer speak) of the old vs. new TOS and Social Contract / Guiding Principles, could you email it to me at brad@danga.com ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Good idea be4u January 8 2005, 04:25:58 UTC
There's a part in the FAQ about user's not being allowed to show links in their LJ "to a site that makes a profit", or something to that effect (so, it's late and my mind is jello).

Since nearly *all* websites make some sort of a profit, I was hoping for a clarification on that. The wording just seemed vague, and it's hard to follow the rules if they're vague.

Reply

Re: Good idea arie January 8 2005, 08:04:20 UTC
This isn't in the FAQ, but the ToS. I think it's what you're talking about ( ... )

Reply

Re: Good idea museumfreak January 8 2005, 10:33:20 UTC
out of curiosity, is this why the free ipods communities were shut down?

Reply

Re: Good idea be4u January 8 2005, 14:45:08 UTC
This isn't in the FAQ, but the ToS. I think it's what you're talking about.

Yeah, yeah...that's the one. Thanks :)

This is a totally unofficial answer,

S'Ok, those are the best kind! Thank you so much for the clarification. For some reason I had thought it simply said "links." I understand about banners, and personally am thrilled to death they aren't allowed.

if you'd prefer an official one go ahead and open up an abuse request (http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/report.bml) part of what the
Abuse Team does is answer questions about the ToS and stuff. :)LOL....I'd rather poke my eyeballs out with rusty spoons and replace them with brussel sprouts...but thanks. The few dealings I've had with the abuse team (as a "plantiff", never a "defendant") have been far more frustrating than they needed to be ( ... )

Reply

Re: Good idea jamesd January 9 2005, 02:37:33 UTC
With respect, no, that doesn't refer to banner ads. It includes banner ads as a subset of the prohibited activities ( ... )

Reply

[insert completely unofficial disclaimer here] arie January 9 2005, 07:49:27 UTC
He asked about the language referring to links and such (which, by they way, hasn't changed from the previous version). You are correct that I only addressed one specific situation. I then went on to provide him a link to the full policy the abuse team uses which addresses the points you raise specificlly. I'm not quite sure how you've gotten to the conclusions you have here based on the language in the poilcy. If you have suggestions for improving the wording in the policy to make it more clear, there is a link for commenting on each individual policy.

a dancer or photographer posting about their business is engaging in a prohibited commercial activity. If someone posts photos and accepts donations, that's prohibited.

Incorrect. Assuming they are not either spamming or charging for access to those pictures on LiveJournal (via locked FO posts), there is nothing wrong with this.

"If journal is created for the promotion of outside commercial activities, and is contained solely within the journal, with no outside advertising ( ... )

Reply

Re: [insert completely unofficial disclaimer here] jamesd January 9 2005, 11:24:08 UTC
Yes, the point I was making was the distinction between the way the contract is currently interpreted and how it can be interpreted by a future owner of the company.

The TOS is quite explicit that it is the sole agreement, so the TOS is the agreement I must try to get protecting my interests.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up