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... )
This isn't in the FAQ, but the ToS. I think it's what you're talking about.
XVI. 16. "Engage in commercial activities within LiveJournal or on behalf of LiveJournal.com without prior approval. This includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:
a. Displaying a banner that is designed to profit you or any other business or organization; and
b. Displaying banners for services that provide cash or cash-equivalent prizes to users in exchange for hyperlinks to their web sites."
This is a totally unofficial answer, 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. :)
That refers to banner ads. A lot of sites have referral systems where if you have a referrer link and people click on it they give you money for it so the more hits they get from "your" banner ad to their site the more money you make.
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.
Thank you so much for the reply. Your "unofficial" answer mode is most welcome :) And I know the feeling...I work 2 jobs, and sometimes it's hard to switch into "tech mode" when I've just come home from bartending.
With respect, no, that doesn't refer to banner ads. It includes banner ads as a subset of the prohibited activities.
You and I know that banner ads (and perhaps sponsored text links) are the target. You probably know better than I do how Abuse currently uses that clause. But the words, and the contract, apply to all commercial activities, not just those Abuse currently chooses to act on.
So, for example, 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. If someone mentions what a charity would like to see in the way of donations, that's arguably a commercial activity. At least according to the words of the contract and how it can be interpreted.
The contract looks fairly good from the point of view of Six Apart. It's not yet sufficiently protective of the interests of the other party to the contract: the users. Protecting their interests requires assuming an exploitative third generation owner six months from now after Brad and the Six Apart founders have all been fired as inconveniences. Not because any of us expects that result but because that's what critical reading of contracts has to provide for.
Some things the contract may allow, which the current people wouldn't do:
o lock all accounts, charge $50 for the ability to get a copy of the posts. o unlock the private posts, charge $50 to lock them again.
Protecting against those acts is one of the jobs of the contract. The first is arguable. I hope nobody would argue that the contract should allow the second.
[insert completely unofficial disclaimer here]arieJanuary 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 or soliciting (such as in comments or communities) and journal does not contain banner ads or other "click-through" promotions: no action required."
A user is permitted to show works or goods they have for sale and links to an outside site to obtain (in this case "donate" for) them. As long as they are not spaming or using banner ads.
"it allows people to use LiveJournal to further their business ventures -- such as letting someone create a journal to post links to crafts they have for sale or auctions they have pending -- but prevents people from directly profiting off LiveJournal itself (by re-selling accounts)"
If someone mentions what a charity would like to see in the way of donations, that's arguably a commercial activity.
Again, if they are not spamming and are not using banner ads, this is perfectly acceptable.
As I said to him, if you would like an official response on your specific questions, feel free to contact the abuse team directly; answering these questions is part of what they do. It's much better to get an official answer when you are concerned about something like this than risk drawing the wrong conclusions and spreading mis-information.
In essence, this is what I believe the problem here to be: There are two documents -- the Terms of Service and the Abuse Team Policy and Procedures document. The Terms of Service is the legally binding document that protects the site. The Policies and Procedures document is a point-by-point explanation of how the abuse team interprets the Terms of Service and what actions they take based on each type of violation of the ToS. The ToS is necessarily vague in some places; the P&P document is specific. So, while technically the interpretation you have given is accurate based on solely the language of the ToS, it is not how the Abuse Team interprets (or "uses") that section of the ToS. This is how and why the need for the public P&P document became apparent.
But, that's pretty heavily my personal opinion, so take it as you will. Official answers can always be gotten by contacting the abuse team directly.
As for the rest of your points about Six Apart... I'm not really familiar enough with how Six Apart does things to address those with any kind of authority (even personal opinion-wise). I do not believe they would do these things, however. It would simply be bad for business all around, if nothing else.
Re: [insert completely unofficial disclaimer here]jamesdJanuary 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.
XVI. 16. "Engage in commercial activities within LiveJournal or on behalf of LiveJournal.com without prior approval. This includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:
a. Displaying a banner that is designed to profit you or any other business or organization; and
b. Displaying banners for services that provide cash or cash-equivalent prizes to users in exchange for hyperlinks to their web sites."
This is a totally unofficial answer, 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. :)
That refers to banner ads. A lot of sites have referral systems where if you have a referrer link and people click on it they give you money for it so the more hits they get from "your" banner ad to their site the more money you make.
This is probably easire to follow since I'm not in official answer mode: http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/policy.bml#commercial
Reply
Reply
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.
Thank you so much for the reply. Your "unofficial" answer mode is most welcome :) And I know the feeling...I work 2 jobs, and sometimes it's hard to switch into "tech mode" when I've just come home from bartending.
Reply
You and I know that banner ads (and perhaps sponsored text links) are the target. You probably know better than I do how Abuse currently uses that clause. But the words, and the contract, apply to all commercial activities, not just those Abuse currently chooses to act on.
So, for example, 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. If someone mentions what a charity would like to see in the way of donations, that's arguably a commercial activity. At least according to the words of the contract and how it can be interpreted.
The contract looks fairly good from the point of view of Six Apart. It's not yet sufficiently protective of the interests of the other party to the contract: the users. Protecting their interests requires assuming an exploitative third generation owner six months from now after Brad and the Six Apart founders have all been fired as inconveniences. Not because any of us expects that result but because that's what critical reading of contracts has to provide for.
Some things the contract may allow, which the current people wouldn't do:
o lock all accounts, charge $50 for the ability to get a copy of the posts.
o unlock the private posts, charge $50 to lock them again.
Protecting against those acts is one of the jobs of the contract. The first is arguable. I hope nobody would argue that the contract should allow the second.
Reply
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 or soliciting (such as in comments or communities) and journal does not contain banner ads or other "click-through" promotions: no action required."
A user is permitted to show works or goods they have for sale and links to an outside site to obtain (in this case "donate" for) them. As long as they are not spaming or using banner ads.
"it allows people to use LiveJournal to further their business ventures -- such as letting someone create a journal to post links to crafts they have for sale or auctions they have pending -- but prevents people from directly profiting off LiveJournal itself (by re-selling accounts)"
If someone mentions what a charity would like to see in the way of donations, that's arguably a commercial activity.
Again, if they are not spamming and are not using banner ads, this is perfectly acceptable.
As I said to him, if you would like an official response on your specific questions, feel free to contact the abuse team directly; answering these questions is part of what they do. It's much better to get an official answer when you are concerned about something like this than risk drawing the wrong conclusions and spreading mis-information.
In essence, this is what I believe the problem here to be: There are two documents -- the Terms of Service and the Abuse Team Policy and Procedures document. The Terms of Service is the legally binding document that protects the site. The Policies and Procedures document is a point-by-point explanation of how the abuse team interprets the Terms of Service and what actions they take based on each type of violation of the ToS. The ToS is necessarily vague in some places; the P&P document is specific. So, while technically the interpretation you have given is accurate based on solely the language of the ToS, it is not how the Abuse Team interprets (or "uses") that section of the ToS. This is how and why the need for the public P&P document became apparent.
But, that's pretty heavily my personal opinion, so take it as you will. Official answers can always be gotten by contacting the abuse team directly.
As for the rest of your points about Six Apart... I'm not really familiar enough with how Six Apart does things to address those with any kind of authority (even personal opinion-wise). I do not believe they would do these things, however. It would simply be bad for business all around, if nothing else.
Reply
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