User: srz_bznz (posted by teh_kittykat) Date: 2007-08-12 12:35 Subject: (no subject) Security: Public Tags: six apart

In the immortal words of someone else, the Six Apart meltdown just got unfunnier.

Reactions seem to be mixed between abject horror and cheering.

I can't be the only person who thinks getting real litigation involved with fanart and fanfic is NOT a good idea. We manage to play in a grey area in copyright law because we hide away on the internet. I can only see this pulling us into the spotlight and endangering ALL fanworks, not just the ones LJ's been kicking.

I wonder if my earlier prediction about free speech in privately-owned places and the fate of fanfic as derivative work is going to come to a head? Hopefully in favor of free speech this time.

As it is, I suppose we shall see.

21 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link

User: srz_bznz (posted by diachrony) Date: 2007-08-12 16:54 Subject: pro-anorexia: serious business. Security: Public Mood: thoughtful Tags: mental disorders, six apart

Aside from any fandom concerns, I would like to point out another ongoing issue that came up in the lj_biz thread.

Took me awhile to find the relevant links in that enormous tangle of threads and sub-threads, but luckily I was saving some links as I was reading.

Thevelvetsun asked why LJ allows pro-self-harm communities to thrive, when encouraging self-harm is against LJ's ToS.

Others agree. Throughout the thread, several communities are mentioned, but the focus is on LJ's enormous (the largest on the Internet, with nearly 11,800 members ... and only two moderators) pro-anorexia community. Many examples are given of this community offering starvation tips and other blatantly self-harming tips to others; it seems clear it is not a community that supports recovery, but one that encourages anorexia.

LJ staffer Coffeechica justifies and excuses the community in comments. And further ...

After chirpily assuring that she's speaking on an official basis, she comes up with the now infamous line: "It's not illegal to aspire to be thin."

"If I GTFO, who else will answer your questions? ;-) Yes, I do work for LJ and I'm speaking officially.

"I do know what I'm talking about; I've read many many of these communities. It's sad, I know it is. But it's not illegal to aspire to be thin. It's not against the ToS to give people bad advice.

"LiveJournal does not support girls harming themselves. There is a line where we will suspend a pro-ana community or require removal of an entry. That line is when content is specifically instructing or inciting self-harm. Generalities aren't against the ToS, but specificities may be."

Not only does this hugely offend the concerned posters, who point out that anorexia is a deadly disease and mental disorder with an up to 20% mortality rate ... no mere "aspiration to be thin" ... but it's pointed out to Coffeechica that there are many blatantly specific examples, many of which have already been reported to the LJ Abuse team, and which have uniformly received the brush-off.

( Some anorexia statistics )

Thevelvetsun composed An Open Letter to LiveJournal, Regarding Proanorexia and requests signatures. I signed it, several days ago, and I encourage you to read the letter and her explanatory post. Please sign her open letter, if you agree with her stance.

Some of the members of the proanorexia group complained, and it was mentioned how the two mods were overburdened and couldn't be expected to catch all the self-harming tips and tricks posted and delete them. I agree with the commenters who said a community that large needed many more moderators and should have appointed them already. As this comment points out, at least 8 moderators is a good number for a community of that size (and it is very, very active).

Thevelvetsun, upon receiving no response from LJ, has contacted the media, as she promised to do.

She is still requesting signatures to her letter (currently she has over 1,000) as the issue has not been resolved yet.

***

On a less serious note, here are two icons pertaining to the issue ... free for sharing, per the creators:

by Pichipai:



***

by Ardath_rekha:

5 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link

User: srz_bznz (posted by diachrony) Date: 2007-08-12 22:12 Subject: reality check? Security: Public Tags: copyright law

ETA: Please read the comments HERE! Many commenters have pointed out that mskala (Matthew Skala), the author of the second article linked below, is wrong on U.S. law, and this casts much of his article into question.

There are many reasons (also acknowledged by M. Skala, incidentally) to be very displeased with Six Apart and LiveJournal *completely aside* from the question of legality/illegality in fandom pursuits.

I linked to the article because I think it's worth discussing ~ and in fact the discussion here has been very educational and enlightening. I'm very grateful so many knowledgeable folks are participating and pointing out the flaws in the arguments presented. [/end ETA]

---

And now for some points that may have been overlooked:

Synecdochic posts on why LJ is the best place for fandom to be.

And

A refreshing (and frightening) dose of perspective:

The Terrible Secret of LiveJournal.

"[...] A lot of material, even in what fandom thinks of as its mainstream - including material that you like to read and look at - is illegal. That's the terrible secret of Livejournal.

In light of this terrible secret, and in light of the imperfect world in which it's all happening, Six Apart's actions actually make a whole lot of sense and aren't nearly so evil as fandom people are saying. [...]"

I strongly encourage you to read the entire article. I wanted to include more quotes, but it got far too long, as I wanted to copy over almost everything. The writer explains just how 6A/LJ has been supportive (and continues to support) fandom in spite of strong reasons not to, but also explains what 6A/LJ have done wrong that led him to leave the service himself.

He also points out that 6A/LJ caused their own problems when it comes to the proanorexia community flap:

"Six Apart has been very stupid in presenting a defence of pro-anorexia as being okay, instead of saying that it's legal and that's the end of the issue. By even considering the question of whether pro-anorexia is okay in a moral or social-responsibility sense, they (first) invite argument on that point, which they will inevitably lose; and (second) allow people to think that illegal fandom material could be tolerated if it were argued to be okay in a moral and social-responsibility sense. Six Apart should be directing attention to the law, saying that they'll follow the law and no other standard, and they should be refusing to engage in debate on the morality and social responsibility of hosting any given content."

It's taking me far too long to post this as I keep wanting to add more and more quotes. Just go and read.

Scarily enough, I learned (where have I been?!) that there's a strong fundie-backed movement to completely do away with social networking sites, period. And all they need is the right ammunition.

Oy.

9 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link