Cheshyre ([info]cheshyre) wrote,
@ 2004-12-30 20:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
LJ Abuse Question
Anybody familiar with the workings of LJ Abuse, who can give me some advice?

This evening, after I got home from work, I got an email from the abuse team, saying:
We have received a report, properly formatted under the provisions set forth by United States law, indicating that your entry located at http://www.livejournal.com/users/cheshyre/29224.html violates the copyright of another. As such, we hereby direct you to remove that entry as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, 03 January 2005, at 12:01 A.M. EST, to avoid further action against your account.
I did send a reply and submit a followup question to the abuse team, but I'm worried I won't get a response in time, given (a) the holiday weekend, and (b) the Abuse FAQ's statement that "due to the high volume of requests and the fact that the Abuse Team is composed of volunteers, it may take time for your request to be answered."

Here are some of my questions and concerns, if anybody knowledgable has more information:

First of all, it's a holiday weekend and they only gave me until Monday. Libraries and offices are closed during this time, making research difficult. Any way to get an extension on their deadline?

Second, I'm wondering whether the folks from abuse actually reviewed the page in question before sending me notice, or does abuse merely ferry copyright complaints along and let the two parties settle it among themselves? [The former means that I've got somebody else's opinion that I infringed, while the latter means it's more her word against mine.]
On a related note, I'm somewhat confused over the disparity between the email I received (and FAQ 136) and the passage on copyright in the LJ TOS:
The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields, and is responsible for protecting those rights, but is not entitled to the help of the LiveJournal.com staff in protecting such Content
How does that reconcile with the abuse team's role?
Third, what's abuse's next step? If I don't take down the post, will they suspend my account? They demanded I "remove that entry" -- but what if I merely edit the entry to remove the offending portion? What if I lock it as private, but don't make any other edits? Again, this goes back to #2 and wondering what role the Abuse team is actually playing in copyright claims.

I suppose those are all the questions I have at the moment. Given the holiday weekend, it probably feels more urgent than it is.

I'll confess, I wonder if I can't make a counterclaim and demand she restore to me all the comments I made (which should be my copyright) which I no longer have access to because she locked the post.

Added later: I suppose what this really boils down to is that I feel I need to have a conversation (via email or chat) with somebody on the Abuse Team to work out a solution. I've filed my own abuse request, but I perceive enough options and mitigating factors that I don't think I can just post the litany and expect a simple response. Especially given the tight deadline and holiday weekend. I want/need some back-and-forth to work out a mutually satisfying solution. Any idea if/how to contact somebody on the Abuse team for something like that?

(Post a new comment)


[info]unquietsoul5
2004-12-31 01:20 am UTC (link)
I've posted up a link to this journal entry on my journal and to some of my writing related communities that I'm in to try to help steer people who would have answers to hop on over and provide you with whatever they can in regards to info etc.

Best of luck on this one, to me it looks like this user wants it both ways, to take your's and Ian's journal entries and put them on her journal but to deny you response to her posts about them, which is just plain wrong ethically.

I don't know where things stands in regards to this sort of thing in regards to how LJ treats this thing, and whether they are over reacting to some legal mumbo jumbo on the person's part, reacting to a real legal paper, or something different...

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Good point
[info]cheshyre
2004-12-31 01:41 am UTC (link)
I forgot that she quoted one of Ian's posts in its entirety verbatim (excising only the names). Of course, when I mentioned this to Ian, and suggested the possibility of responding in kind, he replied that he's too decent a person to go after her in that manner.

I knew when I wrote that post that if I only provided excerpts, my points would be dismissed by accusations that I was cherrypicking her words to twist her meaning. And I also knew (from long history on Usenet) that the only response to such attacks is to provide the data, but that still sidetracks the discussion. So I tried to forestall that problem, by giving the full text upfront, and am now being accused of copyright violations.

sigh double-bind, Catch-22, call it what you will...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Good point
[info]redaxe
2004-12-31 04:16 am UTC (link)
forgot that she quoted one of Ian's posts in its entirety verbatim

This should be mentioned (and the post linked) in your response to the complaint. She has no business complaining about something done to her if she'd already done it to someone else, regardless of whether she was complained about.

ISTR that in your original post you noted your intention of providing full context, rather than opening yourself to charges of twisting words. While that may not be a full defense, note it, too. If you're willing to lock the post as private, or to remove the quotations, let them know that, too. In this case, it seems to me, showing willing can't hurt.

We're with you. Good luck!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]patgreene
2004-12-31 01:52 am UTC (link)
What. A. Fucking. Bitch.

(Reply to this)


[info]zarhooie
2004-12-31 01:54 am UTC (link)
e-mail LJ abuse, tell them that you believe her claim of copyright infringement is false, and then quote at them EXACTLY what you've quoted here.

Lock the post, and tell LJ abuse that you have done so. (private is the best setting for now). Leave it locked until you hear back from abuse, but make it clear that you are doing so as a precaution, not as a cure.

DON'T let LJ abuse drop the ball on this one. This will set a precedent for other abuse cases.

(Reply to this)


[info]mattblum
2004-12-31 03:56 am UTC (link)
D'you suppose she's talking about you in this post?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cheshyre
2004-12-31 04:12 am UTC (link)
By Yeorge, I think you're right. I hadn't noticed that before.

I do find her justification amusing:
"I bitched about them and reprinted a post they'd written---without linking to it by name or link---and they reprinted a whole long post of mine with numerous links to here."
In other words, we each reprinted somebody else's post verbatim (me hers, she Ian's).
  • She did NOT notify Ian she was doing so, and purposely omitted all attributions and credits.
  • I made my post completely aboveboard, identifying the author AND doing the courtesy of informing her.
    And I'm in the wrong?!?

    I don't know whether she banned me from her journal or not. What happens when somebody in LJ bans you? Do you get a notification, or do you remain blissfully ignorant until you try to comment on something and fail?

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    •

    [info]the_siobhan
    2005-01-02 08:42 pm UTC (link)
    The latter. I was banned from somebody's journal once and didn't know until a response to a public post was barred.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    [info]mattblum
    2004-12-31 04:10 am UTC (link)
    Based on some of the other entries in the FAQ, it sounds as though Abuse's most likely action if you fail to remove the post as they requested would be to suspend your account. I would certainly think you could make a good argument for marking it Private as being equivalent to deleting it for all intents and purposes, since you'd be the only one able to read it. I would suggest marking it Private for now, as [info]zarhooie said, and waiting to see what they said.

    WRT the disparity you mention, it's my understanding that the abuse team is not composed of LiveJournal.com staff members, but rather users.

    As obnoxious as the person in question certainly is, you did in fact quote her journal without permission. So I suspect you will have to remove the quotations.

    (Reply to this)


    [info]browngirl
    2004-12-31 04:11 am UTC (link)
    I haven't advice, alas. I have, however, a strong desire to kick this person very hard.

    (Reply to this)


    [info]siriaeve
    2004-12-31 04:20 am UTC (link)
    Oh dear. You have my sympathy - LJ Abuse is notoriously difficult to deal with. Having said that, I do think you can make a good case, not only with regards to the fact that she apparently quoted an entire post belonging to someone else, but also because your post would seem to fall under the heading of fair use. And, of course, you definitely have the right to file a counter-notification; if I were you, I'd kick up one hell of a stink if they do anything to your account before they allow you to do so.

    I'd make the post private until all this has been resolved, though; there's no need for it to get any more wanktastic than it already is.

    (Reply to this)

    From an LJ support member
    [info]aprivatefox
    2004-12-31 04:41 am UTC (link)
    I'm not on support, but a good friend of mine is. Here's what she had to say:

    Friend On Abuse: She needs to to remove it by the specified time. Not doing so will get her suspended until she's willing to.

    However? You can always link to a post. Tell her to cut out the copied part and replace it with a link. O:)

    Her quotes of just parts of it are fair use.

    Me: OK. Will privating it be acceptable?

    FoA: No.

    Me: So the comments on that post must necessarily be destroyed. Hrm. Is redacting the offensive text in the post acceptable?

    FoA: ...no, the comments don't need to be destroyed. Just edit the post to remove the copied post and replace with a link to the original.

    Me: Okie.

    FoA: This is slightly risky -- if they say remove the post, they may be firm on that, but removing the copied post from the post will probably do.



    So: You need to remove the full-quote of the article, per the abuse team's DMCA. (In terms of debate, I think it's done its job anyhow.) You may link to the post, if she hasn't privated it. (If she has, you can link anyhow, but it won't do much good to most people.) The quotes are acceptable use; they can remain. The post can probably simply be edited rather than deleted, but that's not something she can say with certainty.

    You can definitely file a counterclaim on her posts (info on how is in the FAQ someplace, I am told), and she'll get the same thing you have here, with respect to your and Ian's writing.

    Your best bet for getting discussion out of the LJ abuse team is to delete the contentious text now, then discuss. There is a FAQ entry on how to claim that the claim made against you is not legitimate. Perhaps someone can help find these two FAQ entries? My friend doesn't have them handy, since it's late.

    Hope this helps.

    (Reply to this) (Thread)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    [info]cheshyre
    2004-12-31 05:27 am UTC (link)
    It does help, thanks.

    Sorry to make you middleman, but can you ask your friend one more question and pass along two more comments?

    Q: Is there anyone who would be able to say with certainty (and authority) that removing my complete verbatim copy (while retaining the short fair use exerpts) will be sufficient. I'd really like it in writing that my account won't be suspended if I edit the post accordingly but do not actually "remove [the entire] entry." And what I posted above is all that I know -- I don't have a copy of the original complaint to know what the objection was.

    Unfortunately, I can't link to the post. The post was locked. That's why I quoted it: she was making repeated claims about what she did or didn't say in that post, but wouldn't let anybody else read it to see whether she was correct.

    Finally, I really must protest that the amount of time given to respond is insufficient. Three days over a holiday weekend means the recipient has no access to libraries or legal advice (should I wish to partake of either). May I strongly suggest that they should allow at least five business days before taking action?
    After all, according to http://www.livejournal.com/legal/dmca.bml, if I do file a counter-notification, the original notifier gets 14 business days in which to respond -- three weeks as opposed to the three (holiday weekend) days that I've been given.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    [info]aprivatefox
    2004-12-31 05:40 am UTC (link)
    I've been corrected by my friend, actually. She's not an active member of support at this time (part of why she didn't want to step in and make a post; she's really in no position to offer more than insight into the guidelines that they're acting under). I would definitely bring the timing discrepancies up to the LJ Abuse people, though; I'm in agreement with you that there's insufficient time being given.

    I'd note in the text of the modified entry that you're making a good-faith effort to work with LJ abuse; a real human will be looking at it, and I doubt that they'll suspend you if you remove the part that's most clearly in contention. (Of course, that's just a doubt, not a certainty.) If nothing else, that's a good place to make sure it's known to them that you're trying (here, publicly) to understand your options and seek appropriate compliance with the law. You're not some random kid posting copyrighted stuff who has no regard for the law; you believe you are not afoul of the law in this case, and you are attempting to show that you are complying. I don't think they can ask for more, and if the members of abuse I've met are any indication, they're good people by and large, trying to keep the community from imploding.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    [info]cheshyre
    2004-12-31 06:22 am UTC (link)
    It may have been foolishness on my part, but I just asked ginmar for clarification:
    I just received a message from the LiveJournal Abuse Team indicating they received a report claiming one of my posts violated copyright, and they have given me a tight deadline to take action to rectify it.

    However, the automated email did not provide the contents of your report, nor do I have access to read the support request. That makes it difficult for me to take action, because I don't know the exact nature of the complaint.

    Could you please send me a copy of the statement you made, so I can determine what is necessary to comply.

    Thank you.
    As I was thinking more about your friend's comment, it really started to sink in that I have no idea what the actual objection was. And without that, I feel like I have to do a double-mindreader act, trying to determine both what gin demanded and what Abuse would consider a reasonable effort. Was she only complaining about my verbatim copy, or did she make a claim that I have no rights to any excerpt, however small, her private post? In her journal, she seems to be objecting to the fact that I identified her and linked to her journal -- was that part of the complaint?
    What seems like an appropriate response to one situation could be totally insufficient if I'm misreading the actual problem. [Am I overintellectualizing and/or making things more complex than they need to be?]

    In short:
    • My primary goal is that I do not want my account suspended. [Did you know that would also delete all comments I've ever posted in anybody else's LJ!?]
    • My secondary goal is to preserve as much of my post as possible. I really don't want to delete it, and I'd prefer to keep as much content as possible so it remains comprehensible.
    But how to strike a balance between editing and filing a counter-notification, so I don't lose my account? That's the question. And I have less than 72 hours remaining to come up with a solution that satisfies the Abuse Team, when I still have no idea what they're willing to settle for.

    There are many other things I have to do this weekend, with the new year and all. I really didn't need this on top of all that.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-01 04:48 am UTC (link)
    As I was thinking more about your friend's comment, it really started to sink in that I have no idea what the actual objection was. And without that, I feel like I have to do a double-mindreader act, trying to determine both what gin demanded and what Abuse would consider a reasonable effort.

    You'll probably never find out. Once the LJ Abuse team make a decision, they'll just come up with as many after-the-fact justifications as necessary (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/livejournal-abuse.html) to back up the decision. Anything rather than try to reach a compromise or admit that they might have made a mistake.

    My primary goal is that I do not want my account suspended.

    In that case, my experience suggests that the only option you have is to do whatever the Abuse team tells you to do, whether they justify it or not. When they say "Jump", you say "How high, sir?". Even offering to delete the offending post may not be enough.

    My secondary goal is to preserve as much of my post as possible.

    So move your journal somewhere else, like I did. Pick a system that's not ruled over by totally unaccountable anonymous moderators who are allowed to make up policy and rules as they go along.

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    [info]jenett
    2005-01-01 12:20 pm UTC (link)
    1) Remember that suspension is not permanent.

    Suspensions for copyright violations last until the material in question is removed (or rather, given the way the code works, until you say you're willing to remove it and then do so within a further deadline given.)

    If you were to be suspended, all the comments and everything else would come back when you were unsuspended.

    (Last I heard, there was talk of code that would separate out the comments from someone's own journal for suspensions, but I have no idea if that's still on the table. Suspending comments is important because some idiots enjoy spamming or posting seriously graphic comments in random journals on occaision. Among other problems.)

    2) If I had to suggest something:

    a) either remove all quoted material or the entry entirely once you get close to the deadline: copy it to a document on your computer, edit the entry on LJ to remove it, or put in a placeholder saying something like "I'm dealing with a copyright complaint regarding material originally quoted in this entry. While I'm working things out, I've removed everything in the entry in question" In other words, something while you're working things out with Abuse.

    (If you're still waiting for clarification, you're waiting for clarification, but to be on the safe side, remove it by the deadline unless told otherwise.)

    b) Work with the Abuse Team to have an entry that they feel is in compliance: probably some combination of discussing it and maybe running the entry by them before reposting it - the comment boxes on the report form can take a *lot* of text.

    I'd go with the "I do feel really strongly that quoting X amount is appropriate for reasons X and Y - what can I do to keep the entry as intact as possible but still be in compliance?" road is probably a good bet.

    What they answer, who knows: as I know you know, this is one of the areas where fair use gets particularly tricky, and they may decide that you need to go the counter notification route rather than them deciding.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: From an LJ support member
    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-04 03:58 pm UTC (link)
    b) Work with the Abuse Team to have an entry that they feel is in compliance: probably some combination of discussing it and maybe running the entry by them before reposting it - the comment boxes on the report form can take a *lot* of text.

    My experience (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/livejournal-abuse.html) is that the Abuse team is not interested in compromise or working with anyone. Trying to discuss what would be acceptable with them is just a waste of time; the answer will be "delete it all or we'll keep your account suspended".

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]pir_anha
    2004-12-31 01:48 pm UTC (link)
    i'm just quickly writing this without reading the rest of the comments first because it's late and i am tired, but want to get this to you ASAP.

    i'm not currently active on the abuse team, but i can tell you what the rules are. all LJ is doing here is protecting itself from being included in a suit. to do so, they follow the DMCA regulations. no, they do not evaluate whether a case might have merit; they only check whether there is actually text/images that matches what the creator says has been appropriated without permission. do not expect any special treatment if you just explain the circumstances; they are immaterial to LJ abuse since they are not lawyers, and deciding whether or not she has an actual case against you (can i just laugh out loud here?) is not up to them.

    you won't get a chat with an abuse team member; they don't have time for that. making the post private is not enough at this stage. editing it to contain only quotes isn't enough. you could file a counterclaim, as the message to you should have stated (didn't it?); it's stated in this FAQ: http://www.livejournal.com/legal/dmca.bml. do not get into an argument about this with the LJ abuse team; they do not set policy, they only enforce what has been told to them by LJ's legal counsel, and they have no leeway in this. yes, your account will be suspended if you do not remove the text by the time they check (since it's a holiday weekend, that time might slip a bit, but don't rely on that; abuse volunteers work 365/24/7).

    so. here's the quickest way to deal with it: remove all the text of hers from the entry. that will satisfy LJ abuse policy. you should not have to delete the entry, which means you can keep the comments intact.

    you may copy the text offsite. you may link to that URL from the entry. as far as LJ is concerned, if it is no longer on its servers, that's that. she might then go to your website provider, of course, but that might run into more problems. file counter-notification, if you think your use is legally defensible. you can do that now, and take the stuff down, but after her 14 days are up, you can put it right back.

    here's the "IANAL" bit: she'd obviously never sue; it'd be a joke, nobody would take her case, especially since she started it by copying ian's post. sheesh. you know, by now all my initial respect for her has completely gone down the drain.

    (Reply to this) (Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]pir_anha
    2004-12-31 02:02 pm UTC (link)
    oh, and really? this is so totally not a big deal. i don't know how many DMCA complaints i've handled while on LJ abuse; hundreds? they're a dime a dozen. i am all in favour of letting people know that no, they can't just take somebody else's picture without permission, and use it as background for their journal. text DMCAs are rarer, but they're almost always of this type: somebody is pissed because in an altercation the other didn't buckle under, and so they're trying to give them a black eye via LJ abuse. i really wish i had gotten a single valid DMCA text complaint, you know, somebody taking somebody else's poetry and trying to sell it under their own name, or something like that.

    *yawn*. really. there is plenty of real abuse going on, and by ghod, i wish we could go after it instead of wasting time on this kind of whining. don't let it get to you.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-01 04:55 am UTC (link)
    deciding whether or not she has an actual case against you (can i just laugh out loud here?) is not up to them

    Cause...

    i don't know how many DMCA complaints i've handled while on LJ abuse; hundreds? [...] they're almost always of this type: somebody is pissed because in an altercation the other didn't buckle under, and so they're trying to give them a black eye via LJ abuse

    ...and effect.

    As long as LJ Abuse simply assumes all complaints have merit, obviously assholes will use LJ Abuse as a means to shut up their critics. Duh.

    there is plenty of real abuse going on, and by ghod, i wish we could go after it instead of wasting time on this kind of whining.

    Unfortunately, it seems that even when made aware of actual TOS violations (such as invasion of medical privacy and posting of racial abuse), the Abuse team often isn't very interested in acting on them. Anything that looks like a legal claim is rubber stamped as legitimate and enforced with an iron fist, and anything else is simply ignored.

    No doubt that's the best option for LiveJournal the profit-making corporation, but I contend that it's not good for LiveJournal the community.

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]pir_anha
    2005-01-01 01:33 pm UTC (link)
    unfortunately you elided a relevant part: the image DMCAs almost always have merit, it's the text ones where people whine about their posts being misappropriated that don't. and you must have missed the part where i said that LJ abuse does not consist of lawyers. LJ abuse is also not a court of law, which is where the merit of somebody's legal case is decided in the US.

    and you're incorrect with your absolute statements too. whatever i may think of brad, profit-making is a lot less important to him than free speech. however, i've also yet to see somebody come up with good guidelines that would allow LJ abuse to crack down on assholes while giving meritorious claims every help they can -- there is no single objective view. i've dealt with this on usenet for a couple of decades; it is a very difficult line to toe. LJ does it pretty well -- you have a lot of power over your own journal, and moderators have a lot of power over their communities; more power than LJ abuse has, within the ToS -- that is a good thing IMO.

    "all complaints have merit", "iron fist"? *snrk*. LJ abuse is a bunch of quite nice and friendly people; i was surprised myself. and "not very interested" is false; we are often quite frustrated because we would really like to act on some asshole's abusive behaviour, but guess what? free speech rules for brad. complain to him directly; he's the one who makes policy.

    but this isn't the place to hash any of that out. if you really want to talk about it more, we can do it in my LJ, but let me warn you, i don't hold much truck with vast generalizations like the ones you tossed out above. if you have some great ideas, by all means, share them though.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-02 06:04 pm UTC (link)
    unfortunately you elided a relevant part: the image DMCAs almost always have merit, it's the text ones where people whine about their posts being misappropriated that don't.

    I don't think the distinction between images and text has anything to do with this discussion. Copyright law doesn't distinguish between them.

    and you must have missed the part where i said that LJ abuse does not consist of lawyers.

    I also apparently missed the part where I suggested otherwise.

    LJ abuse is also not a court of law, which is where the merit of somebody's legal case is decided in the US.

    A court of law is where the merit of a legal case is ultimately decided. My point is that if you treat all allegations of illegal activity as equally valid, you open up the system to abuse.

    you have a lot of power over your own journal, and moderators have a lot of power over their communities; more power than LJ abuse has, within the ToS

    That's not what I was told by LJ Abuse. They told me (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/livejournal-abuse.html) moderators couldn't delete comments from the community that they viewed as inappropriate, and that the only way to deal with it was to delete my entire journal without notice to force me to delete the comment.

    "all complaints have merit", "iron fist"? *snrk*

    You said it yourself earlier in the thread:

    …they are immaterial to LJ abuse since they are not lawyers, and deciding whether or not she has an actual case against you (can i just laugh out loud here?) is not up to them.

    i.e. LJ Abuse aren't allowed to decide whether the complaint has merit, all legal complaints must be assumed to have merit.

    As for the "iron fist", I think that deleting a paid user's entire journal and suspending a service he has paid for, just because one person has made a possibly bogus complaint about one comment, counts as ruling with an iron fist.

    we are often quite frustrated because we would really like to act on some asshole's abusive behaviour, but guess what? free speech rules for brad.

    Guess what? Actions speak louder than words. I was suspended for posting publically available information which someone had already posted voluntarily on his own web site, and which he later invited people to act on and continued to publish. Free speech my ass.

    complain to him directly; he's the one who makes policy.

    It's not the policy as written that I have a problem with. It's the interpretation of that policy and its selective enforcement by the LJ Abuse team, the means used to enforce it, and the complete lack of transparency.

    but this isn't the place to hash any of that out. if you really want to talk about it more, we can do it in my LJ

    …where you can conveniently delete anything you don't like? You must think I was born yesterday.

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]pir_anha
    2005-01-03 05:08 am UTC (link)
    ah, i remember you now (no, i didn't handle your case, yes, i'd tell you if i had).

    but as i said, this isn't the place, unless cheshyre says it's ok to discuss it. besides which, considering the last thing you said, you're likely not interested in what i have to say anyway; your mind is made up, and everyone on the abuse team has crap ethics. *shrug*.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-04 04:02 pm UTC (link)
    It's not that my mind is made up; it's that I have no reason to trust you. In fact, given that you were on the Abuse team and therefore apparently didn't have a problem with its complete lack of openness and transparency, I have active reason not to trust you.

    If you would like to suggest a venue for discussion where I don't have to trust you, we can move discussion there.

    —meta

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]pir_anha
    2005-01-08 03:28 pm UTC (link)
    sorry for being so long in getting back to you; life and too much other crap interfered.

    me being on the abuse team doesn't say a whole lot about what i think of its policies; it just says that i've wanted to do something useful for livejournal, and that its policies did not appear to me, at first glance, to be odious and go against my own sense of ethics. i've had problems with various policies in action, but i tend to work within a system first. some of those policies have since changed. now that LJ is owned by six apart, who knows what will happen, i am out of the loop unless i rejoin the team.

    i can't think of a venue for discussion where you don't have to trust me -- oh wait. we could create a community for which we're both the moderators. that seems a bit of effort. i am not sure my opinions are worth that much effort, *wry grin*, and that creating an entire community for just the two of us isn't overkill.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)
    Re: LJ Abuse Question
    [info]aiglet
    2004-12-31 02:34 pm UTC (link)
    you may copy the text offsite. you may link to that URL from the entry. as far as LJ is concerned, if it is no longer on its servers, that's that.

    This seems to be the best option -- you could move the entire text of the thing (removing names and substituting, oh, a link to her lj user info, maybe, as a reference?) to your other domain and then just replace the entry in question with something like "This content moved <linkety>here&;lt/linkety> to protect LJ from copyright problems. Please note that following this link will bring you to a page that contains an article written by someone else and my reponse to it."

    Then when you have the time, you can go do the research for the legal stuff and add that to the LJ reference.

    Good luck!

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    [info]jmhm
    2004-12-31 03:24 pm UTC (link)
    What an unpleasant young woman.

    (Reply to this)


    [info]chance88088
    2004-12-31 06:54 pm UTC (link)
    Well it seems unlikely that you have in fact violated her copyright - excerpting a portion (one entry out of hundreds) of a journal would almost certainly be covered under fair use. Proving it alas, a whole lot tougher since the people on the abuse team appear not to be well versed in copyright law.

    good luck - I agree with the person who suggestd moving the text off site.

    (Reply to this)


    [info]temima
    2004-12-31 07:52 pm UTC (link)
    Wow.

    What a big, fuzzy wuzzy hypocrite.

    Good luck.

    (Reply to this)


    [info]jenett
    2005-01-01 12:18 am UTC (link)
    [info]pir_anha has said basically everything I'd have said.

    The folks I still know from the Abuse Team are *highly* dedicated, and pretty well informed about the server-side requirements of the DMCA.

    If someone took the case, they were planning to be around and available over the holiday weekend. If you have questions, go ahead and ask them in the report: someone will get back to you fairly promptly (it being New Year's eve, I'd suspect if you haven't already heard back, you'll hear back on Saturday).

    Back and forth stuff can and does occur in the actual report (plus, if it's there, it can easily be reviewed by the team managers/other team members, etc. in full which is part of the reason email/chat isn't used.)

    If they're still double-checking specific issues that you have concerns about, the deadline may be extended. (i.e. if you make a good point that this is not a straightforward case, or that you want to see about removing the quoted material, but not the whole entry, etc.)

    Marking it private, as said, won't be good enough: because of the substantial possible risk to LJ if action isn't taken on copyright violation claims under the DMCA (like tens of thousands of dollars), DMCA violations are one of the times an LJ employee can use the ability to view private entries to double check that something has been removed.

    I would guess that removing the quoted text would *probably* be ok, but check first. Explain the situation clearly, all of that.

    For anyone else reading, I'm a former LJ abuse team member (for 20 months, left in September). The Abuse Team really are good folks, but they're trying to balance a number of complex issues, and can only work on the evidence provided to them.

    And, as [info]pir_anha says, there's a lot of this kind of junk around there: what the Abuse Team does is check that there is a properly formatted complaint, that the person claiming copyright seems to be the actual copyright holder or legal representative, and then follows a standard procedure. This means that sometimes it does get used as a sniping tool. However, the Abuse Team *can't* really care about that, they can only care about whether the legal stuff is dealt with appropriately in this case.

    (Reply to this) (Thread)

    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-01 04:40 am UTC (link)
    You may think that the Abuse team are good folks, but I beg to differ (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/livejournal-abuse.html). They make arbitrary decisions and can't provide a consistent reason for them, they do not enforce the TOS consistently, and it's basically "Do what I say or your entire journal is deleted". In addition, there's zero accountability, and even Brad says he has no control over them.

    —meta

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    [info]jenett
    2005-01-01 12:05 pm UTC (link)
    Briefly, because I know [info]cheshyre's aware of a lot of this, and I don't think it's nice to argue much in someone else's journal.

    [info]cheshyre has been around several of the same online settings I have for a while. We have a bunch of mutual friends in common. I trust her to make her own decisions about ethics and whether they're consistent.

    I happily and comfortably put my *own* ethics on the line when I say that the Abuse Team are good people, who are trying hard to do a very difficult and complicated job (often made harder by people trying deliberately to be nasty to others. It's lousy to realise that a service designed to help others is being used as a weapon.)

    No, they're not perfect, but who is? What they do *is* extensively documented so that relevant LJ employees (including Brad) can review it if needed, and further steps have been put in place in the last few months. Steps have been in place for internal review and comment (leading to better consistency) for about 2 years, as well.

    What I do encourage all people of good will to remember is that what the Abuse Team works on is what they are provided with in the initial report, and what turns up in investigation. Some stuff (including copyright) gets even more complicated because of legal requirements, and potentially substantial penalties to LJ if the people handling the case mess up.

    Being thoughtful, polite, and asking for clarification are all good things. Understanding the issues related to some legal issues, and problems that a respect for confidentiality cause in offering a defense of some decisions also help. I know [info]chesyre is very able to do these things. That's what matters here. I was glad, as a result, to offer some suggestions that I hope help.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-02 06:14 pm UTC (link)
    I happily and comfortably put my *own* ethics on the line when I say that the Abuse Team are good people, who are trying hard to do a very difficult and complicated job (often made harder by people trying deliberately to be nasty to others.

    Well, that's nice, but my experience says otherwise, and since the abuse team are totally anonymous and make their decisions in total secrecy based on the testimony of secret informants, I have no basis for evaluating whether they are "good", beyond my own experience.

    No, they're not perfect, but who is? What they do *is* extensively documented so that relevant LJ employees (including Brad) can review it if needed, and further steps have been put in place in the last few months. Steps have been in place for internal review and comment (leading to better consistency) for about 2 years, as well.

    Are these alleged procedures for requesting review actually documented anywhere? Or are you saying that the anonymous unknown people acting as "LJ Abuse" also claim that they anonymously review each other's behavior in secret? If the latter, surely you can see why that isn't really going to convince anyone outside the Abuse team of anything?

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    [info]jenett
    2005-01-02 07:03 pm UTC (link)
    First, the Abuse Team aren't "totally anonymous". You (and anyone else who knows how to find a user info page) can figure out who's on the team.

    Take a look at http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=lj_abuse . Look at the list of members of the community.

    Some of them are LJ employees (as listed on the appropriate page of the site: http://www.livejournal.com/press/staff.bml) who have access to the community in case they need specific information about a given case (all cases are documented in that community, so that's where writeups, further comments, links to other related cases, etc. are usually put. It also allows for back and forth discussion among team members.) A couple of employees have access because they work on code that's relevant for Abuse and Support work.

    Three of those employees have job responsibilities directly relating to Abuse work in some way, again as listed on the employee page and the User info site. (the third, besides the two managers, is [info]bleything as noted in the most recent [info]news writeup, among other places.)

    The rest are the Abuse Team. Who those people are isn't secret (though, granted, you do need to know to look at the lj_abuse comm's user info page)

    It's just who handles a specific case that is kept private. This is for a couple of reasons, starting with the fact that people might try to get back at specific people for an action they didn't like, even if it was totally in line with policy.

    This aspect *is* an issue that concerns a number of people applying to work with the team. (Many people are glad to help, but uncomfortable with exposing not only their own journal but potentially journals of friends/family/etc. to possibly nastiness.)

    Requesting review

    Pretty much every case that is closed is looked at by one of the managers before it's closed. Even in the cases closed by the person who opened them, the vast majority are also looked at by one of the managers or long-time Abuse folks.

    If someone still has a concern, they can ask for it to be reviewed. Honestly, though, if there's a case that looks like it's not straightforward, chances are good that one of the managers has already been consulted. This is often pretty informal: the person handling the case goes "Hey, here's what the report said, here's supporting evidence I can find (or not find, as the case may be). Does X reply here look good before I send it?"

    If a formal review is requested, or someone wants to present new evidence, just ask for a manager to look at it. They're basically the final answer, though Brad can overrule decisions. If a review is requested, *all* evidence is generally double-checked (or at least anything where a human error might have missed something.)

    However, because Brad doesn't handle Abuse stuff regularly, he's not as familiar with some of the tools used, or some of the things the Abuse Team is used to looking for. This may, therefore, result in *less* consistency, rather than more, unless everyone's careful and takes some time to go over it closely before a final decision. (Me, I'm all for changes in policy as appropriate: but it's important to do that carefully.)

    A draft version of the Abuse Team's policy document (what is done in specific cases, and which steps occur) is now also available to the public. This was announced in http://www.livejournal.com/community/lj_biz/233085.html and is also mentioned in the year-end review News posting.

    All cases are extensively documented - both in the report (there's a bunch of stuff only visible to people with the appropriate category privileges in the Support system, including internal comments where evidence/data is stored for review) and in the community. If Brad (or any other employee) has concerns, they can ask for more info/explanation/seek changes.

    Beyond that... well, do you ask your bank to prove to you that they're handling sensitive info correctly? Your doctor's office? Your ISP? At some point, in a *lot* of areas, you've got to eventually either trust that stuff is being overseen, *or* decide to go elsewhere. I don't see LJ as being any different.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, my husband's sick, and I need to drive him to after-hours care.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-04 04:09 pm UTC (link)
    First, the Abuse Team aren't "totally anonymous". You (and anyone else who knows how to find a user info page) can figure out who's on the team.

    That's not the point. The point is that the Abuse Team is totally anonymous in their interaction with users.

    I can get a list of all the cops in the LAPD, but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for the cops to wear badges.

    If someone still has a concern, they can ask for it to be reviewed.

    Ask who, how? Send another e-mail to the anonymous drop box via the LJ Abuse form? Yeah, right, that'll do a lot of good.

    Beyond that... well, do you ask your bank to prove to you that they're handling sensitive info correctly? Your doctor's office? Your ISP?

    When I go to the bank, the employees all have name badges. If one of them tells me my account has been suspended and all the money taken into custody, I can talk to the manager. If the bank won't resolve the issue, there's the FDIC.

    When I go to the doctor's office, the doctor tells me his or her name.

    I trust my ISP to route packets to and from the Internet, and that's it. If they stop doing it, I find another ISP.

    —meta

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    [info]jenett
    2005-01-04 05:20 pm UTC (link)
    What about when you call your bank on the phone? Or your doctor's office. I'm not talking about in-person interactions here: let's actually try to compare apples and apples.

    My experience in these settings is that I might get a first name (which I usually promptly forget unless I make a point of writing it down, and often mishear anyway).

    My online interactions with ISPs vary: for my web host (which is a fairly small business with a deliberate emphasis on personal interaction) I get names. With my internet provider (a much larger company), I get a generic support reply.

    Even if I get a first name, is it actually meaningful information? I tend to think not, most of the time.

    (in the case of LJ, handing out a username also has additional privacy complications for the team: people have had problems with stalkers or nastiness even from public entries. While I was on the team, I was more careful about what I talked about in public, because I was very aware that these problems sometimes occur.)

    The reason you presumably want to know the name is to follow up if you feel something has been mishandled.

    In the case of Abuse reports (and this is true for many ISPs and other online services), this information is tracked on the service side. Anyone with relevant privs in the site can find that out (again, which includes a reasonable number of employees.)

    (This is not as true of in-person interactions: another reason why I'm talking about those mediated online or by phone)

    In the case of the Abuse system, though, *every* report made through the report form ends up there, so it's easy to see who responded, when, and exactly what they said.

    At some point, you've either got to trust management, or not. If you don't, don't use the site.

    Requests for manager responses did reliably get answered during my time on the team, and were specifically signed as coming from a manager. Did you ever try asking for one, or are you just assuming you wouldn't get one?

    (Again, if you're automatically assuming people would lie, then you've got much bigger problems with site management: not just with the Abuse Team.)

    If you think that there should be some way to contact the Abuse Team managers (in a way that the rest of the team can't see), or some other sort of meaningful overview, then feel free to suggest it to suggestions. I've been reading that comm for quite a while, and I don't think I've seen such a suggestion anytime recently.

    Good suggestions are, of course, realistic: what would it solve that isn't being handled now? How would you avoid this option being abused by people who just don't like an answer (as opposed to those who have some serious concern about policy or handling of a specific case).

    A lot of requests for review are precisely because people don't like the answer they were given. This takes time, delays responses to other concerns, and all sorts of other hits. They also obscure the few legitimate concerns or cases where there's additional evidence.

    (There have, of course, been other suggestions made about overview: most of these are unrealistic, as they involve the overview being done by people who don't understand LJ's policies, or releasing confidential information: all of which create significant complications and which might not resolve the overview issues either. Good suggestions of this kind must take these issues into consideration.)

    Anyway, I'd rather not continue to discuss this in [info]cheshyre's journal. If you really want to continue to actually discuss (not just pick at specific points), you can take it to my journal or email. Otherwise, I think we've mostly reached a point of diminishing return.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-06 06:12 pm UTC (link)
    At some point, you've either got to trust management, or not. If you don't, don't use the site.

    Right, and my experience is that the management of LiveJournal cannot be trusted, so I don't use the site—except that unfortunately, many of my friends got suckered into LiveJournal.

    Requests for manager responses did reliably get answered during my time on the team, and were specifically signed as coming from a manager. Did you ever try asking for one, or are you just assuming you wouldn't get one?

    It wasn't just me—several other people complained about the treatment I was given, and Brad was also notified. The response was that the decisions of the Abuse team were not to be discussed, and that Brad had very little to do with the behavior of the Abuse team.

    If you think that there should be some way to contact the Abuse Team managers (in a way that the rest of the team can't see), or some other sort of meaningful overview, then feel free to suggest it to suggestions.

    I can't, my account was deleted without notice, remember? My suggestions via the Abuse feedback mechanism were ignored.

    (Also, more than once I had feedback silently deleted without anyone getting a chance to see it, so that's another area where there really needs to be some oversight.)

    —meta (http://www.pobox.com/~meta/)

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    (Anonymous)
    2005-01-01 04:37 am UTC (link)
    Given past behavior of the LiveJournal Abuse team (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/livejournal-abuse.html), I suggest you start making alternative hosting plans, and back up your journal before they cancel your account.

    —meta

    (Reply to this)

    Create an Account
    Forgot your login or password?
    Login w/ OpenID
    English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…