
Cardigan,
Did you know that
If your blogs are
"HIDDEN", "PRIVATE" or "DELETED" or you end your membership,
they are owned 100% by Mindsay to do with what they wish!
And the same holds true for any blog-site!
See the small type at the bottom of this page which says "Terms of Service"
By using any blog-site you agree to these terms.
I suggest you read my latest entry if this is a concern to you
Pablo
This license exists only for as long as the content remains published on your MindSay site and only for as long you remain a MindSay member. In the event that you remove the content from your public MindSay blog (e.g., by deleting it or marking it "private" or "hidden") or in the event that your membership is terminated, this license shall expire (either immediately or upon termination of any promotional or marketing activities ongoing at the time).
The license that expires in this case is MindSay's license to use and reproduce portions of your blog in, for example, the Top Blogs, or for promoting MindSay in general. You still own any copyright you had to begin with.
However, when the temporary license lapses for any of those reasons, so do Mindsays waivers on it's limitations of content usage. The last paragraph in XIII is only refering to the temporary license limitations, not the entirety of the TOS. Sole-purpose and waivers on content usage are released at the point of deletion, privatization, hidding or termination.
Pablo
There are perfectly good reasons for not posting stuff you don't want stolen on a blog, but MindSay's TOS isn't one of them.
The thrust and focus of the entry this is based upon concerns the ranate and tangential associations of TOS's as a whole. In reality the blog community is akin to a playground full of potential dangers with no one watching over things. Would you take your own, or someone else's children there and drop them off, signing an agreement without reading it?
Mindsay, and all blogs state in their TOS's that they do not monitor content or activity. This individual bofun6636 and his accomplice ridemebareback were stalking young women between the ages of 12-25 with invitations to his masturbatingliveforyou.com site hosted by Yahoo Web Services. Neither Mindsay or Yahoo are required, or felt compelled to take initiate action until provoked to do so.
Ultimately, the interpretations of TOS's becomes incidental, taking a back seat to the more serious consequences of entering into an unread contract. Someone has to be willing to be the "sqeaky-wheel".
Pablo
Is there some actual harm that's going to be inflicted upon these young women if they go to this sex site? Not unless it downloads a virus to their computers, really. So a 12 year old sees pictures of someone masturbating? What 12-year old these days doesn't know what masturbation is? So what's the big deal?
As for the TOS, so what if they do claim to retain the rights to anyone's blog entries? If I take my blog off of MindSay and repost it all on my own domain, do you honestly think MindSay is going to sue me? I'll take my chances.
For what it's worth, I have personally challenged a similar TOS in the past, and won the rights to my material. (With About.com, no less.) No big deal.
Your point of actual harm falls back to my highlighting "otherwise objectionable". What is harmful is subjective, and not for you or I to define. The point is not the knowledge or practice of masturbation or any other sexual act. My issue is the objective issue of limitations. In infer from your argument that prior knowledge serves as permission. If so, where would you draw the line? Bestiality? Snuffing? Furthermore, I must strongly differ with you that a computer virus takes precedence; saying that it is of more pressing importance than confining the practices of an adult performing live onanistic shows for minors. I would be led to assume that you have no children.
Pablo
Where to draw the line is always the question, isn't it? With everything. Bestiality? What, so an "Ewww" reaction is "harmful"? Snuffing? Kids watch thousands of faked deaths on TV and in movies. A real one is much less gruesome, most of the time, than what Hollywood shows. Do you really think the knowledge that it's a real death will make that much of a difference? Hell, maybe seeing a real death or two might make kids realize that watching faked deaths isn't so cool, and there would cease to be such demand for senseless violence in the media.
You have a problem with kids going to such sites, put blocking software on your computer. Or better yet, educate your kids so that such sites are either not appealing to them or no big deal. We live in such a sex negative culture... that's WHY sex sites are so popular. We demonize sexuality, talk about "dirty" pictures, etc. Give me a break.
Sexual demonization? You didn't say whether you have children, but I'm guessing you don't, and if not is a barrier to my appealing to parental responsibilities. As a parent you strive to protect the safety and innocence of your children. Part of that protection does come from education, but its' predecessor and foundation is nuturing. A healthy parent will not demonize sex, they will nuture and educade. Really, the last thing the father of a 12-year-old wants is for his daughter to be drawn into a preoccupation or obsession with sex when the world is so richly full of other things lofty, fullfilling and productive. We don't want our daughters pregnant at 14!
You coincidentally mention blocking software. My current exploration deals with software collusion vis a vis Claria (formerly Gator) and Symantec, both the creations of one Denis Coleman. I should be posting that in the next few days and would invite your discussion if you find it worthy of your time and most appreciated cogitation.
Pablo
If a father of a 12-year old doesn't want his little girl to be "drawn into a preoccupation or obsession with sex," then the only sensible thing to do is to let her know that sex is natural, nothing to be ashamed of, not "dirty" in any way, or something that she's forbidden to engage in until a certain age. I dare you to find me one 12-year old girl who hasn't discovered that pressure on her clitoris feels good. Let's be real, here. Sexual maturity is not determined by an arbitrary number at which society considers them to be "adults." So it's ridiculous to regard an early teen, for example, as being no different than a five-year old. Puberty doesn't care about what society considers to be "minors."
Our TV shows (and hell, our commercials) flaunt sex, sex, sex... while at the same time, our prudish censors prohibit any sort of nudity. Mixed messages! In Europe, where they think nothing of showing a naked breast on television, do they have the rampant sex obsession that we have in the U.S.? Not that I'm aware of.
Most kids, when told they can't have something, are more drawn to it than they otherwise would be. This is part of the reason why minors sneak beers from dad's fridge, or do drugs, or smoke cigarettes, or shoplift copies of Playboy. The forbidden fruit, you see. Toss in a healthy dose of peer pressure, and you've got a recipe for trouble.
You're absolutely right about nurturing and education. It can prevent the above scenarios. So if you've nurtured and educated your children, you shouldn't have many worries about them being lured to "dirty" websites.
You're correct: I don't have children. But I'd like to think that if I did, I wouldn't suddenly develop selective amnesia based on over-protectiveness. I swear, most of the parents out there seem to pretend they never were 12-year old kids with natural, healthy curiosities about their own sexuality.
Some of the actions of parents are chemical and emotional. Rationale doesn't fit into every equation.
Yes, I have always considered the arbitrary classification of people, children and adults, a function of the society machine. Everyone progresses at different rates intellectually, emotionally and physically. I'm nealy 50, feel like I'm 25 and live like I'm 80! (But that's another story!)
Pablo
rain