Nope. You’re wrong again, lurajane. It isn’t just a question of copyright infringement at all, but applies to all legal liabilities that may arise from selecting, editing, keeping or deleting user generated content (UGC).
My point was that the more control Memrise exercises over the content of any of its services, including picking and choosing which posts remain on this forum, the more it assumes liability for that content and those posts.
When it removes some posts and allows others to remain, then it is no longer acting as a passive web host that merely reproduces user generated content without editorial control. It thus is liable to lose its safe harbor protections as a host, and be considered a publisher of any potentially harmful content hosted on its site.
Despite your ridiculous twisting of my words, I was not implying that the ECJ would punish them for removing my post(s), but rather that them doing so makes them more of an editor and publisher in the eyes of the law, and thus liable for damages to third parties
The European Court of Human Rights has in fact already ruled on this very matter, stating that because a newspaper removed some user comments, and exercised substantial control over the comment section of the articles appearing on its site, then it was the legal publisher of unlawful comments, and thus liable for damages to third parties, rather than the readers who actually wrote the comments.
In the case of Delfi v. Estonia, the ECHR:
The ECHR stated that because Delfi exercised a substantive degree of control over the comments published, and, enjoyed click-based advertising, integrated in the article (i.e. Delfi had a financial interest in encouraging users to comment), Delfi went beyond being a passive and purely technical service provider. The ECHR stressed that Delfi should have known that the article in question would attract the type of comments that it did which the ECHR described as being “manifestly unlawful” and “amounting to hate speech”. Perhaps most crucially, the ECHR ruled that the measures implemented by Delfi to prevent publication of the unlawful content were inadequate and that Delfi’s “notice-and-take-down” system was not sufficiently robust to protect it from liability. Finally, somewhat controversially, the ECHR also considered that due to Delfi’s substantive resources, and the fact that those making the comments were anonymous, it was proportionate for “L” to seek compensation from Delfi rather than those making the offensive comments.
So, it seems to me that the ECHR agrees with me, and that my post was not “gibberish” at all, as you so ignorantly and scornfully claimed.
