That doesn't accord if an ISP can be sued in the UK for copyright breaches and also run the risk of prosecution if they have been informed they are transmitting (which they must know) illegal material and in the case of hosting, have failed to remove it. See the article below. Liability of ISPs for 3rd party material And..... In practice, the effectiveness of the 2000/31/ EC Directive has been criticized, mostly because of the potentials for broad interpretation of its rules. This fact is highlighted in the study of Smith (2009) where reference is made to the specific problem: currently, the content hosted/ transmitted by ISPs can have various forms; it is not clear under which terms ISPs cannot be held liable for hosting/ transmitting illegal content.
That is a different matter. Displaying material on your website where others can see it and/or download it, and failing to remove it even after being asked to do so, is not the same as owning a copper wire/fibre/wireless connection down which other people are transmitting data of which you have no knowledge and for which you are not responsible.
Well, you are correct if you notice the difference between 'prosecution' and 'prosection'..........that's all the edit was. If you read the attached 'articles', you will see that my original post wasn't so adrift. But thanks for pointing it out.....
Your post, the first time I saw it, was as Pete quoted. I remember this very clearly because I strongly disagreed with what you had posted. Not long afterwards, I saw Pete had addressed what I saw as the post's factual inaccuracy, and had included your original posting as a quote. I would have left it there - not my fight - but then you said that Pete had "edited" your post. I took this to mean that you were saying that Pete had changed what you had typed, in his quoting of your post. This is simply not the case, as I had seen your original post with my own eyes. Your edited post contains nothing in it that I would take issue with, it seems factual and accurate, but that was not the original posting. I am uncomfortable with someone suggesting that Pete had amended a post in order to win a point when I could see with my own eyes that he had not. Hence my involvement. I'm happy to leave it there as I am sure that there is a completely satisfactory explanation for what has happened here.
Any member posting on here can go back to a post and amend it retrospectively, perhaps to correct an error which someone has pointed out. Nothing wrong with that. In the meantime, a post may have been quoted (in its original form) and commented on by someone else. Nothing wrong with that either. So eventually there may be a mis-match between successive posts; if it happens it happens, but we surely don't need to fall out about it.
