Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Feb 2009 14:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 349896
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Well, the defense referenced a law stating that network service providers cannot be helt responsible for what is communicated through the service provieded some prerequisits are true.
There was three things IIRC that was required.
* That the service provider does not initiate the transactions
* That the information is not selected by the service provider
* That the information is not modified by the service provider
By removing torrents I would say the prosecutor could claim that the two latter requirements are not fullfilled and thus the law is not applicable.