Of course you would not get that far, but this case does not concern a US-based website, so the point is moot. Also, the US does pretty much the same when it comes to copyright-protected content. This great Content-ID system of YouTube is the direct result of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Ok, so this seems rather misreported in a lot of places. The ruling is actually very specific, and doesn't apply in a lot of the cases suggested in this thread. It's still not a ruling I like, but it isn't the end of the world for all comments everywhere.

It is basically based on these conditions:

1) The site had a system in place for reporting abusive posts
2) The site did not act when actually-abusive posts were reported
3) The site did not allow editing of comments, so the original poster could not remove it themselves if they later realized they'd gone too far
4) The comments were prominently displayed

So in a way, the ruling actually mirrors the US DMCA enforcement and safe harbor provisions a bit - if you don't actually react when it is reported TO you that someone has gone of and posted something seriously abusive, it's on you. It's not on you to FIND it, it's on you to react when someone points it out to you. A site like this forum, with active moderators, should be just fine with no change in practises.

An interesting point to note is also that this ruling actually conflicts with EU law in some areas (the ECHR is not an EU institution).

That's how I understood it as well. I don't actually agree that it's in direct opposition to EU law. There certainly is an area of conflict, but it seems to follow the purpose of the rules in the E-Commerce Directive, which is to absolve websites from liability provided they respond to potential infringements they were made aware of.

^^^ this makes more sense.

But kinda funny that hollywood seems to think they are the government and they can just shut down websites at will.

You're probably right about that, I'll soften that wording a bit.

No, you're completely misunderstanding the ruling. A) You would need to actually post serious hate speech. Above, you just basically said jews are apparently great at making blockbuster movies, which seems more like a compliment to me (and happens to be true, I believe. Isn't Spielberg jewish?). B) Someone on the forum would have to find it offensive, and report it to GOG through some mechanism. C) GOG would have to completely ignore the report. And D) It would have to be impossible for you to edit your own post.

Only then -might- they be liable. Further, it only applies when there's little-to-no chance of actually finding out the identity of the hate speech poster. In GOG's case, you've likely paid for a game using a credit card, so... that passes the buch nicely back to you.

In fact most of the famous Hollywood studios and many people who made the american movie industry successfull were jewish. I mean, what does Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer sound like, Puerto Rican? And Kirk Douglas? He's real name is Issur Danielovitch Demsky, he's parent were jewish immigrants from Russia.

Well, when tyrants begin their wheel of death, they rarely start at the end-game and work in reverse. Hitler didn't start out on the streets of Munich trying to sell discounted gas chambers. His rhetoric was couched in 'da jewz took our jobz!' and then baby stepped it until he had enough power to begin the mass culling.

Same thing here. These PC laws start with 'let's go after those ignorant racists who deny the holocaust!' and proceed from there to tax protestors, animal rights groups, various religious sects, and ultimately... well, people who just complain about video games. But once that engine gets cranking, sky's the limit. In the end we either ALL have freedom of speech, or none of us do. And these European court rulings make it clear where the men in powdered wigs stand on the issue.

And in the left corner it's the unbeaten Internet Heavyweight Champion... Goooooodwiiiin's Laaaaaaw!

Seriously guys, cool off. It may not be a ruling we like, but that does not make it part of some worldwide conspiracy of a global NSDAP meant to bring about genocide. Let's take things in proportion, shall we?

Big brother was the figurehead of the government in the books.

Richard Burton was the one actually running things. :P

I think it's really red tabby cats.

I find Goodwin's Law offensive. It involves Nazis in some form and must be removed from this board at once! :p

WTF?? Are they [censored] [censored]??
Farewell free speech online?

Like if telephone companies could be held responsible for their users' defamatory calls..
It makes no sense.

P:S: wait.. with such an horrible Court, Berlusconi has a chance to win his appeal, then :O