Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  kirillian (profile), May 6th, 2009 @ 3:53pm

  
  

  Clearly so...

  Clearly his motivations/involvement/interest HAVE to be called into question, especially in Sweden where, at least according to another commenter (TOC I think it was), a jury by peers is not available. Even if the judge claims no conflict of interest and nothing can be ascertained, it is important that the issue be cleared up, ESPECIALLY as the Pirate Bay case has potential ramifications for consumer rights and our rights as global citizens.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  kirillian (profile), May 6th, 2009 @ 3:55pm

  
  

  Re: Clearly so...

  I need to clear that last statement up...the only method that I can see being useful for clearing this issue up is to actually call either a mistrial or allow for an appeal in a higher court. The trial must be redone in order to clear up the issue...otherwise, those of us who are not pro-BIG-Business can't help but wonder if it's just a sham.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 6th, 2009 @ 4:01pm

  
  

  English summary

  Short summary in non-machine English is here.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 6th, 2009 @ 4:02pm

  
  

  No Need to wonder..

  It's always a big sham.. We've been shammed since the day we where born.. All started with umm.. whats his name? Oh yah... God.. That's right.. They've been lying to us our whole lives... The truth will be revealed soon enough though (I hope).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  lulz, May 7th, 2009 @ 4:24am

  
  

  Re: No Need to wonder..

  *BANG*
  
  Oh, how I love troll hunting...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 7th, 2009 @ 9:12am

  
  

  Re: Re: No Need to wonder..

  Bastards keep getting back up, though...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Eo Nomine, May 6th, 2009 @ 4:14pm

  
  

  "It's not clear how close the connection was, but it does bring into question why a judge, who's in charge of interpreting laws, should be associated with any group that is advocating a specific change in the law -- because it's difficult to see how he could be impartial in any related case."
  
  The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations, but places where *all* IP experts (regardless of whether they represent industry or not) come together. Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 6th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

  
  

  Re:

  The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations
  
  Oh no, of course not. That should be obvious even from their very names, shouldn't it?
  
  Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law.
  
  No, it's more like claiming that someone is interested in sex with boys just because he's a member of NAMBLA. It's a reasonable conclusion.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Nathan, May 6th, 2009 @ 5:46pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  I don't see what sex toys have to do with NAMBLA. Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted kiddie porn.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 6th, 2009 @ 5:24pm

  
  

  Re:

  Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property
  
  PROTECTION ?
  
  Yeah, they are not biased ...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  A Swede, May 8th, 2009 @ 6:14am

  
  

  Re:

  "The Swedish copyright assocation and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (and its Finnish, Danish and Norwegian counterparts) are not lobbying organisations, but places where *all* IP experts (regardless of whether they represent industry or not) come together. Claiming that a judge is biased in a copyright infringement case because he's a member of a professional association of IP experts is analogous to claiming that a judge is biased because he is a member of a bar association and clearly believes in the rule of law."
  
  The Swedish copyright assocation is a part of Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale that has as a requirement for membership that you support the following:
  "Any person or legal entity interested in authors' rights, and not at risk of being influenced into taking up positions that are inconsistent with the principles of literary and artistic property, may make application for membership of ALAI."
  What kind of "open" discussions is possible with such constraint on membership? You are not even allowed to be at risk of listening to arguments from the other side.
  
  If we turn to Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property that is very not just a discussion club. This group is involved in feedback on new laws and is documented to openly argue that that the EU regulations about providers of services on the internet having a safe harbor if they don't know about the crime, should be ignored, and the provider should be held responsible for everything the customer does no matter if they know about it or not. Not by coincident Tomas Norström in the Piratebay case refused the defendants to bring up the binding EU regulations as defense. This is one of the reasons the defendents have appealed the trial outcome to a higher court.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 6th, 2009 @ 6:07pm

  
  

  Sounds like this judge is more trouble than he is worth. Might as well fire him and hire/elect/appoint a judge that can actually do his job, so he's not impeding people's trials.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 6th, 2009 @ 8:39pm

  
  

  ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA
  
  Sorry, I just knew the whole case was a joke, This just proves it!
  
  Good Job content protectors ....
  
  ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA hA

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment