Pirate Bay Appeal To Be Heard By Judge Tied To Copyright Group As Well

from the well,-that-seems-fair... dept

As The Pirate Bay gears up for the appeal of its trial in Sweden, it's worth noting that the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge. How is that fair?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 1:12pm

    You know....

    "the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge."

    You kow, I've said this before, but the job of government is really simple: make me work to find your bullshit. As an American, I fully expect my government and the government of most if not all other nations to be full of corrupt, beauracratic nonsense that would anger people if they knew about. Here's the key role for these assholes: don't let us know about it.

    I mean, look, yes I want to be informed, and I'm GLAD I found out about THIS one, now that I know about it. But honestly, in the long run, if it's inevitable that you're going to rape me so hard that I end up bleeding out of my anus, can't you at least let me look the other direction?

    Would have it REALLY been that hard to come up with a judge who was every bit as bought and biased, but WASN'T the exact same judge? At least then I would have been able to calm down for a couple months during the appeals process, while the sham of the trial went on. Then, sometime next March when Mike reported that THIS judge had the same affiliations I could ramp myself back up after a long hibernation and really give it my all.

    I'll repeat: government, your job is to fool me. Make us work really really hard to find the fucked up stuff that you do, so that by the time I've figured it out I'm too tired to be angry and I just go take a shit, relax with some Britney Spears tunes and some asian porn.

    God dammit....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    BullJustin (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 1:18pm

    Fairness

    It's not about fairness, it never has been, and it never will. It's about money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 1:33pm

    Fine

    You bought a judge, but in the process you also convinced me that the 'legalities' of file-sharing etc. are just a matter of money, and I should simply try to maximize my side of the equation.

    Fair enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 1:49pm

    Enter The Pirate Party ...

    The Pirate Party should use this for all its worth.

    I should go into a paranoind rant at this point ... but Dark Helmet already covered it ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:00pm

    Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party, it does seem a bit unfair to suggest that a jurist will be unable to decide a case is an impartial manner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Logo, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    Does it seem unfair that after happening 3 times (Original judge, the review of the original judge, and now this) something is afoot? Unless are judges in Sweden can be tied to copyright groups this just screams of foul play.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Jason (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:35pm

    Re:

    Baloney! If any party can demonstrate an APPARENT conflict of interest, the jurist is generally advised by their local judicial handbook to recuse themself, or at the very least record a disclosure statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Hugh, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:36pm

    This was not a Jury Trial. This was a trial decided by a judge that has ties to the copyright group that want stronger laws for copyright. And I may be wrong but I do believe that with this being an Appeal this wont be sent to jury either. The appeal will be based on a judge's decision that has ties to the copyright group.

    If you has items from your house stolen, and the police arrested the robbers you wouldnt want the judge thats hearing the case to be tied to the gang that the robbers was from now would you? Do you think you will see justice?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Jason (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:47pm

    Re:

    Ummm, Huge, I agree with your other point, but in this case, jurist=judge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 2:49pm

    Re:

    Hello My name is Bob. (hand shake, smile, and eye contact go here) I understand you are interested in copyright issues, so am I. Would you like to go out to dinner and tell me your thoughts on what would strengthen our great nations rule of law on the subject. Dinner is my treat .... hook, line, and sinker...

    Truthfully with that approach all you have to do is find the people most likely to have your opinion on the subject. Then find court clerk and pull the same sort of BS. Its really that simple. No bribes are needed just a little personality engineering.

    so your line....

    "Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party, it does seem a bit unfair to suggest that a jurist will be unable to decide a case is an impartial manner."


    My response ....

    If there is even a hint that the jurist is biased they need to be removed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    MaDirt (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Fine

    By far the summation of this farce typed to screen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    John Andrew, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:17pm

    PBay Retrial

    I love the culture of Pirate Bay and the essense of sharing that underly it's approach. While it's model may not translate literally as the future of the music/media business, it certainly represents the ethos of what is coming and that is exciting.

    Yet, given the current system of copyright laws (copyright regime as is sometimes fun to name it) the rulings by courts in the US and internationally are not surprising and, I would assert, make perfect sense given the system. We are multiple generations removed from a time when those in a position to change IP law will have the ability to do so. Why is the discussion so impractical? Wouldn't it help us to move forward with a respect for where we are and for what is reasonable to expect in the near verses extended future?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    MaDirt (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Re: Fine

    ^best^

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:42pm

    Re:

    Okay. So you'd have no problem with a judge affiliated with the Pirate Party then? Sweet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:46pm

    Re: You know....

    "Would have it REALLY been that hard to come up with a judge who was every bit as bought and biased, but WASN'T the exact same judge?"

    ah Dark Helmet, you make me laugh

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Jason (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 3:58pm

    Re: PBay Retrial

    Our adversaries repeatedly succeed in small measure by the application of absurdities. Tell me again that we should be more reasonable; I'll punch your mother in the mouth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 5:01pm

    I CANNOT wait for the older generation to retire, or die off. Then, and ONLY THEN will we see change and reform in the Copyright system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Sep 4th, 2009 @ 5:02pm

    Fairness?

    There is no such thing as fairness; it boils down to bribes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Dan, Sep 4th, 2009 @ 11:30pm

    @17: Do you really think greed and corruption are limited to old people? Me thinks that you are the fool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2009 @ 6:24am

    Re:

    Plagiarist...

    This is an unattributed quote first made circa 45,000 B.C.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Hugh, Sep 5th, 2009 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re:

    I know this is off subject, but the name is Hugh not Huge.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2009 @ 2:31am

    RE : Dan, # 19

    Same guy who wrote 17 here. I suppose I should have been more specific. I think that as the "Napster" generation grows up, and takes positions of leadership in Business, and Government, we will see a shift in Copyright laws. When you have a generation growing up that believes that information should be easily accessible, and available for people to create with, and build upon, rather than being locked away, then change will come. I AM NOT opposed to the idea of ownership of your creations, but I think that 95 YEARS is grossly excessive. The original purpose of Copyright is to encourage creativity, and expand culture. How is that accomplished if someone can live on one creation "forever" (see : Disney, Mickey Mouse), and lock it up behind excessive laws? Copyright is fine, but it needs to be, say, 25 years, which would be enough time to create something, profit from it, and then allow the public domain to grow, so that others can create and innovate with it. Change WILL come, it is just a mater of time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Sep 8th, 2009 @ 5:51am

    Re: RE : Dan, # 19

    Copyright is fine, but it needs to be, say, 25 years...
    Are you freakin' insane? My goodness, why is it people like you continually think ownership over an idea is a good thing so people can profit from it.

    Personally, if copyright is to remain, I prefer the system in which people had to file for one and continually repay the fee to renew it.

    Imagine our surprise when the entertainment industry no longer wanted this model as it would cost them millions to renew.

    I get the gist people want their "creations" protected against those who'd simply take, alter, and sell as their own. Makes sense, but it's unnecessary. If the creation didn't make the impression by the original creators, then a copy shouldn't be the focus of the problem. I would place that on the creator for doing little to instill the creation in the first place.

    Copyright sucks in its current form. It sucks in all its forms. It's legal DRM, preventing the use of creation by limiting, or making illegal, all innovation from such creation.

    You people can't stand DRM on your media, so why the hell accept it on creation? It's hypocritical thinking no matter how you look at it.

    Abolish copyright and let's see just how well the world really works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Sep 8th, 2009 @ 8:20am

    I've got to be honest, this discussion would be far less interesting if I wasn't wearing my toasty, clean ugg boots!

    I forgot my point...

    Oh, Pirate Bay, yeah - look, Sweden don't want this shit on their hands any more so they're rigging a way to get rid of it. The fact that they're being SO blatant about it proves only how unimportant they think the whole charade is!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 1:57pm

    Re:

    Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party...

    "...the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge."

    There. Done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This