In the past, we've discussed the various problems with the language choices by the entertainment industry in discussing file sharing. Terms like "intellectual property," "piracy," "theft" and even its descriptions of "losses" are all misleading and biased. This, in fact, is a key point in William Patry's upcoming book -- where he looks at how the language has been co-opted by the industry to pre-bias the casual observer (including journalists and politicians). Ben Jones is wondering if there can even be a "fair trial" for file sharers given this widespread use of biased language. It's a decent question, and goes back to an earlier point we raised about why the jury verdicts in the recent file sharing trials were hardly a good barometer on the public's understanding of copyright issues. When the industry has been so successful in choosing language that so clearly biases the casual observer (and is then able to exclude anyone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject from the jury), it shouldn't be any surprise at all that rulings will tend towards those who have been able to define the terms.

The Swedish appeals court charged with looking into whether or not the judge in the original trial against The Pirate Bay was biased, has said they found no bias (for real, this time) with the judge, despite his belonging to two groups that have pushed for stronger copyright laws -- and the fact that the prosecutors' lawyers were involved in that organization as well. Apparently, the court says the judge should have brought this information to light sooner, but otherwise said it was no big deal.

According to Brokep, one of the four people convicted in the trial, the group plans to file charges against the court for human rights violations, and will claim that the appeals court judge was also biased. Not knowing much about Swedish law, I have no idea if that has any chance of succeeding, but it doesn't seem like the argument has worked all that well so far. Christian Engstrom, the Swedish Pirate Party member just elected to the EU Parliament seems to believe that the courts are blinded by the high profile of the case, such that they're applying the law incorrectly:

This is part of a pattern. It show that the Swedish legal system is no longer to be trusted when it comes to copyright cases. It's a travesty of justice quite simply. There are certainly problems with the laws too but this also shows that the courts are not capable of applying the laws in a correct manner. I've been a lay judge for seven years and I've never seen an indictment as bad as the Pirate Bay verdict. But that didn't stop the court from setting ridiculous sentences.

Now, of course defenders of the entertainment industry's position seem to have a blind spot as to how The Pirate Bay can possibly be considered legal, but Engstrom's right. The law in Sweden doesn't seem to have been applied properly, since The Pirate Bay itself does not host any infringing files directly. It seems like the court still doesn't quite understand that fact. Either way, Engstrom seems to recognize that chances for winning on appeal seem unlikely as well. Instead, he's hoping that citizens will recognize that the law itself needs to be fixed even more:

This makes it clear that the only way to win this battle is through politics. It's a political issue and it's going to be decided at the general election in 2010.

Wow. If you thought that the whole saga with the deceptive and plagiarized reports about intellectual property in Canada was over, when The Conference Board of Canada recalled the reports and admitted that they were both plagiarized and not up to research standards, think again. One of the named authors of the report is now speaking out to reveal some of the behind the scenes details. Now, he's only giving one side, but if his version of the events is true, it's incredibly damning of the Conference Board. Basically, he says that he wrote a very, very different research report last year, and handed it over in late August. He had already quit to take another job, but had finished up his research. However, months later, he received phone calls from both The Conference Board and some of the IP lobbyists who funded the research to complain about what the research said (impartial? non-biased?). Since he was no longer employed, he figured it was none of his business, but he implies that in response to these calls, the Conference Board appears to have replaced much of what he wrote with the plagiarized snippets from the lobbyist's own reports... but left his name on the report as an author. He's not happy:

• I was a full-time employee with the Conference Board between September 2007 and July 2008. I resigned almost a year ago to take a fulfilling job with a non-profit in British Columbia.
• I submitted draft research to my former supervisor for the IP reports in mid-August 2008. I finished the research after I moved even though I was neither on salary nor on contract with the Board.
• The research I submitted did NOT include the controversial passages or plagiarized content.
• I worked with three contract researchers on this project between April 2008 and June 2008, including Jeremy deBeer, whose work I integrated into the draft. These researchers did not submit research that included the controversial/plagiarized content.
• I had no involvement in any content changes and did not see these papers after I submitted them in August.
• My new work was interrupted in mid-September by my former supervisor at the Conference Board to tell me there had been “push back” from one of the funding clients about the research and inclusion of Mr. deBeer’s contribution. I had quit almost two months earlier so this was of no concern to me.
• Around the same time, my new work was also interrupted by a call from one of the funding clients who expressed similar concerns. Again, I informed him that I no longer had anything to do with these reports.
• I received news of its publication on May 26, 2009, ten months after my resignation. I downloaded and read the research after I was informed of the controversy and was alarmed to see the direction it had taken.
• I sent my letter to Anne Golden the following day.
• The VP of Public Policy e-mailed me on May 29th to ask for my assistance in finding both researchers who could "fix" the reports, as well as external reviewers who would be impartial in reviewing the new work. His message stated that “I trust your judgment, experience and knowledge and would value your help.”

The Conference Board wants my help to fix reports that were published 10 months after my departure. It wants me to help fix publications that were re-written (and plagiarized) months after my departure and after they discarded the research I compiled and submitted. The Conference Board asks for my help but won't acknowledge that it was wrong to put my name on reports that bear little resemblance to the original research I submitted, were substantially reworked, and were published ten months after I resigned. After Anne Golden laid blame on contract researchers and supervisors late last week, I noticed two of the authors who still were listed on the organization's web site were no longer on the staff list.

If true, this is all pretty damning, and raises serious questions about how The Conference Board of Canada created this report, as well as its impartial nature as a research institute. It's no secret that many research firms are accused of producing reports that favor the funders of those reports -- but to specifically toss out contrary results and replace them with the funders' own text goes beyond even what many "pay for the research results you want" type firms normally do.

Apparently the outcome of the latest season of American Idol caused some controversy when the contestant generally regarded as the underdog of the two finalists was crowned the winner, provoking an angry backlash from his rival's fans. Now, they're pointing the finger at AT&T, alleging it helped skew the vote. This isn't the first time telecommunications have caught this sort of flak, as it's been a regular occurrence during the show's run that people have faced jammed phone lines when they've tried to vote. But this time, it's a little different. Apparently AT&T reps were at a couple of viewing parties organized by fans of the winning contestant, Kris Allen, and brought along a bunch of phones with them -- since, of course, only people on AT&T's wireless network can vote for the show's winner via text message. Then, the reps supposedly showed people at the parties how to "power text", or send in several votes at once. It seems unlikely that the votes spawned from the two parties were enough to tip the balance in Allen's favor, but the appearance of impropriety on the part of one of the show's major sponsors may be a bit more damaging.

It seems like not a day can go by without another oddity popping up having to do with The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden. There was the labels pretending the ruling said stuff it didn't. Then there were the charges of a biased judge -- followed up by charges of bias against not one but two of the judges put in charge of figuring out if the original judge was biased. Oh, and then there was that oddity where Warner Music apparently hired the lead police investigator in the case while he was still investigating the case. The latest such news is that Sweden's Cultural Minister told a gathering of entertainment industry folks that she supported the ruling. Now, to many of us outside of Sweden, that may not seem like a huge deal, but apparently the laws in Sweden state that a gov't minister cannot influence ongoing litigation -- and these comments could be seen as an attempt to support one side of the case. It seems like the oddities around this case are not going away any time soon.

A few folks have sent in various version of this story about how the judge assigned to review whether or not the original judge in The Pirate Bay trial was biased, by belonging to two separate groups in favor of stronger copyright laws, has herself been removed from the case because she belonged to the same two groups. This raises all sorts of questions -- including how the hell she was put in charge of the review in the first place. Did no one think to ask if she was in the same groups? Or did she not volunteer the info when handed the case? In the meantime, how difficult is it to find an unbiased judge in Sweden?

As Swedish officials are looking into charges that the judge in The Pirate Bay trial was biased, there's now some concern that the person in charge of figuring out whether he was biased... might be biased as well. Apparently, he serves on a board with the main lawyers who argued the case for the entertainment industry (and two of their main assistants). Of course, in legal circles you do end up getting to know others in the field, but as brokep from The Pirate Bay notes: "Not any of OUR lawyers are on that board. But two of the opponents lawyers in the same board." Considering that officials should be trying to make it clear that there's no bias, it seems like they should pick someone who has no direct ties to the attorneys involved in the case. Brokep also has some fun in noting that it was simple to find this info on Google, and he's surprised that no one else had done such a simple search yet.

We've long known that the boundary between US law enforcement and the enforcement wings of certain lobbyist organizations like the RIAA is way too blurry, but TorrentFreak is raising some important questions about why the police will call in RIAA investigators on certain cases, such as one where a speeding stop in Illinois resulted in a cop calling in the RIAA after spindles of writeable DVDs and CDs was found in the car. While the RIAA and law enforcement have a history of working closely together (and many people go back and forth between the two), the RIAA is still a highly biased party here, and shouldn't be involved in investigations where it has a personal stake. While some politicians are trying to turn US law enforcement into the private police of the entertainment industry, that doesn't mean that police should just consider RIAA investigators their peers. So can anyone explain why RIAA investigators should be allowed to be involved in such cases and why no one's called US law enforcement on things like this before?

The Wall Street Journal has an article focusing on a blog set up by Miller Brewing Company called Brew Blog. There are a few different, interesting points worth discussing here. First, the blog isn't used as a blog about what's going on at Miller Brewing. Instead, Miller hired an experienced reporter, and told him to just cover the beer industry as if he were a beat reporter. In other words, it's reporting news -- and even breaking stories on the competition. In fact, it revealed that main rival Anheuser-Busch was planning a new beer before A-B was able to make the announcement itself. This is certainly a recognition of how content is advertising. The blog clearly isn't "advertorial." It's full-on reporting about the industry, in a way that's interesting and relevant to those in the industry.

What may be even more interesting, though, is what the article says about journalism. In an age in which journalists are whining that their jobs are disappearing, here's yet another example of where suddenly there are new types of jobs for journalists appearing every day. But, even more interesting, is a quote at the end of the article highlighted by David Card. It's from Harry Schuhmacher, the editor and publisher of a fee-based trade publication on the beer industry:

"I tell Miller you're subsidizing a free publication, and it hurts the trade press," he says. "But they don't care."...Mr. Schuhmacher adds that he writes fewer positive pieces about Miller than he once did because he knows Brew Blog will always publish the same stories.

Think about this for a bit. People complain that when you have a company-sponsored publication it will inevitably be biased -- but the sponsorship of that site is totally open and in the clear. The site's content stands for itself. Yet, at the same time, a supposedly "objective" traditional journalist is admitting that he writes fewer stories about Miller because he's upset that it's competing with his own publication. From that, it would certainly seem like the Brew Blog is a lot more credible (it's biases are out in the open), while this fee-based trade pub admits that story choices are sometimes based on personal vendettas.