• You guys really need to read it from someone who was at the trial: http://surfthechannelfraudtrial.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/5/
*Judge leaves jury little choice after directing as a matter of law that knowingly linking to infringing content is illegal despite no such offence in the UK;
*Judge ignores SportsRadar High Court judgement that states if an infringement takes place it takes place in the country the server is based (linking to infringing content legal in Spain where SurfTheChannel was based);
*Judge states “if I have got the law wrong then a higher court than this one will sort it out”;
*FACT Ltd staff admit to “around 15 surveillance operations a month” carried out on UK citizens but say “we are a private company so don´t have to abide by the Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act”;
*Pascal Hetzscholdt admits that senior MPAA personnel including John Malcolm contacted NBCUniversal to pressure them into terminating A&E Television Networks partnership agreement with SurfTheChannel;
*Jury not told of DeBeasi´s ownership of paedophile site “JailBaitBox.com” which contained images of “girls under the age of consent that you want to fuck” according to DeBeasi´s blog;
*Vickerman provides unchallenged evidence that Anti-Piracy company´s, in particular Aiplex Software, are responsible for automated adding of around a million links to the STC website.
In addition, at the beginning of the trial, the Private Prosecutors (MPAA/FACT) sought and were granted a Public Interest hearing with the Judge. This private cozy 3 hour session excluded the defendents and their lawyers. After that session the judge's hostility towards the defendents increased quite dramatically. Any quesses as to what they discussed in private?