Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pirate Bay Day 5 — Prosecution Tries To Sneak In Evidence

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-sneaky-enough dept.

The Courts 341

Hodejo1 writes "On the old Perry Mason TV shows, it was a common sight to see someone burst into the crowded courtroom at a dire moment and confess aloud that they, not the defendant, killed so-and-so. In reality, courts do not allow evidence to enter trial without a chance for the opposing council to view it and for a judge to rule on their admissibility. Yet, in the fifth day of the Pirate Bay trial, lawyers for the prosecution again tried to sneak in surprise evidence while questioning defendants. The judge put his foot down this time, telling lawyers for the state, 'If you have documents which you eventually plan to use, you need to hand them over now.' The prosecution continues to struggle in court. In one humorous moment, prosecutor Håkan Roswall tried to show how 'hip' he was with technology when he questioned defendant Peter Sunde. 'When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?' asked the Prosecutor. 'We do not use the expression IRL,' said Peter, 'We use AFK.' The defendants are not out of the woods yet. Lawyer and technology writer Richard Koman wonders aloud if the Pirate Bay's 'I-dunno' defense is all that much better."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what (-1, Offtopic)

mcon147 (960793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939615)

there is no way this is the first post

Re:what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939619)

way!

Re:what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939637)

O RLY?

IRL, the prosecution is AFK. (4, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939631)

Is the prosecution secretly against copyrights?

FAO Editors (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939639)

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

Re:FAO Editors (4, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939655)

That's as the prosecutors would put it "epic fail."

Re:FAO Editors (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939785)

Is there new word? Am I so behind the times even epic fail is outdated?

Re:FAO Editors (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939885)

Am I so behind the times even epic fail is outdated?

Yeah, ever since TPB got their first legal threat we have started to reefer epic fail to "trying to threaten TPB with your legal mumbo jumbo."

Re:FAO Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940037)

Yeah, ever since TPB got their first legal threat we have started to reefer epic fail

Reefer epic fail? Is that a disastrous attempt at making a spliff?

Re:FAO Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939931)

Yes, now it is super-duper epically fantastic failure.

Re:FAO Editors (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939929)

The word you're looking for is "cingcong", not "council".

Fixed ;-)

Re:FAO Editors (0, Troll)

i-CONICA (1316963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940017)

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

It's council in UK English.

Re:FAO Editors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940033)

It's not their fault. They are Americans. They have no idea that life continues outside their border, or that they are the ones who spell words incorrectly and just arbitrarily drop vowels out of words.

Re:FAO Editors (3, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940169)

This is one example of a case where the English and American spellings are the same, and the only distinction is between those who know how to spell and those who don't. Also, FWIW, I'm British.

Re:FAO Editors (5, Informative)

arwel (245005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940067)

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

It's council in UK English.

Err, no it's not. QC = Queen's Counsel.

Re:FAO Editors (3, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940119)

No, a council is an administrative body, such as the group of elected councillors who get to spend council tax. A counsel is, depending on context, a piece of advice or a lawyer.

Re:FAO Editors (2, Informative)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940031)

Considering that this trial is in Sweden, the submitter may be Swedish (though they do learn English pretty thoroughly in school), and homophones can tricky even for native speakers, I think we can let this one slide.

Re:FAO Editors (2, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940105)

You're missing the point. Part of the editors' job ought to be to fix errors in submissions before posting them. It's excusable that the submitter not know the correct spelling, but the editor should spot it and correct it.

Re:FAO Editors (2, Interesting)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940133)

I'd say that Swedes and others who have English as their second language in general are better on separating homophones than those with English as their first language. I can't remember ever seeing a swede mixing up their/they're/there, your/you're or site/sight. I frequently see Americans and UKians doing that. For some reason, mixing up then/than and lose/loose seems very common though. Furthermore we never use "whom" and "neither...nor" and we always have a problem deciding whether to use "who", "that" or "which". :)

Furthermore (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940287)

We don't use the expression "wonders aloud". We say "wonders AFK". Except that in this case Koman was wondering at-K.

Isn't that more of a burden on the prosecutors? (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939641)

On the old Perry Mason TV shows, it was a common sight to see someone burst into the crowded courtroom at a dire moment and confess aloud that they, not the defendant, killed so-and-so. In reality, courts do not allow evidence to enter trial without a chance for the opposing council to view it and for a judge to rule on their admissibility.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that this burden was placed far more on the prosecutors who had to share with the defense council their lot of evidence, than the other way around.

Although, as in this video by a law professor, what you say to a cop can be used against you, but never for you - as that would be ruled as hearsay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

That would be really weird... (1)

Kaukomieli (993644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939869)

At least for germany this is not true. The cop is a witness and witnesses have to state their perceptions. So he will say "I heard ..." or "I saw ..." - but how this gets interpreted is up to the judge(s) only.

Re:That would be really weird... (1, Offtopic)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940131)

IANAL, but having read a lot of Perry Mason stories I play being a lawyer on /.

In US law a witness can't say he heard someone say something. The person who spoke what the witness heard should be called as a witness instead.

That's because the speaker, not being under oath, wasn't necessarily telling the truth. In court, after having sworn to tell the truth, the person can be questioned on what was told.

The assertion that whatever you tell a cop can be used against you doesn't mean he can repeat what you said as a witness, but that he can use what you told him to make investigations about you.

If you tell a cop "I have a kilo of cocaine in the trunk" he can look and use the cocaine as evidence against you. If he finds nothing, he cannot arrest you and he cannot tell in court as a witness that you said that. However, suppose the cop stopped you because your brake light was broken, and you had cocaine in the trunk. If you keep quiet, he cannot look into the trunk to see if you are carrying something illegal there.

That's because the Fourth Ammendment [cornell.edu] to the US Constitution states that the police needs a "probable cause" to search your property. They cannot just go searching people's houses and cars at random. By telling the cop you have cocaine, you are giving him a probable cause to perform a reasonable search.

But again, what you told the cop cannot be used against you in court. If they later find out that the cocaine was put there by someone else, without your knowledge, and you were just joking when you told the cop you had cocaine, the most they can charge you is with obstructing justice because you cannot joke with cops who are performing their duty.

Re:That would be really weird... (1)

damienl451 (841528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940223)

Right. That's why police officers are utterly uninterested in getting you to confess, and the Miranda warning does not say anything about anything you say "being used against you in a court of law".

"Party admission" (e.g. confession) is *not* hearsay. It is admissible in virtually every jurisdiction. Your example was poorly chosen, as it is obvious that no charges would be pressed against you for having imaginary cocaine in your trunk. Should you however confess to, say, a murder (and there are other indications that the person you allege to have murdered met an untimely death, your statements could very well be used against you.

"I didn't read it" (3, Informative)

cliffski (65094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939643)

"Fredrik Neij was questioned by lawyers who tried to paint him as the point man for The Pirate Bay operations. Peter Danowsky, who represents the music business, pointed out that Niej owned The Pirate Bayâ(TM)s domain and then showed him a contract he had signed saying that he would oversee operations for the site. Neijâ(TM)s response? âoeBut I didnâ(TM)t read it.â"

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

arwel (245005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939663)

How many EULAs have you actually read before you clicked "accept", then? :)

Re:"I didn't read it" (2, Informative)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939757)

Accepting an EULA and signing a contract are two very different things.

Re:"I didn't read it" (5, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939891)

Accepting an EULA and signing a contract are two very different things.

Seems as though the law thinks otherwise these days. It's safer to consider the EULA a contract if you're worried.

Re:"I didn't read it" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939899)

On the surface, they are similar. The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court. The moment a judge (or jury) says "This EULA has the enforceability of any other contract" then the grandparent's argument can work. But until then, legal scholars disagree over whether clicking 'Accept' on a EULA has any legal weight.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939967)

"I didn't install the program. It was just there, and has been for a while. I just use the program. I never saw any 'End User Liability Agreement'. Nothing told me I was bound to a contract when I ran the program. I, uh, I don't know what else to tell you."

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940083)

Even better:

"The computer was buggy and all i saw was a row of boxes, you really need to do more testing under WINE." (Yes this really happens).

Re:"I didn't read it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940273)

The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.

Bullshit. EULAs have been tested in courts, and found void. At least where I live at all EULAs are void no matter what.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939949)

Bullshit, if "TL:DR" applies they are both the same. :D

Also you can't be responsible for signing something you didn't understood, so ... :D

Re:"I didn't read it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940019)

Also you can't be responsible for signing something you didn't understood, so ... :D

You're not getting confused between "consideration" in terms of thinking about something and "consideration" in terms of being paid for something?

Re:"I didn't read it" (3, Informative)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939671)

No, the defense is that what they are doing is not illegal in any way under Swedish law. Who is in charge of a legal website is not very interesting.

Re:"I didn't read it" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939941)

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

As a consequence, if e.g. you offered to your friends to let them text you if they had or needed pirated software and you matched those who had with those who needed, you might breach the law. Or if you put up a sign that said "PLEASE POST WHAT PIRATED SOFTWARE YOU NEED AND I WILL TELL YOU WHERE TO GET IT", and you actually helped them.

The defense in this case is that they effectively created a bulletin board that people could use to post and exchange a lot of things, and was ignorant of the fact that people started using for software piracy. The prosecution will simply have to prove that it was impossible for them NOT to know.

IANAL, please correct me if I am wrong, especially if YAAL.

Re:"I didn't read it" (2, Informative)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940125)

I know jack shit about Swedish law, but the RIAA presented a similar argument in its cases against filesharing sites in the US. SCOTUS eventually ruled that the sites could be held liable only if they actually encouraged piracy, not if they simply knew about it.

If Sweden's system works close to the same way ours does, even that would be hard to convince a judge of, since criminal charges are a lot harder to uphold than civil.

Re:"I didn't read it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940179)

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

Well, that's the position of the prosecution. I do not think the defence agrees.

The trial is more about if what TPB did is illegal in sweden. TPB doesn't really deny running thepiratebay web site. They are only saying it is a legal web site. The prosecution and movie industry does not agree. This is the battle.

This is a new case for Swedish law and is likely to be heading for the Supreme Court before it is decided who wins.

Unfortunately, politicians have a lot to say in the Swedish legal system, as the justice and political systems are not separated the way they are in the US.

Political pressure is often very important in Swedish sentences. For example, a homophobic deed towards a gay man is sentenced harder than the same act towards a straight man, due to gay rights political pressure.

I expect TPB to be convicted and sentenced but having to pay damages only. The amount of damages will probably be higher than for murdering someone. This will be another example of political pressure. The amount of pressure from the US movie industry on Sweden right now is very high.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940251)

For example, a homophobic deed towards a gay man is sentenced harder than the same act towards a straight man, due to gay rights political pressure.

What is "a homophobic deed [...] against a straight man"?
Also, [citation needed]

Aiding breaches of copyright law ... (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940283)

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

So why isn't Microsoft charged as a co-defendant? Seems to me that more people use Windows to pirate copyright material - after all, people who use F/LOSS don't feel as much *need* to pirate copyrighted software.

We could also add the news media, for reporting this story, thus telling people how to get the stuff. They're sure "aiding breaches of copyright law". And the makers of large hard drives, iPods and iPod-like devices, mp3 phones, photocopiers, cameras, flash drives, blank cd and dvd media, and anything else that "aids breaches of copyright."

The whole "aiding breaches of copyright law" is a slippery slope. Who to prosecute becomes a question of individual judgment, not of law.

Re:"I didn't read it" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939883)

"Fredrik Neij was questioned by lawyers who tried to paint him as the point man for The Pirate Bay operations. Peter Danowsky, who represents the music business, pointed out that Niej owned The Pirate Bayâ(TM)s domain and then showed him a contract he had signed saying that he would oversee operations for the site. Neijâ(TM)s response? âoeBut I didnâ(TM)t read it.â"

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

It does hold up if hes trying to avoid a conspiracy charge, he needs motive and intent, the lawyers are trying to use his contract to establish his intent. His response that he never read the thing quite neatly defeats using it as a written evidence of his intent.

It might backfire on him later for other reasons but if the question is "what are the operations of TBP" with the intent to stick you with a conspiracy charge "Who the fuck knows" is a great answer.

Re:"I didn't read it" (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939985)

The parent AC is absolutely correct. Since the prosecution is trying to show that the pirate bay owners intend to purposely violate copyright where as the defense is sticking with the story that the pirate bay is a sharing website which only removes material if it is against the law or has misleading description.

As someone else noted in a different article (or perhaps website) it's going to be extremely difficult for the prosecution. It would be a contradiction to say that the people responsible for posting the child porn on the pirate bay are responsible rather then the admins, then say that any copyrighted material posted on TPB the admins are responsible for.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940127)

I don't see how that's a contradiction. Why can't more than one person be responsible?

Re:"I didn't read it" (4, Informative)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940237)

I don't see how that's a contradiction.

Because you didn't read it correctly. The point OP was making was that either TPB are guilty of all crimes committed by the makers of torrents shared on their site or they are guilty of none. Saying they aren't responsible for paedophilic material, but are responsible for copyrighted material, when the process by which the materials .torrent gets onto there system is the same is nonsensical.

Re:"I didn't read it" (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940267)

True! Thanks.

Re:"I didn't read it" (2, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939913)

They can only be screwed if they have committed a crime to begin with, and so far I don't know if this has been discussed or decided on? They only seem to try to figure out who have done what and is responsible for what parts of TPB and so on and not discuss if whatever they have done would actually be illegal or not.

There is nothing wrong with overseeing operations of TPB if TPBs business isn't illegal in the first place.

But I don't get why the defendants try to tell the story how they don't have anything with it to do if they really believe they are innocent. Have they questioned Gottfrid yet? Atleast he may have the balls =p, time will tell :)
(Though obviously smart in any case if the actions of TPB is decided to be criminal.)

Errr... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939645)

Sooo... he met him while getting a sammitch I hope, and not in the bathroom... :?

We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (5, Funny)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939659)

Do I sense a new meme in the making?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (1)

darinfp (907671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939679)

I'll have to get back to you on that...

AFK....

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (2, Interesting)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939683)

When I used to play EQ in college, I was in a guild based in hong kong, and they always said AFK in place of IRL, when describing out of game meetings. Though in their case, I think it was language barrier, rather than trying to be clever.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939737)

i wonder whether AFK stands for German An F???? Koerper which would mean In ?????? Body. Anyone know what the F could be?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (4, Funny)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939745)

An Feste Korper? In the Solid Body?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939977)

Alte Feste KÃrper? ;) (Old solid bodies)
Alle Fallenden KÃrper (All falling bodies)
Auch Feiern KÃnnen (can [go to a] party, too)
Andere Feiern Kapern (take over other parties)
Andere Frauen Küssen (kiss other women)

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939873)

Away From Keyboard (instead of In Real Life)

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939969)

Whoosh!

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939955)

I doubt the germans roll their own version?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940011)

Why would Swedes be speaking German to each other?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (-1, Flamebait)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940077)

They're nazis!!!!

Sorry.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940111)

Godwins law strikes...

Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (5, Informative)

castrox (630511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939707)

The prosecution was caught red-handed both 4th and 5th day and the defense once again protested this method of trying to throw the defendants off guard with new material, saying things such as "you've done this all week -- have you not learned anything at all?" and "this is starting to look like an American movie trial -- we request you hand over ALL material NOW".

The court took a break for discussions. After 10 minutes the court informs the prosecution that they must hand over any material they have not already handed over and which they wish to use in their case. The prosecution, specifically Danowski, acts like a 5-year-old and says "but.. the problem, your Honor, is that I don't know if it's necessary, so.. [I wish not to, is the meaning of this]", which the court immediately smacks down with "the meaning of the court's decision is that all material, any material, not presented to the defense, that you wish to use, must be handed over NOW".

The prosecution clearly was very disappointed that they weren't allowed to play cowboys in court.

The prosecution also tried to snare Peter Sunde with a lot of documents found on the web.. Danowski tried to make it look like Peter Sunde had said things he hadn't said with the help of [ square brackets! ] which Peter Sunde kindly informed is a way to insert 3rd party information, or reflection, on a quote. The prosecution is going about with rather dirty tactics.

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (0)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939769)

square brackets?

I don't know swedish and this post has no links to check either way, but the use of square brackets to try to trick a judge?

Where do they think this is, patent-troll alley, texas?

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939775)

I think this is the biggest mistake the prosecution is making to be honest.

They're trying the same tactics that are used by the music/movie industry in the US which rely on an clueless or biased judge. Sweden is a particularly technically literate country, I think even the worst judge there could see through this kind of idiocy and so they're acting as their own worst enemy.

I'm actually suprised because I figured they'd be more clever than this, I figured they'd realise if they played it straight and acted the victim they'd be able to push the case well and probably get at least some kind of result. The problem is they're not playing the victim, they're actually blatantly playing an aggressive agenda and I don't think a judge is going to look too kindly on a group of people who are acting in such an aggressive manner whilst the defence are the ones looking very strongly victimised. For all the FUD and stats they pull out in the media claiming they're the victim (from calling it theft through to massaging stats) and making people believe it they're outright failing to translate this propaganda success into the courts and are just making themselves look like complete and utter idiots.

Tactful, is apparently not a word these people understand.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939879)

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...

I'm quite annoyed with Lundstrom actually.
So far, most of what he's said goes against what Fredrik, Gottfrik and Peter have said.

When they mention that most (i.e. > 50%) of the content is "not copyright infringement", Carl Lundstrom goes out of hiw way to mention that he knows it was risky, asking lawyers this and that, and almost gets snared in Monique "Big Hairy Cunt" Wadstedt's "illegal"-trap.

There've been so many things making me cringe during these hearings, but all in all it's looking rather good for the defense.

Sadly, in four days our parliament will go ahead and vote in one of the most offensive laws [wikipedia.org] ever invented
, so Swedish piracy will decrease somewhat.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939971)

[quote]Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...[/quote]

Uhm, what he claims is that he backed off from getting more involved since it wasn't obvious that TPB was 100% legal and there was no risk for charges? That's not the same as saying "When I found out TPB was illegal I didn't wanted anything more to do with it."

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939981)

Fuck, messed up the quote, damn boards with their crappy syntax :D

Anyway, even IF Carl would have claimed TPB illegal he's no judge and his opinion isn't worth more than anyone else.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940115)

Yeah, because HTML is such a crappy syntax... loser.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940309)

English must not be your first language.
Let me rephrase for you:

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom who is pleading not guilty, claiming he has nothing to do with TPB.
Wadsted is calling TPB's activities illegal, and tries to have Lundstrom slip up and call it illegal as well.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (-1, Troll)

cliffski (65094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940007)

"the prosecution acts like a five year old"

I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature. The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.
And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (4, Insightful)

Cederic (9623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940035)

And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore.

erm. American law is a joke, and they can ignore it.

Not a very funny joke admittedly.

Uhoh, it's cliffski (4, Insightful)

castrox (630511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940051)

Gee, I wonder if

1) there's a difference between lawyers in court and citizens outside of court speaking their mind -- clearly they're equivalent!

2) there's a difference between laws of the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden -- clearly, these Swedish judges should not tolerate disrespectful attitudes towards American law!

OK. I'm laughing:

enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore

Did you not understand that this trial is a Swedish trial? American law actually is a joke until it's applicable in Sweden.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940085)

The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.

I can think of some other people who have refused to knuckle under to unfair laws, and who knew that the actions of the government were unjust and could not stand in the face of a refusal to obey. Some of them even regretted that they had one life to give for their country, or knew that we must surely hang together, or we will all hang separately.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (1)

arwel (245005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940097)

And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?

They treat American law as a joke, which they are quite entitled to do so since it has no applicability in the Kingdom of Sweden, and frankly it is a joke anyway. As far as I can see, they treat Swedish law perfectly seriously.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940099)

The ones that send them the legal threats are treating the law (in Sweden) as a joke they can ignore. So all TPB do is to respond in kind (admittedly their humour is more intentional).

Besides, in the press conference their legal threats page was even used defensively - to point out that if they were trying to make money, it would probably not be a smart move to recommend that representatives of the most capitalist entities sodomize themselves with retractable batons.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations (5, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940193)

"the prosecution acts like a five year old"

I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature. The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.
And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?

There's a huge difference here.

A private parties' opinions voiced outside a courtroom when there are no court proceedings occurring concerning another parties' actions has exactly squat to do with statements of parties *inside* the courtroom *during* court proceedings. You might as well bring up that they may have also acted childish having teased a classmate on the playground in primary school for all the relevance it has to what's happening *now* in a *courtroom* during a court proceeding.

It was perfectly reasonable to make a joke over the clueless legal threats TPB received from entities outside their country, many if not most based on laws that don't even exist in Sweden like the DMCA, when a reasonable interpretation by normal people in Sweden of the Swedish laws would make those legal threats seem like a bad joke at best.

If you had a webpage with pictures of your family on it and received a threatening letter from some Mullah in the middle-east threatening you with legal action for your moms' face not being covered by a veil, would you consider it ridiculous?

How about if you were a restaurant owner in a country that permitted smoking in public and inside restaurants and you kept receiving legal threats from NYC?

When it was repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, would you be "childish" for posting those silly threats with some snarky replies since they seemed to pay no attention to the ridiculous nature of their legal threats?

Personally, I find what little restraint they *did* show remarkable considering the circumstances.

Strat

ack! (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939795)

"We do not use the expression IRL. We use 'ACK! THBBBT!'"

Re:ack! (1)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939887)

SMOKER! *dramatic music* Oh, you don't play 'Left 4 Dead'?

The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Google (0, Offtopic)

1mck (861167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939841)

Past the Straits of Gibraltar is a continent, in the centre along the longest side, high in the mountains by the sea is a rectangular level plain...this is the Bolivian Altiplano. http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantisboliviapart1.htm [atlantisbolivia.org]

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog (1)

1mck (861167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939943)

DOH!!!!!!!!!! Wrong Thread....Sorry;-P

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog (-1, Offtopic)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939953)

Past the Straits of Gibraltar is a continent, in the centre along the longest side, high in the mountains by the sea is a rectangular level plain...this is the Bolivian Altiplano. http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantisboliviapart1.htm [atlantisbolivia.org]

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but at some point you have to put down the bong and get a grip.

(Atlantis Also? Is that like a second location Atlantis that opened up because Atlantis was such s success, sort of like how businesses open up the oh-so-cleverly named "Chuck's Diner Too?")

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940199)

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but at some point you have to put down the bong and get a grip.

It would also help him keep Slashdot stories separated. It's a very worrying symptom when everything you read here start melting together in a big pot. Speaking of pot...

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26939983)

WRONG THREAD, FUCKFACE!

What about Day 4? (1)

Ezel (249772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939915)

Why was there no reporting on what happened on Day 4 of the trial? Or was there a break of some kind?

Re:What about Day 4? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939979)

You mean like this [mp3newswire.net] or this [torrentfreak.com] ?

What scares me most (5, Insightful)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939937)

I'm Swedish and a member of Piratpartiet [piratpartiet.se] (The Pirate Party) since the first day it was announced. I have of course been following this sitcom with great interest, but I'm still not sure which outcome is better for the future in a bigger perspective.

The prosecutors play this case so utterly unprofessional that I'm starting to think that they WANT to lose, but make it look like they tried to win. The reason for this is simple. If they lose, they will use this as "evidence" that Sweden need a whole bunch of new draconian surveillence laws and increase the scope of liability for copyright infringements which will kill the internet as we know it.

In a way I want TPB to lose. That will shut up the law mongerers because it will show that current laws are good enough. It will also make them martyrs and will 100-up the public support for the ongoing pirate movement (which actually is very little about filesharing and mostly about the right to privacy, anonymity, freedom of speech and uncensored exchange of information).

They way I see it, the only realistic way to really make a change it steering society away from 1984, which is the direction it's heading in right now, is to vote the Pirate Party into the EU parliament, where they will be able to make a lot of noise where it counts. Only 3 months left to the election...

Re:What scares me most (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939995)

So want to sacrifice them to save all the private persons actually doing the infringement by preventing any laws which would make it easier to catch them?

I see the reason but I don't think it's just. We, the people committing the infringement is the criminals, not the people offering the technique which makes it possible.

Re:What scares me most (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940041)

I fully agree with you. I also fully support the Pirate Bay guys (except Carl LundstrÃm, who is just a neonazi, daddy's-money venture capitalist who only wants to make more money).

However, it's a very tricky case. I also don't think it's fair to convict them. Whichever side wins, it will make the society change in ways that are hard to foresee and the only positive thing I can see in this mess is that it will make The Pirate Party stronger.

Re:What scares me most (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940149)

So want to sacrifice them to save all the private persons actually doing the infringement by preventing any laws which would make it easier to catch them?

I see the reason but I don't think it's just. We, the people committing the infringement is the criminals, not the people offering the technique which makes it possible.

You've gotten most of their statements wrong or missed them - maybe the press conference translations are lacking. They are taking a stance against current copyright legislation and obviously aware of the potential consequences. So they certainly don't current filesharers caught (or treated as criminals ) since what they want to do is change the law to make the currently copyright-infringing filesharing legal. They've referred to inventions such as tape recorders and VCRs and view filesharing similarly.

Re:What scares me most (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940303)

Uh, but why does Sweden need those laws? Because the USA says so?

Where is the proof that people copying stuff is hurting Sweden?

Maybe you should tell the relevant Swedish people thinking about those laws that Sweden is not a state of the USA.

Warning : Phoenix Wright Reference (1)

Grasso (1483391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939939)

(In an epic Phoenix Wright voice) OBJECTION! Sorry, was called for. Quite sly on the defense's side. Maybe the defense needs to break some Psyche-Locks in order to make their case a little stronger.

Doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

Svenne (117693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939957)

Whoever wins, the swedish lose.

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law. If TPB loses, the current laws will be shown to be enough for prosecuting and convicting tracker admins.

And there's nothing we can do about it.

Re:Doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940147)

> And there's nothing we can do about it.

Of course there is. Laws are not immutable, they can be changed. After this precedent, the application of the current law should be clear. If people want to change it, they should pressure the legislators. If the ruling is in favour of TPB and new laws are proposed, again, apply public pressure in the other direction. Making it a major political issue is not impossible by any means, even if a lot of the parliament are clueless. They can be informed.

It is hard to get the laws that you want passed (especially when the opposing side is well-funded) compared to doing what you want in a situation where the law is not clear. However, this is a very important issue and it will become more and more important as the use of computer networks expands. There should be a proper political debate and a clear law.

Re:Doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940155)

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

Then google, yahoo and every other search engine will be illegal too.

Re:Doesn't matter (2, Informative)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940183)

Not exactly. Political power is still with voters (yes, I know, not much, but a little). If they make an interesting public case (like they do), then many people start to ask "what's this about and do we really want this?" You know, there is a limit to fucking with your citizens, and it's lowering when they get aware somebody does so.

Re:Doesn't matter (4, Interesting)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940205)

Whoever wins, the swedish lose.

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

How do you know that? I mean from an industry standpoint I can see this would make sense to achieve but what I can tell from what is going on in the Swedish public and just the fact that the Pirate Bay is getting a relatively fair trial (the judge did defend their position on the surprise evidence and also made the prosecution cut back on guided questioning) symbolizes to me that there is some actual change in ideas about to be written into law. It will take ages again but it's apparently happening. The WTO outcry after the Raid in 2006 was more than enough proof that the Swedes in general don't accept that American mafia tactics.

If you're from Sweden you probably know better but the way it is communicated to the outside the Swedes like their freedom and refuse to have this kind of stuff be an offence. On top of that, if they changed the EU directive or swedish law so that service providers are then liable for the content, Google and basically any other internet company would be screwed. How would they control and sort out all illegal materials without censoring? How would Google be still top search engine if you couldn't find anything. Think about Youtube ... all music videos gone, all illegal movie clips, audio clips, TV shows etc gone. This will never happen. The media industry is big but the internet industry is even bigger and they've just started to grow. What we're seeing now is the "old" industry being forced (by law) to accept that the internet is now boss and that they will have to start kissing some ass to survive. At least that is what I take from all this.

Re:Doesn't matter (4, Funny)

Artuir (1226648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940221)

There's always Sealand! :D

Oh, wait..

Well, at least they tried.

One bad lawyer to give the rest.... (1)

zenspeaks (1337157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26939963)

I have a strange worry that if this prosecution wins, they might actually yell out "Epic Win" and give us lawyers an even bad name.

round here, we use the term (1)

kaini (1435765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940057)

*facepalm*

Boo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26940137)

Pwndowsky is a dick!

Uh. I wonder if it's an omen that the verification word for this comment is 'guilty'...

Surprisingly, (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940143)

It seems like the Pirate Bay has competent (or possible even good) lawyers.

Good for them. Good lawyers certainly don't come cheap.

Not out of the woods.... (3, Insightful)

d0n0vAn (1382471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26940201)

I am inclined to believe that if TPB wins this round we are all still in jeopardy. Legislative bodies seem inclined to write and pass laws in favor of preserving their status quo through legal monopolies, and prosecutors willing to sacrifice the permanent at the altar of the immediate put us all in jeopardy. This is not about downloading music or videos - it never has been. The only reason governments of the world are interested in these corporation's complaints is they hear them scream about all the revenue they have lost and then they start running the tax implications in their head. Not out of the woods yet, indeed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?