×

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 Retrial Denied, Judge Declared Unbiased

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the charge-them-USD80k-per-file dept.

The Courts 331

bonch writes "A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial. Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial. The defendants must now rely on the appeal process, while one defendant has written on his Twitter account that the PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

331 comments

clarification (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475237)

Everyone is quoting this wrong. The only part denied was the one based off the bias. I'm not sure how swedish law works but I'd imagine there are plenty of other ways for this be declared a mistrial. Public uproar will be a part of that too.

Also, they still have the appeal. So if they are denied appeal or judges make a bad call off the appeal it will make a serious uproar in the country.

Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts/decisions are made/etc?

Link for Transformers 2 movie download needed (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475361)

Please post. thanks.

Re:Link for Transformers 2 movie download needed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475455)

The only thing I have are cams and TS's, you want those or waiting for the r5 rls?

Re:Link for Transformers 2 movie download needed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475641)

The real news here is that Michael Jackson is dead.

Re:TF2 download needed [mod parent up] (1)

Thagg (9904) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475759)

One rarely sees such droll humor here on Slashdot.

Re:clarification (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475657)

poetmatt:

Everyone is quoting this wrong. The only part denied was the one based off the bias.

From the Summary:

A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial

poetmatt:

The only part denied was the one based off the bias

Summary:

Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial

poetmatt:

Also, they still have the appeal

Summary:

The defendants must now rely on the appeal process

Sorry, who is getting this wrong?

Re:clarification (0, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475703)

A tip on using space characters on computers: If you separate words by a slash, that may be ok. But if you separate terms by it, it only makes sense, if you put spaces around the slashes.

In your comment, this results in interpreting it to be those four sentences:

Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are made?
Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal starts are etc?
Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are made?
Any guesses how long it will take before the appeal decisions are etc?

You're welcome.

Re:clarification (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475969)

A tip on using space characters on computers:...But if you separate terms by it, it only makes sense, if you put spaces around the slashes.

A tip on using comma characters...

Re:clarification (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476389)

i think perhaps your english grammar parser needs a bit of slack/fuzz putting into it to help you be less of a pedant! ;)

pot meet kettle - no one's perfect - you're great with commas, i don't use capital letters and someone else is careless with their slashes [shrug] - but we still know what one another mean, really.

english isn't always someone's strongest skill - nor necessarily their first language.

The GPL relies on copyright law (3, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475997)

The FSF page specifically says that the GPL assures the copyright of software and protects the rights of the content creator. So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles? Does your opposition to copyright mean I can take your GPL code and sell it as a closed-source program?

Re:The GPL relies on copyright law (2, Informative)

setagllib (753300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476301)

Nobody is suing mom and pop filesharers for millions of dollars over GPL distribution violations (e.g. making a torrent of binaries without source). The GPL is there to ensure that product/service entities such as corporations play nice with many open source projects, in turn benefiting from the community and other corporations, free to focus on their own value offerings.

The way in which copyright law is being abused by the RIAA et al is entirely different to how it has been elegantly harnessed by the GPL.

Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (1, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476113)

I'm confused, because the GPL is a copyright license. The FSF says right on its website that the GPL protects the rights of the author by assuring copyright over the software. Why do Slashdotters believe the rights of the content creators whose material is pirated on PirateBay don't matter, but the rights of GPL authors do? If copyright law is wrong, then I can do whatever I want with your precious GPL code and completely ignore the usage restrictions described in the copyright license.

Seriously, do Slashdotters realize how self-serving and hypocritical they come off when they rant about the "MAFIAA" (the latest goofy Slashdot meme) while defending the GPL? The GPL is a copyright license with usage restrictions, the very things everybody is suddenly opposed to when the copyright is applied to something else!

Conclusion--if copyright is wrong, then so is the GPL.

Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (4, Informative)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476355)

Slahsdot is pretty consistently in favor of the general concept of copyright. It frequently (and still pretty consistently) opposes particular details in some implementations.

Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476391)

I'm sorry, but what alternate universe are you in and what do you serve in your Kool-Aid?

Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476621)

Um, most /.ers would be for a 10 year copyright with mandatory registration, decriminalization of personal file sharing, and clauses that allow non-commercial use of a product if it is abandoned. Most /.ers oppose criminalization of personal file sharing, long copyright such as the totally ridiculous life + 70 years, the ability for things to be lost when they are abandoned and oppose unreasonable penalties for infringement (such as only $50 or $100 a song, not $80000). You only need to look at a story where for-profit infringement to take place to see the majority condemns their actions.

False dichotomy (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476431)

A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way. There are many different options.

You are employing a false dichotomy here. Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright. Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:

  1. Limit copyright to reasonable terms and re-establish the tradition of a rich public domain. Copyrights last live longer than most people do constitute a fencing-in of our common culture and do not stimulate creativity, and in fact subvert the original social contract governing copyright.
  2. Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works. It is unreasonable to ban a practice that the population overwhelmingly favors in order to enrich a few industry moguls. Banning noncommercial reproduction of these works does little to engender creativity and much to create animosity between the content industry and the consumer, which leads to the pathetic sight of an association of dying companies suing its own customers. Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music. Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks. Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted. Morality should influence law, not vice versa.
  3. Repeal draconian enforcement laws. Bringing a camera anywhere, much less a movie theater, should not be a criminal offense, much less a felony. Copyright infringement is an economic crime and should have economic penalties.
  4. Copyrights should require periodic renewal. It is appalling that a works can be kept out of public sight for the better part of a century on the faint hope that a corporation might someday squeeze a little more juice from the turnip. Idle, unexploited works belong in the public domain: the current owners have demonstrated in inability to further develop these works, and the public deserves a chance. A periodic copyright renewal fee would ensure that only works that merit the full term of copyright retain it.

These changes will maintain the spirit and essential utility of copyright law while curbing the abuses of the past half-century. Reform will restore copyright to the status of a fair social contract that rewards creativity without smothering it.

Re:False dichotomy (3, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476603)

The problem with supporting the Pirate Bay is that it still runs counter to the position that you have outlined (and to which I myself subscribe, except for your point #2). Specifically, most copyrighted works that are being distributed via TPB against copyright owners' will are distributed without any regard to the terms. In general, you see torrents for new movies, games etc immediately on the day of release, or a few days afterwards. Unless you believe that "reasonable term" for copyright is about an hour, TPB model thus runs against your point #1, at least when it comes to software (and not audiovisual works).

Design (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476581)

Not much hypocrisy if you can really grok the genesis of the GPL. There's a reason the GPL is also known as the copy*left*. Perhaps go back and do some more research, this has been explained quite a few times here already over the years.

Here is an easy start on it copyleft [wikipedia.org]

Basically, it is a very good attempt at trying to solve a lot of the problems with copyright as it has been transformed into the abomination that we have today. It's a well thought out and pretty fair compromise which seeks to give the best possible set of rules to a situation where the rules have been skewed in the direction of "perpetuity". Copyright as originally proposed was for a limited time. Taking "limited" to mean "any length of years we can bribe through congress, then some", the law itself has been compromised so that the public good-to be able to use the stuff in some sane time period, to have it enter public domain-was lost. People alive today will never get to be able to use copyrighted works as originally intended if something is copyrighted today. It has been placed beyond human life spans! That's NUTS and goes completely against the spirit of the original thinking, and even then it was *very* generous in terms of years..but NOOO, that wasn't good enough! Every time major works get close to entering public domain, wham, another huge extension and more restrictions. The GPL is a very rational way to work around those restrictions and to insure the "public good" part, so that things copyrighted under that license can actually be USED by the people and not ABUSED by some jerkoff corporation or cartel.

  Copyright is an 100% human political construct that is GRANTED to you by collective society, and originally for only such a time as you could try and make something from it, then it was supposed to be passed on to the public at large to benefit. We the people could make your copyright terms be three days, get it? Or zero. But..it got pushed to life plus enough for the lazy ass kids to still make loot from it, plus some corporation made up of paper work shufflers who never had a creative thought in their life. The public today gets bupkis!

  Now..you won't be able to ever "legally" be able to take those ideas and see what else could be done from them..you'll be LONG GONE before things copyrighted today fall out of copyright. That's why copyright is broken and things like the GPL-copyleft- are necessary to try and work around those crazy law extensions that some big cartels-and I mean cartels in the fullest unethical business sense-pushed for. It's a well meaning compromise and seems to be working so far.

  For the other, it is called a combination of civil disobedience, also a normal human response to really stupid laws (see also prohibition, etc) and a reaction to *blatant cartel price gouging* in the face of digital copies of works costing at most a small fraction of a penny to reproduce, but because of cartel pricing, are being forcefully restricted to many dollars per "lawful copy". 100,000% markup is blatant highway robbery pure insanity price gouging, and is only "law" and "business practice" today because these cartels bribed off congress enough to get this stuff passed and to keep the feds off their backs. It's a criminal enterprise at this point, and people just don't care, they just DON'T give shit one about being less than upfront with obvious crooks. That's just human nature, now you know why there is this apparent dichotomy.

  When content creators are a little more righteous and fair, they get treated better, when they are obvious crooks and scamsters like what is represented by the new term MAFIAA, people just don't care, because they know they are dealing with crooks anyway, so..meh. Just meh.

When the government and "law" starts busting these cartels for price manipulation and collusion (which they SHOULD and NEVER do, those laws are on the books as well, and are being blatantly ignored because of obvious BRIBERY that has gone on over the years), when digital copies are priced a LOT fairer than they are today..you'll see so called "piracy" start to drop. But NOT until then, people just won't put up with getting price gouged to such an extreme level. They just won't, this is human nature, hard coded DNA or something, it goes even beyond any nation's laws.

Re:clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476491)

Surely I am not the only one that is seeing a problem with what you are inferring here. Apart from the teens here in Sweden, thepiratebay has little support from the more informed public.

"I'm not sure how swedish law works but I'd imagine there are plenty of other ways for this be declared a mistrial."

Can you name any other way of this being declared a mistrial? They followed proceedings, found members of thepiratebay guilty and they will receive their sentence. Just because the judge is against copyright, or to make an analogy, just because the judge is against criminals does not mean that he will not give criminals a fair trial, and members of thepiratebay got a fair trial, the only thing that they are doing now is generating publicity for the pirate party by association, and trying to create turbulence in an otherwise peaceful and just Swedish justice system.

"PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations."
This is just laughable.

No retrial... (5, Informative)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475239)

Just in case someone jumps to conclusions...

This just means there will be no re-trial, but the Pirate Bay still has an appeal, it doesn't mean they have to pay to fine or go to jail yet. That's still far away.

Re:No retrial... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475499)

fine or go to jail yet. That's still far away.

Yes, but the facts that you use words like "yet" and "still far away", and that a judge has been declared unbiased when he was clearly anything but biased are slightly telling.

Re:No retrial... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475745)

a judge has been declared unbiased when he was clearly anything but biased
So in other words he wasn't biased he was just not unbiased. I'm confused here

Re:No retrial... (5, Interesting)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475551)

I would not be so sure. They are appealing to the EU Human Rights court thepiratebay.org [thepiratebay.org] which is also here echr.coe.int [coe.int] Also they are being asked to appear in Court in Netherlands, which the official mail got lost so they ( Brein Foundation [anti-piracy.nl] sent tweets twitter.com [twitter.com] inviting them to court. Oh and just for the record this waas submitted to /. earlier just some anti copyright people modded submissions down so it would not get posted.

Re:No retrial... (3, Informative)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475569)

ffs I meant pro copyright .......... after reading this site for 10+ years seriously pisses me off

Re:No retrial... (4, Informative)

serialdogma (883470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475827)

A minor correction, the ECHR isn't a part of the EU, it is part of COE (Counsel of Europe) and rules only on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights not any EU or EFTA law.

Unbiased? (5, Insightful)

AndyFewt (694753) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475245)

Of course they'll say he was unbiased. If he was biased in this case they'll have to review ALL the previous cases to make sure that he wasn't influenced for those.It was the only call they could make.

Now I might not agree with their decision but I expect they also know it has a good chance of going forward at appeal and so therefore do not need to address this now.

Re:Unbiased? (1)

Quothz (683368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475571)

Of course they'll say he was unbiased. If he was biased in this case they'll have to review ALL the previous cases to make sure that he wasn't influenced for those.It was the only call they could make.

Don't be silly. I don't know Swedish law, but in America judges are found to be interested reasonably often and nobody reviews all previous cases. Even if they did, it's really, really hard to get an untimely appeal granted. Now, I'll admit that the bases for Swedish law are unusual, but I'd be extremely surprised if they passed a law or rule that would place such a burden.

Re:Unbiased? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475753)

I think we can assume that nobody moves his ass until he has to anyway.

So there will be a law, stating that if someone asks for a retrial, it will be redone. And if not, nothing happens.
But I bet nobody knows this, and people do not care to check, so they just complain, as usual.
Then someone comes up with an "efficiency plan", and creates a new rule, where retrials can be denied for no reason, making it illegal, but who cares.

AAh, bureaucracy. Where would we be, without you....

Re:Unbiased? (1)

zekele2 (1556449) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476111)

The defence team *only* launched accusations of bias because they lost - the presumed bias of the judge could have been brought up before the case was heard, but the lawyers chose to ignore it. They were fully-aware of this apparent "bias" well before they brought up the subject.

It reminds me of a case a while back in a different jurisdiction where the defence claimed the result was flawed because the judge had fallen asleep. The appeal failed, because the appeal judges said that the defence should have woken up the judge if they thought it was important.

Re:Unbiased? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476471)

Of course everyone saves the objections until later. It's how you game the system. If you object during the trial and it's overruled, then you just lost one objection you could have used during the appeal to stretch things out.

Re:Unbiased? (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476619)

I thought it was a good idea to have a judge that is knowledgeable on copyright laws, so that he really understands the trial.

New Definition of Human Rights (-1, Troll)

wizden (965907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475257)

Human rights violations? WTF. I think the judge is obviously biased and I disagree with the decision, but what human rights are being violated? What a bunch of self righteous pussies we are becoming. Read some history.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (4, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475287)

Violation of due process is violation of human rights.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

wizden (965907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475339)

They are going through the process right now. They are appealing. I'm not saying that I like the decision but this is far from Kafka.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

Overfiend1976 (979710) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475861)

Actually, it is kinda Kafka-esque in a way because we've got such volatility in the net-neutrality stage right now with our new American President. Things are teetering on a very fine edge and these next few years could determine many of the laws that will affect all of us in some way or another.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475927)

Violation of due process is violation of human rights.

And speeding is a crime. Right. Get some sense of proportion — that's what the GP was talking about.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476279)

What? I'd say any issue that involves the possibility of going to prison is a worth rights issue. What "proportion" are you on about?

I never understand this "but there are worse things to worry about" special pleading whenever Human Rights are mentioned. The European Convention on Human Rights is basically our closest thing to what the US has in its Constitutions. You don't hear people saying "Get a sense of proportion" when someone talks about right to bear arms, or taking the fifth amendment.

I suspect that lawyers have thought this through, and have a better idea of what European Human Rights law covers, than armchair lawyers on Slashdot...

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476083)

Just because the ruling didn't go in the defendant's favour DOES NOT mean their rights were violated. What a bunch of stupids.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476317)

Violation of due process is violation of human rights

What violation of due process? They had a trial. They had no problem with the judge's organizational memberships before they lost (and yes, they almost certainly knew about them--we are not talking about membership in the Illuminati, but membership in prominent public professional organizations).

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475327)

but what human rights are being violated?

Sounds very much like the Right to a fair trial is being violated -- which specifically is mentioned in the Council of Europe's "Convention on Human Rights" in 3.6 article 6.

So no, they are not being pussies.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (4, Informative)

wizden (965907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475493)

FTA

(But Eka and the other judges concluded that simply endorsing the principles of copyright law was no grounds for disqualification in a trial; copyright was written into Swedish law, and judges can't be called "biased" simply because they support existing laws.
"The Court of Appeal has come to the conclusion that none of the circumstances set out, individually or taken together, means that there are legitimate doubts about the judge's impartiality in this case. There has not been any bias," concluded the court. The decision cannot be appealed")

Imagine the hideous analogies we can come up with. Judge A belongs to the bar association. Can he rule on lawyer misconduct? I am playing devil's advocate here and like I said I don't agree with the decision. I hope they win their appeal but I think human rights violation is a tad overboard. They still have their appeal.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475581)

Imagine the hideous analogies we can come up with. Judge A belongs to the bar association. Can he rule on lawyer misconduct?

What a horrible meta-analogy. That's almost as bad as me saying that something... relates... to stuff...

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476375)

Which is about what the level of this "bias" is at. It's essentially saying that he's biased because he believes there should be laws (it doesn't really matter what those laws are particularly).

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (4, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475833)

and judges can't be called "biased" simply because they support existing laws.
Excuse me. A judge may determine whether a law has been broken, he may set a punishment if it is proven that the law is broken, but if he supports or disapproves of a law he is biased. A judge may be in favor of all laws being enforced, but any specific law no.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476019)

but if he supports or disapproves of a law he is biased.

If he disapproves of a law, then arguably he could be considered biased as his refusal to believe a law is just might affect whether he enforces it or not, but it's hard to see how your judgment would be affected by the fact you happen to support the law being tried.

Judges are supposed to enforce the law, and do so fairly. If someone is accused of violating that law, they're supposed to ensure that person is fairly tried, with evidence that is pertinent to the case raised, irrelevancies struck out, and a fair judgment given if that someone is found guilty. Now, it's hard for me to determine why anyone who supports a law would act differently to someone who doesn't care specifically about a particular law but does care about the rule of law. If I support copyright law, am I going to try to make sure someone is found guilty of copyright infringement simply because I support the law and not due to their guilt or innocence? Why? Why would I do that? Why would I want someone innocent of the law I support found guilty? Would that not undermine the law I support rather than support it?

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476461)

But perhaps in this case, with copyright organizations (of which the original judge was a member apparently), you don't generally deal with people that want to support the law.

Look at their overall actions - they want to change it, to suit them better.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (4, Insightful)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476643)

This case was about what responsibility TPB has relating to how their service was used to break copyright law, specifically Videos. So it seams very important what the Judges opinion is of the role of copyright law in protecting large content owners. Obviously a judge who showed interest in supporting a expansion of copyright law would have more interest in setting this precedent. His interest in the manner would not have been so worrying in the case of determining actual infringement, this case was more about how far that law should extend. Infringement seams clear cut in this case, just not who can be held responsible for the infringement.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476517)

A judge may determine whether a law has been broken, he may set a punishment if it is proven that the law is broken, but if he supports or disapproves of a law he is biased. A judge may be in favor of all laws being enforced, but any specific law no.

How about a judge who publicly states he is opposed to murder? Can he sit on a murder case given this flagrant bias towards anti-murder laws?

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (-1, Flamebait)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475553)

You can't call it an unfair trial just because you lost. It doesn't matter what slashdot readers think about copyright, the swedish judges are the ones duly elected/appointed to the position of making the decision. What they say goes whether we agree with it or not.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0, Flamebait)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475789)

Um how so? I hate the outcome but show me a lack of due process due process. Again, I may think the outcome was wrong but again they had a trial with the ability to ask for a mistrial for bias and with the ability to appeal when that failed. I think the decision was biased and bad but I can't really argue that there wasn't/isn't due process.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (-1, Flamebait)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476115)

Just because the ruling did not rule in Pirate Bay's favor does not mean their rights were violated. That's just plain childish and goes to show piracy makes you stupid.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (5, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475385)

The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.

If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?

Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed? Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?

Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

wizden (965907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475549)

Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages

That is all I'm saying. I agree with you that it was not a fair trial. I'm talking about matters of severity.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475849)

It was a fair trial. It turns out they were guilty. Nothing in the universe can get around that reality.

The most they can do is get off on some technicality, which if it were any other circumstance would be condemned for the violation of the principles of justice.

But hey, wait, they didn't get off, and they did, and are still doing exactly what they were accused of doing.

Innocent they are not.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475953)

I can see why you post as AC.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476439)

Show me which part of Swedish law they violated. Show me the files on their site that were in violation of said law. Oh wait... Your just a troll with no evidence to back up your statements....

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475889)

It's on the same level as political incarcerations that only the worst of states practice.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476319)

Nice straw man. Who claimed it was?

This is about fighting it under Human Rights law. If someone in the US tries to overturn a ruling based on the US Constitution, you don't hear people whining "New Definition of Constitution".

The Human Rights we are discussing here are defined by the European Covention of Human Rights. That's what it means. It's got nothing to do with whatever definition you are thinking of. If you are proposing a different definition, then you are the one who is proposing a "new definition of Human Rights". Just because there exist countries with appalling human rights records is no more relevant than countries that have nothing like the US Constitution. The ECHR is basically our closest equivalent of the US Constitution, and I don't see why people have to whine about it just because it's called something different.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476401)

Yeah right. I think you just got OWNED. That's what happened.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475669)

So wait, the fact that a juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly ?

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (2, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475755)

So wait, the fact that a juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly ?

Suppose you're on trial for doing something that's related to the sale of drugs but might not actually be a crime: for example, telling people which parts of town have all the dealers. Or putting up a public bulletin board which anyone can use to post any sort of information, but in practice is mostly used to post the phone numbers of drug dealers.

If the judge is an anti-drug crusader, he's more likely to (mis)interpret the law in order to declare your behavior illegal, because he wants to stop the sale of drugs, even though you might not actually have broken any laws.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (2, Insightful)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476307)

Except the behavior you describe is already illegal. Facilitating a crime is a crime.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476729)

Facilitating torrent downloads is not illegal in Sweden.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475999)

<quote>regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons</quote>

<quote>juge is against drugs biases him against you having or not having drugs how exactly</quote>

His taking kickbacks from people who profit from an incarceration is exactly how. It doesn't matter if a person is guilty or not if the judge makes a profit from a guilty verdict.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475873)

Well, a "right"... What is a right? You only have that "right", because people that were stronger than your enemies decided that it would be that way. In reality, there still are no rights, and everything is based on the rule of force / law of the jungle.
It's just, that the psychological warfare (eg. making them believe they are weaker, and you are the boss) got way more powerful nowadays.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475807)

Are you saying that
a) they are no humans
b) they have no rights
or
c) you are just a dick? ^^

Win-Win scenario (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475283)

They win, it adds fuel to the fire and gets the followers bolstered.
They lose, someone fights to fill the void (because there is money to be made) and people come up with even new technology to avoid such scenarios.

Legislators need to come up with an alternate approach to this perceived problem. Similar to how legalization (decriminalization) and regulation of illegal drugs would stop drug wars, some other strategy in the "war on piracy" could bring money to content creators while not making an arms race out of sharing information.

I can see this happening in the US (5, Funny)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475377)

"Judge Bauregard P Burnside today justified his membership in the KKK saying, 'I have to keep up on current civil rights developments.'"

Keeping up with developments in the field? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475409)

Hey, that's what I say when I'm caught watching porn on the internet when I should be working! Get your own lame excuse, or I'll sue you for infringement.

Re:Keeping up with developments in the field? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475577)

Hey, that's what I say when I'm caught watching porn on the internet when I should be working! Get your own lame excuse, or I'll sue you for infringement.

I used to work at IEG [wikipedia.org]. That's what I did ALL DAY LONG.

This just means, (5, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475647)

that that court is biased too.

So someone needs to investigate on them.
Until you reach the very top of the shitpile.
Which most likely is sitting invisibly above the government. (I mean lobby groups.)

I say: Vote for the Pirate Party!

Re:This just means, (2, Insightful)

chiguy (522222) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476487)

that that court is biased too.

So someone needs to investigate on them.

Sometimes, when everyone is biased against you, they just might be right.

How common is membership? (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475739)

We might be reading more into this membership thing than is needed. One justification for membership put forward was "in order to keep current on the issues." If this membership is part of ongoing professional education, then I am not so sure it is inappropriate. However, it would be a lot more telling to learn what percentage of judges eligible to hear this case is a member of such an organization? If it is more than 50%, then I have to lean in favor of the justification. If it is less, then I certainly have my doubts... and if it is 10% or less, I smell a rat.

Re:How common is membership? (5, Interesting)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476081)

more importantly... how many anti-copyright professional associations is he associated witih... if he needs to "keep current" he needs to "keep current" on both sides of the argument right?

Justifying piracy (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28475883)

Fellow pirates,

I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.

Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.

I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.

According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.

I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.

EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.

Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.

Yours truly,
A fellow Slashbot

Re:Justifying piracy (-1, Flamebait)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476177)

Exactly. slashdot has degraded itself to 4chan. Nothing but MS hating, Linux loving fucks that also think everything should be free, especially if someone worked hard and requires payment for their product. Wow what a bunch of stupids this place has become.

Re:Justifying piracy (-1, Troll)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476411)

I criticized Linux's sound subsystems the other day, and got modded troll.

Then I praised the DirectSound API in another thread, and got modded troll.

Then I praised OpenAL as a solution to platform lockin, and got modded troll.

I conclude: I am a troll.

Re:Justifying piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476429)

If you leave... It will get better.

If you don't leave, we can't miss you...

Re:Justifying piracy (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476485)

Not really.... I mean other than the goatse guy theres not much naked pictures here... And really, (especially compared to most of the internet such as YouTube) even our trolls are well written. Also, there isn't as much rickrolling here as on 4chan....

Re:Justifying piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476503)

Does that mean you're welcome here?

how did they ever thingk they would win?! (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28475959)

their bread and butter was pirated material, how on earth did they think they were going to win this???? i can only think it's some kind of delusion.

I don't think they should go to jail or even wear a massive fine, they aren't violent criminals and it's debatable that they have even cost anyone money. but what they were doing under swedish law was illegal ffs.

Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?! (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476023)

heh, it was illegal when they went to trial, yes, because they made the laws to make it illegal so they could take them to trial.

Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?! (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476043)

Wrong

Their bread and butter was people sharing things. Its an incredibly noble and moral thing they are doing!

People have the freedom not to participate in Piracy... TPB are not police officers, they should not be allowed to stop you from sharing content.

Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476623)

Their bread and butter was people sharing things. Its an incredibly noble and moral thing they are doing!

I hope you won't mind if I share your bank account a bit, then.

Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476505)

Wrong, there is no copyrighted material hosted on TPB, only links to things that may, possibly contain copyrighted material. Can you point out exactly what Swedish laws they broke?

Re:how did they ever thingk they would win?! (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476651)

Can you point out exactly what Swedish laws they broke?

The (currently standing) decision on their case specifically lists Swedish laws that they broke. IIRC, it boils down to knowingly aiding copyright infringement - reason been that they have been repeatedly told, by copyright owners (or their legal representatives), that specific torrents they host are for material which is not authorized for distribution in such a way, and refused to take those torrents down. Thus, from the moment they were notified and refused to do anything, they share responsibility for any damages that resulted from that distribution (if any - since not all works claimed to be copyrighted were such). I believe the case decision had specifically listed torrents for which the above holds true.

The Ruling is Complete Garbage (4, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28476325)

To claim that this caused no bias is a disgrace on the Swedish judicial system. It's hogwash. The Litmus Test here is: If there was no bias involved then this should have been declared in the first minute of trial and allowed for any objections at that time. To hide it through the entire trial and as best they could afterwards until the defendants were able to dig it up shrieks of the fix being in and the trial being nothing but show. I'm left to wonder how the prosecution actually managed to keep straight faces throughout all of this since they surely had to have known.

CANADA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476329)

Sorry, nobody talked about us for a while.

Carry on.

The view from outside observers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28476495)

I don't normally have any reason to think about the Swedish justice system, but this makes it look like a joke to me. How many people in nations other than Sweden have never followed a Swedish trial before now, and this is their first exposure. Convicting Swedish citizens for the benefit of powerful foreign corporations for "assisting in the infringement of copyrights", where the judge is a member of multiple pro-copyright organizations? Whether it's fair or not, I think that this is a black eye for the Swedish legal system in terms of international perception.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...