×

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!

Judge Who Ordered Pirate Bay Censorship Found To Be Corrupt

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the conflict-of-interest dept.

Censorship 104

TheGift73 writes "TorrentFreak reports that 'This week yet another court order was handed down in Europe with the aim of censoring The Pirate Bay. The ruling forbids the Dutch Pirate Party from not only running a direct proxy, but also telling people how to circumvent an earlier court ordered blockade. However, according to Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, the judge in the case has a history of corruption relating to another file-sharing case he presided over in the Netherlands. The Court of The Hague in the Netherlands has been particularly busy this work with Pirate Bay-related cases.' Falkvinge wrote, '... not only was the plaintiff and judge personally and closely acquainted, the plaintiff in a controversial copyright monopoly case was running a commercial anti-piracy outfit together with the judge in the case. Money was involved. Commercial interest was involved. The judge was, as it appears from this brochure for the quite expensive course, getting money. Shortly after the case. In a directly related matter together with the plaintiff. That makes the judge not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

104 comments

Why? (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#39978615)

Why was the judge allowed to continue being a judge after being found corrupt? Judges, like police, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not given a free pass because of their status.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978715)

Because no legal body found him to be corrupt. These are accusations being made.

hang em all (4, Funny)

cheekyboy (598084) | about 2 years ago | (#39979305)

Really, if every one pirates and downloads and copies and smokes pot at the same time, is it really so bad?

Lets cut the wages of these old gay fuckers back to $50k, and see how they do then.

Fight the power, protest, disobey, total chaos, and anarchy, screw ya all.

We the young people do what we like, STFU old people, it was the old peoples fault that we had WW1 and WW2, so thats proof enough that old people should never rule any countries or systems.

Re:hang em all (1, Troll)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 2 years ago | (#39979947)

Since the young people are usually the first to buck the system I'd suggest you organize a protest march....and smoke some doobies, have a sit in etc. Your baseless accusations regarding the old people starting wars are untrue but remember it's the young that always fight them so go cut your hair and get a job hippie. AND GET OFF MY LAWN.

Re:hang em all (1, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#39980959)

Why the homophobia? And yes, equating corrupt judges with homosexual people during the act is homophobic.

(Ok, ok, as the mod shows, it was meant to be funny, but still...)

Re:hang em all (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39982125)

"Gay" had meaning long before the faggots co-opted the word.

Re:hang em all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39983953)

Wow you homophobic piece of shit. I hope to God one of those "faggots" gets fed up enough with your stupidity to rip your fucking tongue out.

Re:hang em all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39987815)

Fucking ass packers

Re:hang em all (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39984209)

Faggots had meaning long before men that took it up the ass co-opted the word too.... what's your point?

Cuz I am pretty sure he did not mean "old happy fuckers".

Re:hang em all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39984893)

Why the name calling? You homosexuals always trot out the 'homophobia' card any time you read something you don't like and can't address on a rational level.

Re:hang em all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39982621)

> it was the old peoples fault that we had WW1 and WW2

They were young back then.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

longk (2637033) | about 2 years ago | (#39978719)

The argument seems to be that "we prefer knowledgable judges over unknowledgeable ones and that being 'involved' in the industry is simply the best way to become and/or stay knowledgable". BS, IMHO.

Re:Why? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978729)

I disagree; that is objectively BS.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979631)

Or to put it another way, 'textbook BS'.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979259)

Wow, that's like that cop in Ottawa, Canada that beat his toddler with a belt, but the judge let him off because "we need skilled police officers".

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | about 2 years ago | (#39979527)

It's a common excuse. It worked for the Catholic Church, too. "We don't have enough Priests, so instead of excommunicating the ones who diddle little kids, we'll just move them to a new parish."

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39980381)

You spelled "instead of castrating" wrong

Re:Why? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39984217)

I don't think castration is nearly sufficient. They should bring back something the Chinese called Horse Weapon Punishment. Primarily used on women back then... well.... let's just say it is quite appropriate revenge and they will never be walking again. Assuming they even survive...

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39981501)

The purpose of involuntary government and religion is to exploit people.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39980411)

Wow, that's like that cop in Ottawa, Canada that beat his toddler with a belt, but the judge let him off because "we need skilled police officers".

Did the toddler learn its lesson?

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#39980175)

Even if I bought that line, the fact remains that in this case, if the allegations are true, the judge is a direct beneficiary of his own judgements. That is indeed textbook corruption.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39980203)

So a judge that normally deals with drug dealers should be "involved" with drugs to remain knowledgeable?

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#39978779)

Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption...'having a financial interest in the outcome', although clearly not acceptable for a judge in a case, is not the same as 'accepting an offer of money in exchange for not carrying out your duties properly'. And, as one of the links says, '“It’s not just any course they do together, it’s part of the Dutch bar association’s official training program for lawyers.”'. Corruption? Really? The only question the article appears to raise is the level of personal connection between plaintiff and judge, and even then it's rabid enough to be hard to take seriously.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#39978909)

Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption...'having a financial interest in the outcome', although clearly not acceptable for a judge in a case, is not the same as 'accepting an offer of money in exchange for not carrying out your duties properly'.

Theoretically, the financial interest that the Judge had would be harmed by his decision, since killing the Pirate Bay would reduce the need for whatever he and his (theoretical) partner were (theoretically) selling.

Which doesn't suggest all that much corruption - "wow, he hurt his own business interest, he must be evil!!".

You fail at logic (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#39979529)

By your logic, since a restaurant is in the business of selling food, if it actually sold any food, it would reduce the demand for food and be hurting its own business.

In general, if you try to sell something, people want to see you can deliver. This is especially true in the anti-piracy business where there are a lot of shouters who claim they can protect your stuff but none that are able to deliver. thepiratebay.se is proof of that.

Re:You fail at logic (4, Funny)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 2 years ago | (#39980569)

Also by that logic, internet providers who offer "unlimited bandwidth" would best serve their interests by never... actually ... delivering... oh.

Re:You fail at logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39992397)

Do you ever wonder if there is a speed limit in the sky? I mean, why shouldn't they have turn signals on jets? Think about it. You're coming in for a landing and you want to pass another jet on the way down. Why not have a turn signal.

Yours truly,
-Jerry S.

p.s., Have you ever wondered why they don't have turn signals on trains?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978973)

For now, sound more like none has looked into the connections because this kind of corruption my go much higher in the system, just like it goes here. Hard for anyone to investigate anything when higher ups are in the same boat.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39979003)

If someone has an interest in the outcome of a trial he is a party and not suitable as a judge, corruption or no corruption. At the very least he is partial and hence unfit to preside as a judge.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979235)

So anyone not wanting to be murdered is not allowed to judge over someone alleged to have killed people randomly on the steet?

Re:Why? (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | about 2 years ago | (#39979367)

Wrong analogy. Conflicts of interest are specifically forbidden in most civilized judicial systems. Personal relationships are not allowed. In your example, if the judge personally knew the accused then yes - the judge should have recused himself/herself.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | about 2 years ago | (#39979459)

And when the shooter turns out to be the judge's brother that is OK with you? That is what this case is sounding like. When you have financial interests in the outcome and refuse to recuse yourself from the case, it leads to the appearance of corruptness which is something we can't have in the judicial system. There are strict judicial guidelines (at least in the US) mandating judicial behavior. If a judge can't follow them, they need to feel the full weight of the law.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979211)

I don't know about Europe, but in the States, this is considered a conflict of interests and ignoring that status can carry pretty heavy penalties.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#39979323)

Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption.

The summary is not clear, but the critical part of the article is that the judge and the plaintiff were running a commercial enterprise together, one that had a direct bearing on the subject matter of the case. I don't know about the Netherlands, but I think that the legal systems of most western nations would require a judge with such a close tie to the plaintiff to recuse himself.

This many not be corrupt behavior, but it would normally be improper.

Re:Why? (1)

Zsub (1365549) | about 2 years ago | (#39980367)

They would, but don't forget this is the same country where a private organization goes around smacking small ISPs with court orders not even meant for them for fuck's sake, to get the small ISPs to ban TPB.

However, as the article rightly notes, the commercial enterprise is in educating lawyers, and thus not a general anti-piracy practice. Although still sort of shady in my personal view, I can see how this does not constitute a direct conflict of interests.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39980627)

I can see how this does not constitute a direct conflict of interests.

Did you miss the point that I posted? There is a conflict of interest because the judge has a common business interest with the plaintiff. In other words, the judge is too closely connected to the plaintiff.

Whether that business interest relates to the case is not important to whether there was a conflict of interest.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#39981599)

I'm not convinced it's different anywhere else. The same thing happened in The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden - the judge was part of a music industry lobby organisation and was good friends with the music industry lawyer acting for the prosecution. Despite this he was allowed to continue.

It seems judges are allowed to have severe conflict of interest, at least in Northern Europe.

Re:Why? (1)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#39984737)

The article's claim that they were running a commercial enterprise together and have a personal relationship appears to have been made because both of their names appear on a document detailing an official course for lawyers run by the bar association. Not only is that 'not running a commercial enterprise together' (because it was run by the bar association), but also doesn't really imply all that much in terms of personal relationship. What would you suggest, anyway? That, when the bar association runs a course on copyright, it doesn't choose a judge who handles copyright cases and instead chooses one who handles, say, medical negligence? Or that anyone who supplies services to a bar association be denied the right to use the courts? Of course, they could choose a different judge simply because they know this could be politically sensitive....but the claims of the article are ludicrously overblown.

Re:Why? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#39980219)

Gaining a direct benefit from a ruling is corruption. A judge in such a situation is supposed to recuse himself. This isn't a case of simple bias, but rather the case that the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of this case.

Re:Why? (2)

trevelyon (892253) | about 2 years ago | (#39981569)

Aren't they supposed to recuse themselves if they have a bias, monetary interest in the issue or relation with either plaintiff or defendant? Isn't this rather basic legal practice to try and ensure impartiality? If that is the case then taken at face value the judge and plaintiff had a relationship that the judge should have recused himself for. Refusing to bring this relationship to light is a serious breach although not corruption per se it should definitely warrant an investigation and at the minimum bring the judgement of the case into question.

Re:Why? (1)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#39992709)

Aren't they supposed to recuse themselves if they have a bias, monetary interest in the issue or relation with either plaintiff or defendant? Isn't this rather basic legal practice to try and ensure impartiality?

It is, but it gets a little difficult when the potential monetary interest appears to be 'ruling one way might create more official bar-association business by encouraging more lawyers to take a course' and when the potential personal relationship appears to be 'the judge and plaintiff both worked for the bar association as different instructors for the same course'. That's what the article's claims appear to amount to.

Perhaps the best response would be 'the bar association should not be running courses' or 'the bar association should not be employing likely litigants as instructors because it creates potential personal relationships' (although it's possible the judges and outsiders on the course run different sessions and are discouraged from socializing for exactly this reason.....who knows, and without a more reasoned article and a response we won't know).

No doubt some lawyers love to shop around for the most favourable judge by choosing their courts, manipulating dates and asking judging to recuse themselves - and, of course, the pool of potential judges for certain kinds of specialist and high profile cases may be quite small. It may not be so easy as just recusing anyone with any sort of connection, however small and theoretical, especially when those connections go through the bar association.

Re:Why? (1)

Cinnamon Beige (1952554) | about 2 years ago | (#39989697)

Actually, at least in the US, 'personal connection' is sufficient justification for a judge to not be involved in a given case--the expectation, however, is that the judge will have the sense and ethical standing to remove himself/herself from the case in favor of, say, extra time golfing, reading, visiting sex workers, whatever said judge does for fun. I can't recall any specific cases being overturned in the US due to this, though, as it seems that the current view is that it is better generally to err on the side of caution...

No idea about European standards, though I know at points at least it was considered safe to suspect that the judge and prosecutor were in bed with each other, perhaps alone, perhaps with a freshly-strangled underage sex worker...

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978939)

Because corrupted people in power are neither dumb or easily outed. Takes time and effort and then even they may get scot free with other cronies involved.

Court Orders Are Too Subtle (5, Interesting)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#39978647)

Man, it's a good thing these Dutch guys aren't in the US, or else the FBI would storm their houses with swat teams under charges of conspiring with file sharers.

---

But then again, nothing says America like a getting bent over and fucked by an agency with your tax dollars.

Re:Court Orders Are Too Subtle (3, Interesting)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | about 2 years ago | (#39978767)

We have our own intervention teams, this week a house was surrounded for a while and the standoff ended with the guy shooting himself in the head.
We are THAT efficient :)

Re:Court Orders Are Too Subtle (1)

kanweg (771128) | about 2 years ago | (#39979239)

I read it today on the news (NOS teletekst) and had to LOL over your last sentence.

Bert
Don't know why you call yourself killjoy!

Re:Court Orders Are Too Subtle (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978927)

Or for that matter an agency who corrupt judges use to enforce the corruption. I wonder what percentage of the judges and politician are deep in corruption and will probably never get bought because of influence and power.

Sorry BUT WHAT!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978667)

This story has more holes in it ,than swiss cheese. Where are your facts? Where are your testimonies? Where are your links to related news (LEGIT NEWS)?

SHUT THE HELL UP!

Re:Sorry BUT WHAT!!! (1, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#39978787)

Shill for BREIN much?

To be fair (4, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 2 years ago | (#39978871)

The story would have been more aptly named
"Rick Falkvinge believes judge to be corrupt".

Re:To be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979221)

Believes or has some evidence but will take time to put together. Not like they have a sing over their head "I am a corrupt judge" or did you think that is how the world worked.

People who are doing dirty things don't tend to do them in the open, but then I guess you think they do in your delusional world view.

Vacate? (5, Interesting)

Aesculapius (147375) | about 2 years ago | (#39978669)

Does this give the Dutch Pirate Party reasonable grounds to vacate the decision? (IANAL)

Re:Vacate? (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#39978919)

It also highlights why all the rulings have been against piratebay in Dutch courts too, which may result in a lot of decisions being challenged.

Re:Vacate? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979039)

Yes, but they need not convince me of this - they'll have to convince one of his judge buddies of it.

Europe is not a country (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978709)

Americans, get your geography straight. It freaks me out every time.

Re:Europe is not a country (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978817)

Who are you calling Americans? The use of Europe is correct in the summary, TPB is being censored in many countries in said continent. Your use of Americans is a totum pro parte.

You think? (4, Insightful)

backslashdot (95548) | about 2 years ago | (#39978769)

Anyone who is willing to clamp down harshly on basic human freedoms has to be either corrupt or criminally insane. Either way they oughta be either in jail or in the Arkham asylum.

Re:You think? (5, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#39978835)

I dunno, Arkham Asylum has notoriously horrible security. Pretty much any other such facility would be better.

Re:You think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979045)

Yes, but whenever they get out, they get beat down by Batman and sent back to do it again, which is something I think we can all cheer for.

Re:You think? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979759)

Makes you wonder. It's awfully convenient that ol' Bats is always there when one of their criminal masterminds escapes...

Re:You think? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#39981285)

according to Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, the judge in the case has a history of corruption

Yea, this is plenty of evidence that the judge is corrupt. Nothing more is needed (or even offered) to convince me. Why would I be at all skeptical?

Re:You think? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#39982905)

I'm not saying the judge was in the right... he wasn't... but pirate bay is now a "basic human freedom"? You're diluting the phrase. We need it for cases of police brutality and indefinite detention.

Forum shopping (-1, Offtopic)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#39978777)

Forum shopping. Yet another wheeze of legal systems everywhere -- they are designed by the 1% to benefit the 1% That much is hardly surprising.

I'm not surprised at all that the 1% consolidate themselves through corruption and unethical behaviour.

My old man tried for 10 years to get somebody to serve a writ on somebody else before giving up. However, the Premier of Queensland could have a supreme court writ served on somebody literally before lunchtime (which, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the litigious old cunt, regularly did).

Come on now... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978781)

is ANYBODY suprised by this? really?

Horrible summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39978959)

Does someone really believe that "Shortly after the case." is a sentence? How about "in a directly related matter together with the plaintiff."?

Wait wait don't tell me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979021)

He was also a Christian. And a Republican. And he had an evangelical TV programme.

Wait, wrong script.

Re:Wait wait don't tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39979241)

They don't tend to have Republicans in Europe. They are a little more honest and call the cuntservatives.

Just playing the percentages. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#39979139)

If you desire to purchase a judicial outcome, you would instinctively lean toward a dishonest judge.

yeah right... (1, Informative)

SuperDre (982372) | about 2 years ago | (#39979185)

those are allegations which haven't been proven.. Also we have to believe people who say they aren't making any money of piratebay even though we've got more than enough proof they certainly are making money off it.. It's just another smear campaign which both sides have used more than enough before.. If the judge really was corrupt, why is he still working? we have laws against stuff like that. And why haven't the lawyers of the defense filed any complains about that, if it was real than you certainly would if you are even a bad defence lawyer... next they'll claim the defence lawyers are corrupt for not putting up any defence..

The BBC has a show about an laywer in ancient time (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#39979681)

The BBC had a show about a lawyer in the days of slavery fighting for justice... except the justice of the day was something different. Is a judge and jury who believe slavery is the right normal and correct thing to do, ruling in favor of a slaver, corrupt? Often, society is split and the other side can seem to be malicious, insane, corrupt, just interested in their own goals, hypocrites and downright evil. But the other side thinks exactly the same of you. There are few people in the world who do "evil" thinking they are doing evil.

Even lawyers get themselves being able to sleep at night by telling themselves that "everyone has the right to a fair trial" means "I should do anything to get my client of regardless of the facts".

We are at a crossroad, once again, in western society. Copyright has always been changing when tech changed the world, it came into being because of new tech and it will change. But the powers that be want things to remain the same because to them, that is how it has always been and the new situation offers no benefits. Copyright as we know it now was NOT introduced to benefit artists but to protect publishers from the demands of artists to be payed. But over the years, things settled down, slowly and with many lawsuits and up-heaving all that again, that is not going to happen quietly.

The Pirate Bay is used by some artists to promote themselves, you can find artists claiming this themselves. But they don't fit in the traditional media worldview. Even today, most bands dream is to be discovered and to get a record deal... they might or might not have read about the lousy deal most bands who don't become the absolute top get but the dream is still there.

It will have to change, you can't stop tech. Content can be so easily distributed now it would like trying to ban book printing (which was tried for centuries over and over again) and is STILL being proposed right now in Germany by making it economically impossible to print the rantings of an pathetic german painter again. And do you think this stops his diseased followers? Hardly.

There are so many P2P methods and so many versions of each method that all this anti piratebay activity shows is just how silly it is to fight it. if nothing else, the only effect I have seen is that more and more people know that there are alternatives to paying for content. Google "thepiratebay mirror" and endless informative results that work perfectly.

Granted, Brein has openly stated that they know this to have no effect and that it is just so they can lay the foundation for more radical approaches. You didn't think they were going to give up did you?

But the genie is out of the bag. Not only does the public know about it, PRO-piracy is now enough to get you elected into government. Don't forget the green parties started much the same. The Dutch Socialist Party SP, started out as a protest party to far left of the labour party. They are now twice the size and tied for 1st/2nd place with the VVD (Corruption party).

And if the left wing parties don't change their tune (the trade union FNV is making itself a target of mockery for coming out in favor of copyright on behalve of its non-existant artist members) they will be replaced just as the older parties were replaced before them.

But while change is happening, the battles are nasty, ugly and seemingly without end. This is one of the battles. The outcome eventually is without doubt, you cannot put the cat back in the bag, but that doesn't mean there won't be a fight that must be fought. And if history has anything to say about it, blood will be shed.

Re:The BBC has a show about an laywer in ancient t (2)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#39980183)

The BBC had a show about a lawyer in the days of slavery fighting for justice... except the justice of the day was something different. Is a judge and jury who believe slavery is the right normal and correct thing to do, ruling in favor of a slaver, corrupt? Often, society is split and the other side can seem to be malicious, insane, corrupt, just interested in their own goals, hypocrites and downright evil. But the other side thinks exactly the same of you. There are few people in the world who do "evil" thinking they are doing evil.

This has nothing to do with judge having a business relationship with the plaintiff. Especially in cases when the law says nothing directly applicable, and judge ends up making decisions based entirely on his opinions and intuition.

Re:The BBC has a show about an laywer in ancient t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39984887)

This is the most elaborate troll post I've seen on /. in a long time. Too bad it's obvious with just a quick glance.

My goodness... (2)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#39979829)

In two day's time the Netherlands where playing the lead roll in three slashdot articles....
Now that is impressive IMHO!

Re:My goodness... (2)

Zsub (1365549) | about 2 years ago | (#39980415)

Although as a Dutchie I am rather ashamed and angered by the reason and/or cause. I used to smirk at articles about the US where someone was ordered to pay boatloads of money for down/uploading some songs on Kazaa or Napster or whatever. Karma man, karma.

Re:My goodness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39981495)

Although as a Dutchie I am rather ashamed and angered by the reason and/or cause. I used to smirk at articles about the US where someone was ordered to pay boatloads of money for down/uploading some songs on Kazaa or Napster or whatever. Karma man, karma.

I am a dutchie too and I am not ashamed at all. What you see here is exactly what should be happening, the conflict is fought out in courts, above the level of the individual downloader, no fines or penalties are given to individuals, and no elderly and children are being arrested.

Existing laws are being applied to situations that have evolved beyond what the original laws were meant to cover. This may lead to undesirable outcomes, but that's how the law works, it is almost always reactive, almost never pro-active. If the public can't live with the outcomes of these old laws, the laws will evolve along with society's ideas of what is just and unjust. Instead of the law trying to change the individual (fines, arrest), the individual in NL can still influence the law by voting for those parties who can best guide these changes. Think hard about what you are going to vote for later this year ;)

I still smirk at articles about elderly and children being arrested and fined for downloading some music or movies, and I'm still happy to live in a country where these things don't happen as a matter of course. If this guy was really corrupt, he will go down for it. If the case was handled wrongly, action will be taken. But keep in mind that what you are seeing here is a politician making a lot of noise for his own agenda. To him it doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong, it's on slashdot, he delivered his message. I won't start shouting corruption until I hear it from someone with a more neutral background in the matter.

This is gossip, not /. worthy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39980425)

Why is /. discussing this unsubstantiated allegations? Just 'cause it's about "renegade" piracy? I have always supported Pirate Bay like web sites because of their will to stand up against big movie and record industries as they used unjust and illegal ways of dealing w/ piracy and NOT because I believe that piracy is right. This attempt by the Pirate Bay founder makes him seem desperate and thus week.

I do not support what Pirate Bay (and the likes) does, it IS stealing and it is a problem but, it must be dealt with in a way that does not violate our basic rights. Privacy is of utmost importance.

Corruption = punishment not promotion (1)

stimpleton (732392) | about 2 years ago | (#39981513)

Corrupt politicians and senior police officers really need to be seen to be charged and swung in a noose.

Certainly not promoted [stuff.co.nz] .

While an offense can seem minor, I really feel its tip of iceberg. This case should see a career limited or terminated. Lying on a witness stand or planting evidence should be death.

Politicians not being honest with money matters [stuff.co.nz] ...should face death.

Wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39982681)

The world has been run by corporates and democracy is an illusion; against world tyranny, may God help the revolution; ameen.

This is not /.'s best discussion thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39982757)

Some /. discussions are better than others, but for this matter, I think this discussion [ycombinator.com] provides much better insight.

Re:This is not /.'s best discussion thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39984505)

No, the layout is shittier than Slashdot's.

Re:This is not /.'s best discussion thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39985261)

No, the layout is shittier than Slashdot's.

Given a piece of chocolate cake shaped like a pile of dog shit, and a pile of dog shit molded into the shape of a piece of chocolate cake, I'll take the one that is a piece of chocolate cake.

the term is "conflict of interest" (1)

ffflala (793437) | about 2 years ago | (#39985179)

What the article describes is a conflict of interest, not corruption, and that's assuming all the claims are factually accurate.

That makes the judge not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt.

Falkvinge, next time actually read a fucking textbook on the subject at hand before you claim that something is a textbook example. Words have meanings, particularly in legal settings. This sort of imprecision just damages your credibility.

Re:the term is "conflict of interest" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39985795)

Conflict of interest is when he has a commercial venture with the plaintiff, the nature of which is not necessarily related to the case. Corruption is when he has a commercial venture with the plaintiff and he doesn't reveal this and dismiss himself. And not only did he have a commercial venture with the plaintiff, they stood to gain or lose substantially depending on the ruling. Do try to keep up.

Re:the term is "conflict of interest" (1)

ffflala (793437) | about 2 years ago | (#39988005)

Conflict of interest is when he has a commercial venture with the plaintiff, the nature of which is not necessarily related to the case. Corruption is when he has a commercial venture with the plaintiff and he doesn't reveal this and dismiss himself.

And this is where you make exactly the same error; there is no such distinction. The difference you miss is between the what and the why. You aren't only swallowing the premise (COI) of TFA without question, you're following the conclusion (corruption) of the unsupported premise of TFA. Accepting both an unsupported premise, AND its conclusion about an actor, from a party who suffered an adverse ruling from the same actor, is simple-minded and hot-headed.

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...