Pirate Bay judge ruled unbiased
The judge in the Pirate Bay case, Tomas Norström, was not biased. That's the decision of the Swedish High Court of Justice, which investigated accusations made by the four defendants in the high-profile file-sharing case.
The accusations were based on Norström's membership in organizations such as the Swedish Copyright Association, which counts among its members lawyers who represented the plaintiffs during The Pirate Bay trial.
The court ascertained that such memberships do demonstrate a commitment to intellectual property issues, which could be considered by some to be in the interest of the plaintiffs. But it also pointed out that rights-holders' rights are protected by the Constitution, and so cannot be considered a conflict of interest if a judge endorses the principles behind copyright laws.
The court did say it would have been appropriate for the judge to disclose these memberships, which could have led to an investigation of potential conflicts of interest at an earlier stage in the process.
But as a whole, none of these circumstances are enough for sending the case back to the district court, according to the High Court, which now will look at the main appeal of the verdict.
On April 17, the four defendants were found guilty of having made 33 copyright-protected files accessible for illegal file-sharing via the Piratebay.org Web site and were sentenced to one year in jail.
They were also ordered to pay a total of 30 million Swedish kronor ($3.8 million) in damages to copyright holders, among them a number of American media giants.
The two guys who posted above you were making very good points. Did you really have to prove how ridiculous an argument you could make as a counterpoint?
You have shown that you are an ignorant arse time and again, but this really tops all your other stupidity.
I hope you weren't calling them robbers in your stupid analogy, that is even more dumb then calling them thieves.
File sharers will not have your back, and neither will the legit businesses that advertise on them.
That said, these guys were SOOO blatant about it ... and SOOO cocky about it. They were not trying to argue how it should be legal, they were just giving them the middle finger and saying "you can't do **** about it".
I guess we'll see won't we...
Don't believe the hype.
A track record like this will never be lost and yes he is biased.
He was found to be not biased by biased trail judges and or lawyers district attorneys.
Bunch of CBC's if you ask me....
Do not know what CBC is? Google it in the state of Alaska.
Cody
And what about Google? They provide links to all sites that have something illegal, links to iligal porn, warez, you can even use Google as a torrent search engine if you type "filetype:torrent" after your query... why isn't anybody suing them?
eminem" or "matrix".
Not really. Does ubuntu.torrent mean it is ubuntu, or could it be the matrix?
Do publishers sue libraries?
Libraries share books, and while they [libraries] do not recreate copies of books, they do charge money to copy pages (as many as one would want) without giving any of that money back to the publisher. Has the library committed the same crime-facilitating illegitimate recreation? Are libraries exempt by the their long standing process of doing it? If Kindle becomes the next iPod, and all books are offered in a digital format for nominal fee, will the Carnegie Foundation be directed in further expenditures?
This is the desperate attempt of media companies to control access to content. Suing the user has met with very limited success, some telecoms refuse, or aren't required, to comply & the flashy packaging is not working.
The continued action of search engines and users IS a big FU to the media giants (and that is what they are GIANTS, as the little guy couldn't get heard in court, let alone win), and those will are complicit may be called thieves, robbers, pirates, etc., but UNSANCTIONED copying has been an issue since scribes had a guild. Now the understanding involved is greater.
One last thing (of no surprise): on every US military installation in Iraq & Afghanistan illegally copied discs-sometimes entire seasons & series-are for sale. The vendors are subject to innumerable qualifications & rules to open a shop/stand, but NOT profiting from copyrighted material isn't among them. As it US media companies that seem to lead this charge, shouldn't SONY sue the DoD?
How about if it was a cop who gave the directions?
Perhaps the "yellow Pages" should be prosecuted for having a directory of possible bank robbery targets.
In all seriousness, they are hosting a database of directory listings only. A great many of the listings are not infracting any copyright law. And the owners of PB do not host ANY illegal content.
Until the day that they outlaw hosting torrent files at all, than in my view they are not breaking the law.
A good point about Google. You can find the SAME torrent files through google. Why isn't google being prosecuted for doing essentially the same thing as PB?
One last thing. It's completely impossible for the judge to be un-biased with his anti file sharing associations. It's like assuming the head of the KKK can be un-biased about a murder trial with a minority defendant.
The truth is in the US this judge could never have even presided over this case with his background.
- by IceTheNet July 6, 2009 11:35 AM PDT
- The legal system of the whole world has been corrupt from the beginning. I am surprised that there are people that are shocked by this. Julius Cesar killed Jesus and was stabbed in the back by his own counsel. That is pretty much how the system works. I am more surprised that TPB didn't see it coming and jump while they had a chance and form a new tracker. BTW Google owns MINI NOVA and is going to court. The only difference is that Google can afford it. And don't think that the US is any better because there not. I Know! I Live there!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)