Pirate Bay Lawyer Requests Retrial
Posted 04/23/09 at 09:38:47 AM by Paul Lilly
Comments
Print
Email
The well publicized Pirate Bay trial ended last week with the torrent tracking site's four founders being found guilty of copyright offenses and sentenced to one year in prison each, along with $3.6 million in fines. Coming as no surprise to anyone, a retrial is being sought, but what is surprising is that the judge who was in charge of the case -- Thomas Norström -- is reportedly a member of the same copyright protection organizations as some of the main entertainment industry representatives.
"I will point that out in my apeal, then the Court of Appeal (Hovrätten) will decide if the district court decision should be set aside and the case revisted," said Peter Althin, the lawyer who represents Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde.
Norström isn't denying the reports that he's involved in copyright organizations, but says this did not sway his decision one way or the other in the trial. He added, "My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest."
Did the Pirate Bay defendants receive a fair trial? Hit the jump and post your thoughts.
there is no argument here
Submitted by jihnn on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 5:45pm
if you actually believe that the judge was not biased do yourself a favor and do not post it.
it will be the end of your credibility.
the man was a bugger and wanker he had an agenda
they should get another trial, hopefully a fair one
*cough*misstrial*cough*
Submitted by PhelanPKell on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 10:14pm
I call bullshit.
If members of the jury are not allowed to have any association, knowledge, or pre-disposition in a case, why is a judge so casually permitted to have direct stake in a trial?
This is about as much of a miss-trial as you can get, and if something like that happened in the US or Canada, the trial would be thrown out on its ass.
Personally, I think TPB should be looking into taking that judge to court for this crap, but I don't even know if their countries laws allow that.
coolface.jpg
Submitted by HellTempest on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 5:16pm
That picture would be perfect for this quote.
but says this did not sway his decision one way or the other in the
trial. He added, "My view has been that these activities do not
constitute a conflict of interest."
Submitted by SpazzAttack on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 2:58pm
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me too, but will that absolve Pirate Bay of the aiding a abetting of copyright infringement? I doubt it. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can figure out what Pirate Bay is all about within a minute or two of perusing their web site.
My prediction: if Pirate Bay manages to finagle a new trial, they will get slam-dunked again.
More lame rationalizations for large scale copyright infringement in response to this post in 3...2…1…
Submitted by kris79 on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 4:36am
Thus, you look like an even bigger nitwit than you did before. Note
- try to get a new word other than "lame" - your tired desription of
anything other that your own dithering and blather.Me? - 100% right again. How do you feel now, fool? ...kris79
Submitted by SpazzAttack on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 6:18pm
kris79,
Every response you gave to me in the other news story defended Pirate Bay. And of course, again, you avoid dealing with central issue: The aiding and abetting of copyright infringement. Everything else, at the end of the day is irrelevant.
Submitted by jihnn on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 5:50pm
guess someone made you boss and you want to rule
most guys with your problem buy fast and expensive cars
Submitted by Velcrow on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 6:17pm
And we are GO for lame rationalizations...
You really don't get it Spazz. You think everyone that's opposed to this case is defending piracy. We're opposed to the obvious bias of it. The assumptions that are made in reaching a verdict. People are innocent until PROVEN guilty, not ASSUMED guilty.
"Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can figure out what Pirate Bay is all about within a minute or two of perusing their web site."
Nobody is argueing that there is illegal content on the site, the gray area is whether or not the owners should be held liable for what's posted on an open forum. There are currently no laws in place to make this black or white. We're asking that the laws be put in place before people are thrown in jail. This judge really screwed the pooch for Copyright protection. What WAS a victory now only makes them look like they resort to dirty tactics. What's worse, openly breaking the law (piracy) or abusing it (judge)?
Submitted by SpazzAttack on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 8:50pm
Unfortunately, it seems that everyone who opposes this case also seems to end up defending their piracy—including everyone who argued with me in the comment section of the original news story. I can only go by what was being said to me; sorry, but I can't read your minds. When you start making excuses for what is going on there, and certainly most of the content on Pirate Bay is copyrighted material, you are therefore making excuses for copyright infringement.
Let’s review again:
1. Pirate Bay advertises the downloading of movies, music and software on their home page. Google “Pirate Bay” if you don’t believe me. And I would bet that the movies people go there to download aren't your mom's home videos of your last birthday party either.
2. Pirate Bay was founded by an anti-copyright advocacy organization, it says so on their “About” page.
3. Browse Pirate Bay’s bit torrent links and you’ll see thousands of copyrighted works. Pirate Bay isn't a general purpose search engine like Google. Every bit torrent link there is posted by their users for downloading by others.
4. Black’s Law Dictionary defines aid and abet as: “To assist or facilitate the commission of a crime, or to promote its accomplishment.” Copyright infringement is still a crime and Pirate Bay certainly goes out of its way in connecting its users with bit torrents that "share" these copyrighted works. Hey they didn't call themselves Pirate Bay for nothing, you know. To aid and abet the comisssion of a crime is a crime in itself.
If you ask me, the judge should have excused himself from this case just to remove the appearance of impropriety. However, with the above review in mind, if you believe that the judge’s decision was materially biased, then please explain to me exactly how the court’s conviction of the aiding and abetting of copyright infringement does not square with what is going on at Pirate Bay?
In other words, if you or anyone here actually believes that Pirate Bay is completely innocent of the aiding and abetting of copyright infringement, then please explain to me why. I can't seem to drag a straight answer out of anybody here.
I do oppose the way this case was prosecuted, but I am in full agreement with the merits of criminally prosecuting Pirate Bay in the first place. They are nothing but a bunch of thieves and they should get what they deserve. Despite all the other garbage that went on with this case (and I admit there was a lot of it) Pirate Bay is going to have a lot of explaining to do to overturn their conviction.
Submitted by compro01 on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 11:09am
1. TPB has no copyrighted material on their site, unless you're claiming that .torrent files are copyrighted (which contain hashes of pieces of potentially copyrighted files). yes, a technicality, but law IS technicalities.
2. I continuously see ISP commercials advertising the downloading of movies, music, and software.
3. There is a major (in terms of membership numbers and was in the top 10 parties (out of 40) by votes in the last election) political party in Sweden with a similar name (Piratpartiet - the pirate party) and also the largest youth politcal group
4. What they were charged with was "accessory to copyright infringement", which I'm not sure jibes with law, as there is no primary charge of copyright infringement for them to accessorize to.
Submitted by SpazzAttack on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 3:51pm
1. Its still copyrighted material that is being illegally downloaded no matter how you try to spin it.
2. These ISP downloads are paid for by the subscribers and the copyright owners are compensated. The downloads from Pirate Bay are stolen from the copyright owners with no compensation.
3. And your point is what? Argumentum ad populum?
4. Black's Law Dictionary's definition of an accessory: "A person who aids or contributes in the commission or concealment of a crime." That's pretty much the same thing as aiding and abetting.
Nice try but no cigar. What Pirate Bay and their users do is morally wrong. I love watching people attempt to defend the indefensible.
you show your total lack of
Submitted by nekollx on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 4:33pm
you show your total lack of tech savy right there. Torrent files do not vilate copyright. their basicly links. so TPB isnt violating anything by hosting UNMONITORED torrent files only the USERS are violating copyright.
and thats assuming EVERY torrent user doesnt have a hard copy of the program they bought legally.
Submitted by SpazzAttack on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 6:17pm
"you show your total lack of tech savy right there. Torrent files do not vilate copyright. their basicly links."
I never said that torrent files contained the copyrighted material. If you bothered to read this thread, you would have seen what I said earlier: 'Browse Pirate Bay’s bit torrent links' (point #3 from my 'Here we go again post'). Just because every single word I post isn't technically correct in every aspect and carefully parsed 100% of the time, it does not follow that I don't know what I am talking about. I've been a software engineer for going on 25 years now, so my tech savvy is just fine, thank you.
And BTW when I said in my previous post, '1. Its still copyrighted material that is being illegally downloaded no matter how you try to spin it,' I did forget to add 'and Pirate Bay is assisting in that activity.'
"TPB isnt violating anything by hosting UNMONITORED torrent files only the USERS are violating copyright."
Yes the users are voilating copyright and Pirate Bay brings these users together to commit the crime. That's why Pirate Bay is guilty of "accessory to copyright infringement" or "aiding and abetting copyright infringement."
"and thats assuming EVERY torrent user doesnt have a hard copy of the program they bought legally."
Oh please, give me a break! It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of users who go through the trouble to download software are probably doing it because they never bought the program in the first place.
Ummm...
Submitted by GreenTurtle on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 5:52pm
" PROBABLY" safe to "ASSUME" !! Prove it Spazz. You can't charge people and make it stick with probablys and assuming. The proof is in the pudding and right now the puddings in your pants.
Submitted by Spartacus on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 1:37pm
I can't believe that- that most certainly is a conflict of interest, and I agree with the person that said that in the US that judge would be and should be fired for not revealing his affiliation. Even if he honestly tried not to be biased, subconscious bias still creeps in, and I don't see how you can not be overtly biased when you have such a huge stake in one side of the case.
Submitted by mav100 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 1:28pm
This guy NOT recusing himself from this trial is just about proof positive that the outcome was fixed before the trial even began.
Not sure what the courts are like there, but if this happened in the US, that verdict would be thrown out in a heartbeat.
Submitted by N25PHILLY on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:49pm
definately a conflict of interest no matter how just the decision was
Submitted by GreenTurtle on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 10:44am
Sounds to me that the "Judge" knew the verdict before the trial even started.
If this had happened in the
Submitted by dedgar on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 9:43am
If this had happened in the States, that judge would be severly reprimanded, would be lucky to continue to a judge. It is inexcuseable conduct on his part NOT to reveal his association.
The perception of impropriaty makes the judgement suspect by anyone.
Submitted by zodi on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:59am
If the judge does not believe that was a conflict of interest then he should agree its just no ethical.
Thats almost like the family of a murder victim being the jury because "we didn't like the guy who got murder and weren't that close to him even though he was family." Still a conflict of interest or at least unethical.
Big time
Submitted by Caboose on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:46am
That sounds like a pretty big Conflict of Interest to me! If a doctor can't operate on a family member, then a Judge or lawyer can't work in a trial where something that they are a member of is involved! Judges are supposed to be unbiased and make their decision based on the evidence provided and the trial. For all we know, the Judge had already made up his mind and was just sitting through the trial so he could hand out his guilty verdict! We need a new trial, with a judge that has NO ties to any copyright company, film, tv, music, software, etc.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
Knew it...
Submitted by AntiHero on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:20am
I thought he had to have been paid off or something, that there was something holding his arm. This shows me that they need more than one judge, probably 3 totally different people so they argue, and find a point they agree on in the long run. Piracy was different in the early nineties, which this judge is probably late thirties or more, so this form of piracy he's ruling against is a bit different since there are 100 ways to loophole yourself as innocent, or show you had nothing to do with illegal activity, especially if you have a disclaimer stating that you host the site in question for legal copies only. These kinds of arguements go all different ways. I just stated out the way I don't see it. I think they're innocent of copyright infringement because they didn't do anything other than be a bridge to links. Honestly, it is not their fault what people choose to do with the content downloaded, I use program, game and music torrents legally, I do download movies, but usually as a rental basis, since I buy every movie I like, or if I can't find a movie anywhere and i want to watch it, it can be downloaded in 20 minutes. TV shows are legal in my opinion because it comes on TV, and al you do is pay the cable company for the service to your home, TV shows get paid by advertisements, so if i download all 10 seasons of Friends, i don't care...they're syndicated still, so I'm just having it so i can watch them in order instead of seeing season 1 episode 4 and then seeing season 8's finale in the same hour span.
I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.
Old, oblivious people
Submitted by Denis63 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:17am
Old, oblivious people telling young people how to use technology.
-Denis
Submitted by comptech08 on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 9:01am
lol so true
Rediculous, someone called
Submitted by ZayLay on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 6:55am
Rediculous, someone called it earlier that the judge just got paid nicely for that judgement.
Submitted by Velcrow on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 6:49am
LOL! You're kidding right? Ah man, that's just too good. It's impossible for the judge to show that there was no conflict of interest, especially since the rest of us will assume it was. Looks bad in any case. If he feels strongly enough about Copyright Protection to actually participate in that organization, then it is doubtful he can escape the influences of such.
Agreed. The whole trial was
Submitted by I Jedi on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:31am
Agreed. The whole trial was a blow, then. Especially if the Judge belongs to an organization against TPB...
Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:57am
[scarcasm]Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a judge in a case of "little man" vs "copyright holders" isnt AT ALL biaased when hes a menber of the "copy right holders" organization. Remind me next time i sue Dell for faulty products the judge at the trial has Dell Stock, after all there's no conflict of interest their either.[/scarcasm]
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.