Why are falkvinge.net posts still upvoted here? This guy is a quack with no grasp of the law whatsoever. The linked analysis on the blog contains the real cons

Why are falkvinge.net posts still upvoted here? This guy is a quack with no grasp of the law whatsoever. The linked analysis on the blog contains the real consequences of this ruling: - posting pictures online that one took himself of someone else's dresses can constitute copyright infringement (not so interesting, this has long been the case - but it's a point that often gets the I-hate-copyright quacks up in arms) - the distinction was made between 'for monetary benefit' or 'for the public good'. The 'public good' to be interpreted narrowly - saying 'I uploaded the new Metallica album to the pirate bay is my way of sharing culture' is not 'for the public good' (this last point was not made explicitly in the ruling or the analysis but it's implicit from all the previous case law; it would be interesting to see a judgement otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge the ECtHR has so far even refused to just hear cases based on this argument) - furthermore, to quote from the analysis : "Speech, messages, pictures and content which are merely money driven do not enjoy the added value of the protection guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In the Court’s view, the margin of appreciation in such circumstances is a very wide one, even in a case where the interference by the authorities takes the form of a criminal conviction or a very high award of damages, both ‘sanctions’ with a risk of having a chilling effect." This is merely reinforcing existing rulings at various levels that got the general interwebs riled up - "it's inhuman to convict somebody to millions in damages to run the pirate bay!" Sorry buddy, ECtHR just said it isn't. - Choice idiocy, typical falkvinge style: "When this court makes a decision, that decision gets constitutional status in all of Europe (except for Belarus, which is not a signatory)." Oh please. OK, not everybody has to be a lawyer, but at least read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_internati... before making dramatic claims like this. Also, using words like 'constitution' that have very different meanings between legal systems (hint: it usually functions very differently in civil law systems as it does in the US) usually only adds confusion; in this case, I'm not sure if it's deliberate or just because of general incompetence. "A court that tries somebody for violating the copyright monopoly must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict." What? What the court said was that the 3-step test established in many other aspects of ECtHR rulings apply here as well; he even quoted it one paragraph above his claim: "Exceptions can be made to Human Rights according to a well-defined three-step test: the verdict must be necessary in a democratic society, <etc>" How he got from that to what he claims, I can only ascribe to acute illiteracy. Please, sensible people on the internet: don't get your case law reporting / legal advice from falkvinge.net. If you think his reasoning will help you defend your case in court if you even end up there for copyright infringement, you'll be in for a very rude awakening.