7 ms·

Pirate Bay Retrial Denied

60 points by ALee 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
Im heavily divided on this. On one hand I think the court made the right decision and that a completely unbiased judge would have found the same. But on the other hand there is that little bit of nagging doubt that possibly somebody (or rather a group) sneakily made sure he was given the case - which I am dead against!! Mixed bag all round - TBH I think an appeal is probably the best approach over a retrial; but it has to be heard again in some form. Right now it is too much of a hanging verdict to me.
- teilo 17y ago
  Whether an unbiased judge would make the same decision is irrelevant. A retrial in a case like this should be automatic. Judges cannot be affiliated with the Prosecution or the Defense in a trial, Period. In the US court system, this would almost certainly have resulted in a retrial, but perhaps I am being naive.
  - lucumo 17y ago
    How can it be automatic? Somebody will have to decide if there was an affiliation. Apparently the judges in this case decided there wasn't. I'm not sure I agree with that. I haven't seen the complete reasoning of the judges.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    From what I'm reading, the question of whether there was an affiliation was what the panel considered, and they decided no, because whatever affiliation there was was simply to an organization that espoused intellectual property and copyright laws as they existed already. In other words, you can't be forcibly recused from a copyright trial just because you believe copyright laws are valid in their strictest interpretation.
  - mustpax 17y ago
    I agree with you that this casts doubt on the verdict, which doesn't do anybody any good. Still, the appellate court's contention is that being affiliated with a copyright law related professional organization is different than being affiliated with a particular copyright holder. Copyright law is simply a branch of legal study, interest in which is not a contentious issue per se. Furthermore, court doesn't concern itself with the political discussion around law, but in the application of law as it stands. I mean, I don't know where I personally stand in all this. But one thing is for sure, if the courts don't consider copyright law as contentious, a legislative body eventually will. Just look at the rise of the Pirate Party.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    unbiased was the wrong word for me to use. Unaffiliated was what I should have said (even that is bad: all I mean is one with no connections full stop :D)
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    What about in cases of disbarment? The judge is surely a member of the same bar association that the defendant is getting kicked out of.
  - leoc 17y ago
    I seem to recall there was a similar conflict of interest in the Corley case, and I don't think it resulted in a retrial.
buugs 17y ago
Does this remove the option to appeal? From my knowledge a retrial is the same court based on circumstances to be unfair while an appeal is for moving up the court system. This article seems to use the words otherwise, maybe the swedish court system is different.
- sp332 17y ago
  Although they have reached the limit of the Swedish system, they are continuing to escalate their case by taking it to the European Court of Human Rights. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-retrial-denied-judge-declared-unbiased.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-r...
  - lucumo 17y ago
    It doesn't say anything about the possibility of appeal of the original verdict. Just that the decision of the "bias-judge" can't be appealed. (And apparently, they're going to fight that in the European courts.)
    - stse 17y ago
      correct, both parties have appealed the previous verdict, and there will be at least one other trial. If the court would have found the judge bias they would have had to retake the previous trial. Edit: The Local is a good source for English news about Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/20280/20090625/ http://www.thelocal.se/20280/20090625/
paul9290 17y ago
This goes to show that copyfight is going to win and we will be paying for their content and or consume it legally. We were doing so before p2p came along and we'll do so again. An unpopular opinion in these parts, but just look at the last ten years of tech and copyright. Copyright has always won in the end. This industry (tech) though has thankfully forced their hand and copyright is now offering good alternatives to piracy that are legal (hulu, youtube music vids, etc).
- Andys 17y ago
  > We were doing so before p2p came along and we'll do so again. Speak for yourself :-) As a teenager I grew up with bulletin board systems, and later, the Internet. Before I had any money to buy legal content, I was downloading free music as well as copyrighted works. I have never known a way of life that didn't involve being able to share music online.
- weavejester 17y ago
  Putting aside arguments as to the morality of copyright infringement, I'm surprised you think that the pro-copyright lobby will win. The odds are hugely stacked against them. The content industry has a large amount of financial and legal backing, but the pirates are backed by technological progress. As bandwidth increases, it becomes faster to download material, and easier to hide your activities from prying eyes. The content industry has enough problems with piracy now; how do you think it'll fare in the next decade when there's enough bandwidth to run anonymous P2P networks at decent speeds?
  - lucumo 17y ago
    If what you're saying is true, then it will not be a victory in the sense of A defeats B, it will be one where the world is changed. If pirates win, the whole industry as it is now will disappear and a revenue model will win. Whether this is a good or a bad thing, I'll leave up to you. But it seems likely that if the pirates win, both the industry _and_ the pirates will disappear...
    - 17y ago
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

60 points by ALee 17y ago

Im heavily divided on this. On one hand I think the court made the right decision and that a completely unbiased judge would have found the same. But on the other hand there is that little bit of nagging doubt that possibly somebody (or rather a group) sneakily made sure he was given the case - which I am dead against!! Mixed bag all round - TBH I think an appeal is probably the best approach over a retrial; but it has to be heard again in some form. Right now it is too much of a hanging verdict to me.

teilo 17y ago
Whether an unbiased judge would make the same decision is irrelevant. A retrial in a case like this should be automatic. Judges cannot be affiliated with the Prosecution or the Defense in a trial, Period. In the US court system, this would almost certainly have resulted in a retrial, but perhaps I am being naive.
- lucumo 17y ago
  How can it be automatic? Somebody will have to decide if there was an affiliation. Apparently the judges in this case decided there wasn't. I'm not sure I agree with that. I haven't seen the complete reasoning of the judges.
- tptacek 17y ago
  From what I'm reading, the question of whether there was an affiliation was what the panel considered, and they decided no, because whatever affiliation there was was simply to an organization that espoused intellectual property and copyright laws as they existed already. In other words, you can't be forcibly recused from a copyright trial just because you believe copyright laws are valid in their strictest interpretation.
- mustpax 17y ago
  I agree with you that this casts doubt on the verdict, which doesn't do anybody any good. Still, the appellate court's contention is that being affiliated with a copyright law related professional organization is different than being affiliated with a particular copyright holder. Copyright law is simply a branch of legal study, interest in which is not a contentious issue per se. Furthermore, court doesn't concern itself with the political discussion around law, but in the application of law as it stands. I mean, I don't know where I personally stand in all this. But one thing is for sure, if the courts don't consider copyright law as contentious, a legislative body eventually will. Just look at the rise of the Pirate Party.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  unbiased was the wrong word for me to use. Unaffiliated was what I should have said (even that is bad: all I mean is one with no connections full stop :D)
- tedunangst 17y ago
  What about in cases of disbarment? The judge is surely a member of the same bar association that the defendant is getting kicked out of.
- leoc 17y ago
  I seem to recall there was a similar conflict of interest in the Corley case, and I don't think it resulted in a retrial.

buugs 17y ago

Does this remove the option to appeal? From my knowledge a retrial is the same court based on circumstances to be unfair while an appeal is for moving up the court system. This article seems to use the words otherwise, maybe the swedish court system is different.

sp332 17y ago
Although they have reached the limit of the Swedish system, they are continuing to escalate their case by taking it to the European Court of Human Rights. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-retrial-denied-judge-declared-unbiased.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/pirate-bay-r...
- lucumo 17y ago
  It doesn't say anything about the possibility of appeal of the original verdict. Just that the decision of the "bias-judge" can't be appealed. (And apparently, they're going to fight that in the European courts.)
  - stse 17y ago
    correct, both parties have appealed the previous verdict, and there will be at least one other trial. If the court would have found the judge bias they would have had to retake the previous trial. Edit: The Local is a good source for English news about Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/20280/20090625/ http://www.thelocal.se/20280/20090625/

paul9290 17y ago

This goes to show that copyfight is going to win and we will be paying for their content and or consume it legally. We were doing so before p2p came along and we'll do so again. An unpopular opinion in these parts, but just look at the last ten years of tech and copyright. Copyright has always won in the end. This industry (tech) though has thankfully forced their hand and copyright is now offering good alternatives to piracy that are legal (hulu, youtube music vids, etc).

Andys 17y ago
> We were doing so before p2p came along and we'll do so again. Speak for yourself :-) As a teenager I grew up with bulletin board systems, and later, the Internet. Before I had any money to buy legal content, I was downloading free music as well as copyrighted works. I have never known a way of life that didn't involve being able to share music online.
weavejester 17y ago
Putting aside arguments as to the morality of copyright infringement, I'm surprised you think that the pro-copyright lobby will win. The odds are hugely stacked against them. The content industry has a large amount of financial and legal backing, but the pirates are backed by technological progress. As bandwidth increases, it becomes faster to download material, and easier to hide your activities from prying eyes. The content industry has enough problems with piracy now; how do you think it'll fare in the next decade when there's enough bandwidth to run anonymous P2P networks at decent speeds?
- lucumo 17y ago
  If what you're saying is true, then it will not be a victory in the sense of A defeats B, it will be one where the world is changed. If pirates win, the whole industry as it is now will disappear and a revenue model will win. Whether this is a good or a bad thing, I'll leave up to you. But it seems likely that if the pirates win, both the industry _and_ the pirates will disappear...
  - 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]