Person In Charge Of Determining If Pirate Bay Judge Is Biased... May Be Biased
from the well,-look-at-that dept
As Swedish officials are looking into charges that the judge in The Pirate Bay trial was biased, there's now some concern that the person in charge of figuring out whether he was biased... might be biased as well. Apparently, he serves on a board with the main lawyers who argued the case for the entertainment industry (and two of their main assistants). Of course, in legal circles you do end up getting to know others in the field, but as brokep from The Pirate Bay notes: "Not any of OUR lawyers are on that board. But two of the opponents lawyers in the same board." Considering that officials should be trying to make it clear that there's no bias, it seems like they should pick someone who has no direct ties to the attorneys involved in the case. Brokep also has some fun in noting that it was simple to find this info on Google, and he's surprised that no one else had done such a simple search yet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anders eka, bias, copyright, lawsuits, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe they were searching the torrents instead of google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sacking
We apologise again for the fault in judge bias. Those
responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked
have been sacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well. Another kangaroo court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this whole proceeding is a farce and underscores pretty much all of the complexities that surround the politics of file sharing.
in their race to over simplify the issue, the copyright lobby (and by proxy, their coin operated government puppets) have consistently underestimated the intelligence, passion, and tenacity of the people they are fighting.
the prevailing attitude among the content industry has been one of willful ignorance to the fact that this is a political movement that isn't going to just go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JUST SPOKE TO EKA HIMSELF
http://www.ment.se/node/8103
just use google translate if yous cant read swedish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JUST SPOKE TO EKA HIMSELF
Love your women though. Seriously....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a translation of Mr. Eka's response from the article linked above:
"- The reason I am included on the list is because I was part of a reference group that discussed projects related to free speech and issues related to printed media"
"- I have deemed that I have no connection to copyrighted material since I never have been involved in such matters. In addition, I have only attended one meeting at this group and that was two years ago if I remember it correctly."
Although I have mixed emotions about involvement in the Swedish Copyright Association, if what mr. Eka says above is correct it doesn't seem very troubling. But it's still a surprise that they didn't check this in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: political crap
I fail to see how the issue of unpartiality is related to politics though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprised that no one had done a simple search?
I suspect that Internet denizens have different -- hopefully better -- standards on what constitutes research.
As a middle-aged person, occasionally I still find myself following stupid old patterns for obtaining information. For most of my life, there was no Web, no Google, no Wikipedia, etc. All we could do was slog to the library and make phone calls, and half the time these approaches were fruitless.
While I've mostly trained myself to Google a question of fact before going off like a half-cocked idiot, I suspect that not everyone my age or older has been quite so fortunate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: surprised that no one had done a simple search?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: surprised that no one had done a simple search?
Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: surprised that no one had done a simple search?
Huh? How's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some more evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I have deemed that I have no connection to copyrighted material since blah blah blah."
Thats like me saying "I have deemed that I have never used the internets, that I have never read a book or watched TV"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]