Pirate Bay Appeal To Be Heard By Judge Tied To Copyright Group As Well

from the well,-that-seems-fair... dept

Fri, Sep 4th 2009 12:58pm — Mike Masnick

As The Pirate Bay gears up for the appeal of its trial in Sweden, it's worth noting that the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge. How is that fair?

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: bias, copyright, sweden, trial
Companies: the pirate bay

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 1:12pm

You know....
"the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge."

You kow, I've said this before, but the job of government is really simple: make me work to find your bullshit. As an American, I fully expect my government and the government of most if not all other nations to be full of corrupt, beauracratic nonsense that would anger people if they knew about. Here's the key role for these assholes: don't let us know about it.

I mean, look, yes I want to be informed, and I'm GLAD I found out about THIS one, now that I know about it. But honestly, in the long run, if it's inevitable that you're going to rape me so hard that I end up bleeding out of my anus, can't you at least let me look the other direction?

Would have it REALLY been that hard to come up with a judge who was every bit as bought and biased, but WASN'T the exact same judge? At least then I would have been able to calm down for a couple months during the appeals process, while the sham of the trial went on. Then, sometime next March when Mike reported that THIS judge had the same affiliations I could ramp myself back up after a long hibernation and really give it my all.

I'll repeat: government, your job is to fool me. Make us work really really hard to find the fucked up stuff that you do, so that by the time I've figured it out I'm too tired to be angry and I just go take a shit, relax with some Britney Spears tunes and some asian porn.

God dammit....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BullJustin (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 1:18pm

Fairness
It's not about fairness, it never has been, and it never will. It's about money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 1:33pm

Fine
You bought a judge, but in the process you also convinced me that the 'legalities' of file-sharing etc. are just a matter of money, and I should simply try to maximize my side of the equation.

Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 1:49pm

Enter The Pirate Party ...
The Pirate Party should use this for all its worth.

I should go into a paranoind rant at this point ... but Dark Helmet already covered it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:00pm

Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party, it does seem a bit unfair to suggest that a jurist will be unable to decide a case is an impartial manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Logo, 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:13pm

Re:
Does it seem unfair that after happening 3 times (Original judge, the review of the original judge, and now this) something is afoot? Unless are judges in Sweden can be tied to copyright groups this just screams of foul play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:35pm

Re:
Baloney! If any party can demonstrate an APPARENT conflict of interest, the jurist is generally advised by their local judicial handbook to recuse themself, or at the very least record a disclosure statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh, 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:36pm

This was not a Jury Trial. This was a trial decided by a judge that has ties to the copyright group that want stronger laws for copyright. And I may be wrong but I do believe that with this being an Appeal this wont be sent to jury either. The appeal will be based on a judge's decision that has ties to the copyright group.

If you has items from your house stolen, and the police arrested the robbers you wouldnt want the judge thats hearing the case to be tied to the gang that the robbers was from now would you? Do you think you will see justice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:47pm

Re:
Ummm, Huge, I agree with your other point, but in this case, jurist=judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 2:49pm

Re:
Hello My name is Bob. (hand shake, smile, and eye contact go here) I understand you are interested in copyright issues, so am I. Would you like to go out to dinner and tell me your thoughts on what would strengthen our great nations rule of law on the subject. Dinner is my treat .... hook, line, and sinker...

Truthfully with that approach all you have to do is find the people most likely to have your opinion on the subject. Then find court clerk and pull the same sort of BS. Its really that simple. No bribes are needed just a little personality engineering.

so your line....

"Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party, it does seem a bit unfair to suggest that a jurist will be unable to decide a case is an impartial manner."

My response ....

If there is even a hint that the jurist is biased they need to be removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MaDirt (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:16pm

Re: Fine
By far the summation of this farce typed to screen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Andrew, 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:17pm

PBay Retrial
I love the culture of Pirate Bay and the essense of sharing that underly it's approach. While it's model may not translate literally as the future of the music/media business, it certainly represents the ethos of what is coming and that is exciting.

Yet, given the current system of copyright laws (copyright regime as is sometimes fun to name it) the rulings by courts in the US and internationally are not surprising and, I would assert, make perfect sense given the system. We are multiple generations removed from a time when those in a position to change IP law will have the ability to do so. Why is the discussion so impractical? Wouldn't it help us to move forward with a respect for where we are and for what is reasonable to expect in the near verses extended future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MaDirt (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Fine
^best^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:42pm

Re:
Okay. So you'd have no problem with a judge affiliated with the Pirate Party then? Sweet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:46pm

Re: You know....
"Would have it REALLY been that hard to come up with a judge who was every bit as bought and biased, but WASN'T the exact same judge?"

ah Dark Helmet, you make me laugh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:58pm

Re: PBay Retrial
Our adversaries repeatedly succeed in small measure by the application of absurdities. Tell me again that we should be more reasonable; I'll punch your mother in the mouth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 5:01pm

I CANNOT wait for the older generation to retire, or die off. Then, and ONLY THEN will we see change and reform in the Copyright system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 5:02pm

Fairness?
There is no such thing as fairness; it boils down to bribes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:30pm

@17: Do you really think greed and corruption are limited to old people? Me thinks that you are the fool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 6:24am

Re:
Plagiarist...

This is an unattributed quote first made circa 45,000 B.C.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh, 5 Sep 2009 @ 6:27am

Re: Re:
I know this is off subject, but the name is Hugh not Huge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2009 @ 2:31am

RE : Dan, # 19
Same guy who wrote 17 here. I suppose I should have been more specific. I think that as the "Napster" generation grows up, and takes positions of leadership in Business, and Government, we will see a shift in Copyright laws. When you have a generation growing up that believes that information should be easily accessible, and available for people to create with, and build upon, rather than being locked away, then change will come. I AM NOT opposed to the idea of ownership of your creations, but I think that 95 YEARS is grossly excessive. The original purpose of Copyright is to encourage creativity, and expand culture. How is that accomplished if someone can live on one creation "forever" (see : Disney, Mickey Mouse), and lock it up behind excessive laws? Copyright is fine, but it needs to be, say, 25 years, which would be enough time to create something, profit from it, and then allow the public domain to grow, so that others can create and innovate with it. Change WILL come, it is just a mater of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles (profile), 8 Sep 2009 @ 5:51am

Re: RE : Dan, # 19
Copyright is fine, but it needs to be, say, 25 years...
Are you freakin' insane? My goodness, why is it people like you continually think ownership over an idea is a good thing so people can profit from it.

Personally, if copyright is to remain, I prefer the system in which people had to file for one and continually repay the fee to renew it.

Imagine our surprise when the entertainment industry no longer wanted this model as it would cost them millions to renew.

I get the gist people want their "creations" protected against those who'd simply take, alter, and sell as their own. Makes sense, but it's unnecessary. If the creation didn't make the impression by the original creators, then a copy shouldn't be the focus of the problem. I would place that on the creator for doing little to instill the creation in the first place.

Copyright sucks in its current form. It sucks in all its forms. It's legal DRM, preventing the use of creation by limiting, or making illegal, all innovation from such creation.

You people can't stand DRM on your media, so why the hell accept it on creation? It's hypocritical thinking no matter how you look at it.

Abolish copyright and let's see just how well the world really works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheinen, 8 Sep 2009 @ 8:20am

I've got to be honest, this discussion would be far less interesting if I wasn't wearing my toasty, clean ugg boots!

I forgot my point...

Oh, Pirate Bay, yeah - look, Sweden don't want this shit on their hands any more so they're rigging a way to get rid of it. The fact that they're being SO blatant about it proves only how unimportant they think the whole charade is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2009 @ 1:57pm

Re:
Unless someone can credibly demonstrate that a jurist is predisposed to rule in favor of a specific party...

"...the judge chosen to hear the trial happens to be the same one who was removed from reviewing the fairness of the original trial because she happens to belong to the same pro-stronger copyright group as the original judge."

There. Done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]