Slashdot Mirror


"Judicial Scandal" In Pirate Bay Case

dr_d_19 writes "Swedish media are reporting that Jim Keyzer, one of the police officers involved in investigating the Pirate Bay case, began working for Warner Bros. a few months after the investigation was finished. Peter Sunde, one of the men behind TPB, calls this a 'Judicial Scandal.' Quoting from TheLocal article: 'If the police officer is found to have entered into discussions with Warner Brothers before the end of the investigation, which took a year and a half to complete, it is possible that the prosecution will have to scrap its findings and start again.'"

250 comments

  1. Corruption? by daliman · · Score: 5, Funny

    So colour me surprised...

    1. Re:Corruption? by DanWS6 · · Score: 1, Funny

      What color is that?

    2. Re:Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot pink.

    3. Re:Corruption? by MagdJTK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Depends what kind of surprise it is. Pink for the best kind, brown for the worst.

    4. Re:Corruption? by Llamahand · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously you never had the deluxe 65 color Crayola box as a kid.

    5. Re:Corruption? by DanWS6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I was a kid we were lucky to have the monochrome Crayola box. You kids and your fancy 65 colors.

    6. Re:Corruption? by Kamineko · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Red handed".

    7. Re:Corruption? by wozzinator · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those boxes only came in binary numbers! 8,16,32,64,128!

      --
      BSD is for people who love Unix, Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
    8. Re:Corruption? by cicadia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those boxes only came in binary numbers! 8,16,32,64,128! But those are decimal numbers!
      --
      Living better through chemicals
    9. Re:Corruption? by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are decimal*.

      Perhaps you meant powers of two?

      *if the values represented correspond to the Crayola quantities I am familiar with. The numbers could, of course, be anything octal or higher based.

      --
      i forget
    10. Re:Corruption? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Numbers are decimal.

      Representations are decimal.

      Decimate your representatives!

    11. Re:Corruption? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      They don't really tell, they can be octal or hexadecimal for all we know aswell, or something completely else.

    12. Re:Corruption? by yabba-dabba-do · · Score: 1

      I took it as a joke. 64 colours in a crayola box, plus 1 for the colour "surprised".

    13. Re:Corruption? by ill+stew+dottied+ewe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Crayola (and other companies that I am familiar with) generally use powers of two, but also multiply by three in some cases (24, 36, 48, etc) They have deviated in several cases, producing packs of 1-10, as well as 40 (mainly in Europe) Bulk packaging also deviates, by having a small number of colors repeated, usually in a multiple of 5. There is a list here: http://www.crayoncollecting.com/Binney.htm Also, 8 is not octal. 8(decimal)== 0o10

    14. Re:Corruption? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Those boxes only came in binary numbers! 8,16,32,64,128!
      But those are decimal numbers!

      Not necessarily, but they are at least nonary.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    15. Re:Corruption? by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      If anyone remembers The Great Muppet Caper

      "What color are their hands now?"

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    16. Re:Corruption? by Talavis · · Score: 1

      ... they can be octal ... Since when is 8 an octal number?
    17. Re:Corruption? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Since my () key broke, I've had to improvise.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:Corruption? by Llamahand · · Score: 1

      Shhhh! It was funnier than my actual joke to let them keep bantering about octal crayon boxes. If you go around explaining everybody's jokes, where will all the wonderful chatter come from?

    19. Re:Corruption? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You, someone had already pointed that out in some other post, guess I didn't thought that long me either. In any case they are indeed NOT binary numbers.

    20. Re:Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technicolor(TM).

    21. Re:Corruption? by daemonenwind · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another Hillary voter, I see.

    22. Re:Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those boxes only came in binary numbers! 8,16,32,64,128! But those are decimal numbers! But those could be hexadecimal numbers! How do you know?
  2. Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Two different stories, with possible scandalous implications, both involving Time-Warner companies in one day? Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

    1. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

      Not in Sweden!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by tuxgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

      They're busy having coffee and donuts with Time Warner's talent scouts

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    3. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Oregon, scaring the crap out of the RIAA with class action litigation based partly on RICO statutes.

      FYI, note to self, do no attempt to litigate individuals that work as case support agents for the DOJ. It may not turn out how you would want.

    4. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they said they'd put more agents looking for terrorists, other units must have suffered.

    5. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Spoken like a true American never been out of his parents basement.

    6. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by laiquendi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

      They've recently accepted new jobs at Time-Warner.

    7. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We are not robin hood, prince of thieves. We are petty criminals taking what we want because no one can stop us.

      "We are not artists, producers of beauty. We are criminals taking what we want because no one will stop us."

    8. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

      What is it that makes you think that the FBI RICO investigators exist to serve you?

    9. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Narpak · · Score: 1

      "Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?" Busy looking the other way?

    10. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      We are criminals making what we want because no one will stop us.


      Fixed.
      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    11. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant that to be from the point of view of the RIAA and co. I see now it wasn't clear at all.

    12. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Funny how the anti-Sweden post is modded "Troll" while the anti-US post is modded "Insightful". Sorry people, but Nationalism, no matter which country it originates from, is just wrong.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      One was offensive, one defensive. The anti-sweden troll was a troll, trolling for bites (and he got one) while the anti-us comment was a bite.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  3. To Quote Futurama.. by neoform · · Score: 0

    BAM!

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:To Quote Futurama.. by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Funny

      You quoted those quoting others. Or possibly quoting those quoting those quoting others

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:To Quote Futurama.. by Kamineko · · Score: 5, Funny

      You quoted [wikipedia.org] those quoting others [wikipedia.org]. Or possibly quoting those [wikipedia.org] quoting those quoting others
      QFT
    3. Re:To Quote Futurama.. by neoform · · Score: 1

      You quoted those quoting others. Or possibly quoting those quoting those quoting others

      The least you could've done is quoted me when responding. gosh.
      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    4. Re:To Quote Futurama.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the internet.

  4. Makes sense by notext · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not over. He's supposed to be called as a wittnes later on.

    2. Re:Makes sense by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      what is 'it'? The raid or the whole investigation?

    3. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is if he was given the offer during the investigation. That would most likely be considered a bribe, or at the very least conflict of interests under Swedish law, and hence it could trash the entire trial.

    4. Re:Makes sense by aeskdar · · Score: 0

      I didn't know that when you became an investigator or police officer that you where trying to capitalize on your duty to uphold the law. It sounds to me that corporations can just buy there own cops and write there own laws. IMO that makes this guy a piece of shit.

    5. Re:Makes sense by symes · · Score: 1
      Unpopular tough this might be - I'd agree with this

      If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over? anyhow - in any case that involves the police surely its expected that they talk to the parties involved? In fact it would seem a bit daft if there was no dialogue...
    6. Re:Makes sense by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      If Time/Warner bribe officers of the law by giving good jobs if they get the results Time/Warner wants, why wouldn't Sweden want to prosecute for bribing a government official?

      If!

    7. Re:Makes sense by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?
      Okay, let's change the circumstances and see if you still think so nonchalantly about this.

      Your [insert loved one here] gets accused of fraud by [insert evil corporation here]. They seize your [loved one]'s possessions and spead viscious lies all over the media and the internet about your [loved one]. Right after the investigation is over and your [loved one] is absolved in court (but maybe not in the court of public opinion), one of the investigating officers goes to work for [evil corporation].

      Different story? Not really.
    8. Re:Makes sense by What+Would+NPH+Do · · Score: 1

      So cops are supposed to be having employment dialogs with interested parties of an investigation? Yeah, nothing seems out of the ordinary in that...

    9. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know that when you became an investigator or police officer that you where trying to capitalize on your duty to uphold the law. It sounds to me that corporations can just buy there own cops and write there own laws. IMO that makes this guy a piece of shit. so the police are not allowed to change careers? once a cop always a cop? as it happens the police provide the evidence the courts make the decisions... i can see no way in which this officer's choice can effect the trial outcome.
    10. Re:Makes sense by symes · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it was with the parties being prosecuted then, yes, that would be totally inappropriate. But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here?

    11. Re:Makes sense by What+Would+NPH+Do · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you think it's proper that during an investigation that an officer is applying for jobs with one of the interested parties? That doesn't even remotely strike you as having any conflict of interest?

    12. Re:Makes sense by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      as it happens the police provide the evidence the courts make the decisions... i can see no way in which this officer's choice can effect the trial outcome. You stated the way in which it can affect the outcome right before you said there was no way.

      Said conflict of interest opens the witness to accusations of evidence corruption/planting, witness tampering, etc... If he's supposed to supply the evidence, and he has a vested interest in WB winning, then he can easily subvert the due process of law for his own gain by helping them.

      Any defense attorney with an IQ above 20 would tear a case built on that evidence to shreds, assuming the judge is a moron and allows it in the first place.
    13. Re:Makes sense by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aaah, but that is not how the police is supposed to be working. Their job is not "find evidence that supports the claims of the plaintiff", their job is "investigate the claims of the plaintiff and try to figure out what really happened". But from what I've seen of the US legal system I can understand that you're confused, after all, not calling a traffic cop "Sir" can land you in jail there...

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    14. Re:Makes sense by innerweb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Changing careers is one thing, changing jobs to someone who may benefit from *evidence* you gather in a trial against someone else is clearly a conflict of interest and unlawful in most western countries that I know of. You just do not do it. In many locales (not sure about his), he could be looking at jail time depending on what comes out about his involvement, time frames, actions, etc. Too bad we don't have restrictions against lawmakers doing the same thing.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    15. Re:Makes sense by Dallas+Caley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because he's a friggin police officer! last i heard, Time warner wasn't in charge of maintaining the peace or fighting crime, so even if he was the best dang police officer they ever dealt with i still wouldn't see a reason to hire him. This smells like a payoff to me. and i hope Time Warner goes down

    16. Re:Makes sense by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      There is a clear conflict of interest if a police officer, while conducting an investigation, entertains and later accepts a job offer with the alleged victim. There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job, but any work he did on the case is suspect and would be inadmissible in court. The prosecutor, if s/he knew about this, wouldn't likely even try to get the evidence entered. If the cop was key to the investigation, then all the evidence would be tainted. If the suspect evidence has already been heard, then the Trial would probably be declared a mis-trial, and the prosecution would have to start from scratch, with all new evidence (and remember, the TPB servers are no longer in Sweden).

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    17. Re:Makes sense by What+Would+NPH+Do · · Score: 1

      But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here? No one's saying that the police can't work with Warner Bros. The issue is with Warner Bros. possibly trying to influence the outcome of the investigation by bribing the cops. In almost any law enforcement agency this is considered improper conduct. Would you think an investigation that was done on you was impartial if afterwards you found out that the RIAA had offered them jobs during their investigation on you? I doubt it.
    18. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is this moderated "insightful"?! all this guy's done is spin a tale and inserted 'love' and 'evil' here and there to push the warners-bad, filesharers-angelic agenda. lets try a different version:

      a child molester gets accused of murder by [insert name of pure and innocent child]. the police seize [murderers] possessions and notify the appropriate authorities, media that they are prosecuting [murderer]. leading officer goes to work with [well known organisation that takles child molestation and murder] so that he can concentrate on an area of work he finds rewarding and further his career.

    19. Re:Makes sense by aeskdar · · Score: 0

      I am not saying that a cop isn't able to make a change in career. My point is that that using his position as leverage isn't something that is in the public's interest. Maybe instead of investigating something that can be used towards furthering his career could be time best spent on investigating something that actually harms the public. I do not believe in Imaginary Property. And yes once a cop always a cop.

    20. Re:Makes sense by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well strictly speaking, they're not on the same side. The police and the prosecutor represent the State, not the victim. The State's interest is to see that justice is served for all the people, while the victim's interest is to get back at the party that wronged them. This is why civil and criminal law are separate branchs. (note that several hundred years of legal philosophy have been distilled down to 3 sentences, and thus I have grossly simplified the matter) IANAL...yet.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    21. Re:Makes sense by notext · · Score: 1

      If it was after his investigation and they were impressed with his work, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

      If you did work for a company and they were impressed and offered you a job with more pay after you were done would you not be interested?

      The problem is the conjecture that it happened during the investigation. Yes, that would be something I would be opposed to.

    22. Re:Makes sense by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      Companies with as much copyright materials as Time Warner have to watch for and investigate copyright infringement. They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.

      Would you buy stock in a public company that didn't protect its own property and a significant source of revenue?

    23. Re:Makes sense by What+Would+NPH+Do · · Score: 1

      If they had influenced him during the evidence to tamper with evidence in order to bring about a wrongful conviction this would be just as much a conflict of interest as in the case being discussed. Sorry, just cause you try to use child molestation to make an emotional point it doesn't work on me. If there is any impropriety in the investigation the work of that officer should be thrown out.

    24. Re:Makes sense by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to differ with you on one point.

      "There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job..."

      At least here in the U.S., the "revolving door" of government workers moving into industries they've had contact with previously is more than just common. It is corruptively common.

      A huge portion of the higher-ups in the airport screening TSA was former air lines management and as a screener, I had witnessed lots of incidents where the requests and even demands of the airlines resulted in relaxing security of the airport, the flights and all the innocent uninvolved people were put into potential security compromise at the behest of the airlines.

      The TSA and the FAA should be regulating the airlines, not the other way around. The same goes for anything the government is charged with regulating. When those connections exist, it should ALWAYS be considered improper.

    25. Re:Makes sense by Dallas+Caley · · Score: 1

      I realize your right of course, i'm just venting my anger because i was recently forced to switch to their horrible sucky cable service. Heck i'd invest in Satan himself if he promised a good return of investment.

    26. Re:Makes sense by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.

      That's odd. Most companies use lawyers to protect their "IP" in court. What's this guy supposed to do? Work with MediaSentry in "evidence gathering"?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    27. Re:Makes sense by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In many locales (not sure about his), he could be looking at jail time depending on what comes out about his involvement, time frames, actions, etc.
      We can only hope so. There's nothing lower than a bent copper.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:Makes sense by late_to_the_game · · Score: 1

      a child molester gets accused of child molestation of [insert name of pure and innocent child]. the police seize [molesters] possessions and notify the appropriate authorities, media that they are prosecuting [molester]. leading officer goes to work with [well known brothel specializing in supplying children] so that he can concentrate on an area of work he finds rewarding, making sure only big corporations allow sex with children. fixed that for you, to more accurately account for the role Warner Brothers played in this.

    29. Re:Makes sense by debatem1 · · Score: 1

      If a cop got romantically involved with the victim of a crime during the course of an investigation, would you see a conflict of interest?

    30. Re:Makes sense by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      If he's useful to the prosecuting lawyers in an IP case why can't he be useful to the plaintiffs in another IP case?

    31. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's nothing lower than a bent copper.

      A bent farthing?

    32. Re:Makes sense by dq5+studios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a good thing the TSA doesn't actually increase security then or we might be in serious trouble!

    33. Re:Makes sense by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not necessarily the case that there is anything wrong with the cop taking the job. He may have done a bang-up job preparing the evidence for the prosecution. We don't know. However, I don't think that's the issue at hand. The ex-cop needs to not merely avoid impropriety. He absolutely must avoid the appearance of impropriety. His actions and perceived honour can make or break the case based on his credibility. And now his credibility is shot.

      If he's a lead detective, he absolutely cannot take a position with anyone for whom he has gathered evidence for trial. The appearance of impropriety should be enough to quash that. Further, he should have an absolute duty to relate to his commanding officer and the prosecution the offer of the position, whether the offer was during the investigation (which would result in him being removed from the investigation immediately, some sort of sanction against the petitioner, and possibly even the abandonment of the entire investigation) or afterward (which should result in sanctions against the petitioner, even if it's a slap on the wrist). If Swedish law has similar discovery rules as the U.S., the prosecution should then immediately inform the defense. And the cop cannot take the job unless the entire action is dropped with prejudice.

      If he's a peon in the investigation, though, the rules are different, though not completely. Informing the lead detective (who is likely their CO) and the prosecution is still required, and their telling the defense still is likely required, depending on the law, and he can only take the position if the lead detective and the prosecution agree that they don't need any of the work he put into the investigation. Generally, this would mean that the prosecution feels confident that they can argue "inevitable discovery" and that the evidence itself could not be tainted. In this case, THEN he could take the job. Though I doubt that WB would be hiring a peon ;-)

      Just my thoughts on it.

    34. Re:Makes sense by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'll concede that point, though strictly speaking there is nothing *technically* wrong in the example you gave, even if there is something *morally* wrong. In the case of the police officer, there's probably a good deal of case law (does Sweden use case law? I don't know) or regulations governing the production of evidence and Conflicts of Interest.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    35. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Googling "farthing +bent" returned this: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/fra.htm Clearly indicating the nature of the conspiracy at play.

    36. Re:Makes sense by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Said conflict of interest opens the witness to accusations of evidence corruption/planting, witness tampering, etc... Those are very serious charges and involve active sabotage of the investigation, I doubt TW would get involved in anything like that. If anything improper happen, I bet TW only waved a contract and said we might be interested in hiring you, *wink wink nudge nudge*. Then it would be fairly easy for him to steer the investigation in one particular direction, not a balanced and neutral investigation of the evidence. Incompetence can do incredibly lot, subtle malice even more without doing any of the things you mentioned...
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:Makes sense by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Said conflict of interest opens the witness to accusations of evidence corruption/planting, witness tampering, etc... Those are very serious charges and involve active sabotage of the investigation, I doubt TW would get involved in anything like that. I wish I shared your faith in the fundamental goodness of TW. I don't.

      Neither does any reasonably competent judicial system, which is why evidence from demonstrably corrupt police officers tends to be thrown out.
    38. Re:Makes sense by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      If he's useful to the prosecuting lawyers in an IP case why can't he be useful to the plaintiffs in another IP case?

      Mayhaps because he was working for the government, with a theoretical mandate towards neutrality; ie, finding the facts from both sides. Trying to find evidence for your employer might skew the results of your "investigation", as we found with MediaSentry.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    39. Re:Makes sense by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... did he uncover or find something? Afaik, TPB is still alive and kicking, running their servers and generally doing what they used to do.

      So this can mean one of three things:

      1. Warner Bros is very generous and feels like they should give the guy a hand after sending him after TPB unsuccessfully.

      2. WB thinks it's better to have that guy in their staff, so next time maybe some smarter cop leads the search, who might dig up something.

      3. WB offered him the job as a bribe to gain more information faster than they should have.

      Of course, I assume 1, and that WB is a very generous, honest and upright company. And for anyone believing this, I have a bridge to sell, with a good view of SF.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:Makes sense by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There's nothing lower than a bent copper.

      Umm... MAFIAA lawyer?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If it was with the parties being prosecuted then, yes, that would be totally inappropriate. But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here?"

      You are talking of the job of a detective or your average lawyer. The job of the police is to understand what happened and if the plaintiff is right. They are not, by default, on the same side. And even when the plaintiff is proven right, it's when the police job stop and where the court job starts. It's never the job of the police to take side.

    42. Re:Makes sense by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Baloney. I have spoken to many cops traffic and otherwise and on many occasions have not called them sir or any other title. Just don't be disrespectful. That may be a difficult distinction for some, but there it is.

    43. Re:Makes sense by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is exactly vice versa: It might be morally ok, because the cop in question may be really very integer and able to make a difference between the case in question and the futural job. But in every case it is technically not ok, because we never know if the cop has this personal integrity.

      And that's the whole crux behind the affair: It might taint the investigation, because the investigator has a personal interest in a certain outcome of the case. It doesn't necessarily have to bias the investigation, but just because it could do so, it is technically wrong.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    44. Re:Makes sense by laddiebuck · · Score: 0

      I think me meant that as a metaphor for respect rather than literally "Sir". After all, it might be "Ma'am". But even compulsory respect for authority is pretty bad for freedom. A free people will have a healthy disrespect and distrust for any position of authority (for authority immediately segments populations into classes), even if they voted for it in the first place. I'm not American (I'm European), and I have always considered things like having to call the president "Mr. President" or "President Bush" when addressing him or referring to him (instead of just "Mr. Bush" or "Bush"), or the Pledge of Allegiance, disturbing trends. You can also see this trend in European countries. Countries with historically high levels of respect for authority -- France, Germany, Russia, Austria -- have each succumbed to totalitarian dictators or monarchs, who often met violent ends, whereas countries with rich and varied phrases and expressions of disrespect and pretty free religions (historically only Britain and the Nordic countries; in modern times, far more) have maintained remarkably stable and nonviolent systems (consider that only one of hundreds of British PMs was ever assasinated, and there hasn't been civil war there since 1688). Modern Europe is different, of course, but the trend is still a valuable one.

    45. Re:Makes sense by laddiebuck · · Score: 0
    46. Re:Makes sense by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Though I doubt that WB would be hiring a peon ;-)

      Unless it helps their case ;)
    47. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was after his investigation and they were impressed with his work, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I disagree with you on this point. The US government limits federal employees from getting jobs from companies with whom they have arranged government contracts. I don't see how this is different. If a government worker deals with entities outside the government, they should be able to show that they are clear from even the appearance of corruption. By gaining employment with WB, the police officer would show that there was a possibility that WB influence his work during the investigation.

      http://www.usoge.gov/pages/laws_regs_fedreg_stats/lrfs_files/statutes/18usc207.txt

      (b) One-Year Restrictions on Aiding or Advising.- (1) In general.- Any person who is a former officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States (including any independent agency) and is subject to the restrictions contained in subsection (a)(1), or any person who is a former officer or employee of the legislative branch or a former Member of Congress, who personally and substantially participated in any ongoing trade or treaty negotiation on behalf of the United States within the 1-year period preceding the date on which his or her service or employment with the United States terminated, and who had access to information concerning such trade or treaty negotiation which is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, which is so designated by the appropriate department or agency, and which the person knew or should have known was so designated, shall not, on the basis of that information, knowingly represent, aid, or advise any other person (except the United States) concerning such ongoing trade or treaty negotiation for a period of 1 year after his or her service or employment with the United States terminates. Any person who violates this subsection shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this title. (2) Definition.- For purposes of this paragraphâ" (A) the term âoetrade negotiationâ means negotiations which the President determines to undertake to enter into a trade agreement pursuant to section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, and does not include any action taken before that determination is made; and (B) the term âoetreatyâ means an international agreement made by the President that requires the advice and consent of the Senate.
    48. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does any of that have to do with anything?

      Of course the police are supposed to present evidence fairly. The whole point here is that it's not exactly unheard of for police in the world to manipulate the evidence found in order to create the appearance of guilt and violations of the law. Especially when there's a potential bribe on the table.

    49. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Swedish word for "appearance of impropriety" is "jÃv". I don't know if it's a good or a bad sign that we have such a short word for it...

    50. Re:Makes sense by sjames · · Score: 1

      The police provide the evidence and testify. Part of the testimony (sometimes implicit) is that the evidence was really there and they found it as opposed to manufacturing it. In the U.S. and other places, that will include that the chain of evidence is intact. That is, at no time was the evidence available to unknown people who may have altered it.

      The believability of that testimony is in part conferred by the idea that the cop's only interest and motivation in the matter is upholding the law.

      Taking a job with Warner before this matter even goes to trial at least suggests that the motive could have been doing well in a practical job interview. Benefit of the doubt must go to the defendant. The prosecution (and for that matter, the court) cannot afford even the appearance of impropriety.

      When he testifies, a just court and jury have to ask themselves if he is, even unconsciously, coloring his testimony to be more favorable to his new employer.

      Certainly, police officers are permitted to change jobs. However, if they don't want to bring their ethics and testimony into question, no part of that process should involve a party in one of their active investigations.

      If he had a new job with an unrelated newspaper, nobody would care. If he got a job with Warner 5 or 10 years from now, nobody would care.

  5. Hmmm... by Myrcutio · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ironic that it takes a pirate to spot corruption in the legal system. Perhaps if we hired some fellows in fluffy shirts and a bottle of grog we could get something done about the RIAA.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I read that and got visions of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" movie...

      I'm all on board. Will start practicing my adding machine skills to be sure to get hired before that building leaves port.

      Glad it's not just me that read the summary and started laughing loudly at work.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why thank you, now I have scenes from the Crimson Permanent Assurance short burnt into the back of my eyes for the rest of today.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    3. Re:Hmmm... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Ironic that it takes a pirate to spot corruption in the legal system. I don't think the pirates have spotted corruption.
      More like they've induced it.

      Consider that Sweden's legal underpinnings did not criminalize what TPB was doing, yet police raids and legal charges have ensued at the behest of copyright holders.

      Since they couldn't quickly buy legislation, the copyright holders went out and purchased some official misconduct. Quite a shame.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Hmmm... by LordKaT · · Score: 1

      Of all of the "Meaning of Life" responses, was I the only one that thought of Monkey Island?

    5. Re:Hmmm... by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

      And for your ears: never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.

    6. Re:Hmmm... by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      You are an evil, evil person.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
  6. So.. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does that mean he could bring information gained during the investigation to Time-Warner?? Is that legal even if he didn't start talking to them until after the investigation concluded??

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
    1. Re:So.. by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      In Sweden you can bring what ever you want into court, there are no rules which stipulate the value of different types of evidence. The court makes an independent review of as what has been proved and not proved in each case. Obviously having a conflict of interest when it comes to evidentiary issues will weaken the prosecutors case.

      For those who do read swedish: http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_swe_sv.htm

      Search for "fri bevisprövning".

    2. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an interesting question. According to some of the suspects the police officer now working for Time-Warners was asking them a lot of questions about private things like sexual habits, friends and family relations, alcohol and drug use, political opinions etc that never showed up in the protocols later. All things that could easily be abused by a nasty organisation that wanted to, say, threaten or blackmail someone.

      But let's hope that Time-Warners are good, decent guys!

  7. How about trying the case on its merits? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 0

    I'm confused. Why should this have any bearing on the case whatsoever? The merits of the case are independent of whether the officer was thinking about a job with WB, is a fan of ABBA, or wears five inch heels.

    1. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like it's perfectly okay for a judge to handle the case of his own murdered mother.

    2. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The police must appear to uphold justice. If it does not people will apply just as they see fit.

      Swedes have guns too, you know.

      Also, did you know that the most important indicator of long term economic success is trust.

      What do you think happens to trust if people believe/suspect that justice is for sale in the marketplace?

    3. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      -ice, $Â%&$! TPB should have apply some black ICE (as should I).

    4. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by BadMrMojo · · Score: 1

      ... Because the merits of the case are determined by the information brought forth by the investigators and a conflict of interest could very clearly have a profound effect on the nature of that information?

      Just a wild theory. Call me crazy.

    5. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you need is spelled out, what could have happened is WB approached him with an expression of interest in hiring him since he was doing such "good work" during the investigation. He might have interpreted that to imply that if the results were good enough he would benefit, and then he may have "managed" evidence and/or interpretations of evidence to the benefit of WB. This is what we call in America reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings and would call into question the evidence in civil courts rendering a preponderance of evidence impossible.

    6. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a judge and a police officer, you know. So, i'm going to mark your comment with a big FAIL.

    7. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Tuoqui · · Score: 4, Informative

      In plain english...

      If it looks like the cop doing the investigating is on the take, its not unreasonable he'd suppress evidence that proves innocence while collecting all evidence that determines guilt. Sorta like how the police officer was said to have planted the bloody glove on OJ's property. It makes it difficult to get a guilty verdict so the case would either be thrown out directly or through the Jury bringing reasonable doubt into the equation.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    8. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, no cheap shots. J. Edgar Hoover was a good agent, no matter what clothes he chose to wear at home!

    9. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we're talking about a police officer here, not a judge. we expect bit players like police officers to have their own grudges, motivations, and the like. Maybe in certain banana republics (including the US) this might be true, but in the civilised world, we expect police to uphold the law, regardless of their own 'grudges and motivations.'
    10. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by Schadrach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While police and judges fill different roles, *BOTH* need to appear to be acting in the interests of the government, as opposed to a private interest. A police officer being employed by the people who are a party in an investigation he is actively involved with is just as wrong, in a fundamental sense, as say a judge ruling on a case against a company whose CEO takes him on vacation (actual case in my home state, vacation photos of him paling around with the CEO got out, and there were immediate demands that he recuse himself from the case).

    11. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The merits of the case are independent of whether the officer was thinking about a job with WB, is a fan of ABBA, or wears five inch heels.

      The merits are the same regardless of what bribes the lead investigator takes, but the evidence gathered and presented to the jury will differ. That's why it's an issue.

    12. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by sjames · · Score: 1

      All evidence in one way or another depends on the trust of the police officers involved. For example, we may independantly decide that a given file is or is not a copy of Warner's IP. We may independantly decide under what circumstances it would be legal to have that copy. We depend on the officer's testimony that it was on the defendant's HD BEFORE it entered police custody. We depend on the officer's testimony that nobody else had access to the machine before it was examined.

      An officer's taste in music or clothing are largely irrelevant, but if he's up for a jobb with an employer that has a strong interest in how the evidence plays out in court, it stands to reason that the better it goes for the prospective employer, the happier they will be with the officer and the sweeter the deal he may get. He now has a vested interest in the outcome of the case.

      Note that intentional corruption is not necessary for such a vested interest to taint his investigation. The history of science is full of cases where something seemed to be true because we wanted it to be true and that want colored our examination of the evidence in spite of an honest intent. This is especially common in medicine even though human lives depend on correct interpretation of the evidence..

    13. Re:How about trying the case on its merits? by sjames · · Score: 1

      And that expectation leads to blind trust?

  8. Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A new multi-national nobility (/mafia) who could fit into the average conference venue, are trying to obtain the wealth and power of the whole world. To do this they are willing subvert all governmental and non-governmental institutions into following the cause of this new monarchy.

    The particular aim is to stop any competition or checks and balances that might restrain the growth of their power. Conflicts of interests and corruption don't matter to them, they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.

    So a police follows old media companies rather than the good of society. To him he feels no shame because he does not believe in democracy, he believes in "Intellectual Property", a doctrine not unlike the divine right of kings. Like Tudor monarchs gave out monopolies to the nobility and enforced them with the sword, so does the new nobility.

    If we really lived in a democracy, then filesharing would be legal, because more people fileshare than vote for the government.

    1. Re:Conflicts of interests by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.
      Really? Think so, huh?

      In the East, Judeo-Christianity has never had much of an influence on society. The strongest moral and ethical influences in the East come from various forms Buddhism and Hinduism, along with Shinto and other Eastern philosophies.

      In the West, most of what some might call "Christian values" or "Christian ethics" actually have their roots in Greco-Roman pagan thought. St. Augustine, Sir Thomas More, and many other shapers of modern 'Christian values' were all essentially platonists (or more precisely, neoplatonists) In fact, one could argue that there is really no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian values' and that even many of the moralistic concepts of Judaism came straight out of another conetmporary religion, Zorastrianism.

      Oh, well, mod me off topic.
    2. Re:Conflicts of interests by SkOink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except not really - all the RIAA and MPAA really do is supply entertainment. Movies, music, these things are just luxuries. If the entire recording industry and every since CD in the world disappeared tomorrow, my life wouldn't really be very different. This is also true for movies and TV (although TV stations aren't really getting into this whole anti-piracy thing). Heck, my life might even be better! I'd have less reason to put off doing the things I need to do and more reason to do the things I want to do.

      You don't like the RIAA? Just stop listening to music! It's not a very big deal really. I can't figure out where or why we as a society decided that we had to be surrounded by constant entertainment 24/7.

      --
      ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    3. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so following that logic (since I assume you mean the sharing of illegal (copyrighted, without authorization to share) files when you refer to "filesharing would be legal"), if more people committed murder than voted for the government, murder would be legal in a "real democracy". Filesharing itself isn't illegal... it's the content some people choose to share that is. Just like driving home from the store with fried chicken isn't illegal, but driving with cocaine is. That doesn't make cars illegal.

    4. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 1

      That is an Apples and Oranges comparison.

      Most people do not commit murder, most people will never commit murder. Almost all societies agree on that.

      Whether sharing bits of data between you and others is a crime or not depends on the value of that particular society.

    5. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judeo-Christian values didn't build the modern world. If it did we'd be communist.

    6. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that when you analyze Zoroastrianism and Judaism, the only thing they have in common is when you compare Rabbinic Angelology to Zoroastrian Angelology, and they were concerned with purity, but that was most religions anyway. Judaism is pretty much missing everything else that Zoroastrianism has to offer, with different ideals. I wouldn't call that "straight out" also considering that Zoroastrian developed well after the earliest period in which we know Judaism to have existed.

      Christianity fits better when you consider it's Dualistic point of view.

    7. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 1

      Off topic maybe, but interesting none the less.

      Maybe "Judeo-Christian" could be replaced by Western-Enlightenment.

      What I mean is whatever we call the historical values that got us from subsistence farming to discussing on Slashdot.

      The idea of "Intellectual Property" is only 20 years old. The idea that copyrights, patents and trademarks were more than a temporary government intervention in the market, and making a complete value system out of it, that is not what got us here.

    8. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I may, or may not be a moron, however that does not does not constitute a relevant argument. Neither the level of moronity nor the level of fucking affects whether I am right or wrong.

    9. Re:Conflicts of interests by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      The idea of "Intellectual Property" is only 20 years old.
      Really? Because I think Mitchell v. Tilghman (1873) begs to differ:

      I must be content with wishing that Mr. Tilghman should have the courage to defend his intellectual property, that is to say, his honor.
      So does Davoll v. Brown (1845):

      Only thus can ingenuity and perseverance be encouraged to exert themselves in this way usefully to the community; and only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.
    10. Re:Conflicts of interests by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? The concept of this eternal battle between 'absolute good' vs. 'absolute evil', which existed in Judaism well before the 1st century CE, which I think is the 'dualistic' point of view you mention in your last sentence, comes straight out of Zorastrianism.

      Furthermore, Judaism didn't become monotheistic until after the development of Zorastrianism. The Hebrews, beginning before the history beginning in Genesis and the rest of the Torah, were a polytheistic culture, but once they encountered outside influences from Zorastrianism, they started to become more monotheistic with the ideas of absolute good vs. absolute evil.

      This concept of 'good vs. evil', BTW, does not exist in Eastern philosophies. The best description of Eastern philosophical ideas about what we in the West call 'good' and 'evil' is most correctly described by the Yin-Yang.

    11. Re:Conflicts of interests by Stalinbulldog · · Score: 1
      I hate to boo down anyone bad mouths the RIAA, but, this particular bit

      If we really lived in a democracy, then filesharing would be legal, because more people fileshare than vote for the government. is, in my eyes, a horrible judge. The majority of society is not always on the correct morale path and, while I think in this case there is merit to the argument, it should not be thrown out as a blanket statement, as it can be used to justify some pretty horrible things.
    12. Re:Conflicts of interests by Znork · · Score: 1

      I'd have less reason to put off doing the things I need to do

      That would assume that just because the RIAA and MPAA disappeared there would not be any entertainment produced. A more likely possibility would be that instead there was even more entertainment produced.

      You don't like the RIAA? Just stop listening to music!

      Just stop listening to RIAA music. There's plenty of non-RIAA music, and social music services like last.fm or pandora to help you find music you like, as opposed to music the RIAA wants you to buy.

    13. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe "Judeo-Christian" could be replaced by Western-Enlightenment.

      No, for this would surely be an oxymoron.

    14. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 1

      While the majority of society is not always on the correct moral path, democracy (greek for mob-rule) is the only model we got. Would you rather have the nobility tell you what to think?

      The poor little Indians cannot handle democracy, don't worry London knows what do to, the Empire will look after you.

    15. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 1

      Interesting but isolated incidents. That does not really equate to anything like the all-encompassing view of copyright being promoted today.

    16. Re:Conflicts of interests by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, well, mod me off topic.
      Always good to mention this to get modpoints. :-D
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Conflicts of interests by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative

      My search when I pulled up those cases included about a thousand that were pre-1950. I don't think those were isolated. The term "piracy" was used in conjunction with copyright infringement by Learned Hand (or J. Holmes, can't remember) near the turn of the century.

      I agree that there wasn't as much copyright litigation going on, but that's because copyright couldn't BE infringed easily back then. Printing was expensive and distribution was expensive.

      However, patent infringement was rampant. Did you ever wonder why Hollywood was in California? Because Edison had patents on things at the turn of the century and Hollywood was formed on the other side of the nation to avoid his litigiousness.

    18. Re:Conflicts of interests by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess... the new Illuminati, right?

      So, you believe that in the Muslim countries where slavery is still practiced by the majority of citizens, it's OK?

    19. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > St. Augustine, Sir Thomas More, and many other shapers of modern 'Christian values' were all essentially platonists

      "Essentially?" What makes them more platonic than Christian, if the two groups share values? Wouldn't the test be which of the two groups' mutually exclusive values they hold, in which case they were decidedly Christian?

      > no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian values'

      And there's no such thing as 'object-oriented programming', because really all it's doing is a slightly more complicated version of procedural programming. Oh wait, no, oop inherited but built on procedural, and reinvented/reinterpreted schools of programming thought. So maybe something coming later, and sharing elements, can be something different after all.

    20. Re:Conflicts of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Both are a crime. You admit murder is no different by saying "Almost all societies agree". Of course most people don't commit murder, it's orders of magnitude more difficult to do and get away with. Regardless, the original parent's argument implying that filesharing itself is illegal was what I mainly attacked. I used another crime of greater severity than copyright infringement only for shock factor.

    21. Re:Conflicts of interests by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      In fact, some have said that the term "Judeo-Christian" came into popular use in the West as a way of painting communists as having different (or completely lacking) moral values.

      In any case, the term only works one way...Christians, due to the history of their church, believe they have some sort of link to Judaism. I doubt most practicing Jews would agree with that. All in all I think that if you are going to paint with a broad enough stroke to include two pretty different traditions, you may as well lump the rest of them together as well...any modern civilization is going to have "do not kill" written down somewhere.

      But I get what the GPP is trying to say. I think that the "monarch" would be more the model of the stock corporation...I tend to see the IP shenanigans as an offshoot of a larger corporatism.

    22. Re:Conflicts of interests by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      "Essentially?" What makes them more platonic than Christian, if the two groups share values? Wouldn't the test be which of the two groups' mutually exclusive values they hold, in which case they were decidedly Christian?
      You don't know anything about the early history of your own religion, do you?

      Look, here's what happened. It's all in your Bible, with some details provided both Christian and secular historians.

      Jesus was born around 1 A.D., right? Maybe Jesus was born even earlier, because some surviving scriptures talk about Herod's temple and such.

      But anyway, even supposing 1 A.D., Jesus died when he was about 35 or so. So 33-36 A.D., say.

      Okay. Here's the thing. The Gospels weren't written until least 80-85 A.D. And then, many years after that, comes Paul's letters.

      There were few non-Jewish Christians prior to Paul's arrival on the scene. In fact, it was Paul's letters that were meant to convert the Gentiles. (This is evident by reading Paul's Epistles (Epistle is just a fancy word for 'letter'). What non-Jewish Christians there were first converted to Judaism before studying Christianity.

      Okay, long-story short? Christian values didn't come from Judaic values, they came from pre-Christian pagan values. Paul himself was a Gentile and lived in Greece during the time he wrote his letters. So the influence of Greek and Roman culture on the early Gentile branch of Christianity is huge.
    23. Re:Conflicts of interests by Marcion · · Score: 1

      What has Islamic slavery got to do with the price of fish? It is not a competition to see who can restrict the most freedom.

    24. Re:Conflicts of interests by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      Too bad, then, that the United States is not a democracy.

      Look up Representative Republic.

    25. Re:Conflicts of interests by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually intellectual property was introduced around the 18th-19th century in europe. Patents around the 18th century. The basic idea was to grant a short lived monopoly so that the content creators could live on their works. The main idea was short lived so that the creators had incentive to build anything new. The idea of having monopolies on the altars of Mickey Mouse is a thing of the last 20 years!

    26. Re:Conflicts of interests by rvarada · · Score: 1

      Murder will be legal and a generally accepted practice if majority of the people in the country believe it is right and support it (at least that's what democracy is supposed to be. Right?).

      Actually murder is actually legal. Otherwise would death by lethal injection or hanging exist in some countries.

    27. Re:Conflicts of interests by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's called intellectual property these days to conflate it with rights to real property. That concept certainly did not exist in the 18th century. One owned property but only held a copyright or patent.

      The 18th century version was specifically seen as a limited grant from society through it's government to the author. If there was a "property" aspect, it was owned by society as a whole. It's expiration deprived the author of nothing. Rather, it's extension deprives society.

      So, copyright and patents were explicitly NOT viewed as a sort of private property.

      The modern attempt to recast it as a sort of homesteading in the world of ideas ending in a real property right is quite recent.

    28. Re:Conflicts of interests by sjames · · Score: 1

      If more people committed murder than not, it would indeed be legal in a pure democracy. The number of voters really has nothing to do with it.

      In a democracy tempered by inalienable rights, minority views enjoy some protection. Even there, unless the Constitution (or equivilant document in other societies) forbids filesharing, the democratic process should de-criminilize it to the degree that the people see it as acceptable.

    29. Re:Conflicts of interests by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Actually intellectual property was introduced around the 18th-19th century in europe. Patents around the 18th century. "

      The earliest European patents we know of were issued in 1421 in Italy, and Henry VI of England granted one in 1449.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  9. Little too convinient by icsx · · Score: 1

    How about that, hired _before_ the trial which will decide if the material at hand which the police found out was enough for convictions. I would have hired _after_ the trial. MPAA is again underestimating the internet - stuff like this you can't just put a locker and keep it hidden.

    1. Re:Little too convinient by pipatron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, he could have kept it a secret for a little longer if he chose too, since it was him that wrote it on his own facebook page...

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    2. Re:Little too convinient by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Being corrupt doesn't automatically mean you are smart ;)

  10. What do they say about public office.... by ruin20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Avoid impropriety and the appearance there of? Oh and the guy still has more testimony to give in court. Unbiased witness anyone?

    --
    Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
  11. All your Cops are belong to us. by Guano_Jim · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:All your Cops are belong to us. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm absolutely sick of seeing that damn phrase, especially since most people saying it never played the damn game!

      However, in this case ...

      Priceless, absolutely priceless.

      piratebay++

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  12. Those are some rosey glasses (n/t) by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    n/t

  13. scandal, in my judicial system? by erotic_pie · · Score: 1, Funny

    scandal, in MY judicial system?

    it's more likely then you think

    1. Re:scandal, in my judicial system? by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Honestly it is more likely than you think. In northern Colorado, there was a guy who spent 10 years in the pokey after being convicted of murder. Long story short, he was recently acquitted after it was discovered that police and DAs actively burned/destroyed exculpatory evidence. The great twist is that the DAs who prosecuted the case are now judges in the same county. The cops are cheifs of police in neighboring counties. All this was brought to light and NOTHING happened to them. There was public outcry for disbarment and removal. Nothing happened. Everything was swept under the rug.

      There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.

      Slightly off topic I realize, but my main point is that little things like this happen all the time, all around the country and world. They will continue to happen as well and honestly, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot that can be done about it.

      The US Federal judges seem to be the best and most impartial. They are paid well and have liftime appointments, thus they don't have to make decisions in order to appease a public and keep their office. They can decide what is right.

      The drawback is that it takes (usually) huge amounts of resources to select these people. Local governments don't have that kind of time/money.

      I'd be curious to know what the judicial appointment/election status is in this case.

      --
      We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    2. Re:scandal, in my judicial system? by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Slightly off topic I realize, but my main point is that little things like this happen all the time, all around the country and world. They will continue to happen as well and honestly, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot that can be done about it. I reckon there is a lot that could be done, the problem, however, is that people don't care. Under the, "if it doesn't directly involve me I have too busy to get involved" mentality. As long as the majority do not in anyway try to stay informed about these events and exclusively rely on the evening news [TV]; then there will not be any form of political will to take steps against it. Politicians generally want to be re-elected more than they want to stand on principle in, what appears to them, to be minor cases. At least, that is my view on the matter.
  14. Surprised? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're surprised that Big Media appears to have manipulated the judicial process of case against The Pirate Bay, please raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Yeah. That's what I thought. Not surprised in the least.

  15. Revolving door has reached all countries ... by Britz · · Score: 1

    ... and all levels. Just the prices are lower at that level. His new job probabely doesn't earn seven figures a year as it would a some higher level.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

  16. More profitable to do this as a Senator by sadwings · · Score: 1

    He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye.

    1. Re:More profitable to do this as a Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye."

      Too crowded in there already.

      Got to look for new sources of junkets with LasVegas showgirls.

    2. Re:More profitable to do this as a Senator by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye.

      Dude, you have to stop reading my journals, it's affecting your comment posting! ;)

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  17. Wishful Thinking by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

    on TPBs front if you ask me. Expect all sort of SCO blathering from them in an effort not to get sued.

    --
    I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
  18. Oh it gets better by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently the big media's puppet organisation, "Antipiratbyrån", in Sweden has done the same.

    For those who understand Swedish:
    http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_1149973.svd

    In all this mess lets have a look at the scores:

    RIAA and the prosecution:
    "Ministerstyre" (roughly speaking illegal manipulation of MPs )
    Denial of service attacks
    Illegal search and confiscation of private property
    Bribing police investigators

    TPB:
    Assistance to commit copyright infringement ( which probably isn't even illegal in Sweden ).

    Nice one.

    1. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong definition of "ministerstyre"!

      "Ministerstyre" is when a member of the government ("statsråd", government = "regeringen") has influence over a specific case handled by a public authority ("statlig myndighet"). This is illegal in Sweden, but common in other countries like USA and GB.

      It has nothing to do with "illegal manipulation of MPs ".

      "Minister" is the inoffical title of a leader of a department in the government (the official title is "departementschef"). "Styre" means ruling.

  19. Re:scandal, in my judicial system?FOLLOW THE LAW by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.

    If the law allows barring them (you don't distinguish if we're speaking of illegal, or legal, immigrants here), and other judges aren't following the law as written (and how likely is that?) then he may well have reason to want to be a judge that others of us feel we need more of.

    Btw, you don't just become a judge. You don't wake up one morning and decide, "I want to be a judge now for the rest of my life. I should be starting in my new position by this afternoon at the latest."

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  20. Nothing here, move along. by victim · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You are reading an article built only of unfounded speculation by two sources, a defendant and his lawyer. They allege, while staying just legally clear of slander, that the officer miscarried justice in exchange for a payoff. Read again and see if there are any facts to support that.

    The missing bits of article prevent this from being news:
    • No respected, independent person with a knowledge of Swedish law calls it a scandal.
    • The time frame is deliberately vague.
    • There is no evidence that the officer is being overpaid for his duties at WB.
    • There is no discussion of his role in the case. "involved" could mean anything. Presumably it is more than crowd control since he is being called to testify, but was he a decider or a witness.

    Maybe some of these elements will appear over time, and then it can be a scandal, until then it is a desperate defense attempting to confuse an issue.

    1. Re:Nothing here, move along. by scuba0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well considering the fact that they are trying to cover/ignore the fact that it even happened is enough to call it a scandal. Without this information before the trial, the prosecution could have gotten away with it. The prosecuting lawyer said "no worries, I trust them" and didn't care more about it. Where is this not a scandal for the justice system. How much can the MAFIAA buy before anyone cares?

    2. Re:Nothing here, move along. by jibster · · Score: 1

      TPB says he was "involved" to the point of running the entire investigation.

    3. Re:Nothing here, move along. by sbeckstead · · Score: 0

      Yeah some damn fine lawyering if ya ask me!

    4. Re:Nothing here, move along. by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

      Did you read the PB press release?

      Jim Keyzer has had a leading role in the prosecution against The Pirate Bay as head of the preliminary investigation. In the upcoming trial he is expected to be a key witness and due to being a police investigator to have high credibility.

      Keyzer was also heading an investigation where The Pirate Bay sued some of the mayor media corporations for data trespassing. That case was recently cancelled by him.

      It does not matter if he is being "overpaid" for his work at WB, it matters that he is being paid by them at all.

    5. Re:Nothing here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oy shithead. Who's really trying to confuse things?

      "No respected, independent person with a knowledge of Swedish law calls it a scandal."

      That doesn't make it a scandal? Unless the people involved agree there's a a scandal there isn't any? Nice circular reasoning. The fact is that anyone using their eyes long ago concluded that the swedish so called "system of justice" is absolutely rotten to the core, and heavily influenced by what's politically convenient. This is something that goes way back to at least the days of the Geijer scandal, and numerous incidents since then have done nothing to dispel that foul smell.

      "The time frame is deliberately vague." Says who? You? Sorry you're not very credible as it stands.

      "There is no evidence that the officer is being overpaid for his duties at WB." So, unless he's overpaid, there can not be an conflict of interests? Or even a suspicion of one? Nice strawman.

      "There is no discussion of his role in the case. "involved" could mean anything." And because of this, there is nothing to see? FFS he's called to testify! He's a person with insights into the process obtained on the premiss that he should be impartial, now on the payroll of the plainttiff, and presumeably negotiating the deal during his involvement! Corruption doesn't necessarily involve brown envelopes with money changing hands, but I guess you're too damned stupid/malicious to acknowledge that.

      "Presumably it is more than crowd control since he is being called to testify, but was he a decider or a witness." Oh, right. "He was nobody important anyway, so it's A-OK."

      Go to hell you fucking lackey.

    6. Re:Nothing here, move along. by nmos · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      Monique Wadsted, laywer at MAQS law firm, representing Hollywood in the case, comments on the story this way:
      - I suppose this is Warner Bros way of expressing how they feel about the good work Jim Keyzer has done. But nothing inappropriate has been going on during the preliminary investigation.


    7. Re:Nothing here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missing bits of article prevent this from being news:

              * No respected, independent person with a knowledge of Swedish law calls it a scandal.
              * The time frame is deliberately vague.
              * There is no evidence that the officer is being overpaid for his duties at WB.
              * There is no discussion of his role in the case. "involved" could mean anything. Presumably it is more than crowd control since he is being called to testify, but was he a decider or a witness. First, the time frame and salary are probably not going to become public information without a legal investigation.

      Second, most legal systems strive to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. It doesn't matter when these negotiations started, how much he's being paid, or the exact level of involvement. The fact that this looks bad, makes it bad.
    8. Re:Nothing here, move along. by slaingod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's called the 'appearance of an impropriety'. If the cop was a murder police, and worked on a case that involved someone, and then went to work for that someone during the case, I would argue would seem obviously improper.

      --
      http://blog.slaingod.com
    9. Re:Nothing here, move along. by victim · · Score: 1
      I just read it. I particularly enjoyed the part where they directly imply he still working as a police officer but also being paid by WB.

      New information reveals that the 39-year old investigator isn't the objective professional a police investigator should be.
      Since March 16 this year, he is employed by Warner Bros, one of the plaintiffs in the prosecution against The Pirate Bay.


      True... but "objective AND professional AND police investigator" is false because "police investigator" is false. I might also note that he is not a "law abiding police investigator", or even a "human police investigator".

      If he did lead the preliminary investigation, and as loose as TPB is with their words I wonder what they mean by "lead" and and "preliminary", then that begins to rise to interesting. How long ago was that? Was there a "non preliminary" investigation that is the basis of the case, or is that what they call the investigation. Still not news, but a few more questions to ask.

      Pirate Bay really should get a better writer too, unless it is their strategy to look like innocent boobs caught up by those big nasty companies with their competent lawyers.
    10. Re:Nothing here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really. So Warner Brothers and the rest of the MPAA cartel engage the Swedish police to investigate and prosecute someone. During the course of the investigation, the lead police officer is rewarded for his work for the state, by the corporation that ordered the investigation, in the form of a job.

      So his investigation was completely objective and unbiased? He will offer unbiased testimony as an employee of the firm that initiated the action?

      Nothing to see here? Oh wait, you are used to how things work under US administration.

    11. Re:Nothing here, move along. by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      There is no discussion of his role in the case. "involved" could mean anything. Presumably it is more than crowd control since he is being called to testify, but was he a decider or a witness. They claim he was "in charge". He worked in the it investigation unit, so he may have been only partially in charge, but still ...
    12. Re:Nothing here, move along. by tomthegeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure why you're picking this apart, it's very simple. He was a police investigator working on the PB case and now he's an employee of WB. That's all the information you need to realize that the situation is pretty shady and needs more investigation. They're hyping it up a little sure, but I would agree this guy needs a little public pressure to figure out just what is going on.

      It doesn't matter that he is no longer a PI. It would certainly help the PB's case if they could prove that he was in fact employed by both at the same time but they don't need to. Nice cushy jobs are often used as under the table bribes.

      Finally I'm not sure why you're attacking their writing, they are not journalists. And as far as competent lawyers go the PB seem to have the legal aspect figured out pretty well.

    13. Re:Nothing here, move along. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I particularly enjoyed the part where they directly imply he still working as a police officer but also being paid by WB.

      They implied that he is a Police Invidtagator that is working at WB since March 16. I could infer that he's working two jobs or that he quit as a police investigator. Either of those are reasonable assumptions from the statement you picked, and because the statement didn't make it clear, you are assuming they ment the one that is false and claiming they are making false or misleading statements. I disagree with you. Also, even if you were correct, he is expected to testify as a Police Investigator at the trial while a paid employee of one of the companies bringing the suit. It is difficult to establish that he is an impartial Police Investigator when he is an employee of one of the two groups involved in the suit. Because of the timing, it is possible that he entered an arrangement with WB while still a Police Investigator. If so, then it is bordering on an illegal bribe. If not, then he acted foolishly in creating an appearance of impropriety. So he's either a criminal or a fool. Any good lawyer will tear apart the prosecution if he doesn't take the stand and tear apart the man if he does take the stand. A couple questions like "how much are you being paid by WB to testify here today?" should be enough to cause some concern.

    14. Re:Nothing here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he is still a police investigator. Or was, when the story broke - he had not actually left the police force, he was just on leave from his office, while being employed by Time/Warner. This was confirmed in a Swedish paper by his department.

  21. Police work ovetime at scientology offices by spineboy · · Score: 1

    I also see a possible problem here. Scientologists routine have police work a second job, by patroling scientology compounds. Pay quite well too. Now of course if any protests/actions occur the police may feel an extra obligation to possibly protect their second paycheck.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  22. At least he wasn't shocked. by mcmonkey · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Then it'd be both pink and brown.

  23. How about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be OK if Warner paid the cop for his sterling work in the case.

    Would that be OK?

  24. Re:scandal, in my judicial system?FOLLOW THE LAW by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 1
    I realize you don't just become a judge, but you take very deliberate steps in your career in hopes that an appoinment will happen. You don't just become a judge without trying.

    My point is that impartiality is essential in that role. A judge shouldn't bring his personal prejudices to the bench. That's what attorneys are for. Lots of judges get overturned on appeal because of their bias in lower court rulings. And this is also sometimes why we have scandals at all court levels.

    Clearly you're not involved in the court process or you'd see what a problem this is. Also I think we're getting way off topic here so for karma's sake, we'd better realign. I can feel an immigration stance argument coming on. ;)

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  25. Role reversal by thegnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's interesting how often it turns out that the criminals are the ones with the moral high ground.

    I was being harrassed for a long time by this cop, and he finally arrested me and roughed me up slightly. I went to the same gym as the local dealer, and he had a word with the police chief over their weekly brewskis, and the fucker left me alone after that.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
    1. Re:Role reversal by B47h0ry'5+CuR53 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why are they "criminals"? They haven't been convicted of anything. The fact that they follow a philosophy of anti-copyright doesn't make them criminals.

      --
      The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children. -Linus
    2. Re:Role reversal by Touvan · · Score: 1

      Criminals are often at least revered as heroes during times when the government feels hopelessly out of touch with the will of the people.

      In the US during the great depression, and during prohibition, it was often the bootleggers and the outlaws that were the heroes to the common man. Today you see the same thing with the glorification of gang leaders, and gang life. Jack Bower - same thing, the guy that's willing to break the dumb law, because it's the right thing to do.

      The fact that you (and me frankly) see these "criminals" at the pirate bay, as standing on the "moral high ground" is the exact same kind of thing. The government is simply out of touch, here in the U.S. and apparently so is the Swedish government too.

    3. Re:Role reversal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, "criminals"?

      Have the TPB folks been convicted of anything? No. Does it look likely that they broke Swedish criminal law? To me as an uninformed, "IANAL" outsider who's only ever been to Sweden a couple of times on vacations... no. Does it look likely that they broke *any* Swedish law? No.

      I see your point, but you shouldn't call them criminals. They aren't de jure because they haven't been convicted of anything, and they most likely aren't de facto, either.

    4. Re:Role reversal by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

      Ad hominum. Calling someone a criminal skips the step in a logical debate where people discuss what makes an action a crime. It is an intellectual slight of hand designed to win an argument by preempting what you think your opponent will say.

  26. You know what the thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that bothers me the most about The Pirate Bay?

    It's not like, as with many Slashdotters, they operate under the guise that what they're doing is morally right.

    It's more that they delight in the fact that what they're doing is wrong, and that no one can do anything about it.

    1. Re:You know what the thing is... by Marcion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting point, however you are wrong. They have a sophisticated argument about privacy in the digital age. That what private persons do, on a non-commercial basis, has no relevance to the government.

      Whether those two people are man and wife in bed, or two people connected only by a bittorrent, they still have a right to privacy.

    2. Re:You know what the thing is... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's more that they delight in the fact that what they're doing is wrong, and that no one can do anything about it.

            Which is why all pirates smile when they spot a fat, slow merchantman loaded with gold that has no choice but heave-to when a couple shots are put across its bow and the "Jolly Roger" is hoisted.

            You need to learn to "yarrr" properly, matey.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. English-language version of that page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    English-language version of that same page: Taking of evidence and mode of proof - Sweden

  28. difference in magnitudee but not in kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They are both acting as representatives of the state as duly appointed by the people of that civilisation.

    They are given powers by their peers (other humans) over themselves in the expectation that they will act in the best interest of all the people who have given up their right to enacting their own brand of justice.

    They are not supposed to gain from their employment and this is why gifts and so on are frowned upon in almost all government offices (until Blair, anyway).

  29. Wrong law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

    Actually, if the acts happen in another country, you need the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    Note: IANAL.

    1. Re:Wrong law... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's right.

      But it's still the FBI who investigates.

  30. Interesting viewpoint you've got there by thegnu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why are they "criminals"? They haven't been convicted of anything. The fact that they follow a philosophy of anti-copyright doesn't make them criminals. And why, pray tell, do you think being a drug dealer is any different? I'm just referring to the laws and general accords we have in society. I don't think drug dealers are, for the most part, doing anything wrong.

    Same goes for The Pirate Bay.
    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
    1. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know, maybe because selling drugs ARE a crime? Atleast over here. Hosting a torrent tracker may not be. Time will tell.

    2. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the point GP was trying to make is that what The Pirate Bay is doing is not illegal. They've definitely not been convicted of anything. Therefore, by definition, they can't be criminals.

      A drug dealer, on the other hand, is clearly violating laws in many countries. I feel confident when I say that dealing drugs (depending on the drugs) is illegal in Sweden. From the US DOJ's World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems:

      According to Swedish law it is illegal to enter the country, to have in possession, or to buy or use narcotics. The use of narcotics was criminalized in 1988. The list of prohibited drugs involve all common types of narcotics, including cannabis, and the number of drugs on the list totals around 170. In an international perspective, Sweden has a very restrictive drug policy.
    3. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by tholomyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Selling drugs definitely is not a crime, you just have to be in the pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, or coffee business. Selling drugs is big business, pretty much everywhere. "Illegal" drugs, on the other hand...

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    4. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are they [piratebay.org] "criminals"? They haven't been convicted of anything. The fact that they follow a philosophy of anti-copyright doesn't make them criminals. And why, pray tell, do you think being a drug dealer is any different? I'm just referring to the laws and general accords we have in society. I don't think drug dealers are, for the most part, doing anything wrong. You seem to not have made the connection that legal/illegal has nothing to do with right/wrong.

      While I too personally don't see dealing in drugs as wrong, but as for other people, there is a large group that thinks it is wrong, and a large group that thinks its right. The fact people think its right or wrong does not at all change the fact drugs are illegal, both in the US (where you are talking about) and in Sweden (where every one else is talking about.)

      Running a tracker also has nothing to do with right and wrong here.
      In the US, doing so in this way is illegal (conspiracy and accomplice to copyright violation) however no such law exists in Sweden (again where everyone else is talking about) thus this is called legal.

      There are a lot of things that are wrong that are illegal. There is also a lot of things that are right that are illegal.
      Also there is plenty of things that are right that are legal, and plenty of things that are Wrong which are legal.
      Once you realize the two groups have nothing to do with each other, you will understand everyones outrage with this.
    5. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even being in the grocery business makes you a seller of drugs. Sugar, pepper, salt, coffee, tea... they are all drugs (from the old anglosaxon-old german word "dryg" = "dried").

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that the main difference in a drug dealer and Pfizer is the government lets Pfizer exist. They both deal drugs and in some cases the same drugs or at least drugs the perform the same function.

    7. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      If it's clear that a large percentage of their users are accessing content that is illegal in their home countries, does TPB have an obligation to prevent people from those countries from accessing the offending content?

      Suppose it were legal to grow and export marijuana in Mexico (I don't know if it is or not). Does Mexico then have any obligation to stop people from exporting marijuana to the US?

    8. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by Zarluk · · Score: 1
      "Illegal" drugs are a much better business!

      Just remember that they don't pay taxes, just some gratifications to the local law officer ;-)

    9. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lawyers should not use the term "clearly." If their position is valid and well supported it adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, it indicates that the lawyer has no authority for the proposition. Now, go back and study some more. The term "criminal" itself is so imprecise . . .. What does it mean? A person who does criminal acts? A person who is convicted of committing a criminal act? None of those definitions make any sense. The determination of criminal behavior has a huge subjective element. What is today a crime may be socially encouraged tomorrow. What is perceived as a crime by one juror (or judge) may not be perceived as a crime by another. Of course there can be widespread agreement as to whether certain conduct is criminal or whether certain behavior constitutes criminal conduct--but when you're talking about intellectual property and the internet, the frontier is not drawn in discriminate black and white tones. The other idea--the idea of the criminal--is useless. That concept just boils down to stigma. Some individuals get the criminal stigma, others don't. Stigma has never been (and cannot be) fairly and uniformly dispensed--and it certainly is subjectively applied. I would argue that Jean Valjean was not a criminal. Javert would beg to differ with me. The term "criminal" has its purpose, just like any other epithet has its purpose. Just don't pretend that you can logically demonstrate that someone is a criminal. The attachment of criminal stigma or not is also so sugge Defining crime as the commission of a criminal act

    10. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by aliquis · · Score: 1

      And in what way are TPB like selling legal drugs? TV-series addiction? Ok on that one .. Porn addiction aswell maybe.

      But I found it pretty obvious he mean illegal drugs, and over here in Sweden only Apoteket are allowed to sell both prescription and non-prescription drugs (as in medicine), only Systembolaget are allowed to sell alcohol over 3.5% or whatever it is and it it's not a restaurant, regular stores are however allowed to sell coffee, tea, tobacco and just recently nicotine gums aswell.

    11. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      in your example i'd say that mexico has no obligation whatsoever to uphold the US's laws. Why spend money to stop something your laws say is legal? There are plenty of other stupid laws around that would make attempting to help other countries enforce their laws by default a futile effort at best.

      Most likely in that example the US would lean on Mexico or provide large amounts of Police to stop it anyway, which is the generally approved way of getting other countries to help you uphold your laws, and i believe the US has been doing this in sweden to try and get the pirate bay shut down for quite some time now, despite the fact that they are doing nothing that is illegal in their own country.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    12. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Please let me give you the +5 Pedant mod... Best brazen display of pedantry I've seen in a good long while.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    13. Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there by Sique · · Score: 1

      If you are married to a pharmacist you learn to make a difference between hallucinogetics and drugs, and moreso you learn that MDMA for instance can't be a drug because it's synthetic and thus doesn't fit into the definition of "drug" :)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  31. Keyser Söze by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

    I am Jim Keyzer Söze.

  32. Dealer? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Where I come from, "dealers" don't hang out with the CoP. What kind of dealer was he?

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Dealer? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was dealing suspects to the law ;D

    2. Re:Dealer? by thegnu · · Score: 1

      'Twas in Mexico.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    3. Re:Dealer? by thegnu · · Score: 1

      oh, and how do you know that? I'd wager you're pretty wrong, even if it's not hanging out over beers, and is a little more covert.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
  33. Quid Pro Quo by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Reality. It's harsh and short.

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  34. Re:where are the investigators by baomike · · Score: 2, Funny

    >
    at job interviews with Warner Bros.

  35. Pirate Bay press release by Jens+Egon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://static.thepiratebay.org/pm/20080418_eng.txt/

    Note that he was in charge of the preliminary investigation.

    And that he is accused of droping investigations against Time/Warner et al.

    If this is true, he should be looking forward to some time behind bars.

    Whether Swedish police can lift the burden of proof against Time/Warner is more questionable. I wouldn't accept a claim of "good faith", but an actual judge might, I suppose.

  36. Sorry.. got distracted... by bakreule · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm really sorry...

    I was approriately shocked and outraged until I noticed the "Hottest top ten" Sweedes of the week link.... I don't know why, but I kinda got side tracked... sorry....

    P.S. Search for "The week's top ten" on the newspaper site if you want to see it.......
    P.P.S I'm I the only one who noticed the link?? I thought this was /.!!

    --

    Buses stop at a bus station
    Trains stop at a train station
    On my desk there's a workstation....

    1. Re:Sorry.. got distracted... by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Boobs > Boring Corruption Articles.

  37. Criminal != Wrong by FatSean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Throughout the ages there have been many laws that have made 'legal' ideas and concepts we now find despicable.

    Those who wish to control you like to conflate 'criminal' with 'wrong','immoral','evil', etc...

    This assumes that the law is never wrong, when in fact, the law is often wrong.

    It's a common misconception, especially in the USA.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Criminal != Wrong by BlargIAmDead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an idea I have also been kicking around for several days in my head. There used to be such laws as, if you were African American and you "stepped on a white man's shadow" or looked at his wife too long, you would quickly find yourself facing a tree and a rope. Now we look at these laws and say "How barbaric! We would never do something like that again....Weeeellll, except for you illegal immigrants, non-violent drug users, Muslims, gays, lesbians, political dissidents, and anyone else who looks at us funny...But you African Americans are safe."

    2. Re:Criminal != Wrong by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      No, Criminal != Wrong is also a common misconception. It assumes that there is some definite, universal measurement of morality, which there is: the law. Not everyone has to agree with every part of it, but by the same token, you may have people who do. It's supposed to be a one-size-fits-all template for morality. If there is a crime that you believe isn't immoral, you are obliged to justify your belief. Similarly, if there is a legal activity you believe is immoral (like my opinion of TPB's activities), then you are obliged to justify that belief as well.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Criminal != Wrong by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "It assumes that there is some definite, universal measurement of morality, which there is: the law."

      A view that totalitarians throughout history would agree with wholeheartedly.

      "Not everyone has to agree with every part of it, but by the same token, you may have people who do. It's supposed to be a one-size-fits-all template for morality."

      Uncle Joe Stalin couldn't have said it any better than you. Bravo sir!

      "If there is a crime that you believe isn't immoral, you are obliged to justify your belief."

      Most of the regimes that have existed on this planet make it illegal to disagree with those in power, and by your measure, it would therefore also be immoral to voice such a belief, let alone attempt to justify it. Please enlighten us with a learned missive which resolves this apparently dilemma.

      "Similarly, if there is a legal activity you believe is immoral (like my opinion of TPB's activities), then you are obliged to justify that belief as well."

      How does one do so in a society whose laws prohibit free speech? It would clearly be an immoral act to break these laws, so once again, I await your doubtless ingenious solution to this dilemma.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  38. This case is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant you go to google.com an type in umm something like "adobe torrent " an get a ton of links just like TPB ? guess google will be next in the court ?

    1. Re:This case is silly by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      "Then he got an idea. An awful idea. The Grinch got a wonderful, awful idea."

      That's exactly what we need to do. Try to get the MPAA/RIAA to try to sue Google over this torrent thing. The Pirate Bay doesn't host anything but some links. People go there to find these links. But what about Google, who one can use to sort of meta search between TPB and Torrent reactor or such? Like say I'm trying to the entire Metallica collection. I'd be more likely to ue Google. The should try to convince the prosecutor the same thing. It'll be SCO vs IBM all over again, and I'm willing to bet it would put an end to the issue, for better or worse.

  39. Re:Yeah by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Technically, there was no pirated content on the site.

    Only references to it hosted by other people (.bittorrent files reference trackers, trackers reference other hosts which have the data available to share). Slight difference there Buckwheat.

    You, much like many others do not understand how bittorrent works, but thanks for trying to act smart it was rather amusing.

    I know we're supposed to focus on modding up rather than down, but really, can we PLEASE have a '-5 Twit' mod? ... please?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  40. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Priceless.

  41. How Appropriate... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    At the bottom of this comment page I'm viewing, the /. quote:

    Power, like a desolating pestilence, Pollutes whate'er it touches... -- Percy Bysshe Shelley

    It's almost as if the /. editors read the article...

    Nahhhhhhhh!

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  42. goooooo pirate bay! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Awesome for pirate bay!

  43. For those who don't understand Swedish by commodoresloat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Here's a transliteration:

    Bork bork bork bork bork! Bork ze bork bork bork. Borky bork bork bork bork...

  44. Noooo! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    While police and judges fill different roles, *BOTH* need to appear to be acting in the interests of the government...

    They need to be seen to be acting in the interests of JUSTICE. Unfortunately these days this is not always the same as the interests of the government.

  45. The biggest scandal is the prosecutors reply by spyfrog · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest scandal isn't that the police officer has changed employer.
    The biggest scandal is that the prosecutor Håkan Roswall don't see this as having any impact on the case. He is still going to use this ex police officer as a technical expert witness and he also say that this has happend before.

  46. rental cops by zogger · · Score: 1

    Quite legal here (Georgia), you can rent cops out "off duty" and they are allowed to still wear their uniform and their badge and pack heat. It's common, and last I knew some years ago now they got $15 an hour, probably higher now. You can see them directing traffic so that big private parking lots like at shops and factories can get out into traffic, at fast food joints at lunch hour, concerts and other private venues, etc. One of the funnier things I saw was two different cops trying to work two different fast food joints that were next to each other, they were having a hard time as both of them were trying to block the main traffic to let "their" customers in and out, and it conflicted constantly and the poor drivers didn't know which frantically waving and whistling cop to "obey". Stop! No, go!, No stop! Pretty dang funny really.

  47. GET OFF YOUR SANDBOX AND PAY ATTENTION. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

    thank you for the bland, predictible, obvious civics speech. now pay attention. all of what you said is more or less correct. NONE of what you said has much relevance here. I'd like to know why this should be enough in this case to dismiss the lawsuit. what ACTUAL, PRACTICAL BEARING would it have if, for example, the police officer was seeking a job at WB? If he brought up bad evidence, sure, but the judge exists there to see whether the evidence is bad and the defense can challnge it too. This is the way an advertsarial system works. Likewise, the defense attorneys may make preposterous claims because they are biased for their client. What the hell difference does it make? Did somebody claim that the OJ case should be thrown out because the defense proposed preposterous "mafia" arguments that were clearly biased towards its client? in fact, mind you, we dont even have bias here. we have "the suspicion of potential of bias." There is BIG difference.

  48. image on front page by dword · · Score: 1

    TFA may also explain the new logo on http://www.thepiratebay.com/ website

  49. Swedish jurisprudence by psychobabble · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately,(in this case), this does nothing when it comes to weighing the evidence. In swedish law, as apposed to anglosaxon, there is no such thing as tainted and inadmissable evidence. Any evidence is admissable to the court, no matter what strange and even illegal ways it has been produced.
    Cheers
    CH

  50. Criminal == Wrong by mi · · Score: 1

    Those who wish to control you like to conflate 'criminal' with 'wrong','immoral','evil', etc...

    Yeah, yeah... Just more excuses for piracy — using somebody else's creations without their consent. It feels good, so it must be Ok, right? Why pay, when you don't have to?..

    It's a common misconception, especially in the USA.

    It is because the laws reflect the population's opinion very closely in the USA, and — unlike in many other places in the world — have done so for a very long time. So generations have grown up over generations, who so no or little disparity between "illegal" and "wrong".

    I find this feature of Americans to be rather pleasant — most of the time...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Criminal == Wrong by FatSean · · Score: 1

      So Americans are truly racist scum because they allowed legal slavery to last so long?

      According to you, Americans really are bigotted white trash because they have allowed their laws to treat many groups as second class citizens over the years?

      Not sure where you're going with this angry-man, but I suspect your anger results from your inability to claim as big a piece of the pie as your momma promised you.

      Your ignorance is showing...

      --
      Blar.
    2. Re:Criminal == Wrong by mi · · Score: 1

      The disconnect between my posting and your (mis)interpretation of it is just too large to try to correct...

      your anger results from your inability to claim as big a piece of the pie as your momma promised you.

      Cute... No, thanks, doing pretty good...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  51. Wrong definition of "ministerstyre" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ministerstyre" is when a member of "regeringen" (government) has influence over a "myndighet" (public authority) in a specific case. That is illegal in Sweden.

    "Minister" is the informal title of a person that is leading a department in the government (the official title is "statsråd"). "Styre" means ruling.

    "Ministerstyre" definetly not mean "illegal manipulations of MPs".

  52. Wrong definition of "ministerstyre"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ministerstyre" is when a member of the government ("statsråd", government = "regeringen") has influence over a specific case handled by a public authority ("statlig myndighet"). This is illegal in Sweden, but common in other countries like USA and GB.

    It has nothing to do with "illegal manipulation of MPs ".

    "Minister" is the inoffical title of a leader of a department in the government (the official title is "departementschef"). "Styre" means ruling.