Pirate Bay Day 5 — Prosecution Tries To Sneak In Evidence

Hodejo1 writes "On the old Perry Mason TV shows, it was a common sight to see someone burst into the crowded courtroom at a dire moment and confess aloud that they, not the defendant, killed so-and-so. In reality, courts do not allow evidence to enter trial without a chance for the opposing council to view it and for a judge to rule on their admissibility. Yet, in the fifth day of the Pirate Bay trial, lawyers for the prosecution again tried to sneak in surprise evidence while questioning defendants. The judge put his foot down this time, telling lawyers for the state, 'If you have documents which you eventually plan to use, you need to hand them over now.' The prosecution continues to struggle in court. In one humorous moment, prosecutor Håkan Roswall tried to show how 'hip' he was with technology when he questioned defendant Peter Sunde. 'When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?' asked the Prosecutor. 'We do not use the expression IRL,' said Peter, 'We use AFK.' The defendants are not out of the woods yet. Lawyer and technology writer Richard Koman wonders aloud if the Pirate Bay's 'I-dunno' defense is all that much better."

Comments

IRL, the prosecution is AFK.

[Rockoon]

Is the prosecution secretly against copyrights?

Re:IRL, the prosecution is AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

There it is sweden, Land of the INFRINGERS, the home place of Irwin Allen. If there OJ gets free from obvious murder commission, here the Pirate Bay is also as free.

FAO Editors

[pjt33]

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

Re:FAO Editors

[SupremoMan]

That's as the prosecutors would put it "epic fail."

Re:FAO Editors

[Yetihehe]

Is there new word? Am I so behind the times even epic fail is outdated?

Re:FAO Editors

[aliquis]

Am I so behind the times even epic fail is outdated?

Yeah, ever since TPB got their first legal threat we have started to reefer epic fail to "trying to threaten TPB with your legal mumbo jumbo."

Re:FAO Editors

[jonaskoelker]

The word you're looking for is "cingcong", not "council".

Fixed ;-)

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, now it is super-duper epically fantastic failure.

Re:FAO Editors

[i-CONICA]

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

It's council in UK English.

Re:FAO Editors

[Mozk]

Considering that this trial is in Sweden, the submitter may be Swedish (though they do learn English pretty thoroughly in school), and homophones can tricky even for native speakers, I think we can let this one slide.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, ever since TPB got their first legal threat we have started to reefer epic fail

Reefer epic fail? Is that a disastrous attempt at making a spliff?

Re:FAO Editors

[arwel]

The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".

It's council in UK English.

Err, no it's not. QC = Queen's Counsel.

Re:FAO Editors

[pjt33]

You're missing the point. Part of the editors' job ought to be to fix errors in submissions before posting them. It's excusable that the submitter not know the correct spelling, but the editor should spot it and correct it.

Re:FAO Editors

[pjt33]

No, a council is an administrative body, such as the group of elected councillors who get to spend council tax. A counsel is, depending on context, a piece of advice or a lawyer.

Re:FAO Editors

[Per Wigren]

I'd say that Swedes and others who have English as their second language in general are better on separating homophones than those with English as their first language. I can't remember ever seeing a swede mixing up their/they're/there, your/you're or site/sight. I frequently see Americans and UKians doing that. For some reason, mixing up then/than and lose/loose seems very common though. Furthermore we never use "whom" and "neither...nor" and we always have a problem deciding whether to use "who", "that" or "which". :)

Re:FAO Editors

[pjt33]

This is one example of a case where the English and American spellings are the same, and the only distinction is between those who know how to spell and those who don't. Also, FWIW, I'm British.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Wel that's normal, we (non native speakers, I'm not Swede) learned written English before learning oral English, why would we confuse two words that are not homonyms in our native languages ? As for relatives, it is difficult to choose the correct one but prepositions (of, off, on, ...) are much more difficult to use correctly:

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, mixing up then/than and lose/loose seems very common though.

Indeed, that annoys me - "Then" and "than" aren't even homophones (c'mon, the vowel is different!), and neither are "lose" and "loose" - lose rhymes with "shoes" and "loose" with "goose". Of course if in your dialect "shoes" and "goose" rhyme, I guess they could be. Might explain americans mixing them up all the damn time.

In my local dialect, "your" and "you're" aren't actually homophones - "yer" vs. "ewer", basically, same for "their" and "they're" which are like "thare" and "thayer". (Irish).

Re:FAO Editors

[siride]

The "then" vs. "than" distinction was actually created in spelling first. They both come from the same source word.

Re:FAO Editors

[Hognoxious]

You're missing the point. Part of the editors' job ought to be to fix errors in submissions before posting them.

New here?

Re:FAO Editors

[pjt33]

No, just trying to avoid a complete and utter surrender to cynicism.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite right, council is spelled council in the UK... just like it is here in the US of A. There are many other words we spell the same as well - like paper, law, sausage, and ... counsel.

Re:FAO Editors

[icannotthinkofaname]

I'd say that Swedes and others who have English as their second language in general are better on separating homophones than those with English as their first language. I can't remember ever seeing a swede mixing up their/they're/there, your/you're or site/sight. I frequently see Americans and UKians doing that. For some reason, mixing up then/than and lose/loose seems very common though. Furthermore we never use "whom" and "neither...nor" and we always have a problem deciding whether to use "who", "that" or "which". :)

o_O What? Do you mean "British" or "Englishmen"? C'mon, please pick an already existing word. There's more than enough of them.

*awaits off-topic moderation*

Re:FAO Editors

[komode0]

Usage Note: Council, counsel, and consul are never interchangeable, though their meanings are related. Council and councilor refer principally to a deliberative assembly (such as a city council or student council), its work, and its membership. Counsel and counselor pertain chiefly to advice and guidance in general and to a person (such as a lawyer or camp counselor) who provides it. Consul denotes an officer in the foreign service of a country.

Re:FAO Editors

[jo42]

"epic fail" is outdated

Also, way outdated, and truly tired, is "In Soviet Russia ...".

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Usage Note: suggests a shitty, cheap substitute. Used before the thing you actually want but can't have.

Re:FAO Editors

[Per Wigren]

Of course if in your dialect "shoes" and "goose" rhyme, I guess they could be.

Actually, the way most Swedes pronounce those words when speaking English, they rhyme. Swedish doesn't have the "z" sound at all so we never learnt how make it in a natural way. My English is pretty good, but I'm having a very hard time making the s/z-sounds with "voice" at the same time, not just the snake-like hissing (like all s-like sounds are in Swedish). I can do it if I focus, but it doesn't come natural. I guess it's the same thing when English-speaking persons try to speak Swedish (or Spanish/French/German for that matter) and pronounce those rolling "R"s. Most can do it if they really try, but it doesn't sound natural unless you grew up with it.

Re:FAO Editors

[Ummite]

Excuse me, but QC is for Quebec calvince.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's having a go at Ukrainians.

Re:FAO Editors

[lenkyl]

in soviet russia, memes outdate and tire you!

Re:FAO Editors

[Kagura]

Quality Check.

Re:FAO Editors

[1u3hr]

considering that this trial is in Sweden, the submitter may be Swedish

No one is blaming the submitter. But the editors are American. Editors are supposed to "edit" the text that submitters give them.

Re:FAO Editors

[Hybrid-brain]

It's not their fault. They are Americans. They have no idea that life continues outside their border, or that they are the ones who spell words incorrectly and just arbitrarily drop vowels out of words.

you sir, are an idiot. I'm an American and I am very aware of what life is like outside the plushness of the United States of Stupidity. I have traveled to Mexico at least three times for missions trips and helping the people, and always my heart is saddened by what these people have to do to survive. so next time troll boy, think before you speak, or at least go to India and do something useful.

Re:FAO Editors

[b4dc0d3r]

Figured. You sound British.

Re:FAO Editors

[lilomar]

Questionable Content!

Re:FAO Editors

[StuartHankins]

It's all the big words, like "distinction". And the proper capitalization. Not very American.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Queer Cunt

Re:FAO Editors

[Runaway1956]

If, as you say, you ARE aware of what life outside the US borders is like, then you MUST be aware that most Americans are truly UNAWARE. I'm an American veteran. I've traveled pretty extensively. I can tell my family and freinds what I saw of life in Djibouti, or any of dozens of other cities. They DO NOT COMPREHEND. Americans, in general, are ignorant, and prefer to stay that way. That, my freind, is a simple fact of life. Reality must not be allowed to impinge on their perceptions of the world.

Re:FAO Editors

[Hognoxious]

Good luck with that!

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, even for native speakers?

Hint: foreigners generally learn english from books, subtitles, larry, internet, etc. Think about that for a while.

Re:FAO Editors

[MightyYar]

A guy I knew once described me as "the most cynical guy I've ever met", and I wear that like a badge of pride. It's better to be cynical... think of how few times I am disappointed by someone - wouldn't that be nice?

Re:FAO Editors

[MightyYar]

You can't win on here - someone always comes after me if I say "England" when I mean "UK". Someone would probably have blasted him for excluding Northern Ireland if he said "British". :)

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft give me a break.

Hey I think I'm getting the hang of this.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they came from the same root and were once spelled the same. I'd like to think that after 300 years we would have that newfangled spelling worked out.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

And "colour" would be another, right?

Re:FAO Editors

[Greyor]

Well, if you want to know the real reason, it goes back to Latin.

concilium is a public meeting or gathering, or a council.
consilium (note the s) is a plan, advice, policy, or ... you guessed it, counsel.

Wow... maybe that was too much even for Slashdot? Oh well. My point was that the British (and us Americans in turn) inherited that small distinction directly from the Romans.

Re:FAO Editors

[Sique]

But... Ireland is one of the British Islands... not Great Britain though, but definitely british.

Re:FAO Editors

[Petrushka]

For some reason, mixing up then/than and lose/loose seems very common though. Furthermore we never use "whom" and "neither...nor" and we always have a problem deciding whether to use "who", "that" or "which". :)

Just to mitigate the offence, the "who/which" vs. "that" rule, though strict in US English, doesn't really even have the status of a rule in UK English.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's now a Palin.

Re:FAO Editors

[MightyYar]

See? I still can't get it right! :)

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that. I am Indian and have lived in UK and Europe (Spain, France) and never ever mis-spelled homophones. On the other hand after moving to the US I have started to get them wrong (especially the words "their/there"). I think there is something about the simplified spellings in the US and the US pronunciation that cause mis-spellings.

Re:FAO Editors

[zmollusc]

To be blunt, yes!

Re:FAO Editors

[vyruss000]

These are rather doobieous claims you're making...

Re:FAO Editors

[Goaway]

Too late!

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#14502484

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean Europe or EU?

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you're from Ireland it isn't :-)

Re:FAO Editors

[thexile]

Big deal? Just three times to Mexico and you claim to know everything?

Re:FAO Editors

[Stuart Gibson]

For future reference, if you live in Northern Ireland you are British by nationality, but you aren't part of Great Britain. You are, however, part of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or UK for short.

Yeah, I know. it's surprising how many people here don't understand it either.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes i would have blasted him :D

Re:FAO Editors

[Vintermann]

In general, this is my observation as well. But there are some dyslectics who get good at English in a highly verbal manner. They make homophone errors like native speakers.

(Another thing is that we can easily pick up homophone errors from native speakers if we see them more often than the correct ones)

Re:FAO Editors

[MightyYar]

That's okay, you should see how many Canadians I surprise by telling them that their head of state is the Queen, and that Charles will eventually appear on their money. :)

Re:FAO Editors

[arekusu_ou]

That's because most people don't care.

Ireland, Scotland, Britain. It's all UK or British as far as non-involved people are concerned.

You want to get technical? You try naming every province in China and keeping straight where it is.

Most people don't care enough. It's only China.

Re:FAO Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

British "Isles"

Re:FAO Editors

[Hucko]

but not everyone is 300 years old... you have to give the newcomers a brake (j/k... break)

Re:FAO Editors

[Hucko]

I never mixed them up until /. started arguing about it.

Re:FAO Editors

[Hucko]

People learning English from subtitles are *expected* to misspell.

Re:FAO Editors

[Mattcelt]

He doesn't claim to know everything; he claims NOT to know NOTHING (in contrast to the ironically ignorant generalization to which he was replying). A claim which, based on what he presents, is true. QED.

Isn't that more of a burden on the prosecutors?

[rolfwind]

On the old Perry Mason TV shows, it was a common sight to see someone burst into the crowded courtroom at a dire moment and confess aloud that they, not the defendant, killed so-and-so. In reality, courts do not allow evidence to enter trial without a chance for the opposing council to view it and for a judge to rule on their admissibility.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that this burden was placed far more on the prosecutors who had to share with the defense council their lot of evidence, than the other way around.

Although, as in this video by a law professor, what you say to a cop can be used against you, but never for you - as that would be ruled as hearsay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Re:Isn't that more of a burden on the prosecutors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disinfo user?

Re:Isn't that more of a burden on the prosecutors?

[TheoMurpse]

That would be because statements against your own interest are admissible in court. It makes sense: There are indicia of truth because there's no reason you would say something that hurts your interest unless it were true.

Like it or love it, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule simply because of the rationale that "why would you say it unless it's true."

An interesting exception to the hearsay rule is the "dying declaration." Namely, if someone believes they are on their deathbed and they finger whodunnit in their assault or murder or whatever, their accusation is evidence (not conclusive by any means) that can be used at trial against the accused.

The theory is "why would someone lie about their murderer on their deathbed?" Now, in most of the commonwealth countries (especially those with Christian history--is that all of them but India?), this seems reasonable. But when the rule was introduced to India (which also uses the common law I believe), the reaction among many Indians was "why would someone tell the truth on their deathbed?"

Now, I don't presume to make statements about Indian belief systems, but I read a law review article on this rule and this was the claim made. Their argument was that, as the moral beliefs of the populace change, we should question hearsay exceptions.

Now, I've painted a pretty bleak picture of hearsay exceptions, but they serve their purpose as building blocks of evidence. A lawyer worth his salt should be able to rebut excepted hearsay if it's misleading or incorrect in its implications.

"I didn't read it"

[cliffski]

"Fredrik Neij was questioned by lawyers who tried to paint him as the point man for The Pirate Bay operations. Peter Danowsky, who represents the music business, pointed out that Niej owned The Pirate Bayâ(TM)s domain and then showed him a contract he had signed saying that he would oversee operations for the site. Neijâ(TM)s response? âoeBut I didnâ(TM)t read it.â"

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[arwel]

How many EULAs have you actually read before you clicked "accept", then? :)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[pipatron]

No, the defense is that what they are doing is not illegal in any way under Swedish law. Who is in charge of a legal website is not very interesting.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[thetartanavenger]

Accepting an EULA and signing a contract are two very different things.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fredrik Neij was questioned by lawyers who tried to paint him as the point man for The Pirate Bay operations. Peter Danowsky, who represents the music business, pointed out that Niej owned The Pirate Bayâ(TM)s domain and then showed him a contract he had signed saying that he would oversee operations for the site. Neijâ(TM)s response? âoeBut I didnâ(TM)t read it.â"

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

It does hold up if hes trying to avoid a conspiracy charge, he needs motive and intent, the lawyers are trying to use his contract to establish his intent. His response that he never read the thing quite neatly defeats using it as a written evidence of his intent.

It might backfire on him later for other reasons but if the question is "what are the operations of TBP" with the intent to stick you with a conspiracy charge "Who the fuck knows" is a great answer.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[GF678]

Accepting an EULA and signing a contract are two very different things.

Seems as though the law thinks otherwise these days. It's safer to consider the EULA a contract if you're worried.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

On the surface, they are similar. The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court. The moment a judge (or jury) says "This EULA has the enforceability of any other contract" then the grandparent's argument can work. But until then, legal scholars disagree over whether clicking 'Accept' on a EULA has any legal weight.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[aliquis]

They can only be screwed if they have committed a crime to begin with, and so far I don't know if this has been discussed or decided on? They only seem to try to figure out who have done what and is responsible for what parts of TPB and so on and not discuss if whatever they have done would actually be illegal or not.

There is nothing wrong with overseeing operations of TPB if TPBs business isn't illegal in the first place.

But I don't get why the defendants try to tell the story how they don't have anything with it to do if they really believe they are innocent. Have they questioned Gottfrid yet? Atleast he may have the balls =p, time will tell :)
(Though obviously smart in any case if the actions of TPB is decided to be criminal.)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

As a consequence, if e.g. you offered to your friends to let them text you if they had or needed pirated software and you matched those who had with those who needed, you might breach the law. Or if you put up a sign that said "PLEASE POST WHAT PIRATED SOFTWARE YOU NEED AND I WILL TELL YOU WHERE TO GET IT", and you actually helped them.

The defense in this case is that they effectively created a bulletin board that people could use to post and exchange a lot of things, and was ignorant of the fact that people started using for software piracy. The prosecution will simply have to prove that it was impossible for them NOT to know.

IANAL, please correct me if I am wrong, especially if YAAL.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[aliquis]

Bullshit, if "TL:DR" applies they are both the same. :D

Also you can't be responsible for signing something you didn't understood, so ... :D

Re:"I didn't read it"

[L4t3r4lu5]

"I didn't install the program. It was just there, and has been for a while. I just use the program. I never saw any 'End User Liability Agreement'. Nothing told me I was bound to a contract when I ran the program. I, uh, I don't know what else to tell you."

Re:"I didn't read it"

[LingNoi]

The parent AC is absolutely correct. Since the prosecution is trying to show that the pirate bay owners intend to purposely violate copyright where as the defense is sticking with the story that the pirate bay is a sharing website which only removes material if it is against the law or has misleading description.

As someone else noted in a different article (or perhaps website) it's going to be extremely difficult for the prosecution. It would be a contradiction to say that the people responsible for posting the child porn on the pirate bay are responsible rather then the admins, then say that any copyrighted material posted on TPB the admins are responsible for.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Also you can't be responsible for signing something you didn't understood, so ... :D

You're not getting confused between "consideration" in terms of thinking about something and "consideration" in terms of being paid for something?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Repossessed]

Even better:

"The computer was buggy and all i saw was a row of boxes, you really need to do more testing under WINE." (Yes this really happens).

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Repossessed]

I know jack shit about Swedish law, but the RIAA presented a similar argument in its cases against filesharing sites in the US. SCOTUS eventually ruled that the sites could be held liable only if they actually encouraged piracy, not if they simply knew about it.

If Sweden's system works close to the same way ours does, even that would be hard to convince a judge of, since criminal charges are a lot harder to uphold than civil.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[pdabbadabba]

I don't see how that's a contradiction. Why can't more than one person be responsible?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

Well, that's the position of the prosecution. I do not think the defence agrees.

The trial is more about if what TPB did is illegal in sweden. TPB doesn't really deny running thepiratebay web site. They are only saying it is a legal web site. The prosecution and movie industry does not agree. This is the battle.

This is a new case for Swedish law and is likely to be heading for the Supreme Court before it is decided who wins.

Unfortunately, politicians have a lot to say in the Swedish legal system, as the justice and political systems are not separated the way they are in the US.

Political pressure is often very important in Swedish sentences. For example, a homophobic deed towards a gay man is sentenced harder than the same act towards a straight man, due to gay rights political pressure.

I expect TPB to be convicted and sentenced but having to pay damages only. The amount of damages will probably be higher than for murdering someone. This will be another example of political pressure. The amount of pressure from the US movie industry on Sweden right now is very high.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[N1AK]

I don't see how that's a contradiction.

Because you didn't read it correctly. The point OP was making was that either TPB are guilty of all crimes committed by the makers of torrents shared on their site or they are guilty of none. Saying they aren't responsible for paedophilic material, but are responsible for copyrighted material, when the process by which the materials .torrent gets onto there system is the same is nonsensical.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Knuckles]

For example, a homophobic deed towards a gay man is sentenced harder than the same act towards a straight man, due to gay rights political pressure.

What is "a homophobic deed [...] against a straight man"?
Also, [citation needed]

Re:"I didn't read it"

[pdabbadabba]

True! Thanks.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.

Bullshit. EULAs have been tested in courts, and found void. At least where I live at all EULAs are void no matter what.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

reciting him Mormonic prose?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, but who else lives in your fantasyland with you?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[slash.duncan]

According to ArsTechnica coverage, one of the interesting things about Swedish law is that sometimes, as here, civil and criminal cases can be dealt with in parallel in the same court room. Thus, we have both the state prosecutors and their equivalent of the RIAA both making their case, and even if some particular doesn't apply to the criminal case, it can still be valid to the civil case taking place in parallel in the same court room.

Combined civil/criminal trials like that seems to violate all sorts of ideas of justice folks like me here in the US might have, but it's the way their system works, and TPB seems reasonably confident of the outcome, much more so than they'd be here in the US under comparable civil-only circumstances, so who are we to say?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Knuckles]

reciting him Mormonic prose?

That would be a possibility! :)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Hanyin]

This is probably off topic but I get the feeling that had the parent AC had the user name Newyorkcountrylawyer the comment would've been modded to +5 in no time. It'd be interesting to see if the users that are consistently modded up (sometimes for simply agreeing or confirming opinions) ever experiment to see whether their comments get modded as high when posting as mere ACs.

Just a thought I wanted to share.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mikelieman]

"Where's my signature?"

Re:"I didn't read it"

[rtb61]

In most of the world that is untrue, a EULA as a post purchase agreement has no legal value, is just a bluff and can be readily ignored. Now because I know that to be true, I do not typical bother to read EULAs as it is just a waste of time as it has no legal weight, click, sure I'll click, rather pointless as the contract established at purchase is the only one I am bound to and any contract post purchase is meaningless.

At the end of the day, they provide 'unedited' lists of torrents, they neither check nor review any of them as that is completely outside the business aims, no different to a carrier the provide the wire. The must pursue those people that copy the copyrighted content, and then distribute it for a profit, that is the whole principle of copyright law. In reality the worst thing they can say about them is their choice of name, 'The Pirate Bay', this tends to demonstrate intent. The only real defence for the choice of name was they specifically choose to to mock old world publishing companies and their copyright paranoia, with new world publishing techniques for a new style of published works, the various creative commons licences, open source and public domain works.

So they are just part of the distribution chain to get creative commons work, open source and public domain, for the collective effort of everybody involved in it's production, the constant exchange of work from creator to creator, that a subversive element choose to subvert a portion digital exchange for their own purposed is hardly their fault. The real threat to the publishers is not the copying of copyrighted content but all that copylefted content freely available that out competes their 19th century distribution model.

The reality is, this court is all about prosecuting them for the name they choose for their domain and nothing else, so is calling yourself 'The Pirate Bay' enough to send you to jail or not? Perhaps there also is a baseball in Pittsburgh that should be joining them on trial do a quick web search and you will find there are tens of thousands of other companies that also choose to use that name.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Skater]

It has supposedly been tried. See the infamous "troll investigation" post.

You're comparing different situations. We know NYCL is actually a lawyer. We know nothing about the AC. (And the post is +5 now anyway.)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Kjella]

Post-purchase EULAs may or may not be enforcable, depending on where you live since they may find that the transaction is over before the EULA is presented. Download a piece of gratis software and I doubt you got much chance, because you've made no consideration before being presented with the EULA. Same goes with any online software purchase where they present you with the EULA before you make payment, as some do. Any online games or applications or services that contains terms of service are quite probably enforcable (the "we may change it at any time" may not be, but anything spelled out as you agree almost certainly is). If there had been any significant wins against EULAs as opposed to contracts, it would become a standard feature of webshops to present the EULA before checking out. Stores would have them on phamplets for you to read. Compare it to say ordering a flight ticket over the phone. Trust me, additional terms and conditions do apply even though they didn't list everything over the phone. Honestly, about the only time EULAs do get struck down is because they contain parts that would be unenforcable in contracts too, like illegal bundling, prohibiting legal options that can't be prohibited, regulations in violation of law and various other terms they wouldn't accept in a contract either. The different to me, does not seem to be very large in practise.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[DustyShadow]

The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.

I guess this lie is never going to die around here.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[DustyShadow]

You don't live in the U.S. then.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[thetartanavenger]

I completely agree with what your saying but there is still a difference. Whilst it's safer to assume an EULA is a contract, EULA's still have that grey area flexibility that you can gamble on. What I was trying to imply is that treating a signed contract in the same light as an EULA is not sensible. It only works one way, not the other.

Note, I did not RTA so I not know if they were actually talking about an EULA, but the quote higher in the thread makes it sound very much like a contract.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mark-t]

An EULA, if it is enforceable at all, is likely only as enforceable as a strictly verbal agreement for which there were no other witnesses. Not only is there no objective proof with an EULA that a consumer ever agreed to it, but there isn't even any proof that they knew of its existence. With a contract, one has a signature that verifies that, whether or not a person actually read it or even understood it, provides unequivocal proof that they were presented with an opportunity to do so. Saying that the computer doesn't allow the software to run unless the EULA is agreed to would, for all intents and purposes, be trying to treat the computer itself as if it were some sort of witness to the act... and although computer contents can provide legal evidence in a case, computers themselves are incapable of taking an oath that is required of all witnesses.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Sancho]

But interestingly, in the US, this would only apply to the criminal aspects. The burden of proof in civil trials is much lower than the burden of proof in criminal trials. Look at OJ Simpson--he was exonerated of the crime of murder back in the 90s, but was found liable for the deaths int he civil trial and ordered to pay restitution.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mysticgoat]

The prosecution will simply have to prove that it was impossible for them NOT to know.

Above quote fails it. At least I think so.

On the basis of what I have learned in following this story, the defense is that Swedish law requires the prosecution to demonstrate intentional assistance was provided to someone who was infringing on a copyright, and tje defens is that such a demonstration cannot be done. It cannot be done because any copyright infringement that may have occurred was an unintentional side effect of TPB's activities. It doesn't matter whether TPB management was aware in general that some people were doing this, just like the Swiss banks know that often its anonymous accounts are being used in criminal activities.

I have gotten the impression that under Swedish law the prosecution and plaintiff need to demonstrate that TPB had some kind of direct involvement with at least one instance of copyright infringement. That showing generalized unintended side effects is not enough, just like Henry Ford could not be held responsible for the loss of farriers' income when horseshoes were no longer a budget item for taxi and delivery services due to his invention.

I think it is clear that simply choosing a parody for a name is not sufficient to demonstrate intentional assistance. The Pirate Bay is clearly a parody, even a farce, of the way that the minor civil tort of copyright infringement is being equated by some parties with one of the worst kinds of felonies, that of armed robbery and hostage-taking on the high seas. It might be considered to be in poor taste, like calling a girlie magazine Hustler, but no one is passing laws against bad taste. Yet.

Henry Ford's work benefited everyone by helping remove a lot horses' asses from the city streets. Perhaps TPB will have a similar effect on the entertainment industry, strictly unintended, of course. Of course.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky him, I guess.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mysticgoat]

A valid defense is showing that whether or not a crime had been committed, the defendant would not be culpable.

If this defense of PTB is broken, I think the prosecution would still have to demonstrate that copyright violations had occurred (which may or may not be an easy thing to do). But because the defense has been raised, they now must demonstrate that they are accusing the right people to begin with.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[TheoMurpse]

Really? The issue has never been tested in court? It's gone to federal circuit courts. You probably really meant to say that there is no uniform rule on it handed down by the Supreme Court.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[TheoMurpse]

To be fair, this trial isn't happening in the US, either.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[TheoMurpse]

The "pedophile" analogy is ridiculous. It's called The Pirate Bay. If they called it The Molestor Bay, do you think it sounds a teensy bit more reasonable now?

I'm not on the side of the prosecution or plaintiffs right now, but that pedophile analogy is illogical.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

For example, a homophobic deed towards a gay man is sentenced harder than the same act towards a straight man, due to gay rights political pressure.

No, committing violence against someone because they belong to some class (gay, black, woman) is punished more harshly because it's historically been a tool of oppression. As a white guy, I can still beat a black man bloody and get a normal sentence if it's shown that I had a reason other than his skin (for instance, if he cheated at cards)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Dhalka226]

Insofar as the existence of the site itself would constitute "assistance," it's fairly clear that they intentionally provided assistance to someone who was infringing on a copyright. What is not so clear is whether they intended to assist the act of copyright infringement.

More to the point though, I think the "head in the sand" approach is of dubious defensive value. If we could simply claim that we're not responsible for anything because we weren't aware of specific cases of it, very few people would ever be responsible for anything. Particularly since I don't think it would be hard to demonstrate in this case that the majority of the torrents on TPB appear to be copyrighted material. Obviously there's no way to know for sure short of actually downloading them all, but it goes toward the idea that they really couldn't have not known what was going on. I agree with the OP in that regard; at some point, evidence to the contrary has to overtake a vague, unbelievable and obviously self-serving (even if true!) denial.

I don't think TPB is guilty; I certainly don't think they SHOULD be guilty. But if the only way they're not guilty is "duhh, we didn't know!" then I think they're screwed and they should be screwed. Either what they're doing is illegal or it's not according to Swedish laws. Claiming they're too stupid to know what every other user of their site knows easily is a lame defense that shouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny, even if it ultimately goes to a decision I would like.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[DustyShadow]

Wrong. Having to check the "I agree" box before clicking next (indeed, be required to do so before software will allow you to continue), will easily hold up in court. In fact, it has numerous times. I am not sure why so many people on /. believe EULAs are invalid but it's an argument that just won't die around here.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Rand310]

You also make another critical mistake:

"I certainly think they SHOULD be guilty" - but you don't state who 'they' are.

Crimes cannot be committed by 'anonymous' or 'anonymous cowards' or 'Slashdot' or 'TBP'. Individuals commit crimes, individuals must be proven to have committed crimes, individuals are punished.

So it may be that TPB 'should' be guilty, but who would you convict? If evidence cannot be found that these men actually committed a crime themselves (evidence that points to them specifically and individually), then the wrong people were prosecuted.

This seems to be a flaw in the RIAA/Gov's viewpoint of the internet that results in so many 'LOLZ'. That the internet can function without a leader, director, or even a plan. That websites can moderate using masses of individuals rather than being edited by a known hierarchical body. You cut off a domain, and another pops up. And in that way no individual can be pinned as leading TPB - and none can be prosecuted; TPB or it's likeness is the mythical hydra - it cannot be killed by taking down individuals.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Achromatic1978]

Running the tracker would constitute 'assistance'. Maintaining it. Creating code to allow people to upload '.torrent' files would be assistance. These are things that COULD NOT BE DONE on the site without the assistance of those that run TPB.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[multipartmixed]

It's the Pittsburg Steelers, not stealers. Steelers as in people who make steel.

It's not like they called themselves the Pittsburg Pirates.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Hybrid-brain]

why do you think their on trial? because of copyright issues? the copyright issues was just a way of getting it put on the news, the real reason TPB is on trial is because of some pedo porn they were circulating. I'm still in support of TPB.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[AK Marc]

Combined civil/criminal trials like that seems to violate all sorts of ideas of justice folks like me here in the US might have, but it's the way their system works, and TPB seems reasonably confident of the outcome, much more so than they'd be here in the US under comparable civil-only circumstances, so who are we to say?

The US system is adversarial. Some other systems are cooperative. The US system is based on conflict. The prosecution isn't tasked with finding "truth" but instead finding someone they can convict for a crime and get a conviction. The defense isn't there to find the truth. If they know their client is guilty of breaking the law, they are supposed to get them off anyway. In some places, the primary task isn't to their client, but to the truth.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[FrankieBaby1986]

I was under the impression that The Pirate Bay was loosely affiliated with The Pirate Party, and thus the pirate bay is an apt title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party#Relations_to_other_Swedish_pirate_organizations

Re:"I didn't read it"

[TheoMurpse]

[citation needed]

Re:"I didn't read it"

[slash.duncan]

I can see the words, and the sentences individually make sense, but the ideas behind them... I think I'd have to see the process in action (in rather more detail than this single case) in ordered to really understand. The ideals are great, but I just don't understand how it works in practice. (And I said this as someone who grew up in Kenya considers himself reasonably well traveled, tho unfortunately the exposure has been mostly western.)

But, Viva Variety! as they say. One thing I hate is USians (well, anyone for that matter, but it seems the USians are the ones doing it the most the last few years) trying to cram their ideas down everyone else's throats! A friendly debate, zealously propounding what one believes while accepting that others do the same, is one thing; trying to force it on someone is something entirely different.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Requiem18th]

What? Horse shoe makers attaked Ford for inventing the car? Motherfuckers I'm glad they're dead now.

  Incoming news, health clinics sue vaccine makers for harming their business model.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Sique]

Because in Germany for instance, they aren't.

If you buy software, your contract is with the seller of the software, and with no one else. A second contract with the software company was not part of the sale, and any EULAs are void due to the "Erschoepfungsgrundsatz" (First Sale doctrin).

Re:"I didn't read it"

[DustyShadow]

Yea well that doesn't apply in the U.S. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply because it's a license, not a sale. I love how the post above mine gets +3 insightful for saying EULAs have never been tested in court. That is pure ignorance of case law.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Sique]

These are things that could not be done, hadn't Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn the idea with TCP/IP, or Robert Noyce with the microprocessor or Tim Berners-Lee that of the WWW or Bram Cohen the idea with the BitTorrent protocol...

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Achromatic1978]

That's a fairly disingenuous argument. "Your Honor, this web script that asked users to fill out information on the applications, movies, games, music they wanted to share by BitTorrent, the fact that /we went out of our way/ to write such scripts, and /we went out of our way/ to host and maintain such software, that means nothing. We were just innocent bystanders, no more guilty of contribution than Ikea was for making the desk my laptop sat on!"

And when a company /goes out of its way/ to build an appliance that runs an embedded GPL app, will that defense wash, too? That one of their developers just happened to do something infringing?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Sique]

There is a small difference though: A company that sells a device (building is not the problem here ;) ), that runs an embedded GPL app, is bound by the GPL, because copyright says so (selling a device bundled with the app is distribution of said app, and for distribution you need a license of the rights holder).

But an entity that lets someone link to another link (yes, this was already agreed on in this case, that TPB provides links to links to something that might be falling unter copyright law, not a direct link to the alleged something) does not fall under copyright law.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[TaoPhoenix]

Come on mods, that's not flamebait.

But Dusty, you're inspiring me to think about assembling a "Slashdot FAQ" full of Citations Whenever Needed because the flip side of "getting tired of saying the same thing" means there is a finite list of cases.

I'm thinking of that other huge form with the check boxes. Holistically this "wouldn't be that hard" to do. I think we're slowly realizing that the age of Humor Memes is fading. We still dash off a couple for nostalgia's sake, but mostly when provoked into a MetaContext.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[deimtee]

Yet, strangeley enough, neither you nor anyone else can ever cite a case where a court upheld the general validity of a EULA. When challenged to, you reference a slashdot comment and a wikipedia article that specifically states "No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms."
Interestingly, the most pro-valid judgement I have seen, ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg specifically states in the judgement that the material cannot be copyrighted. It could be argued that the exclusion of copyright is what specifically invalidates the first sale doctrine in that case.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mdmkolbe]

In the US system the prosecutor is supposed to be after truth and he should drop the case if he becomes convinced that the defendant isn't guilty. But that is mostly in theory.

In practice the prosecutor has a vested interest in winning cases and being "hard on crime" (to get promotions). Meanwhile the defense has a vested interest in winning cases and being known as the "the best defense money can buy" (to get richer clients). Since those interests are archived based on the zero-sum game of conviction vs acquittal, naturally the US process is adversarial.

Now my question to you is how do other systems become cooperative? This is an honest question. I've only ever seen the US system and would like to understand alternative systems. However I don't see any way to avoid trial being a zero-sum game that leads to an adversarial approach.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[bonch]

If that's the extent of TPBs defence, then they are screwed. I don't think saying 'I didn't read it' really stands up with a judge, ANY judge.

Don't worry. Slashdot and its mindless readers will completely ignore this and continue to submit biased stories and write biased posts because they don't want to see PirateBay disappear.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. Have you read the ProCD case? If this isn't a general ruling then I don't know what is...

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The [*1449] district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). The parties and numerous amici curiae have briefed many other issues, but these are the only two that matter--and we disagree with the district judge's conclusion on each. Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff.

In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded. So far, so good--but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by purchasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license. Zeidenberg's position therefore must be that the printed terms on the outside of a box are the parties' contract--except for printed terms that refer to or incorporate other terms. But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this [*1451] way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both. The "Read Me" file included with most software, describing system requirements and potential incompatibilities, may be equivalent to ten pages of type; warranties and license restrictions take still more space. Notice on the outside, terms on the inside, and a right to return the software for a refund if the terms are [**10] unacceptable (a right that the license expressly extends), may be a means of doing business valuable to buyers and sellers alike. See E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts  4.26 (1990); Restatement (2d) of Contracts  211 comment a (1981) ("Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution. Scarce and costly time and skill can be devoted to a class of transactions rather than the details of individual transactions."). Doubtless a state could forbid the use of standard contracts in the software business, but we do not think that Wisconsin has done so.

Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract.

Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine. Much software is ordered over the Internet by purchasers who have never [*

Re:"I didn't read it"

[DustyShadow]

For some reason this posted anonymously when I tried a minute ago. Here it is again:

Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. Have you read the ProCD case? If this isn't a general ruling then I don't know what is...

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The [*1449] district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). The parties and numerous amici curiae have briefed many other issues, but these are the only two that matter--and we disagree with the district judge's conclusion on each. Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff. In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded. So far, so good--but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by purchasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license. Zeidenberg's position therefore must be that the printed terms on the outside of a box are the parties' contract--except for printed terms that refer to or incorporate other terms. But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this [*1451] way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both. The "Read Me" file included with most software, describing system requirements and potential incompatibilities, may be equivalent to ten pages of type; warranties and license restrictions take still more space. Notice on the outside, terms on the inside, and a right to return the software for a refund if the terms are [**10] unacceptable (a right that the license expressly extends), may be a means of doing business valuable to buyers and sellers alike. See E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts  4.26 (1990); Restatement (2d) of Contracts  211 comment a (1981) ("Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution. Scarce and costly time and skill can be devoted to a class of transactions rather than the details of individual transactions."). Doubtless a state could forbid the use of standard contracts in the software business, but we do not think that Wisconsin has done so. Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract. Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mark-t]

If the software was running under an imperfect emulator where otherwise disabled buttons still generated events when they were clicked, the software requiring the user to click "I agree" before clicking "next" is merely evidence (admissable, to be sure) that the user had agreed to it, not proof. Further, if an EULA is to be treated like a contract, the person who has the opportunity to agree to it should be given opportunity to make changes. One of those changes might be to simply disregard acceptance of the EULA altogether, patching the software so that the EULA is never shown. If the publisher is unhappy with such changes, they shouldn't allow allow the software to be installed until they have had an opportunity to review them. The fact that a computer is too stupid to know the difference isn't anyone's fault more than it is the paper's fault for a person making proposed changes to a printed contract.

There is not the remotest objective proof that a person even _sees_ any eula, let alone agrees to it.

For an eula to really and fully work, the software would have to not be bundled with it, but the software would instead have to be delivered separately to the consumer only after they have indicated intent to the publisher to accept their terms.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

posted anon for moderation.

Look, I can understand your confusion on the matter, but health clinics, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, et cetera do not make money by promoting health.

They make money on your continued existence, yes, but if you've got AIDS and are taking eighteen different medications just to stay alive you're doing a heck of a lot more for the bottom line of Medicine, Inc. than if you were actually, y'know, healthy.

Health clinics are the retail outlets of the vaccine makers. The one can't harm the business model of the other; they're the same industry.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[cyborch]

Also, there's the "my cat accepted the terms - not me" aspect to eulas which can easily render them unenforcable...

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mrchaotica]

"I already owned the software, so it was my property to use as I wished. No further contractual agreements were necessary; clicking the button labeled 'I agree' was merely one of several necessary steps to use the software, no more legally significant than inserting the CD into the computer. No valid contract existed, other than the one implied by the Uniform Commercial Code at the time of purchase."

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mrchaotica]

The first sale doctrine doesn't apply because it's a license, not a sale.

That's bullshit. It doesn't magically become a "license" just because the publisher wants it to be one; it has to fulfill the circumstances of being a license!

Consider the typical software sale: Joe Six-Pack waddles into Best Buy, grabs a box labeled "Microsoft Office" off the shelf, hands some cash over to the guy at the register, and walks out. Considering that not only was there not any explicit contract presented before or during the transaction, but that the publisher wasn't even present, how could there possibly be any sort of contract between the publisher and Joe? Considering that every single aspect of the situation exactly typified the definition of a "sale," how could you possibly hallucinate that it was something else?!

Re:"I didn't read it"

[AK Marc]

Now my question to you is how do other systems become cooperative?

By definition. The US system is adversarial in that the lawyers are (under court rules) supposed to represent their clients at their first priority, and in most cases, the lawyers have complete control over what enters the courtroom and great power in coloring the laws which are in question. The other systems often limit the power of the lawyers and hand off some (or most) of those duties to the judge. Google on the adversarial system vs the inquisitorial system, there's more there than I can go into here. The lawyers represent their parties, try to make sure things aren't missed, but aren't as vested in the outcome to try to sacrifice justice or fairness in order to get a desirable verdict. I imagine such a system would also have the side effect of lowering the cost of legal representation. Their courtroom skills would be less an issue and preparatory skills being the only ones worth paying for, and those are less valuable. Oh, and the inquisitorial system is linked to the Inquisition, so it has some stigma attached. It can be implemented in a variety of ways, but with the theory that the court is looking out for the best interests of all, defence council isn't absolutely necessary, and you can slide down a slippery slope to something like the Inquisition. That's why adversarial systems, like the US aren't pure. The judge can accept 3rd party information in many cases. The judge can stop the trial and advise people of rights their lawyer didn't, and other such things that are more linked to in inquisitorial system. And inquisitorial systems generally expect defense lawyers and have more rights for the defendant than others involved.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[pipatron]

Well, you are wrong, and the article you link two demonstrates this cleary:

...whereas the Pirate Party developed on a completely parallel track and is unrelated to the other two.

The Pirate Bay started long before the pirate party, and the only thing in common is one word, which has been used for a long time by the "old media" to describe filesharers, thus it's an apt name. I'm quite sure that none of the people on trial even votes for the pirate party.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[pipatron]

Argh! s/two/to/ of course. :)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Vintermann]

"Combined civil/criminal trials like that seems to violate all sorts of ideas of justice folks like me here in the US might have,"

*cough*OJ Simpson*cough*

Re:"I didn't read it"

[slash.duncan]

Your comment could be taken several ways as OJ's an interesting case. If you're talking the Nichole Smith case, he had a separate criminal trial, which while many (including myself) thought he was likely guilty, I agreed with the jury verdict as the evidence simply didn't get to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level, particularly with the evidence chain of custody issues. After that failed, Nichole's folks (I think it was, I don't follow celebrities as close as some) tried a civil suit and won, at the lessor civil case "preponderance of evidence" level.

Both those I agree with, tho it's worth noting that they didn't get all that much as OJ was able to stash most of his wealth (what remained after his defense team was thru collecting, anyway) out of reach of the court. But in context, it's worth pointing out that (1) the trials were separate, and (2) while I think he did it, I'm comfortable with a potential killer going free because it simply wasn't proven, as I said, especially given the chain of custody and tainted evidence issues, and while I think there's a chance he didn't, I'm comfortable with him losing the second case if innocent, because there sure was a lot of evidence at that level.

If you're talking about the more recent armed theft or whatever case, I've followed it very little, to the point I know he along with others was accused of roughing up someone in ordered to try to get back some memorabilia, but I don't even know for sure whether it was civil or criminal, tho I think criminal and that he was found guilty. But honestly, /. or other geek/tech news is far more interesting to me than following something like that, these days, and I simply don't.

Re:"I didn't read it"

[mdmkolbe]

Thank you, that helps quite a bit. (And having a keyword ("inquisitorial system") I can google also helps.)

Re:"I didn't read it"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a sale? Then why did the state charge me sales tax?

Re:"I didn't read it"

[RealGrouchy]

I'm still a bit confused. Maybe I missed it in the torrent (:P) of articles and comments, but while I understand that the **AA are claiming TPB is responsible for copyright material, who is saying that they are not responsible for the paedo material? (And why?!?)

- RG>

Errr...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo... he met him while getting a sammitch I hope, and not in the bathroom... :?

We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[BlueParrot]

Do I sense a new meme in the making?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[darinfp]

I'll have to get back to you on that...

AFK....

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Walpurgiss]

When I used to play EQ in college, I was in a guild based in hong kong, and they always said AFK in place of IRL, when describing out of game meetings. Though in their case, I think it was language barrier, rather than trying to be clever.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[TechForensics]

An Feste Korper? In the Solid Body?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[aliquis]

I doubt the germans roll their own version?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[JK_the_Slacker]

Whoosh!

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alte Feste KÃrper? ;) (Old solid bodies)
Alle Fallenden KÃrper (All falling bodies)
Auch Feiern KÃnnen (can [go to a] party, too)
Andere Feiern Kapern (take over other parties)
Andere Frauen Küssen (kiss other women)

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Swedes be speaking German to each other?

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwins law strikes...

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.

I'm waiting for the -87 anotherfuckingmoronjustsaidwhoosh moderation.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[b4dc0d3r]

AFK is used more for chat-based systems, like IRC and other multiplayer games where communication is as or more important than the action.

IRL seems to be used more with messaging type software (even if it's used for chatting), such as Messenger or Jabber or maybe AIM.

Another way is purpose-based chat uses AFK, and passing the time chat or whatever those "chat rooms" I keep hearing about where people try to hook up with cops would use IRL. This observation is 10 years old, though, so I don't know if the kids have invented telepathy or something like it yet.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[im_thatoneguy]

IRL makes more sense to me.

My definitions have always split:

IRL == Something that takes place in meatspace.
AFK == I'm grabbing lunch. I'll talk to you later.

AFK for me has always been synonymous with "away" and IRL refers to an event taking place while AFK.

"What happened to bob? He's AFK taking care of some chores IRL."

I'm with the prosecution on this one. (Hehe the only time I'll probably say that about this case.)

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Hybrid-brain]

the Nazi's never got anywhere near Sweden in WW2. last I checked

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[ady1]

IRL = in real life = used more often by mmorpg players since they are playing a virtual life
AFK = away from keyboard = is used either as an alternate for BRB or as in doing something without being on the computer

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[mabinogi]

AFK instead of IRL does kind of make some sense though.
It used to be that talking to someone online was such a novel concept that there was a distinction between online and "real life".

Using AFK to mean what IRL did seems to be evidence that people now acknowledge that talking to someone online is no different to talking to them on a telephone - it's a real conversation, being had in the real world between two real people. So to meet offline would be to merely meet Away From the Keyboard, rather than In Real Life.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Sobieski]

Oh, there were plenty of Nazis in Sweden back during their heydays!

Not just because we let their soldiers ride our railroads, but there were also a lot of sympathizers. Oh, and also a few Swedish SS men, our genes were highly coveted! (Well, not mine, I'm brown haired/eyed)

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Em Adespoton]

Funny... I've always used them differently:

IRL = In Real Life

AFK = Away From Keyboard

I've always used IRL as a descriptor, not referring to events at all:

"He works at the cable company IRL"

whereas AFK is more a description of location:

"Sorry, he's AFK and can't respond."

In the usage in question, I wouldn't use either, as there's no reason to indicate being away from a computer while asking someone about an event when you're already in meatspace. If they wanted to differentiate between cyberspace and meatspace, they could use those monikers, as both involve real life. Otherwise, if cyberspace is fictional life, the prosecution almost shot themselves in the foot... you can't be charged for something that's fictional, even if the intent wasn't fictional.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the subtlety. IRL and AFK are, when you think about it, the same thing.

Re:We do not use the expression IRL, we use AFK.

[Anonymous Coward]

i think its better to go along the lines of....if your playing a character in a game then IRL means your real life not this virtual one....programmers are always in the Real world so AFK makes mroe sense for non gamers.

Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[castrox]

The prosecution was caught red-handed both 4th and 5th day and the defense once again protested this method of trying to throw the defendants off guard with new material, saying things such as "you've done this all week -- have you not learned anything at all?" and "this is starting to look like an American movie trial -- we request you hand over ALL material NOW".

The court took a break for discussions. After 10 minutes the court informs the prosecution that they must hand over any material they have not already handed over and which they wish to use in their case. The prosecution, specifically Danowski, acts like a 5-year-old and says "but.. the problem, your Honor, is that I don't know if it's necessary, so.. [I wish not to, is the meaning of this]", which the court immediately smacks down with "the meaning of the court's decision is that all material, any material, not presented to the defense, that you wish to use, must be handed over NOW".

The prosecution clearly was very disappointed that they weren't allowed to play cowboys in court.

The prosecution also tried to snare Peter Sunde with a lot of documents found on the web.. Danowski tried to make it look like Peter Sunde had said things he hadn't said with the help of [ square brackets! ] which Peter Sunde kindly informed is a way to insert 3rd party information, or reflection, on a quote. The prosecution is going about with rather dirty tactics.

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[plasmacutter]

square brackets?

I don't know swedish and this post has no links to check either way, but the use of square brackets to try to trick a judge?

Where do they think this is, patent-troll alley, texas?

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Xest]

I think this is the biggest mistake the prosecution is making to be honest.

They're trying the same tactics that are used by the music/movie industry in the US which rely on an clueless or biased judge. Sweden is a particularly technically literate country, I think even the worst judge there could see through this kind of idiocy and so they're acting as their own worst enemy.

I'm actually suprised because I figured they'd be more clever than this, I figured they'd realise if they played it straight and acted the victim they'd be able to push the case well and probably get at least some kind of result. The problem is they're not playing the victim, they're actually blatantly playing an aggressive agenda and I don't think a judge is going to look too kindly on a group of people who are acting in such an aggressive manner whilst the defence are the ones looking very strongly victimised. For all the FUD and stats they pull out in the media claiming they're the victim (from calling it theft through to massaging stats) and making people believe it they're outright failing to translate this propaganda success into the courts and are just making themselves look like complete and utter idiots.

Tactful, is apparently not a word these people understand.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...

I'm quite annoyed with Lundstrom actually.
So far, most of what he's said goes against what Fredrik, Gottfrik and Peter have said.

When they mention that most (i.e. > 50%) of the content is "not copyright infringement", Carl Lundstrom goes out of hiw way to mention that he knows it was risky, asking lawyers this and that, and almost gets snared in Monique "Big Hairy Cunt" Wadstedt's "illegal"-trap.

There've been so many things making me cringe during these hearings, but all in all it's looking rather good for the defense.

Sadly, in four days our parliament will go ahead and vote in one of the most offensive laws ever invented
, so Swedish piracy will decrease somewhat.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[aliquis]

[quote]Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom, pleading not guilty and having nothing to do with TPB, calling TPB illegal, trying to have him label it as illegal as well. The defense protests, luckily. Got damn industry lawyers...[/quote]

Uhm, what he claims is that he backed off from getting more involved since it wasn't obvious that TPB was 100% legal and there was no risk for charges? That's not the same as saying "When I found out TPB was illegal I didn't wanted anything more to do with it."

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[aliquis]

Fuck, messed up the quote, damn boards with their crappy syntax :D

Anyway, even IF Carl would have claimed TPB illegal he's no judge and his opinion isn't worth more than anyone else.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Cederic]

And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore.

erm. American law is a joke, and they can ignore it.

Not a very funny joke admittedly.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[drinkypoo]

The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.

I can think of some other people who have refused to knuckle under to unfair laws, and who knew that the actions of the government were unjust and could not stand in the face of a refusal to obey. Some of them even regretted that they had one life to give for their country, or knew that we must surely hang together, or we will all hang separately.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[arwel]

And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?

They treat American law as a joke, which they are quite entitled to do so since it has no applicability in the Kingdom of Sweden, and frankly it is a joke anyway. As far as I can see, they treat Swedish law perfectly seriously.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that send them the legal threats are treating the law (in Sweden) as a joke they can ignore. So all TPB do is to respond in kind (admittedly their humour is more intentional).

Besides, in the press conference their legal threats page was even used defensively - to point out that if they were trying to make money, it would probably not be a smart move to recommend that representatives of the most capitalist entities sodomize themselves with retractable batons.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because HTML is such a crappy syntax... loser.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[BlueStrat]

"the prosecution acts like a five year old"

I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature. The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.
And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?

There's a huge difference here.

A private parties' opinions voiced outside a courtroom when there are no court proceedings occurring concerning another parties' actions has exactly squat to do with statements of parties *inside* the courtroom *during* court proceedings. You might as well bring up that they may have also acted childish having teased a classmate on the playground in primary school for all the relevance it has to what's happening *now* in a *courtroom* during a court proceeding.

It was perfectly reasonable to make a joke over the clueless legal threats TPB received from entities outside their country, many if not most based on laws that don't even exist in Sweden like the DMCA, when a reasonable interpretation by normal people in Sweden of the Swedish laws would make those legal threats seem like a bad joke at best.

If you had a webpage with pictures of your family on it and received a threatening letter from some Mullah in the middle-east threatening you with legal action for your moms' face not being covered by a veil, would you consider it ridiculous?

How about if you were a restaurant owner in a country that permitted smoking in public and inside restaurants and you kept receiving legal threats from NYC?

When it was repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, would you be "childish" for posting those silly threats with some snarky replies since they seemed to pay no attention to the ridiculous nature of their legal threats?

Personally, I find what little restraint they *did* show remarkable considering the circumstances.

Strat

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

English must not be your first language.
Let me rephrase for you:

Prosecution lawyer Monique Wadsted questions Carl Lundstrom who is pleading not guilty, claiming he has nothing to do with TPB.
Wadsted is calling TPB's activities illegal, and tries to have Lundstrom slip up and call it illegal as well.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[aproposofwhat]

After reading your post I would like to meet Monique - do you have her mobile number?

If there's one thing I like, it's big hairy lawyers.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Man Eating Duck]

Fuck, messed up the quote, damn boards with their crappy syntax :D

If you use Firefox you can install the Slashdotter extension. In addition to several handy options for tweaking Slashdot, you get a nice "Reply to selected text"-option when right-clicking. This inserts a blockquote for you. Recommended!

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Tactful, is apparently not a word these people understand.

While true, it's even worse - tactful is a word these people do not know even exists.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[mysticgoat]

I'm thinking that the Prosecution and Plaintiffs had prepared to fight a very different case, and were expecting a defense that was some variant of "sharing copyrighted material that has been legally purchased is not copyright infringement".

Instead TPB has raised the defense that whether or not any copyright infringement may have occurred, we are not culpable for it; you've got the wrong guys.

That defense actually looks pretty strong. And the Prosecution and Plaintiffs look at this point like they not only didn't do their homework, they didn't even have a clue as to what subjects they should have been studying.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that you've established your reputation firmly by now.

Well-deserved too. Good riddance.

I don't give a flying fuck about any laws specific to your country, just as you don't give a flying fuck about any laws specific to mine, as long as either of our actions are performed in our respective countries. Do you seriously have to demonstrate your inability to reason coherently and intelligently in every single goddamn post you make?

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[aliquis]

The bulletin boards syntax, retard.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[estarriol]

Fantastic post, mod this guy up to 11. Well said sir.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Dun Malg]

"the prosecution acts like a five year old"

I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature.

No one claimed TPB guys were more or less immature than the prosecutors. It was simply noted that the prosecutors were behaving like 5 year olds. Do you have something that contradicts that observation, or only irrelevancies like "they did it first"?

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[cliffski]

*sigh*

I'm not going anywhere. I'm sorry if you are pained by the existence of people who don't agree with you kid.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[qc_dk]

Well, for someone not in the U.S. who does not own any oil... It is pretty funny.

I think one of the strangest things about US law is that the punitive damages is paid to the plaintiff(please correct me if im wrong). A court should not be a lottery. You should be compensated for the material losses you've had and maybe a bit extra for emotional distress but nothing more. The punitive bit should be paid to the state for the benefit of the entire population not the one random person who filed the case(or most like that person's lawyers)

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Gunstick]

and most funny is that their homework has been done by TPB who published on the website several mail exchanges with copyright lawyers. So the defendant position was and has always been very clear and did not chenge for this trial.
Also the plaintifs position has not changed, still claiming the copyright infringement. Dumb lawyers indeed.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/

Thank you, I just signed up.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very funny? The Legal Threats page on TPB is one of my favorite pages of all time.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Zarel]

Slashdot uses HTML, not BBcode (which is what you're probably referring to by "bulletin boards syntax").

This:

<quote>hello</quote>

becomes this:

hello

In addition, clicking "Quote Parent" in the comment box would add the quote automatically (at least in Discussion2 mode, which I believe is default nowadays). Plus, it forces you to preview before you submit your comment, so you should have caught the syntax error then.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Slashdot use HTML idiot.

But I also use other forums so I accidently wrote with [] by accident.

Re:Caught red-handed, some unofficial translations

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't make that clear. There's no need to call me an idiot over this; I was just trying to clarify.

ack!

[gEvil (beta)]

"We do not use the expression IRL. We use 'ACK! THBBBT!'"

Re:ack!

[Luke has no name]

SMOKER! *dramatic music* Oh, you don't play 'Left 4 Dead'?

Re:ack!

[Mashiki]

Go away youngin, and leave us old folks to Bill the Cat.

Re:ack!

[Terrorwrist]

LOL (laughing out loud)

The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Google

[1mck]

Past the Straits of Gibraltar is a continent, in the centre along the longest side, high in the mountains by the sea is a rectangular level plain...this is the Bolivian Altiplano. http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantisboliviapart1.htm

That would be really weird...

[Kaukomieli]

At least for germany this is not true. The cop is a witness and witnesses have to state their perceptions. So he will say "I heard ..." or "I saw ..." - but how this gets interpreted is up to the judge(s) only.

Re:That would be really weird...

[mangu]

IANAL, but having read a lot of Perry Mason stories I play being a lawyer on /.

In US law a witness can't say he heard someone say something. The person who spoke what the witness heard should be called as a witness instead.

That's because the speaker, not being under oath, wasn't necessarily telling the truth. In court, after having sworn to tell the truth, the person can be questioned on what was told.

The assertion that whatever you tell a cop can be used against you doesn't mean he can repeat what you said as a witness, but that he can use what you told him to make investigations about you.

If you tell a cop "I have a kilo of cocaine in the trunk" he can look and use the cocaine as evidence against you. If he finds nothing, he cannot arrest you and he cannot tell in court as a witness that you said that. However, suppose the cop stopped you because your brake light was broken, and you had cocaine in the trunk. If you keep quiet, he cannot look into the trunk to see if you are carrying something illegal there.

That's because the Fourth Ammendment to the US Constitution states that the police needs a "probable cause" to search your property. They cannot just go searching people's houses and cars at random. By telling the cop you have cocaine, you are giving him a probable cause to perform a reasonable search.

But again, what you told the cop cannot be used against you in court. If they later find out that the cocaine was put there by someone else, without your knowledge, and you were just joking when you told the cop you had cocaine, the most they can charge you is with obstructing justice because you cannot joke with cops who are performing their duty.

Re:That would be really weird...

[damienl451]

Right. That's why police officers are utterly uninterested in getting you to confess, and the Miranda warning does not say anything about anything you say "being used against you in a court of law".

"Party admission" (e.g. confession) is *not* hearsay. It is admissible in virtually every jurisdiction. Your example was poorly chosen, as it is obvious that no charges would be pressed against you for having imaginary cocaine in your trunk. Should you however confess to, say, a murder (and there are other indications that the person you allege to have murdered met an untimely death, your statements could very well be used against you.

Re:That would be really weird...

[TheoMurpse]

I'd like to take this time to point out that you are tremendously wrong, and it's another example of /.ers trying to play armchair lawyer. I suggest you read Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 803, 804. Particularly the list of twenty-eight exceptions to the hearsay rule. Pay particular attention to R. 804(b)(3), the "Statement Against Interest" exception.

Re:That would be really weird...

[TheoMurpse]

I actually should have said that you should read Rule 801(d)(2) ("Admission by Party Opponent"), not 804(b)(3).

Re:That would be really weird...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

In US law a witness can't say he heard someone say something. The person who spoke what the witness heard should be called as a witness instead.

Well IANAL either (phew!) but that doesn't seem to make sense... as in:

Lawyer: Why did you hit Mr. X?
Mr. Y: Because he said my mother was a whore.

Would that not be admissible? When does it become admissible?
Mr. Y: Because he said something that upset me.
Mr. Y: Because he said something.
Mr. Y: Because he upset me.

Re:That would be really weird...

[Tacvek]

Correct, party admission is classifies as non-hearsay. Even if it did not have that status, it would likely still be admissible hearsay because it was a statement against self-interest, and the defendant would not be available to testify directly (since a defendant cannot be forced to testify). (I am am not a lawyer, so I may be mistaken here, but that sounds right to me). Granted that workaround would only be valid in the case where the admission in question was made by the defendant. The non-hearsay classification is useful when the admission was made by a third party who would be available to testify, such that they don't need to be called to the stand to testify that they admitted guilt to some crime.

Re:That would be really weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example was poorly chosen, as it is obvious that no charges would be pressed against you for having imaginary cocaine in your trunk.

Not exactly the same, but you will go to jail for selling imaginary drugs.....

Re:That would be really weird...

[Dun Malg]

Mr. X is not on trial.

Re:That would be really weird...

[Serzen]

In your example, Mr. Y is offering testimony regarding his own actions, but is not, presumably, offering testimony to incriminate Mr. X. Also, I think you've slightly misunderstood the GPs intent. In your example, Mr. Y has directly heard Mr. X say "your mother is a whore," making his testimony admissible. If, however, Mr. Y were to offer that "Mr. Z told me he was calling my mother a whore," the testimony becomes hearsay. IANAL, etc

Re:That would be really weird...

[Steve Franklin]

"However, suppose the cop stopped you because your brake light was broken, and you had cocaine in the trunk. If you keep quiet, he cannot look into the trunk to see if you are carrying something illegal there."

The cop stopped you because he wanted to search for cocaine. The brake light was just an excuse to look in your trunk. Hence the old saw, "If you want to break the big laws, you have to obey the little ones."

The "constitution" was relegated to the status of "just a piece of paper" during the Bush II administration. If you want it back, you're going to have to hold another convention.

Re:That would be really weird...

[AK Marc]

You missed it. If you are pulled over for speeding in a 55 zone (and say, you were going 65 mph) and the cop asks "how fast were you going" then the answer "35 mph" wouldn't be used in court, unless the prosecution thinks it will show you a liar. The answer "95 mph" would be used against you. The cop can use pretty much anything you say against you. Though instructions to the jury are different, the general rule is that cops are presumed to be telling the truth, and the defendant is a liar, even if they are both in the same court and took the same oath. But that's a different issue.

Re:That would be really weird...

[Kjella]

Your example was poorly chosen, as it is obvious that no charges would be pressed against you for having imaginary cocaine in your trunk.

That actually depends on jurisdiction, I know at least here in Norway you can get convicted of drug smuggling despite having no actual drugs. Basicly they got halted on the border, confessed to smuggling and showed them the "drugs". They had been scammed and there was no drugs just flour or something but they still went to jail because they were trying to smuggle drugs.

Re:That would be really weird...

[Patch86]

Thats not the same thing (oblig. IANAL). Whats on trial is whether you hit Mr. X, and what your justification was. Your motive can be "He insulted my mum", regardless of whether he was being truthful in his insult or not.

Where it comes in to play is, say the prosecution call a witness to the stands. The witness says "A friend of mine said she saw Mr. Y hit Mr. X". Thats hearsay, and not acceptable. If the "friend" saw it, they're the one that needs to be in the witness box testifying. Seeing as they weren't under oath when they told the first witness about it, theres no saying whether they were lying or not.

Re:That would be really weird...

[mangu]

"Party admission" (e.g. confession) is *not* hearsay. It is admissible in virtually every jurisdiction.

Only if you manage to escape. Technically, yes, a confession is an exception to the rule of "hearsay", but if you are at the trial all your counsel has to do is call you to the stand. In that case, your own deposition about your guilt is the primary source and the confession becomes hearsay. You can always (at least in any "civilized" court of law) recant your confession, you can say you were threatened. Of course, if you escape and are tried "in absentia" then it's a different thing. In that case perhaps the court will consider your confession as entirely truthful.

But I don't think you can ever be convicted on a confession alone, without any corroborating evidence. However, you *can* be convicted on first-hand testimony alone, without any physical evidence.

Let's say the police stopped you on a bridge, for any reason, and they saw a pack of some white powder on the back seat. They test it and find it's cocaine. As you are being handcuffed, you manage to grab the pack of powder and the test kit and throw everything out on the river. They never recover the cocaine or the test kit. They can convict you on the witnesses' testimony that you were carrying an illegal substance.

Now, let's say you had cocaine in your car and confess it to the police officer. Without you knowing it, someone had stolen the cocaine and the police never finds anything. I don't think you could be convicted on your confession alone, anywhere. It's a different thing, of course, if they catch someone with a pack of cocaine and he says he stole it form your car, but then it will be the other guy's testimony, not your confession, that will nail you.

What about Day 4?

[Ezel]

Why was there no reporting on what happened on Day 4 of the trial? Or was there a break of some kind?

Re:What about Day 4?

[pjt33]

You mean like this or this?

Re:What about Day 4?

[Ezel]

No, I mean't on slashdot. Since all the other days have been covered. But thanks for the links!

What scares me most

[Per Wigren]

I'm Swedish and a member of Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party) since the first day it was announced. I have of course been following this sitcom with great interest, but I'm still not sure which outcome is better for the future in a bigger perspective.

The prosecutors play this case so utterly unprofessional that I'm starting to think that they WANT to lose, but make it look like they tried to win. The reason for this is simple. If they lose, they will use this as "evidence" that Sweden need a whole bunch of new draconian surveillence laws and increase the scope of liability for copyright infringements which will kill the internet as we know it.

In a way I want TPB to lose. That will shut up the law mongerers because it will show that current laws are good enough. It will also make them martyrs and will 100-up the public support for the ongoing pirate movement (which actually is very little about filesharing and mostly about the right to privacy, anonymity, freedom of speech and uncensored exchange of information).

They way I see it, the only realistic way to really make a change it steering society away from 1984, which is the direction it's heading in right now, is to vote the Pirate Party into the EU parliament, where they will be able to make a lot of noise where it counts. Only 3 months left to the election...

Re:What scares me most

[aliquis]

So want to sacrifice them to save all the private persons actually doing the infringement by preventing any laws which would make it easier to catch them?

I see the reason but I don't think it's just. We, the people committing the infringement is the criminals, not the people offering the technique which makes it possible.

Re:What scares me most

[Per Wigren]

I fully agree with you. I also fully support the Pirate Bay guys (except Carl LundstrÃm, who is just a neonazi, daddy's-money venture capitalist who only wants to make more money).

However, it's a very tricky case. I also don't think it's fair to convict them. Whichever side wins, it will make the society change in ways that are hard to foresee and the only positive thing I can see in this mess is that it will make The Pirate Party stronger.

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

So want to sacrifice them to save all the private persons actually doing the infringement by preventing any laws which would make it easier to catch them?

I see the reason but I don't think it's just. We, the people committing the infringement is the criminals, not the people offering the technique which makes it possible.

You've gotten most of their statements wrong or missed them - maybe the press conference translations are lacking. They are taking a stance against current copyright legislation and obviously aware of the potential consequences. So they certainly don't current filesharers caught (or treated as criminals ) since what they want to do is change the law to make the currently copyright-infringing filesharing legal. They've referred to inventions such as tape recorders and VCRs and view filesharing similarly.

Re:What scares me most

[TheLink]

Uh, but why does Sweden need those laws? Because the USA says so?

Where is the proof that people copying stuff is hurting Sweden?

Maybe you should tell the relevant Swedish people thinking about those laws that Sweden is not a state of the USA.

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

steering society away from 1984, which is the direction it's heading in right now

I wish we were heading to 1984. We had lots more civil rights in most European countries back then.

Re:What scares me most

[martin-boundary]

I think you're overanalysing the case. If you truly want to rationalize a bad outcome eventually, then you can always do so. After every step forward, sometime there will be a step back.

It doesn't make sense to sacrifice social principles for short term protection. The people who want to change the laws and create surveillance states everywhere will not change their minds just because they "win" the TPB case. It will only encourage them more. Even if they lose the TPB case, they will find some other pretext to advance their agenda.

This is an ongoing social battle, and every little victory counts. People like to support political parties that are strong and have a chance to make real change, not jokers. If TPB lose, the Piratpartiet will just look weak and stupid for backing fools and criminals, and who will want to vote for them? If TPB win, the notoriety of the case will give you and other party members many more opportunities to answer questions about the case, and spread the core digital values that matter, in each such discussion.

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares ME most is that TPB has no problem to associate themselves with a neonazi who uses them for publicity. Carl Lundström was convicted as a ringleader of a mob that attacked bystanders at a nazi march because they didn't look aryan enough, and he finances an extreme right political party. Since I learnt this I no longer wish TPB luck. Some things are more important than filesharing.

Re:What scares me most

[Knuckles]

You could say the same thing about anything and everything, though:

[Whatever happens], it will make the society change in ways that are hard to foresee

Re:What scares me most

[cheftw]

bet you pirated that low UID too!

Re:What scares me most

[spyfrog]

Our politicians are spineless lizards who simply do what USA says.
The reason we vote for them are because if we don't, maybe the wrong lizard wins.

Re:What scares me most

[afxgrin]

The more legislative bodies attempt to censor the Internet, create rules, blockades, invade privacy, the more likely an alternate technological solution to this will present itself.

Re:What scares me most

[cliffski]

Nobody in the US cares what people in sweden do.
Fence off TPB so only Swedish residents can access it and I'm sure no media company would give a fuck about it.

Re:What scares me most

[aliquis]

It may also make the encrypted and/or "anonymous" and/or darknet alternatives develop and flourish faster. Though, then they can ban using them, which I won't give a crap about if they do and just use it anyway ..

A vote for the pirate party felt like such a waste last time so the green people got mine ;D, it's such a small cause... I could even vote for the swedish democrats :D

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody in the US cares what people in sweden do.
Fence off TPB so only Swedish residents can access it and I'm sure no media company would give a fuck about it.

If nobody in the US cared about what people in Sweden do, then TBP wouldn't need to be fenced off. It's made by people in Sweden, and a large portion of its users are people from the US. Thus, it follows that quite a few in the US do care about what people in Sweden do. Simple, deductive logic, based on facts. I know this is a difficult topic for you, so it's understandable that you don't grasp it.

On a related topic, you are apparently also not aware that TPB is, and has been since quite some time, hosted in a distributed manner outside of Sweden. It's almost like it uses certain aspects of "TEH INTARNETS, OMG" where stuff doesn't actually have to be physically located anywhere near neither those who created it nor those who evolve it. In other words, attempting to "fence it off" would prove rather difficult.

Really, you don't have to prove in every post that you are a moron. It's well known.

Re:What scares me most

[initialE]

If the current administration believes that Sweden needs new draconian surveillance laws, and the general public does not agree, then wouldn't it be prudent to vote against the incumbent party? And who would there be to vote for? This is why any attack on the status quo needs to be both legal and political, so as to give the opponent no place to turn to. Under no circumstances throw the case, instead let them escalate it to the polls.

Re:What scares me most

[BlueStrat]

Or do you genuinely believe that copyright is teh evil and we would be better off if nobody who produces content ever got paid?

Copyright wasn't created to make sure anybody who produces content gets paid.

Maybe you should read that line above again.

When the US was founded there was no copyright. Many people wrote things. Sometimes the things they wrote were copied & published by someone else who wrongly claimed authorship.

So, many people who would write things didn't, or didn't publish/tell anyone.

The founders thought "Gee, how can we encourage people who might create works to make them public so everyone benefits? Aha! We'll allow them through the power of government to very temporarily hold a monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies of the work that doesn't and wouldn't naturally or normally exist so that they'll be encouraged to publish so that society benefits, after which the works will revert back to their normal state known as "public domain"!"

The purpose of copyright isn't to provide a payday. It's to make sure works are made public so that society benefits. The deal is, the writer gets a short window of time in which he may use the temporary monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies IN EXCHANGE for the works entering public domain to benefit everyone in society at the end of the term of copyright.

This has been twisted and perverted (as has so many things in the Constitution). Now copyrights last over a generation, meaning we'll never see most copyrighted works created in our lifetime enter public domain, and likely not even our children will see most of those same works enter public domain either.

The half of the deal where society benefits has in a practical sense been eliminated. The public and society as a whole has been robbed. The Constitution has moved a little closer to becoming totally meaningless.

Works published in the US after 2002:

70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

I mean really...120 freaking years!?!? When originally it was 28 years with an option for extension for an additional 28 years!?!?

We as a society have been robbed of our culture.

Strat

Re:What scares me most

[daisybelle]

Where is the proof that people copying stuff is hurting Sweden?

Very bloody good point.

Re:What scares me most

[cliffski]

Stop whining on about 'teh founders'
This isn't star trek Deep Space Nine and the world is not the USA. Not everyone says 'gee' for example.
I do not give a flying fuck what a few people hundreds of years ago wrote down. I asked what you thought.
Try thinking for yourself.

BTW if I buy a house its my property for ETERNITY.

We as a society are being robbed of our land!*

*actually your 'founders' were pretty good at doing that, as I recall. Not everything they did was nice, justified, fair or reasonable was it?

Re:What scares me most

[BlueStrat]

Stop whining on about 'teh founders'
This isn't star trek Deep Space Nine and the world is not the USA. Not everyone says 'gee' for example.
I do not give a flying fuck what a few people hundreds of years ago wrote down. I asked what you thought.
Try thinking for yourself.

BTW if I buy a house its my property for ETERNITY.

We as a society are being robbed of our land!*

*actually your 'founders' were pretty good at doing that, as I recall. Not everything they did was nice, justified, fair or reasonable was it?

As far as you owning your house for eternity, no. Not if you live in the US.

Due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, if the government decides they can make more tax revenue by taking away your house and giving it to someone else they can.

As to the rest of your "post"...well...I guess I can answer on your level so you understand:

[cliffskimode]Naa naa nana naaa! I know you are but what am I? THBBBT! :P[/cliffskimode]

Now, go upstairs and see if your mommy needs help in the kitchen and let the grownups talk.

(Hmm...I wonder if "[cliffskimode]" could be the next /. meme? :D )

Strat

Re:What scares me most

[qc_dk]

Maybe you should tell the relevant Swedish people thinking about those laws that Sweden is not a state of the USA.

Maybe those swedish people don't want to become a state of the USA? :-P

Or, maybe the Swedish government does not want to be the target of tariffs on lumber and iron, and sees this as relatively cheap way to remain friendly with the US?

Re:What scares me most

[John Hasler]

Or maybe the USA has nothing to do with it.

Re:What scares me most

[cliffski]

wow.

i mean wow.

you really think you are coming accross as anything but fucking retarded?
Run along to your own mommy now and cry that someone on slashdot disagrees withg your bullshit kid.
Then ask mom for your allowance, as you clearly arent fucking old enough to have got a job and see how threal world works.
enjoy modding me down kiddies...

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, the outcome is pretty much irrelevant. The current trial is held in tingsrÃtten (district court). A high profile case such as this is guaranteed to end up in hovrÃtten (court of appeal) or possibly even HÃgsta domstolen (the Supreme Court).

Re:What scares me most

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, yes. Telling the Swedish people is irrelevant, since from what I've heard there's only an extreme minority (ie: those at the top of the food chain) that are relevant.

Warning : Phoenix Wright Reference

[Grasso]

(In an epic Phoenix Wright voice) OBJECTION! Sorry, was called for. Quite sly on the defense's side. Maybe the defense needs to break some Psyche-Locks in order to make their case a little stronger.

Re:Warning : Phoenix Wright Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

This may have been the website on which you meant to make your post.

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog

[1mck]

DOH!!!!!!!!!! Wrong Thread....Sorry;-P

Doesn't matter

[Svenne]

Whoever wins, the swedish lose.

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law. If TPB loses, the current laws will be shown to be enough for prosecuting and convicting tracker admins.

And there's nothing we can do about it.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

> And there's nothing we can do about it.

Of course there is. Laws are not immutable, they can be changed. After this precedent, the application of the current law should be clear. If people want to change it, they should pressure the legislators. If the ruling is in favour of TPB and new laws are proposed, again, apply public pressure in the other direction. Making it a major political issue is not impossible by any means, even if a lot of the parliament are clueless. They can be informed.

It is hard to get the laws that you want passed (especially when the opposing side is well-funded) compared to doing what you want in a situation where the law is not clear. However, this is a very important issue and it will become more and more important as the use of computer networks expands. There should be a proper political debate and a clear law.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

Then google, yahoo and every other search engine will be illegal too.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Seth Kriticos]

Not exactly. Political power is still with voters (yes, I know, not much, but a little). If they make an interesting public case (like they do), then many people start to ask "what's this about and do we really want this?" You know, there is a limit to fucking with your citizens, and it's lowering when they get aware somebody does so.

Re:Doesn't matter

[meist3r]

Whoever wins, the swedish lose.

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

How do you know that? I mean from an industry standpoint I can see this would make sense to achieve but what I can tell from what is going on in the Swedish public and just the fact that the Pirate Bay is getting a relatively fair trial (the judge did defend their position on the surprise evidence and also made the prosecution cut back on guided questioning) symbolizes to me that there is some actual change in ideas about to be written into law. It will take ages again but it's apparently happening. The WTO outcry after the Raid in 2006 was more than enough proof that the Swedes in general don't accept that American mafia tactics.

If you're from Sweden you probably know better but the way it is communicated to the outside the Swedes like their freedom and refuse to have this kind of stuff be an offence. On top of that, if they changed the EU directive or swedish law so that service providers are then liable for the content, Google and basically any other internet company would be screwed. How would they control and sort out all illegal materials without censoring? How would Google be still top search engine if you couldn't find anything. Think about Youtube ... all music videos gone, all illegal movie clips, audio clips, TV shows etc gone. This will never happen. The media industry is big but the internet industry is even bigger and they've just started to grow. What we're seeing now is the "old" industry being forced (by law) to accept that the internet is now boss and that they will have to start kissing some ass to survive. At least that is what I take from all this.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Artuir]

There's always Sealand! :D

Oh, wait..

Well, at least they tried.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ghost Hedgehog]

That depends in what way the Pirate Bay wins. If they win with the argument that they are not responsible for what their users do (the EU law that has been noted in their defense), then that law will not be changed very easily. Because if that law is being changed so that site admin are responsible, all internet forums in Europe can close down. However, if the Pirate Bay chooses this defense, the verdict might be that they have to remove torrents that break copyright on request of the copyright holder (a most likely outcome, IMHO).

Re:Doesn't matter

[Dunbal]

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

      Unlike the United States, most countries (ie the ones that don't boast about being "free" but actually ARE) cannot apply laws to you in a retroactive manner.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so.

You see, recently USA schemed and scammed to get Norway to buy the inferior Joint Strike Fighter instead of the superior and cheaper Swedish JAS. This is the perfect opportunity for Sweden to return the favor, in other words to make sure TPB wins and to not instate new laws which could hurt them.

Re:Doesn't matter

[yndrd1984]

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law.

Unlike the United States, most countries (ie the ones that don't boast about being "free" but actually ARE) cannot apply laws to you in a retroactive manner.

Your reading comprehension needs work. TPB's actions in the past will still be legal, but after the law is changed, if they do it again, it will be illegal.

And ex post facto laws are void in the US. If you're going to be childish, don't display your own ignorance while you're doing it.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Dunbal]

If you're going to be childish, don't display your own ignorance while you're doing it.

      I will act the way I please. If you don't like it, mod me down.

Re:Doesn't matter

[whoever57]

the Pirate Bay is getting a relatively fair trial (the judge did defend their position on the surprise evidence

A fair trial would not allow any new evidence to be presented, not just handed over to the defense to review.

Re:Doesn't matter

[meist3r]

the Pirate Bay is getting a relatively fair trial (the judge did defend their position on the surprise evidence

A fair trial would not allow any new evidence to be presented, not just handed over to the defense to review.

For a court that could be entirely on the prosecutors side and just blast them with new evidence and new witnesses and accusations I think that is pretty lenient already. It might not be entirely fair but probably the best situation in which they can be at their current position. The judge is of course interested in giving the prosecution as much possibility as possible to actually convict these guys. After all, what they do is very controversial to say the the least.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they don't host any data on their site, only the trackers for the torrents, they never break copyright law.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Doesn't matter" is actually a frightening accurate post name. It doesn't matter if "political power" is regulated by voters as the Swedish people are known to just bend over and take it. There simply is no limit for "fucking with Swedish citizens", we (yes, I am one of them) are way to afraid of picking up a fight for anything we believe in. Why couldn't TPB be based in any other country?

Re:Doesn't matter

[yndrd1984]

I will act the way I please. If you don't like it, mod me down.

I will act the way I please. If you don't like it, post a reply.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

See? That's much better. That was childish, but you didn't display your ignorance.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

And even if more restrictive laws passes, the Internet will adopt over night, bringing more encrypted connections.

 

Re:Doesn't matter

[mpe]

If The Pirate Bay wins, the swedish laws will be changed to make sure what they've been doing would be an offence had they done it under the new law. If TPB loses, the current laws will be shown to be enough for prosecuting and convicting tracker admins.

What happens if the trial is abandoned? What is the judge finds the prosecutors in contempt of court and fines/jails them?

Re:Doesn't matter

[mpe]

However, if the Pirate Bay chooses this defense, the verdict might be that they have to remove torrents that break copyright on request of the copyright holder (a most likely outcome, IMHO).

If this were to happen it would also be relevent how the "copyright holder" had to prove their identity and what would happen when a bogus request was made.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The only instances that can make changes to Swedish law is the Swedish parliament (riksdag) and the EU council of ministers (Council of the European Union). Swedish law is prepared by the Swedish government (regeringen) and EU regulations (mandatory to become law in member states) by the European Comission. The only way for the Riksdag to prevent an EU regulation to become Swedish law, is to make Sweden leave EU.

Swedish Parliament Open door with democratically elected members.
Swedish Government Mostly open door with, per proxy, democratically elected members.

Council of the European Union Closed door with semi-democratically per proxy elected members (not one person, one vote, but with power depending on what country the minister is from, not by how many inhabitants the country has and certainly not by how many EU citizens that actually supports him).
European Comission Closed door, elected quasi-democratically by a three level proxy, far from one person one vote.

I think I can see where the threat is comming from.

One bad lawyer to give the rest....

[zenspeaks]

I have a strange worry that if this prosecution wins, they might actually yell out "Epic Win" and give us lawyers an even bad name.

Uhoh, it's cliffski

[castrox]

Gee, I wonder if

1) there's a difference between lawyers in court and citizens outside of court speaking their mind -- clearly they're equivalent!

2) there's a difference between laws of the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden -- clearly, these Swedish judges should not tolerate disrespectful attitudes towards American law!

OK. I'm laughing:

enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore

Did you not understand that this trial is a Swedish trial? American law actually is a joke until it's applicable in Sweden.

Re:Uhoh, it's cliffski

[ducomputergeek]

Did you not understand that this trial is a Swedish trial? American law actually is a joke until it's applicable in Sweden.

But hey, between the WIPO and WTO, we're working on making American law applicable everywhere. It's for your own good(TM).

Re:Uhoh, it's cliffski

[Snaller]

''"enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore''

Did you not understand that this trial is a Swedish trial? American law actually is a joke until it's applicable in Sweden."

Which is not relevant to what he said.

Re:Uhoh, it's cliffski

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, are you really that dense? Please, by god, read the text to which you reply to. If in doubt, read the text which the reply replied to. Last step is to think. Form thoughts.

round here, we use the term

[kaini]

*facepalm*

Boo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pwndowsky is a dick!

Uh. I wonder if it's an omen that the verification word for this comment is 'guilty'...

Surprisingly,

[MMC Monster]

It seems like the Pirate Bay has competent (or possible even good) lawyers.

Good for them. Good lawyers certainly don't come cheap.

Re:Surprisingly,

[LeftOfCentre]

Their lawyers are in fact some of Sweden's top lawyers (Peter Althin, for example, has handled many famous cases). IANAL but I think the way it works in Sweden is that there are no public attorneys. Instead, private firms provide defence attorneys at the request of the courts. I think a defendent can request his/her preferred attorney, and I think the the tab is picked up by the state (at least in criminal trials -- I feel less certain about this apparently combined civil/criminal trial).

Re:The Actual Location of Altantis Also using Goog

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but at some point you have to put down the bong and get a grip.

It would also help him keep Slashdot stories separated. It's a very worrying symptom when everything you read here start melting together in a big pot. Speaking of pot...

Not out of the woods....

[d0n0vAn]

I am inclined to believe that if TPB wins this round we are all still in jeopardy. Legislative bodies seem inclined to write and pass laws in favor of preserving their status quo through legal monopolies, and prosecutors willing to sacrifice the permanent at the altar of the immediate put us all in jeopardy. This is not about downloading music or videos - it never has been. The only reason governments of the world are interested in these corporation's complaints is they hear them scream about all the revenue they have lost and then they start running the tax implications in their head. Not out of the woods yet, indeed.

Re:Not out of the woods....

[berend botje]

To prevent draconian laws being passed, the Pirate Party should raise awareness of this.

While they got a lot of attention some time ago, nowadays they aren't heard of too often. So, Pirats, get off you behinds and lobby!

Re:Not out of the woods....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not tax computations;

Campaign Contributions.

Large corporations supply hella capitol to politicians running for office.

Aiding breaches of copyright law ...

[tomhudson]

As I understand it, the law says it's illegal to aid breaches of copyright.

So why isn't Microsoft charged as a co-defendant? Seems to me that more people use Windows to pirate copyright material - after all, people who use F/LOSS don't feel as much *need* to pirate copyrighted software.

We could also add the news media, for reporting this story, thus telling people how to get the stuff. They're sure "aiding breaches of copyright law". And the makers of large hard drives, iPods and iPod-like devices, mp3 phones, photocopiers, cameras, flash drives, blank cd and dvd media, and anything else that "aids breaches of copyright."

The whole "aiding breaches of copyright law" is a slippery slope. Who to prosecute becomes a question of individual judgment, not of law.

Re:Aiding breaches of copyright law ...

[Lord Kano]

If we did those things, the DRM added to the next iteration of windows would be Draconian, to say the least.

LK

Re:Aiding breaches of copyright law ...

[Animaether]

yes, a very slippery slope indeed!

Things like these are why, in the late 80's, mothers of murderers were indicted for their part in the murder: giving birth to the murderer.
Then in the late 90's, when the slope had become so slippery it might as well have been teflon-coated, when the grandparents of that dude who married that woman, the divorced her, causing her to seek out another man, had a child with him, and that child ended up raping a girl were found guilty for their part.. and his employer was sued for civil damages because they let him take that day off... remember that?

Yeah, neither do I.

You're fishing with a sawed-off here. Wake me when...

Microsoft includes links to illegal torrents* in Windows itself, presenting them to the user.
The media prints the URLs to such torrents.
Hard disk makers include the URLs to such torrents and present these to the user with the intent of them seeing them (otherwise, no, I don't think they should be liable; even though I'd be a little curious why the files would be on there once I'd find them.) .. I think the rest pretty much fall under the same as the above, so I won't bother with those.

I understand the slippery slope argument you're trying to make, but it just doesn't work that way in real life (that's not to say that some wouldn't like to see real life be that way). But a better slippery slope argument would have been "if somebody links to TPB, would that be illegal?" and "What if somebody links to -that- site.. would that be illegal?". For which the judge would, assuming here that linking to illegal torrent files were to be deemed illegal, basically just have to test "is that site linking to the torrents itself? No? Case dismissed." and have industry interests ponder some other method of shutting down, or preventing access to, that popular site in Cambodia; such as what the IFPI are trying in Denmark. I find *that* a lot more scary, but it's not part of any slippery slope.. that's just weasels weaseling themselves out of the situation-that-is-reality they don't like.

Now if you were trying to pick an analogous target, you should have picked Google or something with the 'filetype:.torrent' (or whatever that tag is) search. At least there you can argue that Google does end up linking straight to the file, and you have to fall back to arguments of what makes TPB and Google so different that one is targeted while the other is not, and put some limitations of the applicability of any such a law as per the aforementioned.

* When I say 'illegal torrents', I mean those torrents referring to a file or multiple files which the torrent hosters (those who have the data packets) hold no distribution rights / to which the downloader has no download rights under applicable laws of whichever the hell state we're talking about.

Sorry for the incoherent thoughts... haven't had my coffee yet :)

Re:Aiding breaches of copyright law ...

[Lazy Jones]

We could also add the news media, for reporting this story, thus telling people how to get the stuff.

You might succeed in Germany, where heise was sued successfully for putting a link to Slysoft's website in a story about Slysoft...

Re:Aiding breaches of copyright law ...

[LordVader717]

And the makers of large hard drives, iPods and iPod-like devices, mp3 phones, photocopiers, cameras, flash drives, blank cd and dvd media, and anything else that "aids breaches of copyright."

Actually in Sweden as well as many other european countries, there is a rate you have to pay on blank media which goes to "copyright oraganizations".
The idea is that people make "private copies"(backups or a copy for their car) and that this makes up for the "damages" that the creators (more specifically the members of the organizations) suffer.

But, just as in the US it is still illegal to make Copies of DVDs if you have to break the protection. It's fucking rediculous.

These rates make up a huge proportion of the price on blank DVDs and CDs.
In Germany, you have to pay the upwards of thirty dollars on a new multifunctional laser printer! Who the fuck even uses those things for anything other than their own paperwork?

Furthermore

[Mateo_LeFou]

We don't use the expression "wonders aloud". We say "wonders AFK". Except that in this case Koman was wondering at-K.

WTF ...

[OneSmartFellow]

.. do IRL and AFK stand for ?

Re:WTF ...

[QuantumG]

In Real Life, Away From Keyboard.

To me, AFK has always meant the same as BRB (Be Right Back) .. along with a little "don't fuck with me while I'm gone please" when appropriate.. say, when you're playing an RPG (Role Playing Game). So to say you'd meet someone AFK is a little strange, to me, but hey, these dudes are Swedes, I'm sure they say a lot of stuff that is strange, to me.

Re:WTF ...

[rschwa]

IRL==In Real Life
AFK==Away From Keyboard

Re:WTF ...

[v1]

I think you'll get different interpretations depending on who you ask. Thus my opinion follows:

AFK to me means I have to pause this for a bit while I work on something else. with no definite timeframe in my returning. You can go AFK to go to the bathroom, or to go shopping, or to go to bed. It implies you might return. (but would not be entirely unexpected to see you logout later without returning) It's a warning that you're not going to be around for awhile, and to continue without you with no commitment to your return.

BRB I see as a shorter departure than AFK, and with a more solid commitment to return when the distraction is over. I'd call a BRB as a quick interruption where the discussion etc can continue with you gone because you intend to return quickly and pick back up where you left off with little impact to the flow. BRB would be the more appropriate choice for going to the fridge for a snack or to take a piss. It's more of a notice that you won't be immediately responsive for the next couple minutes, and to proceed with whatever in your absence and you will hop back in shortly with minimal disruption, with expectation that you can quickly catch yourself up and resume when you return.

So they're similar, but distinct.

Re:WTF ...

[gosand]

I agree with your definitions... that is how I've always thought of them.

AFK means "I'm away" and doesn't mention returning.

I didn't get the point in the story... I never thought of IRL and AFK and interchangeable... because you could meet someone IRL in front of a keyboard. :)

Re:WTF ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suspect that the parent post was trying to be funny, as in "AFK? I don't even know what that means! What's this IRL stuff?" ... ahwell.

Re:WTF ...

[rueger]

Whoa, I only now remembered these from my old Bulletin Board days... was that really 20+ years ago, when I could type faster than my 300 baud modem?

Re:WTF ...

[Blakey Rat]

I agree with you, but both of those meanings are still different than IRL. You can meet someone IRL while *at* the keyboard.

Re:WTF ...

[multipartmixed]

You could type faster than 300 wps?

Colour me impressed. Here I thought a hundred was pretty good.

Richard Koman

[poetmatt]

This Richard Koman doesn't know shit. The reasoning, is explained below. He should be quiet because as a lawyer, it's usually not safe to give a legal opinion if you have no knowledge of it.

Here we have a english speaking, US lawyer commenting on a swedish case? That's like me saying that I know everything about US laws if that's not even my job. Last I checked, US and Swedish laws are not even remotely the same.

Does anyone remember what happened the last time a US justice made a comment about stuff that goes across the pond? I think it was in the MS case, and the lawyer had to make a public apology for it.

We share some similarities between EU and US law but in general our laws are different. As usual, bad slashie coverage.

AFK, not IRL

[Arancaytar]

... because this IS my real life, you insensitive clod!

Re:AFK, not IRL

[mysticgoat]

So I'm a bit out of the loop on this jargon.

Is "IRL" appropriate in a role playing context to distinguish when players are meeting over pizza and beer (as opposed to being in their roles)?

Is "AFK" still used in a "hold my place, I'll get back to this in an hour or so" sense, a sort of extended BRB?

Any thoughts on where I, as a fiction writer interested in doing good dialog, could stay current with the jargon of these intertubes?

discovery?

[v1]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I though the "discovery" phase of the trial, (an early one) was the only normal time to introduce evidence? The whole point being not to waste the court's time dragging out a lengthy trial when the prosecution or defense is holding back some key piece of evidence that could instantly cause charges to be dropped or a plea bargain to be accepted?

Shouldn't the judge have to make an exception for introduction of new evidence not included in discovery after discovery is over?

Re:discovery?

[DavidTC]

Not only should he have to make an exception for new evidence, he shouldn't make it for evidence the prosecution had at the start.

Any evidence the defense has that might indicate innocence he should allow. Often time defensive stuff shows up late, especially if it's harmful in some other way to the defense. (For example, they might produce evidence they were with their mistress when they realize that they really are going to lose the case.) Obviously, the prosecution should have some time to recoup from this and present a new case.

Any evidence that the prosecution stumbles across during the case that would make their stronger he should also allow.

But any evidence the prosecution has from the start should not, and must not, be doled out in such a manner.

Especially if they're doing it to produce conflicting theories of criminal activities. For example, if they state you personally murdered someone, and you manage to demonstrate you didn't, they shouldn't be able to produce evidence, that they had from the start, that you hired someone to do it, as that clearly makes their theory that you did it personally total nonsense.

They don't get to keep throwing theories against the way until the defense can't disprove one, and that also screws up the defense, in that maybe they think it's an open and shut case because you have an alibi so don't bother to find other evidence or theories of the crime, when in reality the prosecution's going to switch theories in the middle.

If, OTOH, the prosecution realize it because of new evidence being discovered during the trial, it should be admitted. The defense will still mock their changing theory, though, and sometimes the entire case is ruled a mistrial and the prosecution has to start over.

Re:discovery?

[TheoMurpse]

I don't know about Swedish law, but in the US, criminal discovery is a lot more limited than civil discovery. Of course, I've not taken Criminal Procedure, so I'm not 100% sure.

Re:discovery?

[John Hasler]

> I don't know about Swedish law, but in the US, criminal discovery is a lot more limited
> than civil discovery.

It is, but Perry Mason stunts are still not allowed.

Re:discovery?

[TheoMurpse]

> I don't know about Swedish law, but in the US, criminal discovery is a lot more limited
> than civil discovery.

It is, but Perry Mason stunts are still not allowed.

Perhaps not, but PÃrry MÃsÃn stunts are perfectly legal!

Curse Slashdot's blocking of extended Latin characters! This post would have been a lot funnier!

Motive?

[doug141]

So, according to your theory, the _prosecutor's motive_ to LOSE the case is:
1) serve the will of the recording industry, at the cost of his own reputation,
2) ?
3) Profit?

Stand back! I know regular expressions!

[Doomstalk]

$summary =~ s/opposing council/opposing counsel/gi; There. Fixed it for you.

Sociolinguistic filter...

[andhar]

When all is said and done in this case, the fact that it was not an English-speaking courtroom will indelliby color its legacy. There are few 'neutral' mainstream sources for information on the proceedings. Much of the translated materials is provided by activist translators, people with an agenda, and this information is going to be left on the interwebs for evermore. No matter the outcome, the egg's on IFPI's face.

Who is we?

[cliffski]

Why do people here assume EVERYONE who reads slashdot thinks that its a great think if copyright is trampled and content producers get ripped off?
I would have thought some people here work in software and would have made the mental connection between respecting IP and their own self interest...

In everyone's interest, I hope TPB get slammed down hard in this case.

Re:Who is we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your bubble but it is not the purpose of a free and democratic government to pass laws for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many regardless of how much self interest those few may feel entitled too.

Re:Who is we?

[cliffski]

wow.
but we are allowed to actually post what we think?
right?
or are we modded 'flamebat' for not agreeing that "copyright is teh evil!!1111"
I know the answer.
This place gets mroe like digg every day

Re:Who is we?

[Anonymous Coward]

go back to the basement with your Asperger's retardation you fucking reject

You can dispel it

[jonaskoelker]

The issue is that the validity of a EULA has never been tested in court.

I guess this lie is never going to die around here.

If you know it's a lie, you know that from somewhere. Could you please give a reference?

Also, if you want it to die, you could prove it wrong. I think you'll be more successful if you fix the problem rather than merely tell everyone it exists ;-)

Re:You can dispel it

[DustyShadow]

I've tried to numerous times here. I am about to give up. Even those who are pointed to the cases respond with emotional arguments while they ignore what the cases actually say. Here is an example of someone responding to me with emotion and arguments that make it clear he does not understand contract law: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1132537&cid=26906351 He tries to argue that he can "bypass" a EULA and then ignores my notification that he would then be violating copyright law.

A small list of cases can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability

Yes, that list does say some courts have ruled against EULAs but you have to understand that those are quite old (1991 for one of them) and the facts may have been different enough where the enforceability of a EULA's in general is not exactly what was ruled on. You can also see that the author of that section left out the citation when s/he stated that "most other circuits do not" subscribe to the "licensed and sold" argument. I don't think every circuit has heard a EULA case and when that happens, the 7th Circuit's ruling will most likely carry heavy weight.

The typical argument around here is that EULAs are never enforceable. The one I love most is: "No signature! No contract!" That is just pure ignorance of contract law. These people might like to know that almost every case in a first year law school course involves contracts that had no signature.

This is probably the last time I'll get involved in this discussion here. People don't want to listen to what the law really is. It's not my problem if they want to subject themselves and their companies to the $250,000 per violation statutory damages for copyright violations.

Re:You can dispel it

[shutdown -p now]

If you want to spread the word on Slashdot, add a link saying "EULAs were tested by courts and found legal in the USA", or something along these lines, to your sig, and link it to Wikipedia (or your own write-up on the matter, with references).

Re:what

[Anonymous Coward]

YA RLY!

Why should sweden do that?

[tpgp]

Fence off TPB so only Swedish residents can access

Why should sweden do that? If the US wants a great-firewall-of-the-US, they should build their own one & censor their own people.

This sort of censorship by proxy stuff is bullshit.

Default "Lawyer Variable" status?

[TaoPhoenix]

I'm starting to think people like that acronym. Are we so afraid at posting an intelligent and perhaps partly correct comment that we race to assure the discussants that "Not Lawyers Are We (NLAW)?

Assume everyone is not a lawyer. In rare cases a Lawyer-In-Hiding may choose to demote himself to Common Discussion status. Only when someone officially invokes their legal expertise (yet without "giving legal advice") should we assume they are Practicing.

Re: Contract Law Day 1

[TaoPhoenix]

Lessee just how senile I am yet.

Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
(Capacity)
(Legality)

The software seller Offers to let you use the item you bought. That seems pretty clear.

Slashdot gets all whirled up in whether there was a valid Acceptance with Consideration. I think the trick is that the act of clicking a box and forgoing some kind of otherwise available right is Consideration that makes the Acceptance valid.

The mess hinges on whether a sufficiently deviously presented contract (EULA tricks) is sufficient to void the validity of the Offer. Consumer laziness is not *supposed* to be a valid defense, though it seems that culturally we're trying to make it one.

Bad Name

[Snaller]

By definition a pirate is something bad - you should rather have chosen a more political astute name, like "Party for Ethical Copyright"

Re: Slashdotter Extension

[TaoPhoenix]

I just installed that extension, so we'll see what fun it may be.

search engine and tracker difference considered?

[Gunstick]

is the trial doing any difference between running the website with the search engine and browsing of torrents and running the tracker?
* The website is just providing links.
* The tracker is a helping agent to enable users exchange their files. (making available claim?)
* One could even distinguish a 3rd entity, it's the "fileserver" or webserver actually deliverying the torrent files, which is different from an indexing site.
It just happens that on TPB all those components are running in the same domain. Other websites just provide search but no tracker. Or a tracker without search.

RE: Sneak In ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Und zou. It apperz zat Prinz Eigre vers no panz.

Zou undfortuniet!

Prinz Eigre is in want uf bettar tailur.

Seig

UK Official: They are Banisters

[Anonymous Coward]

As in, he rode the banister down until he got his balls slammed against the thing and the bottom. Why you read this far then?

Re: Contract Law Day 1

[mrchaotica]

The software seller Offers to let you use the item you bought. That seems pretty clear.

And that, all by itself, is why EULAs should never be valid (and why the 7th and 8th Circuits were wrong): If you already bought the item, then all the agreements necessary to enable you to use it have already happened. The EULA fails to be a valid contract not because of dubious acceptance on the part of the user (clicking "I agree" vs. signing a sheet of paper), but because the publisher fails to offer consideration. Every benefit the EULA purports to convey is one already enjoyed by the owner of the copy of the software!

Piratebay..

[Terrorwrist]

They really kicked the llamas ass!

IRL & AFK .. for me big difference !

[freaker_TuC]

AFK = Away From Keyboard
IRL = In Real Life

When I'm IRL, even being programmer, I don't carry my keyboard with me all the time..
So I am AFK .. Although, when I am AFK; I'm not always "IRL" .. for example on a game like WOW.

I think we should the acronym AFK for which it is.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion