Slashdot Mirror
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."
The word you're looking for is "counsel", not "council".
"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.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
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...
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
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.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
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.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
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.