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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[b4dc0d3r]

Figured. You sound British.

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

[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

[MightyYar]

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

Re:FAO Editors

[zmollusc]

To be blunt, yes!

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?

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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."

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

ack!

[gEvil (beta)]

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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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).

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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...

[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: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.