Slashdot Mirror
A Short Summary Following the Pirate Bay Trial
Dan B. writes "The Guardian has a nice piece wrapping up the trial in Sweden for the co-defendants in the P2P trial-of-the-decade, that of The Pirate Bay. 'Today, the defense lawyers summed up. It was a short trial and not a particularly merry one, but it could have far-reaching effects.' Surprisingly, when the defendants hit the stand they didn't bash copyright or take a libertarian approach; it all came back to the tried and tested formula for criminal defense, 'I am not responsible.'"
"when new technology appears it can be difficult to 'see the wood for the trees'. He said that just because something may have been used by people for illicit purposes, should that mean that there should be an attack on the infrastructure as a result? It's like taking legal action against car manufacturers for the problems experienced on the roads, he said."
Didn't waste a second with that one.
While I'm not sure where to stand, here are some of the things I've "pirated":
* Last nights survivor episode.
* Anime fansubs I can't buy anyway.
* Professional software I've been curious to try at home for fun and/or education. (Ended up saying Photoshop indeed is worth the money at work...)
* The entire Friends series. After concluding it's worth it I ended up buying the DVD's.
* Ditto with Sex and the City.
So who lost money? I'm not saying what I did was right, but I don't think I should be put in jail for it either. These are not simple matters.
Disclaimer: The wife mostly watches Sex and the City and Friends.
.: Max Romantschuk
The really interesting thing about this trial is that the record companies seem not to have done their homework at all (although part of that could be bias from TorrentFreak, which seems to be the major English news source about this trial). They seem to have failed in pretty much every front: they failed to show any real statistics on the effects of file sharing or the amount of copyright infringing material on the Pirate Bay, their "evidence" of illegally downloading things from the Pirate Bay didn't hold water (because they could not show that the Pirate Bay tracker was actually used in their downloads), and they couldn't even show that what the Pirate Bay is doing is illegal in Sweden.
I can't really understand why they failed so hard. They had time to do their homework and I'm sure that they are not lacking in funds or other resources either. They could have collected some actual statistics on the amount of copyright infringing torrents or they could have done much better research on downloading copyright infringing stuff through the Pirate Bay -- disable DHT and all the other trackers beside the Pirate Bay, and you can be sure that the Pirate Bay tracker is used for the download.
Are the record companies really this inept at grasping the Internet (and hiring people that do understand it) or did they just think that they would win by default? Either one seems unlikely to me, but who knows?
Sounds alot like the reverse process of taking someone's money and then giving them investment advice...
"20% investment return? Yes, sure, you want 22%? No problem... sign here please..." ... That was the sad day that I realized money doesn't grow on trees and you shouldn't trust a farmer with a truck full of fertile manure.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
"Samuelson opened by saying that during the case the Prosecution missed the main key point - Is The Pirate Bay legal or not? He said that all four defendants should be acquitted since the Prosecution failed to issue individual charges as is required in a criminal case." Tt appears that throughout the whole "trial" that there was very little if any reference to any laws that may have been broken. Not sure how Sweden has their court system setup, but this whole thing just seemed very unprofessional from both sides.
"Yeah I did X, but X shouldn't be a crime" is a fine political statement, but obviously not a defense in a court of law, while X is still a crime by current law.
In the US anyway, it's still well within the jury's rights to acquit in that situation. Probably not something one should bank on, but quite legal nonetheless.
Isn't this a criminal case? Do you not have the right to a jury trial in Sweden?
We both obviously live in the U.S. Remember, though, that jurors here have it firmly drilled into their heads that they must select guilty/not guilty based on the letter of the law – which is patently false. A juror is, in fact, obliged to vote his or her conscience when they believe the law is wrong, although I hear that mentioning this fact is a quick way to get passed over in the juror selection process.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
if torrent files were used (and often times specifically designed) to murder other people.
The whole point of a legal system/justice dept. is to handle exceptional cases of law...where a set of rules cannot cover every potential circumstance and instance in a way that provides safety and productivity to society.
That being said, I have no stance whatsoever on Bloomberg and I am not anti-gun...just making a point. If there are people out there who want stricter gun control, the legal system has a variety of avenues to pursue this. If those people succeed where the the RIAA/MPAA has failed, it does not mean the government is now somehow in contradiction with itself or flawed.
It means that society saw fit to make an exception...exceptions are in fact what laws and lawsuits and judges and governmental rulings are often about.
It's a little different when you're sitting in a jury box and judge turns to you and reads out the jury instructions, which include things like:
"You must find him guilty if he has broken law X."
There's no mention of voting your conscience or that the law might be wrong. You are specifically ordered to follow the law in your verdict.
Yes, I served in Jury duty. Luckily (or unluckily, maybe?) there were no questionable laws on the case I sat. It also helped that there was no evidence at all, though. -sigh-
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
it means that the state cannot deprive you of your liberty even if it can convice your felow citizens that it is a good idea. period.
There's no mention of voting your conscience or that the law might be wrong. You are specifically ordered to follow the law in your verdict.
So what? Is the judge sitting in the jury deliberations to make sure that you follow his instructions? Are you going to be punished if you find the defendant not-guilty even though a strict reading of the judges instructions would have suggested a guilty verdict?
We aren't sheep you know. We are citizens. Within that jury room 12 citizens hold all the cards and all the power. It's not perfect but it beats the hell out of the alternatives. The state is denied the power to take away your life, liberty or property unless it gets the permission to do so from your fellow citizens. Personally I think that's way better than just needing the permission of some judge.
Yes, I served in Jury duty.
I've never had the honor. I have been judged by a grand jury of my peers though. In spite of all the rhetoric you hear about how a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich they listened to my side of the story and refused to allow the prosecution against me to proceed. I'm thankful every day I wake up that we have the jury system in this country.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Imagine you were an accountant used to working with a book ledger. Then computers with accounting packages came along. You could make a choice about embracing the new technology or trying to delay it with (quite valid) arguments about the pitfalls of it. If you had enough clout, you could event mount a legal campaign to ban this unproven and unreliable technology because it is unsafe, dangerous and destroys people's livelihoods. Of course you would ignore then known unsafe and dangerous aspect of they way you currently do things.
The growing reality is that, if you are a musician, you don't need the record labels. If you do gigs, have a $500 recording setup, a web site and have a Myspace or Facebook account, you can do your own production, promotion and distribution. In this case, you might not sell as much as you would have if you had a deal with and label company represented by the RIAA, but what you did sell, you would ouwn close to 100% of. Not so with a record label.
Your natural rights are self-evident, and they exist as much as the number 1 or the number 0 exists. These rights are inalienable, and I can prove it. You can't take my rights from me, although you can possibly deny me the ability to exercise those rights. When you use a model that allows those rights to be "capable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred", you will be left in the situation where you have little to no rights left. When you feel that rights don't exists, then you won't have to worry about infringing on other people's rights (since they have none) and you won't have any property (since you don't have the right to have it in the first place).
I was just checking Wikipedia (I know, I know, just roll with it, I'm sure it's at least partially correct for this part) on this trial, and saw the following:
The hearings ended on March 3 and the verdict will be announced at 11:00 AM on Friday 17 April.
Why in the world is it taking them over a month to announce the verdict? The fact that they're give it a specific time, down to the minute, would imply that all things are already decided. Why not just... say the results, instead of waiting a month and a half?
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Umm...that depends on where you are asked to serve. I served on a jury last year because the judge there made it very difficult to be excluded. We had a blind person and a woman who was 8 months pregnant in our jury as well.
Of course, you can always get excluded by blatantly lying in open court during voir dire by saying you are inherently biased against one of the parties, or something like that. but it's not the smart people who do that, just the unscrupulous ones.
caritj.org
Only people on juries are those too stupid to get out of jury duty (or actually want to do it ... as in do gooders anxious to lock you away).
Yeah, fulfilling your civic responsibility by serving on a jury is soooo stupid!! Stupid stupidheads!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I am 25. I own a house and car and have $15k+ in savings. And somehow, I don't feel guilty for destroying the economy. Not even a little bit.
I am, on the other hand, a little bit pissed at all of the dumbasses who took out mortgages en-masse on houses they'd never be able to afford and in so doing devalued my own house. Fortunately, I'm not planning on selling it, but it's still a poke in the eye.