Slashdot Mirror


Judge In Pirate Bay Trial Biased

maglo writes "The judge who handed down the harsh sentence to the four accused in the The Pirate Bay trial was biased, writes Sveriges Radio (Sweden Public Radio): sr.se (swedish). Google translation. The judge is member of two copyright lobby organizations, something he shares with several of the prosecutor attorneys (Monique Wadsted, Henrik Pontén and Peter Danowsky). The organizations in question are Svenska Föreningen för Upphovsrätt (SFU) and Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd (SFIR)."

36 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. English Language Article. by telchine · · Score: 5, Informative

    If Swedish isn't your native language, this article might prove more useful:

    Pirate Bay Judge Accused of Bias

    1. Re:English Language Article. by Ornedan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, the judge sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska fÃreningen fÃr industriellt rÃttsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws.

      However, NorstrÃm insisted to the radio station that his membership of the various copyright protection groups did not constitute a conflict of interestâ.

      It is indeed quite obvious that being a leading member of a copyright lobby organization can not in any way be seen as a conflict of interest.

      And in other news, Slashdot still fails at UTF8.

    2. Re:English Language Article. by telchine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot still fails at UTF8.

      FÃIL!!!

    3. Re:English Language Article. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Creepy thing is, he might actually believe that. If you are a die-hard copyright maximalist then "strong copyright=justice" will simply seem axiomatic, so your involvement with a copyright lobbying group will just seem like professional experience.

      The fact that he is so tone-deaf that he doesn't comprehend how that might create a raging appearance of impropriety is pretty shocking, though.

    4. Re:English Language Article. by aliquis · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of the jurymen had to leave to since he was a composer, but I guess a judge who are part of the council in an organisation working to improve the interest and knowledge of the industrial protection rights of patents, brands, designs, plant engineering, name and company rights and protection against inappropriate competition and member of the other organization which goals is to discuss copyright is just fine.

    5. Re:English Language Article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't get is why a judge would be allowed to be in *any* lobby organization, excepting perhaps something directly related to the functioning of the judiciary itself. Alternatively, if they are allowed to be members in such groups, why wouldn't they recuse themselves from a relevant case?

    6. Re:English Language Article. by dargaud · · Score: 5, Funny

      Henrik Pont©n - Lawyer at Swedish anti-piracy organisation.

      I find it funny that a copyright symbol shows up in his name when it fails the notorious great UTF support of slashdot...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    7. Re:English Language Article. by LinuxDon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mostly agree with your post, but would like to add the following

      Ultimately, in my opinion, it's the voice and opinion of the general public that is incorporated into laws about how heavy penalties for certain actions are. And since everyone is unanimously against murder, this is often quite a clear case.

      But since the public opinion is so divided concerning copyright cases, a judge that has very strongly chosen one side can be called biased even regardless of his membership of a lobby group. The membership only proves it in my opinion.

    8. Re:English Language Article. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Informative

      A judge shouldn't be a member of any group promoting any specific type of justice, imho, as they're to be an impartial judge of the facts given them in court and not to be out for personal vendettas of any kind.

      In practise this doesn't happen of course.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:English Language Article. by jbezorg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be true if that was the only factor.

      "Judge Norstrom acknowledged to Swedish Radio that he was a member of The Swedish Association for Copyright, as well as a board member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property. He also said he has worked alongside Monica Wadsted -- who represented the American movie industry in the trial -- to solve disputes related to Internet domain names. However, he rejected that there was any conflict of interests."

      But it isn't.

      There is a difference between just being member of an organization and being a board member of an organization who's goals would benefit the Plaintiff and having established a professional cooperative relationship with a Plaintiff's council previously.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    10. Re:English Language Article. by smaddox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but it is the judges JOB to be unbiased. Dedicating himself to a lobby group is a huge conflict of interest. Either he has to disappoint the group, or he has to disappoint the people he is judging.

    11. Re:English Language Article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Yes, if a judge is a member of an organization lobbying for tougher murder penalties, he or she would be excluded from murder trials under Swedish law, should the defense lawyers so request. There cannot be even the slightest suspicion of bias.b

    12. Re:English Language Article. by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it is. This is similar to a judge in the USA that is a member of the RIAA and then goes in the courtroom to judge Virgin v. Thomas. It doesn't matter how high your involvement is. Apparently one of the lawyers IS his co-worker for certain things. That would be the same as you being a judge and in your off-time you work at a small company (which isn't illegal) and then you have to judge on a private matter between that company and somebody that has a beef with your company (for whatever reason) and the (hot) gal you go drinking coffee with once in a while is the lawyer representing the company you work at. IANAL but it seems that this would be grounds for a mistrial in the US.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:English Language Article. by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but it is the judges JOB to be unbiased.

      That is absolutely correct. To be a judge is to be impartial and avoid appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety in both public and even private life. That is what it means to be a judge; with special powers, including possibly the power of life and death, comes special responsibility above and beyond what would be expected from the average citizen. If that is a problem then do not become a judge.

    14. Re:English Language Article. by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't get is why ANY lobbyists are allowed. Ever. Anywhere.

    15. Re:English Language Article. by somanyrobots · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because there's just not enough ammunition to get rid of 'em all.

    16. Re:English Language Article. by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      What I don't get is why ANY lobbyists are allowed. Ever. Anywhere.

      It's because the laws allow it. We just need to get some lobbyists to help us change those laws!

    17. Re:English Language Article. by j79zlr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I write legislators, I don't include hookers, blow, and cold hard cash in my statement.

      Well maybe you should. -Signed, your congressman.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
  2. No-Brainer: Appeal! by blcamp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the allegations are true, they should easily win an appeal... assuming the rest of the judicial system is not so corrupt... allegedly, of course.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  3. I Wonder... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they knew about the judge before hand. If they did perhaps (in typical TPB fashion) they went through the trial knowing damn well they were going to use this to get out of it

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  4. Re:Can you say conflict of interest? by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly, they could not, or did not.

    The TPB lawyers didn't do their homework, which is a sentiment that rings very loudly in a lot of commentary about this trial.

    It will hopefully come up in the appeal. This may have been a strategy all along -- i.e. let the music industry lawyers put all their cards on the table during the trial, and destroy them in the appeal.

  5. In the words of Lionell Hutz by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    I move for a bad court thingie!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:In the words of Lionell Hutz by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Funny

      "You mean a mistrial?" "That's why you're the judge, and I'm the law... talking... guy."

    2. Re:In the words of Lionell Hutz by ndavis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son,".

  6. Re:suck it up by rbarreira · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not just a group that lobbies, a group that lobbies together with the prosecution!

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  7. Re:suck it up by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    lawyers/judges are often memebers of many many organisations, it doesn't mean they have the same rabid bias of an apple fanboy of /.

    Membership is one thing. The judge is on the board of directors! That's just a wee bit stronger connection than fanboy.

    That would be like allowing Steve Jobs preside over MS's trial.

  8. Right... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    he joins lots of organisations so he has another piece of paper to hang on the wall.

    I bet THAT was heard a lot in Nuremberg 60 years ago.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  9. Re:suck it up by Burkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is true,

    Sorry, but no. Occam's Razor says that the explanation of a phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible. In no way does this translate to "the simplest answer is true" because in many cases the simplest answer isn't true.

  10. Same judge that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...cleared the search warrant towards TPB +3 years ago, I wonder if that was properly handled, from the articles here in sweden it seems he took the warrant-request from APB and just signed it and added "take anything you find interesting" and let them have at it.

  11. Re:Shouldn't Judges remove themselves? by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on now! How often is Wikipedia really inacPENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS

    --
    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  12. Summary of current debate by MaulerOfEmotards · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lawyer Peter Althin, representing the Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde calls for retrial

    There have been a series of interesting events surrounding the extended Pirate Bay process. It started with PRQ (the web hotel hosting TPB) being illegally raided, and to add the icing on that cake, the minister in charge acting in violation of the Swedish constitution by directly ordering law enforcement (see New Technology's "Was the Raid a Judicial Scandal?" [in Swedish]). Then the FRA and IPRED bills passed in direct defiance of election promises and popular opinion folding to foreign pressure, as was the trial itself. It is hardly surprising that it turned out that the judge was cherry picked. The judge, Thomas NorstrÃm, argued that "My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest," and he was not swayed in his judgement by involvement with copyright protection groups.

    There was great surprise over the April 17th ruling. Even the legal experts that expected a conviction were taken aback by the prison sentence and the size of the compensatory fine.

    The current debate on Swedish technical boards is one of conspiracy theories. Swedes are generally relatively hesitant of suggesting conspiracies, but this one reeks of collusion.

    The former Chief Prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem says (in Swedish) that this will hurt the international renown of Swedish courts as well as damage domestic belief in judicial neutrality and safety.

    Also interesting is the public statement from the Pirate Party which calls this "Corruption and miscarriage of justice" and "The copyright lobby has really managed to bring corruption to Sweden".

    This may turn out to be a huge inconvenience for the copyright organisations and for the ruling coalition.

  13. Re:Can you say conflict of interest? by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its fairly common in sweden that the first instance of the court system (Tingsrätten) is viewed upon as a bunch of clowns you have to pass to get to the real court. They consists of local politicians and if your local ones are anything like ours you know they suck on a professional level in every way possible when it comes to just about anything they do.

    Im fairly sure the TPB lawyers has been set for going to the highest level court from the beginning and planned accordingly. This little gem with a clearly biased judge doesnt really help the TPB guys other than for PR since whatever a retrial will result in the trial will be taken higher up in the court system.

    Its just a huge PR win for us in the PirateParty and the public opinion. It paints a very clear and vivid picture of us small ones against greedy, corrupt, self-loving, elite and above-the-law politicians.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  14. US rules do not apply by Ibn+al-Hazardous · · Score: 5, Informative

    But since Sweden is not a part of the same judicial tradition as the US, this has no bearing on the TPB trial. In Sweden, you are pretty much guaranteed a second trial at a higher level, unless it is a question of a small-time crime (or the case is very simple). This being a high profile trial, making an appeal to the second level was a given, even before the trial started.

    If the second level court decides the judge was biased, they will order a re-trial at the first level - which will then be followed be an appeals process. The reason the lawyers may not go through with a re-trial, is that it will only mean another trial that won't add anything of interest. Since this is a very special trial, the Supreme Court may take the case too - or order a re-trial at the second level. So a re-trial at the first level may not be worth it, we were probably looking at 3 or 4 trials anyway.

    IANAL, but my cousin is a judge here in Sweden.

    --
    Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
  15. Re:Theoretical Issue, Not Practical by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would the purpose of the organizations (SFU and SFIR) factor in, or is it the fact that organizations with a vested interest in tough-on-copyright are members?

    If I were the one investigating this, I would be more interested in the membership and the activities than in the expressed purposes, since crooks like to disguise what they do and their expressed purposes are always benign. Like I'm sure the RIAA's expressed purposes do not include 'extortion, using illegal investigators, making false statements of fact in legal documents, collusion, price fixing, suing children and dead people, using economic might and unscrupulous lawyers to attempt to rewrite copyright law by confusing judges, etc.'. If, e.g., this organization has ever lobbied on behalf of copyright owners, the judges' membership -- if not disclosed and consented to -- ought to result in his being disqualified.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  16. Re:Public Opinion by twmcneil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generally, the public you refer to doesn't care one bit about copyright cases or law. Only the corporations and people like Paul McCartney or Elton John (who have a vested interest in keeping new artists out) support stronger copyright laws. There is little division in the public's opinion.

    Agreed, this judge should never have been on this case.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  17. Intentional. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's no way TPB's lawyers were in the dark about this.

    But now, they get to turn this into a(n even bigger) circus and it will be thrown out due to the judge being extremely biased and having worked with the plaintiff before.

    Meanwhile, they just managed to get the support of the entire country against the corrupt Judge and local version of the RIAA, and the next Judge will be on best behavior -- and since they haven't done anything illegal, that means they'll get off scott free.

    Brilliantly played, Pirates. Brilliantly played.