Slashdot Mirror
The Circus Widens In Aftermath of Pirate Bay Verdict
MaulerOfEmotards sends along an in-depth followup, from the Swedish press, of our discussion the other day about the biased trial judge in the Pirate Bay case. "The turmoil concerns Tomas Norström, the presiding judge of The Pirate Bay trial, who is suspected of bias after reports surfaced of affiliation with copyright protection organizations. For this he has been reported to the appeals court (in Swedish; translation here). The circus around the judge is currently focused on three points. First, his personal affiliation with at least four copyright protection organizations, a state the potential bias of which he himself fails to see and refuses to admit. Secondly, Swedish trials use a system of several lay assessors to supervise the presiding judge. One of these, a member of an artists' interest organization, was forced by Mr. Norström to resign from the trial for potential bias. The judge's failure to see the obvious contradiction in this (translation) casts doubts on his suitability and competence. Thirdly, according to professor of judicial sociology Håkan Hydén (translation), the judge has inappropriately 'duped and influenced the lay assessors' during the trial: 'a judge that has decided that "this is something we can't allow" has little problem
finding legal arguments that are difficult for assisting lay assessors to counter.'" Click the link below to read further on Professor Hydén's enumeration of "at least three strange things in a strange trial." On a related note, reader Siker adds the factoid that membership in the Pirate Party exploded 150% in the week following the verdict. The Pirate Party now surpasses in size four smaller parties in Sweden, and is closing in on a fifth. Political fallout could ensue as soon as June, when an election for EU parliament will be held.
Professor Hydén continues with enumerating "at least three strange things in a strange trial" (translation): First, that someone can be sentenced for being accessory to a crime for which there is no main culprit: "This assumes someone else having committed the crime, and no such individual exists here... the system cannot charge the real culprits or it would collapse in its entirety." It is unprecedented in Swedish judicial history to sentence only an accessory. Second, that the accessories should pay the fine for a crime committed by the main culprits, "which causes the law to contradict itself." And third, that accessories cannot be sentenced to harsher than the main culprit, which means that every downloader must be sentenced to a year's confinement. Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
Professor Hydén continues with enumerating "at least three strange things in a strange trial" (translation): First, that someone can be sentenced for being accessory to a crime for which there is no main culprit: "This assumes someone else having committed the crime, and no such individual exists here... the system cannot charge the real culprits or it would collapse in its entirety." It is unprecedented in Swedish judicial history to sentence only an accessory. Second, that the accessories should pay the fine for a crime committed by the main culprits, "which causes the law to contradict itself." And third, that accessories cannot be sentenced to harsher than the main culprit, which means that every downloader must be sentenced to a year's confinement. Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
Arghh!!!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Cause political chaos by throwing sudden, and massive support behind a new political party. Wish Americans were capable of picking some other party aside from Republicans or Democrats.
Had the judge been an active member of the Swedish Pirate Party, worked closely with the defendants in the past, not disclosed it and handed a not guilty verdict, you can be sure the *AAs would of been all over it like flies on a pile. Mistrial, end of story.
Why is that more probable than the proposition? What are you basing your claim on?
If the Pirate Party really has that many people, and every downloader must be sentenced to at least a year's confinement, then everybody should turn themselves in and overcrowd the jails.
Time to make this judge walk the plank!
so like... slashdotting the jail eh? :)
with a little act of solidarity with the Pirate Bay (assisting in the dissemination of copyright infringing material) whilst simultaneously making a wry comment on the dastardly Copyright Cartels and all their nefarious shennanigans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvP0uwl3Q6A
(perhaps their new theme tune?)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
RTFA. The judge is a member (actually a director in at least one case) of organisations that are lobbying to change the law, to make what Pirate Bay did illegal.
Pirate Bay's lawyer's argue that what they did was not illegal. Is the judge, who is committed to making sure it is illegal, the best person to apply the law impartially?
I'm not 'pro-piracy', although to say I'm 'anti-big media' would probably be fair. That said, copyright is not a single ideal and there are plenty of opinions on it's implementation. The groups that the judge is a member of take a view that the law should be changed to make copyright stricter - surely that presents a conflict of interests when dealing with a case that tests the limits of copyright law in the opposite direction?
As mentioned in other stories this past week, the judge was a member of some groups that have agendas, and is in a leadership position for two of them I believe. I think at least one group is, like you say, simply a means of staying on top of current issues and being aware of the law, but that is not the case for all the groups he belongs to. I'm not pro-piracy, but I'd rather the pirates win than have these big companies keep extending control over our governments.
My webcomic
It is an obvious conflict of interest when you are presiding over a case and are a member of an organization that sides strongly with one of the parties in the case.
It is generally okay to be biased toward one side due to internal beliefs. Most people do tend toward one side in contentious issues, but to openly run around and say it or promote one side (via membership in pro- organizations) is inappropriate.
Keeping works from the public domain by means of effectively infinite copyright terms is more disgusting. It's also "stealing" in the literal sense of the word, without having to twist its meaning to jive with a political agenda like the pro-copyright lobby likes to do, and is a violation of the social contract that is the sole reason copyright exists in the first place.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Exactly. This judge is essentially speeding in order to change the speed limit. Instead of judging by the current laws and waiting for the legislature to change the laws which he can enforce, he is taking matters into his own hands and changing the law himself by stretching the law to cover the situation in the way he feels it should.
The question is: is this or isn't this simply what judges do they administer verdicts? Isn't just always inherently interpretive? Is judgment a referential or creative act?
On the one side: Copyright infringers.
On the other side: Those who want to lock down personal computers and the internet, spy on same, lock down anything else which can reproduce sound or video, implement a pay-per-use system for everything, shut down DVD rental services, eliminate fair use, use lawyers to bully people (whether culpable or not), increase copyright terms to infinity less one day, etc.
Which side would you expect slashdotters to be on? You can argue there's a middle ground, but for various reasons I think there really isn't, and in any case is it really surprising getting binary thinking from a computer geek site?
Nobody cares about the "Pirate Party." It's just a bunch of morons who signed up online out of spite and probably will never be heard from again.
Uh, considering your whole post was as bad as this, I'm just surprised it didn't stay modded down.
Perhaps if you at least left out all the name-calling?
(1) Yes. Hell, even Per Gessle, one of the Swedish artists that have made the most pro-copyright noise once filled eight iPods for his musical buddies so they could all get sync:ed up on what "sound" to go for. Of course, he just copied his own collection of music on those iPods. Piracy? Damn straight. Metallica? They used to tape records off each other all the time when they were kids. Piracy? Oh yeah. But if you think about it, were they (Metallica and Gessle) morally in the wrong? I don't think so. There's always been illegal copying - but none on the scale of TPB - and I think that's where the problem lies here. We are in a moral (not legal) gray zone with regards to TPB. While everyone does it, only TPB sets up a business and tries to make money off it.
(2) doesn't mean that they can't punish the pirates that are taken to court. For example, we can't punish all drug dealers (because there are so many of them), but we can punish those we catch. Punishing one pirate is only unfair if the courts find another innocent even though they have done the same thing. In regards to the Gessle case, that didn't go to court - and this I do find terribly unfair and immoral. But I can't find any legal fault with it.
(3) Yep. What we have here is a mix of new technology, a change in consumer patterns, a change in the entertainment market and laws written for another age and a different set of morals than what people have. That's why we have such a mess now. It's like doing four forklift upgrades all at once.
It was also hosting the torrent tracker server that tracks the file chunks users were trading with each other. They offer the torrents, and they offer the server connecting the users
Neither of which are illegal under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the ONLY people breaking the law are those downloading and uploading the pirated content. Citizens of Sweden are free to index and publish sources of illegal items (in this case, illegally shared files). Law enforcement is just as free to prosecute the provider of the illegal items (or files), but absolutely not the messenger.
To reiterate: under current Swedish law, the way to enforce copyright law is to prosecute users who are downloading/uploading copyrighted content, and NOT the operator of the tracker, who has not trafficked in any copyrighted content at all. Unless you can copyright an SHA1 hash, now (Maybe you could consider it a derivative work? That would be a frightening world).
This may be different in your country; I know it is different in mine. However, the guilty verdict this judge gave represented a drastic change in the way the Swedish judiciary interprets the existing law, one which runs counter to all prior decisions.
As an aside, a technical correction to your statement. A bittorrent tracker does not track file chunks. It does not monitor or arrange file transfers in any meaningful way. All it does is provide a list of IP addresses and ports of bittorrent clients who are trading in a particular torrent. Arranging transfers and piece swaps is entirely between the clients. Often a bittorrent client only checks in with the tracker a few times an hour, to get an updated list of IPs.
Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
If you read past the headlines, Oobama didnt abolish torture, the US will still use it as much as before but they only changed WERE they were going to torture.
But many intelligent people are going around claiming that torture was ended with Obama.
Which is were his great power lies; he does something and people want to believe so much that they dont read the fine print.
It was also hosting the torrent tracker server that tracks the file chunks users were trading with each other. They offer the torrents, and they offer the server connecting the users
Neither of which are illegal under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the ONLY people breaking the law are those downloading and uploading the pirated content.
...and those assisting them - "främjar en gärning med råd eller dåd" (for our English readers "furthers an act with advice or deed").
Which is what TPB got done for.
You never think about the people you're ripping off--the musicians, software developers, screenwriters, and so on.
Horse-carriages and automobiles my friend.
Musicians: If I can't copy their music, then neither can they. Do gigs and performances like real musicians do. There's no law that says you, as a musician, are entitled to income. It's an art, if your art sucks, if people don't like you enough to buy your cd's, you don't get paid, and you don't get to whine about it.
Software-developers: You produce tools that people use to create value. Tools that can be magically copied with no effort. If you want to make money on it, do it by implementing the tools you have created (being the creator gives you a fair head-start in this). Would you have a problem giving away hammers to people for free if you could replicate an original (which you made yourself) ad infinitum?
Screenwriters: Adjust your expectations. Just because your output-volume has risened does not mean the individuals demand will too. In every other field people know what they're buying before they buy it. Don't jump at people for wanting to know whether your work is quality or insipid trash before they decide to buy (or not buy) your product. A recent survey has shown that people who pirate movies are ten times more likely to buy movies than people who don't pirate. Don't whine if you fail.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Why would files containing otherwise legal things like checksums and file names be illegal exactly? Because they can be used for illegal purposes? But so can almost everything. For instance, I can use a hammer to hit you. People have done that in reality and hit others. Should we now fine every Home Depot that sold a hammer that was used in an attack? I don't think so. If the Swedish law allows this in the context of ISPs, then it's absurd. If I understand correctly, the professor mentioned in the article says it doesn't, so that answers your question.
Deus est fatalis
In 100 years, things will have settled into a two-party system.
I know many people say the same thing, but just why should someone be "proud" of coming from a particular area?
Us versus them-ism?
God, if that isn't a literal prisoner's dilemma then nothing is.
If everyone cooperates (turns themselves in), then they all win by having successfully blockaded (DoS'd) the attempt to criminalize what TPB is doing.
If only a few do, they get screwed.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Indeed.
The basic problem is that "copyright protection", as used today (DRM, asshat lawyer scum, etc) is destructive to the geek/nerd/intelligent human being's basic desire to exercise their right to tinker.
We don't want to just buy something, then use it till it dies. We want to take it apart. Put it back together. Improve it. Repair it if it breaks. UNDERSTAND IT.
DRM on a digital movie - for one example - makes it harder to exercise our right to tinker. We can't easily pull a segment from it, or multiple segments, practice remixing it and splicing it and editing it and tweaking it and making something new, different, unique out of it.
DRM or "access protection" on a video game console - basically, a glorified computer - stops us from learning how to code new programs for it. From tweaking it to act as we want it to. From improving it - by adding storage, for instance, that reduces the crappy load times of disc-based consoles to something more bearable or that reduces the drain on the battery of a portable console.
Nintendo even wanted to get the US to outlaw the famous Afterburner mod - you remember, the thing they blatantly ripped off when it came time to create the Game Boy Advance SP, and the DS line?
The problem is, "piracy", or copyright infringement, is no different from other fields. Car geeks get to the point where they don't have to waste money on taking their car to a dealership or car shop. The car companies have in recent years tried to make this impossible by using proprietary shaped bits on certain fasteners in the engine, or packing things in super-tightly (in one case even making it impossible to change your oil yourself). The VW Rabbit, for another example, requires the removal of an entire wiring harness just to change a fucking headlight. And of course there are the "diagnostic computers", and the 5-year lag time during which the output codes are a "proprietary trade secret" to prevent non-Dealership car shops from being able to service them...
It's not just the copyright field. Freedom to tinker is something we should all have a right to, in EVERY field.
Actually, wrong.
The current bittorrent algorithm is weird. There is actually no need for the torrent file to exist, it could be downloaded from the first peer you connect to. This would actually make things easier for the user but the original POC didn't need that. Still the torrent file exists, but actually it contains nothing that can identify the legal status of the file that it's used to transfer, there are only inferences from the, user supplied, description (ie unreliable lies, eg: "Britney Spears sex tape").
Likewise, right now any one tracker is unnecessary, TPB and others are open trackers, I tend to add them to every torrent file I upload or download and I'm not the only one because I get more peers that way. Even then the only thing a tracker does is index hashes, so it's basically impossible for a tracker to say if a file is illegal even for clear cut cases because all the tracker sees is a random number and a list of IP:port pairs.
With both of these observations it is technically quite possible for a reasonable torrent url to be http://74.125.45.100/search?q=2ff13ed6d87e905d76ae66bf3efd5fb13f49fa1b even now that one kinda works.
All that remains is to say that bittorrent is illegal because it's only used for illegal material. This is easy to disprove and AIUI the defendants did this. That leaves nothing in the technical realm at which point the judge ruled entirely on "intent" effectively saying the TPB intended to help someone break copyright law so we'll assume they did and sentence them as if they were successful and the people they helped had the book thrown at them (twice).
Of course, nobody has been even seriously charged with the actual copyright infringement ... oops.
Since you posted AC and I can't assess your linguistic skills via a profile, I'll just say we can agree to disagree on how to spell "there". Otherwise, you make a solid point.
But I think this guy goes one better. He's legislating from the bench, and not like the normal accusations, this is like putting innocent people in jail. If you are accused of being an idiot, you go to jail in my courtroom. Accused of wearing plaid, no warrant needed you're in Bubba's room.