Pirate Bay Retrial Denied, Judge Declared Unbiased

bonch writes "A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial. Stockholm District Court defended the judge's membership in copyright organizations as a necessity to 'keep up with developments in the field' and that merely endorsing the idea of copyright law was not grounds for a mistrial. The defendants must now rely on the appeal process, while one defendant has written on his Twitter account that the PirateBay will also be suing Sweden for human rights violations."

Comments

Unbiased?

[AndyFewt]

Of course they'll say he was unbiased. If he was biased in this case they'll have to review ALL the previous cases to make sure that he wasn't influenced for those.It was the only call they could make.

Now I might not agree with their decision but I expect they also know it has a good chance of going forward at appeal and so therefore do not need to address this now.

Re:Unbiased?

[mikael_j]

Actually, from what I could tell most of the defendants seemed to be unaware of the judge's bias until after the trial when this was revealed by a third party, the prosecution has been shown to have been aware of this all along though.

/Mikael

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[seeker_1us]

Violation of due process is violation of human rights.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[owlnation]

but what human rights are being violated?

Sounds very much like the Right to a fair trial is being violated -- which specifically is mentioned in the Council of Europe's "Convention on Human Rights" in 3.6 article 6.

So no, they are not being pussies.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[Sasayaki]

The fact that the defendant in this case is The Pirate Bay doesn't change the fact that they deserve a fair trial.

If you were on trial for marijuana possession but the judge was a member of dozens of groups with names such as "Stop Drugs Now", "Weed Killed My Son", "Christians for a Drug Free America" etc etc, regularly received kickbacks from commercially-run prisons (who cater specifically to drugs-related incarcerations) and frequently accepted donations from government anti-legalization lobbyists, would you consider yourself likely to receive a fair trial?

Therefore, following on from this, would you therefore say that your constitutionally protected right to a fair trial was being infringed? Would it not be a huge stretch to also say that these rights should exist to all people- become one of these so-called "human rights"?

Granted, it's not on the same level as militia machinegunning unarmed villages, but the right to a fair trial is still what I would consider a basic human right.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[sbeckstead]

and judges can't be called "biased" simply because they support existing laws.
Excuse me. A judge may determine whether a law has been broken, he may set a punishment if it is proven that the law is broken, but if he supports or disapproves of a law he is biased. A judge may be in favor of all laws being enforced, but any specific law no.

False dichotomy

[QuoteMstr]

A false dichotomy is an old debating trick where one party says, "well, you oppose X, and therefore you must be for Y!" It's called "false" because the world really doesn't work that way. There are many different options.

You are employing a false dichotomy here. Opposition to the current copyright regime is not synonymous with the abolition of copyright. Many of us, instead, feel that copyright needs to be reformed, not abolished:

1. Limit copyright to reasonable terms and re-establish the tradition of a rich public domain. Copyrights last live longer than most people do constitute a fencing-in of our common culture and do not stimulate creativity, and in fact subvert the original social contract governing copyright.
2. Legalize non-commercial distribution of audiovisual works. It is unreasonable to ban a practice that the population overwhelmingly favors in order to enrich a few industry moguls. Banning noncommercial reproduction of these works does little to engender creativity and much to create animosity between the content industry and the consumer, which leads to the pathetic sight of an association of dying companies suing its own customers. Artists like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have demonstrated that the patronage model works well for music. Despite record levels of film piracy, both the quality and revenue in the film industry are near their historic peaks. Legalizing non-commercial sharing would merely acknowledge a right the public has already asserted. Morality should influence law, not vice versa.
3. Repeal draconian enforcement laws. Bringing a camera anywhere, much less a movie theater, should not be a criminal offense, much less a felony. Copyright infringement is an economic crime and should have economic penalties.
4. Copyrights should require periodic renewal. It is appalling that a works can be kept out of public sight for the better part of a century on the faint hope that a corporation might someday squeeze a little more juice from the turnip. Idle, unexploited works belong in the public domain: the current owners have demonstrated in inability to further develop these works, and the public deserves a chance. A periodic copyright renewal fee would ensure that only works that merit the full term of copyright retain it.

These changes will maintain the spirit and essential utility of copyright law while curbing the abuses of the past half-century. Reform will restore copyright to the status of a fair social contract that rewards creativity without smothering it.

Re:False dichotomy

[Kidbro]

The problem with supporting the Pirate Bay is that...

Some people (I won't use the term most even though I believe it to be true) don't really believe that the TPB people are innocent and should go entirely free. They do however believe that the sentences were outrageous, way out of proportion for their crime, and that the trial was a farce.

Arguing that shop lifting isn't a capital offense is not "supporting shop lifters" either...

Re:Is Slashdot for or against copyright today?

[Darkness404]

Um, most /.ers would be for a 10 year copyright with mandatory registration, decriminalization of personal file sharing, and clauses that allow non-commercial use of a product if it is abandoned. Most /.ers oppose criminalization of personal file sharing, long copyright such as the totally ridiculous life + 70 years, the ability for things to be lost when they are abandoned and oppose unreasonable penalties for infringement (such as only $50 or $100 a song, not $80000). You only need to look at a story where for-profit infringement to take place to see the majority condemns their actions.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[Dare nMc]

This case was about what responsibility TPB has relating to how their service was used to break copyright law, specifically Videos. So it seams very important what the Judges opinion is of the role of copyright law in protecting large content owners. Obviously a judge who showed interest in supporting a expansion of copyright law would have more interest in setting this precedent. His interest in the manner would not have been so worrying in the case of determining actual infringement, this case was more about how far that law should extend. Infringement seams clear cut in this case, just not who can be held responsible for the infringement.

Re:New Definition of Human Rights

[twidarkling]

They were found guilty of assisting in making copyrighted materials available.

Except as swedish law was *always* applied before, you had to actually charge the people who *made* the materials available. You were not allowed to charge just the accessories. Thus, the charges and subsequent conviction push the law past where it was allowed to previously apply.

Re:The GPL relies on copyright law

[init100]

So why are Slashdotters constantly opposed to copyright and in favor of piracy except in GPL violation articles?

Are you too boneheaded to understand that Slashdotters may not all think in the same way? That one subset of Slashdotters may support piracy, and another subset may support the GPL. It's a pretty simple concept actually, I'm surprised that you don't understand it, unless you are a troll of course.