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

No retrial...

[mariushm]

Just in case someone jumps to conclusions...

This just means there will be no re-trial, but the Pirate Bay still has an appeal, it doesn't mean they have to pay to fine or go to jail yet. That's still far away.

Re:No retrial...

[think_nix]

I would not be so sure. They are appealing to the EU Human Rights court thepiratebay.org which is also here echr.coe.int Also they are being asked to appear in Court in Netherlands, which the official mail got lost so they ( Brein Foundation sent tweets twitter.com inviting them to court. Oh and just for the record this waas submitted to /. earlier just some anti copyright people modded submissions down so it would not get posted.

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: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.

I can see this happening in the US

[e9th]

"Judge Bauregard P Burnside today justified his membership in the KKK saying, 'I have to keep up on current civil rights developments.'"

Re:I can see this happening in the US

[e9th]

Mom? Dad? You're both gone now, but I know can hear me, and I just want to thank you so much for giving me what I always wanted, my very own troll.

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.

This just means,

[Hurricane78]

that that court is biased too.

So someone needs to investigate on them.
Until you reach the very top of the shitpile.
Which most likely is sitting invisibly above the government. (I mean lobby groups.)

I say: Vote for the Pirate Party!

Re:clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

poetmatt:

Everyone is quoting this wrong. The only part denied was the one based off the bias.

From the Summary:

A Swedish court has ruled that the judge in the PirateBay trial is unbiased and there will be no retrial

poetmatt:

The only part denied was the one based off the bias

Summary:

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

poetmatt:

Also, they still have the appeal

Summary:

The defendants must now rely on the appeal process

Sorry, who is getting this wrong?

Your Ikea dollars hard at work

[masmullin]

This is what you get for buying Ikea.

biased bias judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the judge B (Anders Eka) deciding if judge A was biased was himself a member of a pro-copyright group. The whole thing is disgusting.

http://blog.brokep.com/2009/05/20/google-is-your-friend/

Re:clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

A tip on using space characters on computers:...But if you separate terms by it, it only makes sense, if you put spaces around the slashes.

A tip on using comma characters...

Re:clarification

[Anon1072]

I'm not sure how swedish law works

That's ok. Swedish judges aren't sure either

Re:How common is membership?

[masmullin]

more importantly... how many anti-copyright professional associations is he associated witih... if he needs to "keep current" he needs to "keep current" on both sides of the argument right?

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: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.