Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Defendant Aims For Sweden's Supreme Court
justice4all writes with this news from eWeek Europe:"One of the defendants in the Pirate Bay trial says he will take his appeal bid to the Supreme Court in Sweden. One of the defendants of the Pirate Bay trial, the Swedish tech magnate Carl Lundstrom, has confirmed he will appeal the sentence imposed by a Swedish appeal court, by taking his case to Sweden's Supreme Court. Lundstrom, along with his three co-defendants – Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, and Fredrik Neij – were found guilty of being accessories to copyright violations by a Swedish court back in April 2009. The copyright test case against The Pirate Bay was brought by the Swedish subsidiaries of leading music and film companies, including Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Brothers."
Yes.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Despite the fact that a Swedish court ordered an ISP to shut down service to The Pirate Bay in August last year, the website continues to function. The website is now apparently registered in the Seychelles.
It should be pointed out that Pirate Bay does not host copyrighted material itself, but instead links to a number of torrents elsewhere on the Internet.
These two paragraphs alone highlight the futility of the recording industry's crusade against piracy. I bet it's lawyers who love to hate piracy more than anybody else.
The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.
If hearing a song without the proper license to do so gives a corporation the right to take someone's liberty and pursuit of happiness, this is a crappy set of laws to live under.
No, no. They only make them up as they go along if people with money wish them to do so or it's in their best interest.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If we read the story on /. then follow a link to the article, and floow a link to Pirate Bay then are we are all "accessories to copyright infringement?"
Or just Some Dude in an office so they can attempt to take down TPB. I Swear it's almost like The **AA's seem to have little dick syndrome with all their actions.
You mean, as opposed to your (US/UK) common law system where laws are made up by judges as they go along?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
for the days when Sony was cool with personal copying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax_case
Theft is not copyright inringement! Wait... What!?
They're the same system. Seems like the US makes up their laws as they go along, and the US makes up Sweden's laws as they go along.
Not like I can talk though, as an Australian.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Laws aren't made in court, in US, they are interpreted. The difference is very subtle and often judges do make laws inadvertently.
So what you're saying is that laws are made up by judges as they go along.
From the link in TFA: “The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” said the statement from the Stockholm district Court.
Either Sweden has very weird laws or very bad translators. There was no mention of any conviction of breaching copyright laws. How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Secrecy and individual monopoly are out, openness and communal glory are in!
Well , i hope they win.
Slipping shoelaces ?
At one time they were a ferocious tribe warriors that took sh!t from no one, who invaded and terrorised Britain, France and much of the rest of Europe.
Lately however they have become pussies... they were Hitler's bitch, and then England's bitch, and now they are USA's bitch.
So I ask you, O' sons and daughters of Vikings... what happened?
I also like this part of the song ( AC for obvious copyright related reasons ) :
"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them "
The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.
It seems to be mighty important to the pirate.
Because that is where he is spending his time - if not his money.
The corporation does not exist independent of its investors, employeees or its customers. Their pusuit of liberty and happiness.
The geek fan fick in 2011 will most likely be based on the 45 year old Star Trek: TOS It seems to take a Pixar to produce something as good - as original - as The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E.
I was thinking more along the lines of enacting law via treaty - e.g. ACTA
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If there is no reason to ever interpret a law, we could instantly throw out all judges. Because every trial would already be decided because for every possible incident there would be a law. Our law books would be heaps more heavy, but we'd cover every possible inch of our life with a law.
There are certain cases that are simply clean cut. Most are not. Killing should be punished. In the same way in all cases? Is there no difference between premediated, plotted and planned killing to get someone's money and killing because he insulted you and you pushed him over a cliff, not thinking in that moment that this will kill the person? Is there a difference between stealing because you prefer stealing to working and stealing because you need money NOW to pay for the life saving surgery of your child and nobody wanted to give you any?
Laws exist because we do not want people to do certain things. Judges exist because people still do them, and it should (and, at least in our law, does) matter WHY they did it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Who said you may ask? Do as you're told! If it's not to our liking, we'll tell you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They claim to have one of the most advanced legal codes in the world ... just about anything can be a crime there.
Yes? So what's wrong about this statement? Have you been off the planet in the past decade? I bet the US would love to have such 'advanced' laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And when the Swedish supreme court upholds his conviction, suddenly he'll claim they have no jurisdiction.
He's only interested in the courts while he thinks that he can win. As soon as he wakes up to that the law is not written by blog posts about how he imagines copyright ought to work, he'll go back to insisting that the courts are worthless.
The problem with warezers is that their belief systems shift to change their desires.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Agreed - ideally what we'd have is better education of judges deliberating on specific topics and some system of protecting said judges from outside influence which might... sway their decision. Nevertheless, having a judge interpret law is the only workable system we've found so far for laws of any kind of complexity (and for laws that are not complex judges generally have little room for movement, they're meant to apply the law as it is written where it's clear and only "create" law where there is confusion). It's never reported on sites like this but I have read plenty of cases where shrewd judges have overturned unjust laws through a constructive reading/application of vague wording. Plenty of judges are clued up and actually do believe in an equitable system, it's the few who are either not knowledgable on the subject they're deciding or are open to corruption who spoil the system - if we could address those two situations the system we have would be as close to perfect as we're likely to get (the system for making the laws in the first place is another matter, of course...)
I'd go further and declare that copyright is a crime against humanity.
A war against culture is in the long run more harmful than a war against lives.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Where you said 'killing' I suspect you meant 'murder'. Because there are certainly many cases where killing should not be punished.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It is if you wear the hat, the eye patch, and carry a parrot while you do it.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Most US federal case law (judicial decisions) is rather negative on the existence of any US federal common law (judge-made law, as opposed to judicial application of written law to specific facts.)
OTOH, most US jurisdictions accepted the common law as it existed at the time of the formation of that jurisdiction (there are exceptions, particularly in Louisiana, whose legal system derives from the French civil law system rather than the British common law system), though even the common law jurisdictions have generally shrunk the domain of the common law greatly by superceding it by written constitutions and/or statute law.
The bigger difference, I think, is between the US on the one hand with its Constitution which is binding on the government and applied by the courts, vs. systems like the UK and, I think, Sweden which feature parliamentary soveriegnty; in the US system, an act of Congress may be "struck down" by the Courts because it conflicts with the Constitution, whereas in a system featuring parliamentary soveriegnty this is not the case, the defense of the fundamental order of government and liberty rests in the election of a national legislature that will not
violate that order.
It is not a war against culture but rather a war for the control of it.
Also, defining the right not to pay for entertainment as a core "human right" just makes a mockery of the entire concept.
I'm not saying that downloading for free is a human right. I'm just saying that people shouldn't have their human rights deprived if they didn't obtain a proper license for a movie.
C-a-r-l L-u-n-d-s-t-r-&-o-u-m-l-;-m
Vat vod jo fink if svids ståppt ljusing inglish spälling in inglish.
[What would you think if Swedes stopped using English spelling in English.]
I quite like the UK common law system; if a judge makes a stupid ruling it can be corrected by a senior judge and the junior judge ends up looking silly. If some "made up law" makes it all the way past the High Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court and both European Courts it can't be all *that* bad. Plus, via lawyers if needed (as expensive and useless as they can be), the individual citizen can directly influence the judicial process.
If a politician makes a stupid law, it ends up stuck on the statute books until another politician can be bothered to remove it. And the law has to be really, really stupid for it to bring down governments/politicians; most people don't know what the law is anyway so don't care if a stupid one is passed (and even if some do, they are rarely localised enough to influence elections - kept a safe distance of 4-5 years apart to help us all forget).
I much prefer a system whereby politicians decide on the general policy and put in place a wide range of non-specific laws, leaving the judiciary to fill in the gaps and apply it - after all, parliamentary draftspeople can't cover ever situation when they write the laws, but the judge should have the specific details before them. Sadly politicians hate anything that might take some or all of their power away so seem intent on limiting the ability of judges to actually make decisions and instead leave them to just applying their increasingly convoluted laws and guidelines.
"Laws shouldn't HAVE to be interpreted, EVER."
Either you failed high school civics, or high school civics failed you.
Irony. We has it.
While I understand the word advanced can be interpreted many ways, it's hard for me to reconcile what I know about the laws there with my concepts of individual responsibility.
The more things that are illegal, the less free someone is. The less well defined a set of laws is, the more things can potentially be illegal. Thus, in a very roundabout way, the more ambiguous the law is, the less free you are.
Now, if your idea of an advanced set of laws is that more activities are classified as illegal, Sweden definitely has that, along with everything else that comes with it.