Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Who Ordered Pirate Bay Censorship Found To Be Corrupt

Posted by Soulskill on from the conflict-of-interest dept.

TheGift73 writes "TorrentFreak reports that 'This week yet another court order was handed down in Europe with the aim of censoring The Pirate Bay. The ruling forbids the Dutch Pirate Party from not only running a direct proxy, but also telling people how to circumvent an earlier court ordered blockade. However, according to Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, the judge in the case has a history of corruption relating to another file-sharing case he presided over in the Netherlands. The Court of The Hague in the Netherlands has been particularly busy this work with Pirate Bay-related cases.' Falkvinge wrote, '... not only was the plaintiff and judge personally and closely acquainted, the plaintiff in a controversial copyright monopoly case was running a commercial anti-piracy outfit together with the judge in the case. Money was involved. Commercial interest was involved. The judge was, as it appears from this brochure for the quite expensive course, getting money. Shortly after the case. In a directly related matter together with the plaintiff. That makes the judge not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt.'"

16 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why was the judge allowed to continue being a judge after being found corrupt? Judges, like police, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not given a free pass because of their status.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because no legal body found him to be corrupt. These are accusations being made.

    2. Re:Why? by longk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The argument seems to be that "we prefer knowledgable judges over unknowledgeable ones and that being 'involved' in the industry is simply the best way to become and/or stay knowledgable". BS, IMHO.

    3. Re:Why? by xelah · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption...'having a financial interest in the outcome', although clearly not acceptable for a judge in a case, is not the same as 'accepting an offer of money in exchange for not carrying out your duties properly'. And, as one of the links says, '“It’s not just any course they do together, it’s part of the Dutch bar association’s official training program for lawyers.”'. Corruption? Really? The only question the article appears to raise is the level of personal connection between plaintiff and judge, and even then it's rabid enough to be hard to take seriously.

    4. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption...'having a financial interest in the outcome', although clearly not acceptable for a judge in a case, is not the same as 'accepting an offer of money in exchange for not carrying out your duties properly'.

      Theoretically, the financial interest that the Judge had would be harmed by his decision, since killing the Pirate Bay would reduce the need for whatever he and his (theoretical) partner were (theoretically) selling.

      Which doesn't suggest all that much corruption - "wow, he hurt his own business interest, he must be evil!!".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Why? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption.

      The summary is not clear, but the critical part of the article is that the judge and the plaintiff were running a commercial enterprise together, one that had a direct bearing on the subject matter of the case. I don't know about the Netherlands, but I think that the legal systems of most western nations would require a judge with such a close tie to the plaintiff to recuse himself.

      This many not be corrupt behavior, but it would normally be improper.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Why? by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when the shooter turns out to be the judge's brother that is OK with you? That is what this case is sounding like. When you have financial interests in the outcome and refuse to recuse yourself from the case, it leads to the appearance of corruptness which is something we can't have in the judicial system. There are strict judicial guidelines (at least in the US) mandating judicial behavior. If a judge can't follow them, they need to feel the full weight of the law.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    7. Re:Why? by Sancho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a common excuse. It worked for the Catholic Church, too. "We don't have enough Priests, so instead of excommunicating the ones who diddle little kids, we'll just move them to a new parish."

  2. Court Orders Are Too Subtle by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man, it's a good thing these Dutch guys aren't in the US, or else the FBI would storm their houses with swat teams under charges of conspiring with file sharers.

    ---

    But then again, nothing says America like a getting bent over and fucked by an agency with your tax dollars.

  3. Vacate? by Aesculapius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this give the Dutch Pirate Party reasonable grounds to vacate the decision? (IANAL)

    --
    -A
  4. You think? by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who is willing to clamp down harshly on basic human freedoms has to be either corrupt or criminally insane. Either way they oughta be either in jail or in the Arkham asylum.

    1. Re:You think? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno, Arkham Asylum has notoriously horrible security. Pretty much any other such facility would be better.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  5. To be fair by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The story would have been more aptly named
    "Rick Falkvinge believes judge to be corrupt".

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  6. hang em all by cheekyboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Really, if every one pirates and downloads and copies and smokes pot at the same time, is it really so bad?

    Lets cut the wages of these old gay fuckers back to $50k, and see how they do then.

    Fight the power, protest, disobey, total chaos, and anarchy, screw ya all.

    We the young people do what we like, STFU old people, it was the old peoples fault that we had WW1 and WW2, so thats proof enough that old people should never rule any countries or systems.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  7. You fail at logic by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By your logic, since a restaurant is in the business of selling food, if it actually sold any food, it would reduce the demand for food and be hurting its own business.

    In general, if you try to sell something, people want to see you can deliver. This is especially true in the anti-piracy business where there are a lot of shouters who claim they can protect your stuff but none that are able to deliver. thepiratebay.se is proof of that.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:You fail at logic by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also by that logic, internet providers who offer "unlimited bandwidth" would best serve their interests by never... actually ... delivering... oh.