Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th May 2009 12:06 UTC
Legal Mid-April, the four founders of The Pirate Bay were found guilty of being accessories to breaching copyright law; they aided in breaching copyright of 33 files. As a result, they were sentenced to one year in jail and a 2.75 million EUR fine. However, it was quickly revealed that the judge in the case was heavily biased, and ever since then there's been a search for a judge who is actually not involved with any pro-copyright groups or with the lawyers working for the entertainment industry in this case. Turns out that's actually kind of hard.
Order by: Score:
Simply amazing
by ssa2204 on Sun 24th May 2009 12:39 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

This is the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a country the size of that island in Lost. Does Sweden only have just a couple of judges, and were the other two out to lunch when they needed a judge?

No matter what side of the argument, I find nothing more displeasing to see such monkey business happen in the judicial system. Judges should not be members of such groups, and more importanly if they must, they should recuse themselves.

We have had several high profile court cases here in Minnesota, one of which is the ongoing Senate recount debacle, and in each case we have had judges step up to the plate and recuse themselves, or in a few cases appointed retired judges to fill the role. I can not believe that in all of Sweden they could not find one judge who is not tainted.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Simply amazing
by dagw on Sun 24th May 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "Simply amazing"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not just finding a judge, it's finding a judge with right background. This type of copyright law is a fairly narrow field and most judges have little or no experience in it.

Of course the judges that do have experience in it are also probably interested enough in it have joined professional bodies related to that field. I guess it's hard to find someone with a lot of experience and interest in a field, but without any memberships or ties to organizations that share an interest in said field.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Simply amazing
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 24th May 2009 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Simply amazing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They are actually trying to find a judge now who does NOT have any experience in this field, since this judge won't be handling the case itself, but merely the question of biasedness.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Simply amazing
by Vanders on Sun 24th May 2009 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Simply amazing"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course the judges that do have experience in it are also probably interested enough in it have joined professional bodies related to that field.


Of course it should be fair to say that judges and other officers of the court (I.e. lawyers) should be banned from joining any professional bodies or political parties.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Simply amazing
by dagw on Sun 24th May 2009 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Simply amazing"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course it should be fair to say that judges and other officers of the court (I.e. lawyers) should be banned from joining any professional bodies or political parties

So lawyers and judges should not be allowed to get together with other lawyers and judges to talk about the latest developments in their field? Isolation from your peers is harmful to both your professional development and by extension the development of the field, no matter what the area.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Simply amazing
by Vanders on Mon 25th May 2009 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Simply amazing"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

So lawyers and judges should not be allowed to get together with other lawyers and judges to talk about the latest developments in their field?


As a function of their job, sure. We would call that "Job training" in most fields. It has to be an "All or none" proposition, though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Simply amazing
by dagw on Mon 25th May 2009 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Simply amazing"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

We would call that "Job training" in most fields

No there is far more to it than that. Most people I know in professional fields are members of organizations connected to that field. They attend workshops and confrences where they present research and are involved in various research centers and similar initiatives. they sit on standard committees, edit and publish journals, books and whitepapers and countless other activites where professionals from across the field get togethere and work to advance their field. Non of these activities are really "job training" and all are very important.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Simply amazing
by Doc Pain on Sun 24th May 2009 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Simply amazing"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Of course it should be fair to say that judges and other officers of the court (I.e. lawyers) should be banned from joining any professional bodies or political parties.


As soon as it causes conflicts with their work as judges - YES, but in general, NO.

If I would apply such a requirement to Germany, there would be almost no politicians left: Most of the members of our parliament and many ministers are lawyers (and most of these even work as lawyers in parallel to their work as politicians). But hey, maybe it would be better for our country if "ordinary" people would rule it, instead of ... greedy persons with no relationship towards honesty and counscious (and even the law).

To get back on topic: A judge with no involvement into copyright topics could be a good solution, because there can't be conflicts from his ruling to, maybe, his "job next to this one". He would be able to make statements out of an educated standpoint and a healthy thinking, instead of fearing how his ruling could have a negative effect on his fellow's business or organisation.

A judge with experience in copyright topics could do so, too, as long, as I said, there's no interference with other interests he may stand for.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Simply amazing
by Tuishimi on Sun 24th May 2009 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Simply amazing"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

This is what I said in response to the original article/post.

If you are in the business of law, you join groups that have something to do with your specific interests. It's just what is done.

Reply Score: 2

Actuallyâ¦
by TasnuArakun on Sun 24th May 2009 13:34 UTC
TasnuArakun
Member since:
2009-05-24

Actually, Sweden is the third largest country in the EU and the fourth largest in Europe (if you don't count the ones that span multiple continents). Or were you speaking of the population size?

Edited 2009-05-24 13:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Actually�
by Bending Unit on Sun 24th May 2009 13:53 UTC in reply to "Actuallyâ¦"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, probably population size. It's not small but half the country is not that much populated. As it should be I might add.

Oh sorry previous poster, noticed that you are a fellow swede.

Reply Score: 2

Car analogy
by raboof on Sun 24th May 2009 15:10 UTC
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

So next thing... only judges that don't mind their cars being stolen will be allowed to judge car theft cases?

;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Car analogy
by adkilla on Sun 24th May 2009 15:43 UTC in reply to "Car analogy"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Maybe they should just resort to judgement by a jury?

-Ad

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Car analogy
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sun 24th May 2009 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Car analogy"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Maybe they should just resort to judgement by a jury?

-Ad


If only they would make them jury trials.

However, I think that is the last thing that the prosecuting party wants. I don't think many juries would convict (unless the person was infringing copyright for profit on an industrial scale).

Plus the copyright laws may be a bit abstract for many jurors to follow. Even more important, jury trials are relatively slow and expensive so I think they are reserved for the most important cases rather than less important disputes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Car analogy
by Karitku on Mon 25th May 2009 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Car analogy"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Yes, because clearly jurys are wise enough to find ex-footballer with solid proofs to be guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her lover. Oh, wait hang on...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Car analogy
by sbergman27 on Mon 25th May 2009 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Car analogy"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Why didn't you just say "But I don't believe that the jury got it right in the OJ Simpson case"? The meaning would have been more clear. And if "Oh, wait..." posts were ever actually funny, surely that ended sometime in the mid 1990s.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Car analogy
by looncraz on Tue 26th May 2009 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Car analogy"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

September 1998, actually. I was there.

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

RE: Car analogy
by AdamW on Sun 24th May 2009 17:11 UTC in reply to "Car analogy"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom should probably have worded the post better. It's not that they're 'pro-copyright' exactly - being in favour of a widely supported legal mechanism isn't that controversial. It's that they are or have been members of industry-based groups with enthusiastic views on the ways in which such laws should be enforced, and future ones written.

Imagine, for instance, if a judge presiding over a movie copyright infringement case in the U.S. turned out to be a member of the MPAA. That would be rather more troublesome than if the judge had, at some point in their life, said "I think the principle of copyright is a good idea".

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Car analogy
by raboof on Sun 24th May 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Car analogy"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

I understand the nuances - that ';)' wasn't there for nothing, ya'know...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Car analogy
by m_abs on Sun 24th May 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "Car analogy"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

So next thing... only judges that don't mind their cars being stolen will be allowed to judge car theft cases?

;)

No. Next will be that people accused of violating gun-laws won't get put in front of a judge who are a member of a organization trying to impose stricter gun-control laws. And after that people accused of selling drugs, won't get put in front of a judge who is a member of a organization working towards legalizing drugs.
Both cases are wrong. The judge cannot be biased towards one side or the other.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Car analogy
by blitze on Mon 25th May 2009 23:11 UTC in reply to "Car analogy"
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

I think you are confusing copy theft with stealing of property where the owner is left with nothing. Copy theft still leaves the owner with something as in the original product but just hampers the revenue stream (denial of income).

Maybe you should say maybe the judge doesn't mind having his car replicated?

Still, impartiallity in the Legal System is a requirement for freedom and democracy and in this case that had left the building with Elvis. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by dizzey
by dizzey on Sun 24th May 2009 21:07 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

The judge should try to find the fitting punishment for the crime. not the hardest possible or weakest according to law. If the judge is a member of a group which only tries to get harder punishments for copyright infringing.

i guess that judge will only think that the hardest punishment is fair, since he is actively trying to make the punishents harder by changing the law.

And yes the media industri is a good lobby organisation if the judges think that they have to join their organisations to get a better understanding of the issues. and if the only reasson they joined is to get a better understanding they should join some groups that discuss the opposite.

if you want to get closer to the truth you need to hear both parties

Reply Score: 1