Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 16:40 UTC
Back in April after the four involved in the Pirate Bay scuffle were declared guilty of helping to break copyright law, the judge who gave the verdict, Thomas Norstrom, was found to probably be biased due to his involvement in several pro-copyright groups. After a long, cold, hard bout of deliberation, the Swedish Court of Appeals has actually found Norstrom unbiased, something rather surprising. This means that the charges against the guilty still stand.
Permalink for comment 370313
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-02-11
And how can you be so sure that the verdict was based on the actual interpretation of the law and not on the interest of the organization he was part of?
As far as I understood, those organizations were not law-related as in "promoting law and equity", but rather as in protecting the interests of large distributors against consumers via legal means.
Edit: as jabote pointed out, the question is quite likely not to be based on the validity of the verdict itself. After all, helping people distribute illegal content should morally classify as an offense (and don't give me the "legitimate use for sharing open source content" excuse -- I think that makes like 1% of TPB). However, the fine is just too unbelievably high for anyone without heavy mental disturbances (i.e. not having studied Law), and what's funniest about it is that the people who actually committed the offense of sharing the copyrighted files did not actually get punished. I assume I'm not the only one who sees something wrong in this.
Edited 2009-06-25 21:02 UTC