Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 16:40 UTC
Legal 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.
Thread beginning with comment 370276
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Jun 2009 17:39 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...all of these Judges, lawyers, attorneys belong to a variety of organizations relating to law.

I never saw a problem with this Judge's professional associations - and there would be very few legal entities familiar with the topic that would NOT belong to such organizations.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I said as much...
by alexandru_lz on Thu 25th Jun 2009 20:58 in reply to "I said as much..."
alexandru_lz 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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:51 in reply to "RE: I said as much..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's verdict regarding the sharing... I am just saying I knew the Judge would not be removed and the verdict dismissed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I said as much...
by uytvbn on Fri 26th Jun 2009 08:12 in reply to "I said as much..."
uytvbn Member since:
2009-06-25

I beg to differ. There are other organizations dealing with similar issues, but from a different perspective, eg. EFF Europe, so I think his choice is significant.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Fri 26th Jun 2009 15:21 in reply to "RE: I said as much..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand what you are saying, his choice of which groups to associate with has meaning as to his thoughts about a given topic.

Is that the ONLY related organization he belonged to or supported?

My point was, however, would you be able to find a judge familiar with the type of case being tried who does not belong to one organization or another?

Reply Parent Score: 2