I'm not surprised; the sentences received by the defendants in the trial suggested a slight whiff of rodent in the air.

Having lived here in Sweden for nearly two decades I wouldn't go along with the tired old story that Sweden doesn't have corruption; here it wears a three piece suit and belongs to various industry and political groups as well as serving on several boards of directors.

As for many other developed countries I guess; just don't try bribing a traffic officer here to get let off that speeding ticket.

"However, Norström insisted to the radio station that his membership of the various copyright protection groups did not “constitute a conflict of interest”."

He's right, it wouldn't unless the case was about making available copyrigthed materia,....

oh wait.

What I find amusing is that the cartels surely thought that by gaining a victory that TPB would close down. All they want is for the site to be unavailable for as long as it takes to go to appeal and beyond. Unfortunately for them the site continues to operate regardless due to it's mirroring and thus proves how the cartels haven't a clue how it really works.

Anyhow I and meny others knew there was something bogus about the trial result. The prosecutions claims were flimsy at best so there is no way this was not a biased decision.

I hope no judges acting on burglary cases belong to a Neighbourhood watch organisation.

The judge belongs to a group that opposes criminality? Clearly biased then.

Looking at the membership, this looks like a straight copyright lobby group. WTF was a judge thinking, joining such a group?

So did he judge this case on the merits of the law, or on the merits of how this lobby group wishes the law was? Because PirateBay do not infringe copyright and they are no more guilty than the ISP that provides the cable.

AB Svensk Film Industry

ALIS LEGALISTIC

Bonus Presskopia Bonus Press Cc

BUS BUS

Fackförbundet för scen och media The union for stage and media

Föreningen Svenska Tecknare Föreningen Svenska Artistic

Föreningen Svenskt Näringsliv Association of Swedish Enterprise

IFPI IFPI

KLYS/Copyswede Hawse pipes / Copy Swede

Konstnärernas Riksorganisation, KRO Artists Riksorganisation, KRO

Microsoft AB Microsoft AB

SAMI SAMI

SIF SIF

SKAP CREATE

STIM STIM

Zacco Sweden AB Zacco Sweden AB

Svenska Fotografers Förbund Swedish Shooting Association

Svenska Förläggareföreningen Swedish Förläggareföreningen

Journalisterna i Sverige AB Journalists in Sweden AB

Svenska Musikerförbundet Swedish Federation of Musicians

Svenska Musikförläggareföreningen Swedish Music Förläggareföreningen

Sveriges Författarförbund Swedish Authors Association

Sveriges Radio Sveriges Radio

Sveriges Television AB Sveriges Television AB

Svensk Scenkonst Swedish Performing arts

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Filmproducenternas Rättighetsförening Film Producers' Rights Association

I wonder if the judge knew about the lay judges dismissal? It's almost certain that he did. That makes this look even worse for him.

There's a principle that it isn't enough for a judge to be unbiased, he must have a appearance of unbiased too. Any suspicion of bias is enough to set him aside, doesnt matter if he is biased, mere appearance of bias is enough.

If a judge, after knowing a a lay judge has been set aside for reasons that could apply to deciding judge too, still stays on the case makes him look corrupt. If he didn't have a motive to stay on case he would have standed aside for another judge.

Regardless of the supposed right or wrong doing's of the pirate bay guys, having any judge that has proven connections to groups with obvious vested interest in a guilty verdict is clearly unacceptable and as such should result in a mistrial.

The very fact that another judge was pulled from the trial for similar connections for just this reason's is even more worrying because look at who they replaced him with? And worse still the current judge claim's it cant be a conflict of interest's when even a 5 year old can see there could be very very strong conflict's here.

do swedish judges not have to legally declare any interest in the case they are handling then? even if it can be shown there is no conflict, surely they must still announce it.

or am i one of those fools who thinks the government should be seen to be doing the righ things??

Doesn't Sweden publish everyone's tax returns on the web?

So we could go take a look...

Throughout the trial the prosecution - the Judge's great mates we now know - were allowed to get away with producing surprise evidence, in breach of Swedish regulations of disclosure. That alone should have been enough for a mistrial. Then unbelievably harsh sentences on the ridiculous lesser charge of facilitating access - which is no more than Google does. Now we know why. Let's hope the utterly corrupt Moderate Party get a good kicking in the next election.

There's no way in hell a guilty verdict would've been chosen if the judge was in any way unbiased, not because The Pirate Bay was inherently in the right, but because the prosecution outright failed to prove their case and you can't have a guilty verdict when the prosecution failed to actually prove any wrong doing.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that was that the judge was either incompetent, or corrupt. Apparently it's the latter.

Regardless of your viewpoint pro or con, that certainly was somewhere far south of careless.

FAIL

No but it would be like a judge judging A trial of his own house getting burgled !!

"The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that was that the judge was either incompetent, or corrupt. Apparently it's the latter."

Given how easily he was found out, I'd say it's both.

As someone who has actually read the judgment and the reasoning for why the verdict was given, it was completely fair. It was based on a legal precident set several decades ago where someone can be found guilty for assisting a crime - in the case that set a precident, it was someone who was found guilty of aiding a person to commit a crime by holding their coat.

Their defence would have to be that they did not know what the site was being used for nor were they in a position of responsibility at any level - both of those they cannot use due to their positions and the notices they received from copyright holders.

>> I hope no judges acting on burglary cases belong to a Neighbourhood watch organisation.

>> The judge belongs to a group that opposes criminality? Clearly biased then.

I can see where you are coming from, however Neighbourhood Watch aren't a lobbing organisation. Belonging to a group that opposes criminality is one thing; but a judge belonging to a group who want to change the law, that is another thing. Consider the fact that judge are able to set (case) law with very little oversight. In the UK at least, legislation is only a guideline, it's up to the judges how they interpret it. IMHO judges should be like royalty, they shouldn't be allowed opinions on anything - much less be allowed to express an opinion (explicitly or through membership of a group).

I am sure this is a longer term thing than that. Seriously I doubt very much whether the relevant Ass.s believe that prosecuting those behind the Pirate Bay will even shut down the Pirate Bay, let alone stop music/film/software piracy.

However, they will know that if enough people are fined and imprisoned then it *will* stop, or at least become negligible. And you have to start somewhere.

But, let's look at the global picture, because laws and made and enforced according to the requirements of politicians at the time. Politicians have four main worries (all related to re-election and power): funding, popularity within party, popularity with voters and not appearing corrupt.

Funding is mainly at the whim of big business, so politicians will lean towards supporting the music/film/software industries anyway. Most politicians won't pirate stuff so no worries about legality and popularity within party will depend on how the rest of the party thinks.

So the main factor in all of this is what the public want. And hard as it is for the Pirate Bay supporters to accept the majority of voters in the West at least think that illegal downloading of stuff is wrong, and interestingly enough most also equate P2P with illegal downloading.

So, whatever happens with the Pirate Bay in the near future, laws will change and, as can be seen here as a good example, the majority of those opposing any crackdown will come across as a bunch of whiney children who think it is their right to steal stuff because "it is overpriced" or "the artists get stiffed by the record companies" or "boo-hoo I can't now get shit for free that I should never have been able to get for free".

Which will just make the voters more convinced that P2P is simply there to enable theft.

Which will make it more difficult for the grown-ups to argue against surveillance, deep packet inspection, possible mandatory government spyware (has already been mooted in some circles) and other nasty things like that.

did you not real all the responces to the previous ac

sara is there some way you can make pepol tick a box that says "I sware under pain of death that I have read the preceding article in full and understood and all the comments that proceed mine"?