Cofounder of the Pirate Bay Gottfrid Svartholm has had his court sentence confirmed after he failed to show up for a court hearing. Now all the court has to do is find him. Svartholm had a limited time to appeal his 2009 sentence of a year in prison and $4.4 million in damages. The other founders - Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and …
"It all depends on who’s paying the judges.”
Yea verily. The Swedish legal establishment is rotten to the core. No yacht-hosted dinners required.
Up with this sort of thing!
Indeed, if he's too ill to attend court then the procedure is that he needs to provide medical evidence. I'm sure he can find a doctor in Cambodia, or where ever he may be, to write him a sick note.
As in everything else in the case the defendants have shown not so much arrogance as immaturity.
"“This is actually a really bizarre step from the Swedish court – he’s found guilty because he can’t defend himself,” Sunde told TorrentFreak. “Way to go, democracy. It will be interesting to see how they will actually try to find him and put him into jail. If he’s not alive – will they put his gravestone into a jail cell for a year?”"
My brain hurts from that statement. I thought it was a pretty well known fact that if your dead you still have to work off your debt to the RIAssA so that the starving artists can buy their gold plated Ferraris and gold plated dinner tables.
The type of work does vary though I'm sure. Just prop up his stiff corpse pointing in a direction and you can have him as a host for any other sad sorry individuals who get nailed for music piracy. This way they will know where the payment drop off area is located so they can pay their fines.
Ahem.....Starving Artists > Record Executives (and by extension their Lobbyists and paid-for Politicians).
A few years in the slammer should help...
...change their distorted view of reality.
"he’s found guilty because he can’t defend himself” “Way to go, democracy"
Stop treating the web like your own little playpen and try growing up.
"It all depends on who’s paying the judges.”
That'll win sympathy from the appeals court. NOT.
Funny how it's always the losers in a process who squeal about corruption...
Wow. Someone awaiting sentencing for a conviction that carries jail time is allowed to leave the country to go to Cambodia? I knew the Swedish justice system was lenient, but that's bizarre.
Well, in Norway, people can actually get leave from prison. I have been told of people who have been on overseas holiday from prison, unbelievably, and there have been famous cases of people who have had unsupervised leave, albeit for more concrete, family-related reasons, who have been arrested for armed robbery while serving a sentence for, erm, the same crime.
Yes, I know!
" "This is actually a really bizarre step from the Swedish court – he’s found guilty because he can’t defend himself,” Sunde told TorrentFreak. "
"can't defend himself" - you mean he's buggered off to evade the consequences of his actions; he dare not appear in court and account for himself / argue his case. Nothing bizarre at all, you can't expect the justice system to let you off because you abscond.
Could this be the Swedish guy I met on the beach in Sihanoukville a while back who had allegedly sold his passport?
Everybody thought he must have been a bit crazy, but now it begins to make some sense.
Must confess that I might have accessed tpb from there (pics or it didn't happen), maybe the man is going to get to me now.
Look for the best combination of fast internet, moderate living costs, and no extradition treaty, and you might find him there.
He should have plead Alzheimer's disease, get a light sentence in an open prison and undergo a miracle recovery sometime later. For that extra touch of class, use the Human Rights Act to try to reverse the sentence.
The only catch - you have to be rich / well-connected for this to work.
I still say that Ernest Saunders should be vivesected to find out how he recovered - for the greater good!
Last I heard
He arrived in the UK, claimed asylum using the Human Rights Act. He has been given a house in Widnes and benefits.
The Daily Mails is that way ===>
I'd have taken whatever the courts could throw at me rather than live in Widnes !
I'm from Widnes before any of the other residents complain about the above post. There is a reason for the gag "My girlfriend asked me to kiss her where it smells......so I took her to Widnes!
You can run...
...but not forever. Sooner or sooner you will be caught and punished for your crimes.
No, it's hyperbole.
Easy to get them mixed up though, I guess.
What's always puzzled me about these geeks is there insistence that the law is what they think it is, not what the courts think it is. The law is what the courts decide by interpreting legislation and previous cases, but these idiots think they can convince the courts that their own very limited interpretation is more significant.
And when they can't they run away and shout from a distance. The curious thing is that they expect the majority to view the law the same way. They also think that if the majority take the same view this will somehow influence the courts.
is no longer legitmte and only a puppet of the most dangerous terrorist organisation in the know universe
I wonder if they'll start accusing themselves of paying off judges if any of them actually get off?
It seems to be the default comment about/of anyone found guilty of copyright related crimes. I can't imagine anyone getting caught for shoplifting accusing Tesco and their supermarket buddies of paying off the judge.
I see no reason why they should go to prison, but when they say things like that, they really do come across as dumber than a bag of hammers.
That's just your bog standard arrogant nerd, the kind of person who waits to be likened to Dr. House. There's a few on these forums...
Law is optionally enforced.
The real issue here is not whether they have broken the law or not, but the haphazard enforcement of the law. In the UK, it has been illegal to copy music or films for ANY reason for a long time. Copying music onto an iPod was illegal. Unfortunately, because this would have got in the way of the music industry, everybody declined to enforce this law. It didn't matter if you'd purchased the music or not, just changing it from how you purchased it was the offence. Copying under any guise. So, what's the difference between copying music you've purchased onto an iPod and 'copying' music from the internet? Morally, a whole lot. However, as far as the laws concerned, it's just the same and both are illegal.
How then, can one be prosecuted, whilst the other isn't? You either enforce the law or you don't. You can't pick and choose when to enforce and when not to. That simply means the law is up for purchase, whether due to someones power, wealth or whatever; normally both.
Also, there are various laws in this country about running cartels, closed business practices etc.etc. IBM was a very famous company that fell foul of just this sort of law in the States some decades ago now. Don't try telling me the music and film industry aren't guilty in exactly the same way, so why aren't they being taken to task? They change medium from record and tape to CD and the price goes up, even though the production cost is less!! They change from VHS to DVD, the same!! It's blatant profiteering and there are laws against that. So, yet again, the powerful and wealthy buy the laws they want and when they want them enforced.
Now, a very powerful medium (computers) has been put in the hands of the victims and it would be unrealistic to expect them not to use it. Not matter what happens, the film and music industries can never put the genie back in the bottle, not matter how hard they try. They will loose......eventually. It's just how much pain and suffering that occurs in the meantime.
I don't concur with what TPB did, but when the law is so blatantly enforced in a one way manner, what else are people to do? Ernest Saunders even managed to perform what medical science believes is a miracle and yet they didn't seek to reimprison him. Why not? The justice system (stupid name given how it works) hounds people forever for a purely financial loss and yet people who have caused untold deaths through lies (step forward Tony Blair) get clean away with it...........
Not how law works
"How then, can one be prosecuted, whilst the other isn't? You either enforce the law or you don't. You can't pick and choose when to enforce and when not to. That simply means the law is up for purchase, whether due to someones power, wealth or whatever; normally both."
Copyright infringement can only be an offence if the copyright holder wishes to enforce their rights. So if they're happy for you to copy the music to iPod, then you're fine. It is within their rights to allow you to do anything they're happy with.
As it happens for years they wanted that to be prohibited, but it was soon obvious that it wouldn't be worth their time, effort and money to go after consumers for something so trivial. Wide-scale distribution of pirated material, on the other hand, is something they can effectively prosecute.
Law is what you pay for
The idea of the law being some kind of absolute arbiter of good and evil is a nice concept but isn't how real life works. Law is a mutable, flexible, thing and what you get is pretty much dependent on what you pay for.
I'm still not clear what the Pirate Bay are guilty of (apart from having a cheeky name) and its not clear to me how they could have caused millions of dollars in losses (since there's been no sudden jump in publishing profits since they were closed down). I figure they're getting screwed over "just because" -- they offended the Law of Property and as a principle they need to be slapped down -- hard -- 'pour encourager les autres'.
(The Law of Property says something to the effect that everything that exists is owned by somebody (else) and if you're not paying rent then you're a criminal....or worse...)