You don't know the half of it, some official web pages for these organizations have changed descriptions rather recently. It can all be located with google cache if you can read Swedish and where it previously said that the organizations listen pretty much exclusively to voices from pretty much all branches of the entertainment industry (read: are places for outright lobbyism) they have now been made more interest-neutral, saying that they're a forum discussing copyright issues.
Christian
· 7 months ago
This isn't just a problem about these trials. Its an issue that peermeates the entire system. Just look in the US and the kind of "special treatment" that Monsanto™ have been recieving from its moles within the FDA and supreme court. Look at all the unjust support the banks have been given lately; and all without accountability. Its called Lobbydemocracy. Significant for the Lobbydemocracy is the only thing that matters is power and influence. As long as this twisted version of an democratic society is allowed to exist. the more it will infect all parts of our freedom untill we are little more than serfs under our "new" elite. Our employers.
n00b
· 7 months ago
How is the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property "closely connected to the prosecutors in the case; i.e. the entertainment industry"?
Do you know what Industrial Property is?
Mikkel Mortensen
· 7 months ago
The makers of the Pirate Bay never did anything illegal. They only hosted a "hub" for finding .torrent files, be the contents (which are stored on the users of the torrents' machines) legal or illegal. That is no crime.
A .torrent isn't illegal in itself, and The Pirate Bay simply shouldn't be punished for what they've done if you follow Swedish law. But there is a lot of people who are biased into thinking .torrent files are simply illegal, and that's especially old folk or people who haven't had any interest in the subject.
At any rate, who's guilty would be the users of the website. They decide what's uploaded and what's downloaded, be it legal or illegal. If they want to file a lawsuit against anyone, let it be the users.
But remember one thing...
We are legion, for we are many.
Bas
· 7 months ago
Haha, what a joke this trial is. TPB is winning, even through losing.
Burre
· 7 months ago
I've heard a number of reports from local media here in Sweden saying the same thing. The defendants lawyer have raised the issue and considered filing for a mistrial. The sources to the claims, from what I've heard, seems legit. The way I see it now is that what it all boils down too is how much the court sees this as a source for bias. If the influences are as strong as the reports suggest, then my prediction is that this will lead to a retrial of the case.
Chase
· 7 months ago
Regardless of opinions about those involved in the trial - a judge is supposed to be impartial. That's the point of a judge in the present era. S/he must have no personal interest in the outcome of the trial, and if this judge is a member of an organization that directly promotes the prosecution's stance - that's a conflict of interest, whether perceived or otherwise.
No matter what the judge says - facts are facts, and if people can reasonably believe that the judge was unfairly (emphasis on "unfairly") predisposed to a given verdict, the judge must recuse him or herself from the proceedings, in the interests of a fair trial. A judge's function is to not just interpret law, but to hold such a respect for it that he or she would rather pull themselves away from a trial than to jeopardize the respect for rule of law.
I'm not going to say the judge was paid off or had an ax to grind, but if a legitimate and reasonable case can be made, then the judge had no business being involved in this trial, and justice was no upheld - EVEN IF a clearly unbiased judge would have made the same ruling.
jason
· 7 months ago
yes, facts are facts. can you prove that the judge was biased or are you speculating because of his associations? many a mafia trial was lost in this country because prosecutors went to trial with their only evidence being association. while the phrase is "guilty by association" it doesn't hold any sway in a court of law.
if it can be proven that there was communication between this organization and the judge that the verdict of the trial should go favorably for the prosecution - that's proof. just being a member of an organization doesn't mean you can't be impartial. many people in this country hold religious views that say abortion is wrong yet they go to jobs where they may have to dispense an abortion drug.
there was even an article recently about a clerk in iowa who's personal views conflicted with the state's stance on civil union for all, straight and gay, and she said that even though it was a difficult choice personally she has to put that aside and do her job. was that the case with this judge? did he put aside his personal views and act impartially? i don't know but neither do you and that's the point. so unless someone can dig up some PROOF of wrongdoing i think the legal system provides that this judge is innocent (re: innocent until proven guilty).
Zak
· 7 months ago
You bring up excellent points...only conveniently forgetting one small but overwhelming fact.
Your examples were DEFENDANTS.
This is in regards to the JUDGE.
A defendents bias is supposed to be extreme regardless of thier actual guilt or innocence.
A judges bias is supposed to be absolute neutral, completely absent of any interest in the outcome from a personal standpoint. You actually believe that when he went back to these organizations hes a member of he wasn't heralded as a king ?
You're either terribly naive of general human nature, or your personal stance lies with the verdict and you're digging up really poor arguments for defending it.
bomani2k
· 7 months ago
Proof of wrongdoing for the judge? Wow, you're a noob. The very appearance of impartiality is enough. The fact that so many people feel that there is a conflict lets you know that the 'appearance' of one is there. Having already dismissed a judge for the exact reason a reasonable person could conclude that the judges unethical actions were intentional. He states he thought it wouldn't affect his decision! It wasn't up to him NOT to tell of something which he apparently had reason to consider himself. He is duty bound to disclose it. Other judges, lawyers, clerks, business folk where aware of this and remained silent. As officers of the court they are supposed to report that ethics issue too. (even anonymously) This is a bigger issue than Pirate Bay and goes to the heart of why all potential conflicts should be disclosed since the integrity of cases, judges, lawyers, and the system as a whole can be called into question.
If the standard you attempt to use for the judge was applied for the Pirate Bay guys we wouldn't have had this trial in the first place. They had no evidence of copyright violation nor evidence of 'inducing' others to break the law. The investigation would have died for lack of evidence.
I'm an artist and I distribute mix tapes and created content FOR FREE on the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites (vuze etc). Music has been around for as long as we have existed in societies, I don't think content will disappear because the record industry has lost their way. Their money would be better spent developing a new business model or on learning how to swim in quicksand.
On Google: The fact that Google is larger so it has 'less' violating material is only stating that bigger, richer, established companies get to have torrents? Hogwash!
"When a present course is in conflict with a future on approach, companies, nations, and even species will cease to exist" -Darin Brownlee 2008
Søren Rønne Therkelsen
· 7 months ago
Unbelievable!
You should believe the "Entertainment industry" wanted a SERIOUS prosecution of our friends @ TPB. I am SICK and tired of money driven organizations who deliberately choose to use NON democratic ways of using courts, media and so forth. In a democratic world, and in a scandinavian country like Sweden, this IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. PERIOD! Judges who are connected/friends/assosiated with one part of the side in a trial. I mean, wtf???
Lets have a fair trial and look at what has actually happened. Did TPB do anything illegal in terms of Swedish laws at the time?
Is creating a channel where you can distribute "bits and bytes" really illegal. Who are to use these kind of services?
And who dares prosecute swedish darling Niklas Zennström and danish darling Janus Friis for creating KaZaa - later SKYPE - and now Joost (last company is BASED on torrents!)
Lets have a FAIR trial based on FACTS and the DEMOCRATIC society we in the western world are so f*cking PROUD off!
Thanks TPB for fighting an important fight for freedom of speech, Internet power and the fact that "sharing is caring" (which the Internet is BUILD on!!!).
Dave532
· 7 months ago
AMEN!!!! I could not have said it better myself.
jason
· 7 months ago
freedom of speech? your ability to download a free copy of britney spears' latest does not constitute free speech. free speech is not going on the internet and stealing what you don't want to pay for.
and courts have consistently ruled that providing a way for people to violate copyright, when you know your product is being used in such a manner, is illegal.
peter
· 7 months ago
actually jason, courts have consistently ruled no such thing.
You are clearly a recording industry shill, trying to get people to believe that anyone cares about your outmoded business model.
Here's a lesson for you - for decades you ripped us off with price gouging, now we get our own back. Wake up and make tracks available in a way that is more convenient than the TPB, for a reasonable price and with no DRM, and hurry up about it or your business will die no matter how many people you sue.
Suede
· 7 months ago
Biased or not, those guys should go to jail anyway!
mike
· 7 months ago
why should they go to prison... maybe you should go to prison for stupidity. They did not commit any crimes. they just own a search engine which locates certain types of files. you are in no shadow of a doubt a Nazi loving communist who doesn't believe in freedom.
ilya
· 7 months ago
Actually the communists would be the ones promoting filesharing. Its the greedy anglo saxon capitalists "A.KA. Americans" who are the ones bitching for money over their I.P.'s
MuTaiWei
· 7 months ago
WTF? Everyone deserves a free trial EVERYONE
Plakboek
· 7 months ago
Everybody deserves a fair, open trial with a transparent and impartial legal process. If you deny this then we might as well go back to the dark ages and try running our society with star chambers and kangaroo courts.
JJ
· 7 months ago
they offer a service, if anyone id guilty it is the users. Judge needs to be on even ground here!
Besim
· 7 months ago
Bias seems quite unavoidable in the case of Norström. And what's the jail issue with TPB guys?!? Copyright issues must be reviewed and decided all over again and progressively changing by time.
atom
· 7 months ago
Surprised they bothered with a trial at all, after all they were always going to find the pirate bay 3 guilty.
Slowly watching our civil liberties being eroded - I can imagine my grand children in 50 years saying to me: "Grandpa, what were civil liberties". Welcome to the dark ages 2.0 :'(
MS
· 7 months ago
Yes, most likely biased he was - either by opinion or because of some lucrative offers/favors that he may receive from his friends in the entertainment industry.
In either case, to keep things impartial, a more neutral judge should be chosen. Come on, he's not the only judge who could have been chosen for this trial.
Barrington
· 7 months ago
Suede, why would you send TPB founders to jail, but not the CEO of Sony, who make recording devices? Why not Sergey Brin at Google? Why not Steve Jobs?
Definite conflict of interests. How could it NOT be?!
bomani2k
· 7 months ago
Exactly...logical consistency!
OoTheNigerian
· 7 months ago
A little typo on the last sentence of the first paragraph. I believe you meant 'i.e'.
scott parsons
· 7 months ago
Biased or not, the judge should have recused himself. How would it have looked if the judge had been a member of the pirate party? The entertainment lawyers would certainly be calling for blood now.
Lena Grønningsæter
· 7 months ago
Under Swedish law, the question is not only if a judge is actually biased - but if there are any circumstances that are likely to impair the trust that he is unbiased. As I see it, his association with various anti-piracy organisations does just that. It doesn't look good, from a reasonable and fairly objective perspective - and under the law, that should be enough. But I don't know where the Swedish high court have chosen to draw the line in similar cases regarding bias, and that will normally be the deciding factor.
Karen Cooke
· 7 months ago
It's similar in UK law - actual bias is not really the point - justice must be seen to be done.
"these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest"
from the judge in the pirate bay trial??? that must be a joke. he is member in not one but several organizations openly fighting copyright violations. come on. of course he was biased. or probably bullied by some of the big name members of these organizations.
I agree that it should be handled fairly after swedish laws. if providing links to torrents of copyrighted content is not a violation of swedish law....let them walk free.
On the other hand they are definitely bullshitting about the part that they never ran the pirate bay site with the intention of making money.............then again, they didnt give the millions of dollars that they have made with PB to charity either though...
i wouldnt like to be the judge on this one. thats for sure.
Zak
· 7 months ago
By all accounts, many web projects start without the intent on making money with it. Many hope their idea may go that route some day but it's not the driving force behind their idea, so much as a bonus if it actually works. We all need income so of course they're not donating to charity - good for them for being able to stop their rat-race zombie jobs.
Music Download Sites
· 7 months ago
It's the user's fault, not necessarily the Pirate Bay operators and owners. If you buy a bat at a sports store then go breaking windows all day, authorities should be going after the customer who bought the bat, not sue every sports store for providing the service of selling the bat. In the same way, The Pirate Bay was offering a service. A lot of the things a file sharing site can do is legal but when people start using it in illegal ways, they are in the wrong.
I guess the Pirate Bay should have tried filtering out some of the illegal activities going on under their nose. The judge being biased or not, a site sooner or later needed to be made example of in an attempt to get this problem under control.
Andrew Smith
· 7 months ago
Couldnt agree with you more on your second point. Pirate Bay has to try to filter out illegal activies, if they dont they are basically saying its ok....
What gets me, is that eBay can still get away with allowing blatent stolen goods, non-exchangable tickets etc etc to be sold in full view of everyone, yet nothing is done...
Dude where's my impartiality
· 7 months ago
Of course stolen goods sold on ebay are goods that belonged to average wage earners.. It's not crap taken from anyone that can actually afford lose a few million dollars in undeserved profit...
Rogue_Leader
· 7 months ago
Norström should, without question, have declared possible conflicts of interest.
JCSs
· 7 months ago
Two separate matters:
1. TPB links information. Just like Google. When I type TPB in Google, it gives me a link to TPB and all it contents. Should Google go to trial for doing exactly the same as TPB?
2. Creators (musicians, filmmakers, software developers) need to be acknowledged for their work, economically. And TPB may limiting this.
Andrew Smith
· 7 months ago
Great point
Your Name*
· 7 months ago
1. TPB links information. Just like Google. When I type TPB in Google, it gives me a link to TPB and all it contents. Should Google go to trial for doing exactly the same as TPB?
I liked this comment. Go and sue Google first and prove that the TPB case is a needless mess.
Andrew Smith
· 7 months ago
does seem a little conflicted to me...the problem i have with todays web culture is that far too many people see the web as a place to grab "stuff" for free. Be it entertainment material, software, code etc...You have to remember that if everything was free, nothing would get created and where would we be then?
it is right to prosecute people who set up illegal file sharing, but it has to be done in a fair way, where no biased individuals are involved, one way or the other.....
Thomas Westgard
· 7 months ago
The issue here is all about disclosure. If the judge's connection to these groups was completely out in the open and the defendants had an opportunity to bring it up, then there's no issue. But if it was hidden and the defendants had to track it down, then the judge was wrong to hide it.
In the US, a judge would normally tell the parties flat out, even if s/he didn't think it was a problem.
Probably Sucks
· 7 months ago
Aww, cry me a river everyone. Firstly, the Pirate Bay wasn't even a good place to get torrents from, only stupid people with no sense or brain used it, and you only got viruses and low quality audio rips, and crappy movies shot on a camcorder.
The Pirate Bay creators got off lightly. Only a year, man they deserve 4 years for their cockiness and they were secretly profitiing off the site heavily. It's a load of crap when they say they weren't. Would people be as compassionate if they revealed they were making a killing in revenue?
Stop crying over the Pirate Bay and join a private torrent tracker where the admins don't go boasting about being unshutdownable.
James Mason
· 7 months ago
LOL, rest assured MOST judges in MOST cases are either biased or either outright bought and paid for! Just a fact of life.
The way the article is written makes the conclusion obvious, regardless of what the reader thinks. Any other background information?
jeremy
· 7 months ago
The judge was definitely biased. Fair trial!
Your Name*
· 7 months ago
Suede, stfu. Your "holier than thou" comments aren't needed here.
There is no debate here. This is fact. It's obviously a conflict of interest, and there must be a re-trial. I don't care whether you agree with piracy or not, they should have gotten a fair trial, and that judge had his mind made up before the trial even started.
Not only should there be a re-trial, but the judge should be disbarred for lack of common sense and judgment.
declan
· 7 months ago
I cant believe that there is in fact A Judge anywhere that has full impartiality. They're all corrupt by association! (to the capitalist system).
Remiss63
· 7 months ago
His ability to be a believable independent judge for this case is completely compromised. He should not have been involved with this case whatsoever.
beach56
· 7 months ago
The judge should have excused himself. Whether or not he was actually biased is not the issue. In order for the ruling to be just and fair he must not only be unbiased, but should also have the appearance of independence. He is by any rational interpretation in a conflict of interest.
CHRIS RONK
· 7 months ago
Come on. Who are we kidding? Of course they are facilitating theft of copyrighted material.
Whether or not they broke any laws is a question that demands a fair trial.
bomani2k
· 7 months ago
Evolution isn't necessarily the survival of the fittest and strongest. It might more accurately be described as the survival of that which is the most adaptable to change. The industry is having a failure to adapt at present.
I find it instructive that big powerful capitalist and capitalist organizations who believe (in word) about market forces, free markets, etc...cannot hear the market saying-- no screaming, that "The PRICING & Distribution model currently employed is NOT viable or wanted". You consistently hear folk stating they pay and download for other reasons or would like to pay but don't want to pay for crap and be stuck with it AND/OR don't find the price commensurate with the products (although they do find value).
The industry continues to look this gift horse in the mouth and has decided instead to turn the horse into glue instead of riding it to a new profit paradigm. Old paradigms die hard, but they do eventually die. For that I'm most thankful.
Zayne S Halsall
· 7 months ago
While it is obviously based on an individual's character, as not all people fail to be objective due to their affiliation with various parties, the law in Sweden should definitely cater for such potential conflict of interest and suggest a retrial.
Aside from the author's "a retrial seems like a very real possibility" comment - do we KNOW if the court or the defendants' legal team is taking this information as seriously as it should?
And to put on my grammar-nazi jackboots for a second, Mr Schroeder - please consider using a spell-checker before submitting articles. I'm not a journalist or editor, but to have a misspelling as rudimentary and obvious as "unbelieavable" in the first line of your article? For shame.
Gab
· 7 months ago
Or perhaps they were convicted because they aid and abet copyright infringement, if we're gonna be honest with ourselves about this. I've used them, so I'm no saint either, just saying that the conviction isn't bc the judge is biased.
All Comments
Its an issue that peermeates the entire system.
Just look in the US and the kind of "special treatment" that Monsanto™ have been recieving
from its moles within the FDA and supreme court.
Look at all the unjust support the banks have been given lately; and all without accountability.
Its called Lobbydemocracy.
Significant for the Lobbydemocracy is the only thing that matters is power and influence.
As long as this twisted version of an democratic society is allowed to exist. the more it will infect all parts of our freedom untill we are little more than serfs under our "new" elite.
Our employers.
Do you know what Industrial Property is?
A .torrent isn't illegal in itself, and The Pirate Bay simply shouldn't be punished for what they've done if you follow Swedish law. But there is a lot of people who are biased into thinking .torrent files are simply illegal, and that's especially old folk or people who haven't had any interest in the subject.
At any rate, who's guilty would be the users of the website. They decide what's uploaded and what's downloaded, be it legal or illegal. If they want to file a lawsuit against anyone, let it be the users.
But remember one thing...
We are legion, for we are many.
No matter what the judge says - facts are facts, and if people can reasonably believe that the judge was unfairly (emphasis on "unfairly") predisposed to a given verdict, the judge must recuse him or herself from the proceedings, in the interests of a fair trial. A judge's function is to not just interpret law, but to hold such a respect for it that he or she would rather pull themselves away from a trial than to jeopardize the respect for rule of law.
I'm not going to say the judge was paid off or had an ax to grind, but if a legitimate and reasonable case can be made, then the judge had no business being involved in this trial, and justice was no upheld - EVEN IF a clearly unbiased judge would have made the same ruling.
if it can be proven that there was communication between this organization and the judge that the verdict of the trial should go favorably for the prosecution - that's proof. just being a member of an organization doesn't mean you can't be impartial. many people in this country hold religious views that say abortion is wrong yet they go to jobs where they may have to dispense an abortion drug.
there was even an article recently about a clerk in iowa who's personal views conflicted with the state's stance on civil union for all, straight and gay, and she said that even though it was a difficult choice personally she has to put that aside and do her job. was that the case with this judge? did he put aside his personal views and act impartially? i don't know but neither do you and that's the point. so unless someone can dig up some PROOF of wrongdoing i think the legal system provides that this judge is innocent (re: innocent until proven guilty).
Your examples were DEFENDANTS.
This is in regards to the JUDGE.
A defendents bias is supposed to be extreme regardless of thier actual guilt or innocence.
A judges bias is supposed to be absolute neutral, completely absent of any interest in the outcome from a personal standpoint. You actually believe that when he went back to these organizations hes a member of he wasn't heralded as a king ?
You're either terribly naive of general human nature, or your personal stance lies with the verdict and you're digging up really poor arguments for defending it.
If the standard you attempt to use for the judge was applied for the Pirate Bay guys we wouldn't have had this trial in the first place. They had no evidence of copyright violation nor evidence of 'inducing' others to break the law. The investigation would have died for lack of evidence.
I'm an artist and I distribute mix tapes and created content FOR FREE on the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites (vuze etc). Music has been around for as long as we have existed in societies, I don't think content will disappear because the record industry has lost their way. Their money would be better spent developing a new business model or on learning how to swim in quicksand.
On Google: The fact that Google is larger so it has 'less' violating material is only stating that bigger, richer, established companies get to have torrents? Hogwash!
"When a present course is in conflict with a future on approach, companies, nations, and even species will cease to exist" -Darin Brownlee 2008
You should believe the "Entertainment industry" wanted a SERIOUS prosecution of our friends @ TPB. I am SICK and tired of money driven organizations who deliberately choose to use NON democratic ways of using courts, media and so forth. In a democratic world, and in a scandinavian country like Sweden, this IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. PERIOD! Judges who are connected/friends/assosiated with one part of the side in a trial. I mean, wtf???
Lets have a fair trial and look at what has actually happened. Did TPB do anything illegal in terms of Swedish laws at the time?
Is creating a channel where you can distribute "bits and bytes" really illegal. Who are to use these kind of services?
And who dares prosecute swedish darling Niklas Zennström and danish darling Janus Friis for creating KaZaa - later SKYPE - and now Joost (last company is BASED on torrents!)
Lets have a FAIR trial based on FACTS and the DEMOCRATIC society we in the western world are so f*cking PROUD off!
Thanks TPB for fighting an important fight for freedom of speech, Internet power and the fact that "sharing is caring" (which the Internet is BUILD on!!!).
and courts have consistently ruled that providing a way for people to violate copyright, when you know your product is being used in such a manner, is illegal.
You are clearly a recording industry shill, trying to get people to believe that anyone cares about your outmoded business model.
Here's a lesson for you - for decades you ripped us off with price gouging, now we get our own back. Wake up and make tracks available in a way that is more convenient than the TPB, for a reasonable price and with no DRM, and hurry up about it or your business will die no matter how many people you sue.
Slowly watching our civil liberties being eroded - I can imagine my grand children in 50 years saying to me: "Grandpa, what were civil liberties". Welcome to the dark ages 2.0 :'(
In either case, to keep things impartial, a more neutral judge should be chosen. Come on, he's not the only judge who could have been chosen for this trial.
Definite conflict of interests. How could it NOT be?!
As I see it, his association with various anti-piracy organisations does just that. It doesn't look good, from a reasonable and fairly objective perspective - and under the law, that should be enough.
But I don't know where the Swedish high court have chosen to draw the line in similar cases regarding bias, and that will normally be the deciding factor.
I've actually remembered the case too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sussex_Justi...
from the judge in the pirate bay trial??? that must be a joke. he is member in not one but several organizations openly fighting copyright violations. come on. of course he was biased. or probably bullied by some of the big name members of these organizations.
I agree that it should be handled fairly after swedish laws. if providing links to torrents of copyrighted content is not a violation of swedish law....let them walk free.
On the other hand they are definitely bullshitting about the part that they never ran the pirate bay site with the intention of making money.............then again, they didnt give the millions of dollars that they have made with PB to charity either though...
i wouldnt like to be the judge on this one. thats for sure.
I guess the Pirate Bay should have tried filtering out some of the illegal activities going on under their nose. The judge being biased or not, a site sooner or later needed to be made example of in an attempt to get this problem under control.
What gets me, is that eBay can still get away with allowing blatent stolen goods, non-exchangable tickets etc etc to be sold in full view of everyone, yet nothing is done...
1. TPB links information. Just like Google.
When I type TPB in Google, it gives me a link to TPB and all it contents. Should Google go to trial for doing exactly the same as TPB?
2. Creators (musicians, filmmakers, software developers) need to be acknowledged for their work, economically. And TPB may limiting this.
When I type TPB in Google, it gives me a link to TPB and all it contents. Should Google go to trial for doing exactly the same as TPB?
I liked this comment. Go and sue Google first and prove that the TPB case is a needless mess.
it is right to prosecute people who set up illegal file sharing, but it has to be done in a fair way, where no biased individuals are involved, one way or the other.....
In the US, a judge would normally tell the parties flat out, even if s/he didn't think it was a problem.
The Pirate Bay creators got off lightly. Only a year, man they deserve 4 years for their cockiness and they were secretly profitiing off the site heavily. It's a load of crap when they say they weren't. Would people be as compassionate if they revealed they were making a killing in revenue?
Stop crying over the Pirate Bay and join a private torrent tracker where the admins don't go boasting about being unshutdownable.
RT
www.anonymity.es.tc
There is no debate here. This is fact. It's obviously a conflict of interest, and there must be a re-trial. I don't care whether you agree with piracy or not, they should have gotten a fair trial, and that judge had his mind made up before the trial even started.
Not only should there be a re-trial, but the judge should be disbarred for lack of common sense and judgment.
Whether or not they broke any laws is a question that demands a fair trial.
I find it instructive that big powerful capitalist and capitalist organizations who believe (in word) about market forces, free markets, etc...cannot hear the market saying-- no screaming, that "The PRICING & Distribution model currently employed is NOT viable or wanted". You consistently hear folk stating they pay and download for other reasons or would like to pay but don't want to pay for crap and be stuck with it AND/OR don't find the price commensurate with the products (although they do find value).
The industry continues to look this gift horse in the mouth and has decided instead to turn the horse into glue instead of riding it to a new profit paradigm. Old paradigms die hard, but they do eventually die. For that I'm most thankful.
Aside from the author's "a retrial seems like a very real possibility" comment - do we KNOW if the court or the defendants' legal team is taking this information as seriously as it should?
And to put on my grammar-nazi jackboots for a second, Mr Schroeder - please consider using a spell-checker before submitting articles. I'm not a journalist or editor, but to have a misspelling as rudimentary and obvious as "unbelieavable" in the first line of your article? For shame.