Can torrent sites be prosecuted.

[Gorgon]

"The party participated in the 2006 Riksdag elections and gained 0.63% of the votes"

 

That's pretty unimpressive.

[Meshugger]

If they(The Pirate Party) manage to get a delegate to European Parliament in the upcoming election....well, one can atleast admit that it would be a bit of a lulz-moment.

[Maria Caliban]

"The party participated in the 2006 Riksdag elections and gained 0.63% of the votes"

 

That's pretty unimpressive.

 

Susan Boyle got more votes than the Pirate Party.

[Humodour]

The Pirate Party is Sweden's third largest political party and, after the number of members they've gained because of this, will hold an even larger balance of power in Sweden next election.

 

I thought you were making a joke, but wiki says I was wrong; there is a Pirate Party. However, it's not the third largest, but the third largest outside of parliment.

 

Personally, I'm far more worried about Google Books than the Pirate Bay.

 

You're right, but it's the third largest now. It all depends on whether it transforms into electoral victory, but the numbers seem to indicate it will. 50% of Swedish males under 30 plan to vote for it, if I recall the number correctly (it might have been under the age of 40).

 

Gorgon: Proportional representation. People tend to vote special interest parties as their 2nd or third preference, which doesn't show up on vote share. There's a guy in the Senate here who got 2% of the primary vote but Senate quota is 14% (meaning he got at least 12% in preference flow). He's a ****, but that's beside the point.

 

Anyway, I wish the Pirate Bay weren't so flagrantly obnoxious. I much prefer Mininova's attitude of copyright compliance.

[Meshugger]

Can Presidents like Obama or the Queen of England be prosecuted for breaking Copyright laws?

 

Well,

 

UPDATE: Prof. Michael Froomkin points out that the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity under UK law because she is, well, the sovereign.

 

The Queen can pirate all day long with her fellow citizens, and as much as she wants

[Meshugger]

This link is in swedish, but it appears that the judge wasn't exactly acting neutral in the case.

 

To the actual bulletpoints then, the judge happens to be an active member of:

 

- SFU, the Swedish society for upholding the Copyright law. Other prominent members include the Pont

Edited April 23, 2009 by Meshugger

[Kaftan Barlast]

Theres been some new information out that the judge in the trial is an active member of three separate copyright lobbyist groups, together with most of the people from the plaintiff side. The whole trial now stands a good chance of being declared a mistrial on account of obvious partisanship on the judges side. No wonder the sentence was so harsh. This is really, really rotten and a sign that our legal system desperately needs an overhaul.

 

 

There is no english language news about this yet, sorry.

[kirottu]

Piracy is bad, but this is far worse.

[Kaftan Barlast]

And for out American people; if you didnt already know it, we dont have juries in Sweden. In this legal instance, theres just the judge and two officials. And in this trial one of those officials was kicked out for having ties to the anti-piracy lobby. So there was just this judge and another guy.

[Humodour]

And for out American people; if you didnt already know it, we dont have juries in Sweden. In this legal instance, theres just the judge and two officials. And in this trial one of those officials was kicked out for having ties to the anti-piracy lobby. So there was just this judge and another guy.

 

How can you not have juries?

 

That's just asking for trouble. Namely corruption and authoritarianism.

[Kaftan Barlast]

We have "n

[alanschu]

And for out American people; if you didnt already know it, we dont have juries in Sweden. In this legal instance, theres just the judge and two officials. And in this trial one of those officials was kicked out for having ties to the anti-piracy lobby. So there was just this judge and another guy.

 

How can you not have juries?

 

That's just asking for trouble. Namely corruption and authoritarianism.

 

 

Most court cases in North America aren't before a jury either. And juries have their own problems that come with them too.

[Gfted1]

And for out American people; if you didnt already know it, we dont have juries in Sweden. In this legal instance, theres just the judge and two officials. And in this trial one of those officials was kicked out for having ties to the anti-piracy lobby. So there was just this judge and another guy.

 

How can you not have juries?

 

That's just asking for trouble. Namely corruption and authoritarianism.

 

 

Most court cases in North America aren't before a jury either. And juries have their own problems that come with them too.

 

 

Eh? The Constitution itself provides as a fundemental right a jury trial to the accused should they wish it. Unless you specifically meant Canada as "North America", I dont know what you guys are up to up there.

[Gorgon]

The 'professional juror' system has some advantages. It really cuts down on Johnny Cochran type shenanigans that aren't based in law. There is no use for Jury profilers or other pseudo science wizards who can supposedly tell you who is going to vote for what and whether wearing a red tie to court is a good idea or not.

[Nephilim]

Here

[alanschu]

And for out American people; if you didnt already know it, we dont have juries in Sweden. In this legal instance, theres just the judge and two officials. And in this trial one of those officials was kicked out for having ties to the anti-piracy lobby. So there was just this judge and another guy.

 

How can you not have juries?

 

That's just asking for trouble. Namely corruption and authoritarianism.

 

 

Most court cases in North America aren't before a jury either. And juries have their own problems that come with them too.

 

 

Eh? The Constitution itself provides as a fundemental right a jury trial to the accused should they wish it. Unless you specifically meant Canada as "North America", I dont know what you guys are up to up there.

 

 

Hmm my bad. For some reason I thought the US was similar. Though the right to a jury does still only apply to felony cases in the United States.

 

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't know if I could say which is inherently better. It's easy to see the autocratic nature of allowing just the judge to determine the verdict, but at the same time, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that people are stupid and don't have much faith in juries either.

[Calax]

Hmm my bad. For some reason I thought the US was similar. Though the right to a jury does still only apply to felony cases in the United States.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't know if I could say which is inherently better. It's easy to see the autocratic nature of allowing just the judge to determine the verdict, but at the same time, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that people are stupid and don't have much faith in juries either.

The american justice system is based around the idea that a person shouldn't be judged by a specific world view (when the constitution was written judges came from a specific class of people), but rather by people who had been in a similar situation. This has morphed into "you should be judged by some nut off the street!" and the jury is always selected so that the lawyers think that the jurors will easily see their side (basically the most persuadable).

 

so while you may be called for jury duty in america, you rarely have to go through with it.

[Gfted1]

To be perfectly honest, I don't know if I could say which is inherently better. It's easy to see the autocratic nature of allowing just the judge to determine the verdict, but at the same time, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that people are stupid and don't have much faith in juries either.

 

I suppose if I were a defendant I would prefer the jury system. At least then the prosecution has to convince a majority, and in some cases unanimously, before I could be convicted. And while I agree that there are stupid people out there having recently served on a jury in a civil matter has shown me if nothing else, jurors generally try to be fair.

[Humodour]

Here's a more accurate assessment of the electoral politics as a result of this thing: http://www.norwinter.com/2009/04/25/pirate...te-bay-verdict/

 

And there's even more dirt turning up about the judge. Apparently he kicked out a 'jury' member (assessor) for having links to an artists group (i.e. potentially biased), yet he fails to see the problem with he himself being a member of FOUR copyright lobby groups.

[Tigranes]

Sounds like TPB could use this as a reason to go to the European Court if necessary?

[Maria Caliban]

Most court cases in North America aren't before a jury either. And juries have their own problems that come with them too.

 

 

Eh? The Constitution itself provides as a fundemental right a jury trial to the accused should they wish it. Unless you specifically meant Canada as "North America", I dont know what you guys are up to up there.

 

BOTH of you are right. *cue dramatic music* In both Canada and America, the majority of trials do not involve juries, but in America, the accused does have the right to a jury trial for certain crimes.

 

 

 

The 'professional juror' system has some advantages. It really cuts down on Johnny Cochran type shenanigans that aren't based in law. There is no use for Jury profilers or other pseudo science wizards who can supposedly tell you who is going to vote for what and whether wearing a red tie to court is a good idea or not.

 

Jury profilers work. I don't even know if you could call it a psudeo-science as it deals with statistically significant variations and observable results. There's a reason why a black man in Alabama would never want an all white, male jury with only high school education as opposed to an all female, POC jury with a minimum of college education.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Meshugger]

Sounds like TPB could use this as a reason to go to the European Court if necessary?

 

Yes.

 

But that would only be necessary if the Swedish Supreme court fails to recognize the judge's bias in this case. The European Court usually only step in when a state infriges a citizen's right to personal freedom. Some examples:

 

- No state in the EU can forbid men for humping each other in the pooper.

- The right to remain silent while being under arrest.

- Sharia Law is incompatible with the European Charter of human rights, due to sexism against women.

[Gorgon]

Where else would men hump each other. See what you did there, being a bigot in a roundabout way.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Gorgon

[Meshugger]

Where else would men hump each other. See what you did there, being a bigot in a roundabout way.

 

Your lack of imagination saddens me

[Hurlshort]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

 

Maybe people will stop stealing stuff when they read about this?