06-26-2009, 01:26 PM
|
#1
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
|
Pirate Bay copyright convicts lose retrial bid
Quote:
Four men found guilty of promoting copyright infringement through the file-sharing site The Pirate Bay will not get a retrial, the Swedish court of appeals has ruled.
The court found Thursday that the judge who ruled in the original case in April, Tomas Norstroem, was not biased as the four men alleged.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...l-retrial.html
|
Sorry if this was FATA, but I couldn't find the old thread
I was just amazed at this judgement. How couldn't you find that the judge wasn't bias, when there was a clear conflict of interest with the judge being a member of the member of the Swedish Association for Copyright and sat on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Scary thing, courts in other countries will be using this judgement as a
precedent
__________________
|
|
|
|
06-26-2009, 01:39 PM
|
#2
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Okotoks
|
yikes... how did they not get a different judge for that? They either have F'd up rules in Sweden, or the defense attorney sucked.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to cKy For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-26-2009, 04:34 PM
|
#3
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: still in edmonton
|
Yikes.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2009, 04:37 PM
|
#4
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Section 218
|
The optics are not good, but I am guessing that the legal decision made in the case was so sound in its logic that there was no bias seen?
Like, sometimes the actual legal issue decided has nothing to do with, in this case, surface issues such as copyright infringement??
Who knows...
Claeren.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2009, 07:23 PM
|
#5
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Sitting on a board or agency doesn't automatically create grounds for a judge to be recused due to bias. If there's no indications that the judge abused his authority the potential bias isn't really an issue.
Put it this way, if the trial was for drunk driving and the judge was on the board of MADD there wouldn't be an issue without more.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 03:04 AM
|
#6
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wherever you go there you are.
|
Their only hope is that the Pirate Party comes to power soon then.
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 09:02 AM
|
#7
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mahogany, aka halfway to Lethbridge
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Sitting on a board or agency doesn't automatically create grounds for a judge to be recused due to bias. If there's no indications that the judge abused his authority the potential bias isn't really an issue.
Put it this way, if the trial was for drunk driving and the judge was on the board of MADD there wouldn't be an issue without more.
|
Really, you think so? I seem to think that the test in Canada at least is whether there would be an appearance of bias to a reasonable person. If the judge was part of an organization that lobbies for legislative amendments, I would think that creates an appearance of bias about how he will interpret the statutes on the books. (Assuming I am a reasonable person)
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 09:17 AM
|
#8
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
Really, you think so? I seem to think that the test in Canada at least is whether there would be an appearance of bias to a reasonable person. If the judge was part of an organization that lobbies for legislative amendments, I would think that creates an appearance of bias about how he will interpret the statutes on the books. (Assuming I am a reasonable person)
|
It's not a reasonable person test, but the issue is around the appearance of bias. However, you can't have judges recusing themselves because they sit on boards that focus on issues as to the enforcement of the law. That's what judges do. If that's the standard the recusal rate would be through the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 11:00 AM
|
#9
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
It's not a reasonable person test, but the issue is around the appearance of bias. However, you can't have judges recusing themselves because they sit on boards that focus on issues as to the enforcement of the law. That's what judges do. If that's the standard the recusal rate would be through the roof.
|
Well... the 'board' he's a part of (Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property) sounds like a lobby group to me. It seems like he has personal beliefs on the issue that might colour a 'completely unbiased judgement' of a case in this area.
I suppose if I was going to be charged with copy-right infringement, I'd prefer a judge who 'appeared to be unbiased' on the issue... not one who was a part of music-industry related lobby groups.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 11:22 AM
|
#10
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Well... the 'board' he's a part of (Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property) sounds like a lobby group to me. It seems like he has personal beliefs on the issue that might colour a 'completely unbiased judgement' of a case in this area.
I suppose if I was going to be charged with copy-right infringement, I'd prefer a judge who 'appeared to be unbiased' on the issue... not one who was a part of music-industry related lobby groups.
|
Well seeing as it's in Sweden and we're not, I'm not going to assume it's a lobby group. I don't know the standards under Swedish law, but the bottom line is that recusal standards can't be so high as to make the system inefficient.
|
|
|
|
|
06-27-2009, 02:38 PM
|
#12
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
|
Copyright has gotten totally out of hand.
The purpose of copyright was to promote the creation of content, NOT to allow people to profit of something they did 30, 50, 75 or 125 years ago.
Copyrights are the UAW of the intellectual property world.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
|
|
|
|
|
06-29-2009, 01:01 PM
|
#13
|
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Well... the 'board' he's a part of (Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property) sounds like a lobby group to me. It seems like he has personal beliefs on the issue that might colour a 'completely unbiased judgement' of a case in this area.
I suppose if I was going to be charged with copy-right infringement, I'd prefer a judge who 'appeared to be unbiased' on the issue... not one who was a part of music-industry related lobby groups.
|
Two main points regarding the lobby groups the judge was a member of:
1) These are the same groups that the prosecution's lawyers are members of.
2) He didn't disclose this info before the trial.
Now because of that, the appeal has been rejected by a new set of judges who also have some industry connections that are being questioned. Now it looks like they're intending to take up the fact that they can't get an unbiased trial as a human rights issue.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 PM.
|
|
