I know nothing about Swedish law but i'm a bit stunned by this - it's the equivalent ( it seems to me ) of hanging a man after he is found guilty of murder before his appeal is even in motion.

I don't know much about TPB either but I always feared something like this would happen - i'm amazed it hasn't happened earlier. It seemed obvious after laughing in the face of the authorities for so long, publically insulting and humiliating lawyers etc on their site who sent them warning letters and boasting how untouchable they were, that the authorities would find a way to slap them down eventually without relying on the actual legality of the situation.

It doesn't matter who is legally innocent or not in this world - if the authorities can devote enought time, money and ensure a "favourable" judge is on their side then no amount of legal arguing or truths will make any difference - they will always win.

Unfortunately, the final decision is not based on legal technicalities but the biased opinion of a partially demented geriatric reactionary judge who has been placed there for a very good reason - he/she does what the state want him to ! Isn't the US Supreme Court the same ?

I think the mistake TPB made here is that they believed that the legality of the situation under current law would actually be properly examined and prove their innocence - how many times has that happened in p2p type trials ? Not that many I think.

their bread was sliced before they even came to the table, laws not a factor here its how much mpaa is dumping into who's pockets, tactics they have used wouldn't hold up in any court anywhere, but when the mpaa shows up they neglect to ask how information is obtain and just assume its all legit

Anyone who has witnessed the court system first-hand is able to report just how corrupt it really is. That these punks have managed to keep us from taking a really close look at 'their' system for so long is amazing, when you compare how we regularly look at and sue the crap off of those who work in the medical profession. Those who do admit the court system has flaws, like to divert our attention away from the real problems by telling us it's the 'system' that needs fixing.
Whoever pays the most punks the most money will win the most times. That's how 'their' system works. That's their "First Rule of Law".

While I agree that the prices record companies were charging for CDs a while back was criminal and I agree that few artists today are worthy of pay compared to earlier music eras, stealing is stealing. But "stealing" isn't the issue here. Once again a group of corrupt punks have been easily able to 'prove' that stealing is the issue, when it is not.
Rather than argue here whether downloading music is stealing or not, I would rather focus on the point the punks don't want anyone to focus on.

The point is whether or not the owners of a site that connects two people who want to share a copyrighted product are guilty of stealing and deserving of a lengthy jail term.

The owners, planners and developers of my city arranged to have two homes built nearby, which encouraged me to loan my next door neighbor a record I own.

I'm sure there are other metaphors.

There are many organizations that exist where two or more people meet, and the crime of loaning books, pictures, records or films occurs.
Book clubs, photography clubs, music clubs, and film clubs are all criminal organizations where persons are naturally encouraged to share the products they own. Practically everything in any form can be copied today.

Because 'their' court system is so corrupt, most organizations and sites (including Google) will not be persecuted and their owners thrown in jail. Only those who aren't in 'their' club and those most people haven't heard of are ripe to receive some of 'their' justice. The punks need to persecute some people to make their millions and it won't be any of their friends or any of the special interest groups sucking the federal tit dry.

I can't wait until all record compnies go out of business and everything is available directly from the artists. And I can't wait until a citizens' body is directly overseeing the court system and regulating the punks we encourage to become lawyers.

Hari

LoL

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter who is legally innocent or not in this world - if the authorities can devote enought time, money and ensure a "favourable" judge is on their side then no amount of legal arguing or truths will make any difference - they will always win.

Unfortunately, the final decision is not based on legal technicalities but the biased opinion of a partially demented geriatric reactionary judge who has been placed there for a very good reason - he/she does what the state want him to ! Isn't the US Supreme Court the same ?

---

I have experienced this firsthand in my new hometown of DULUTH,MN. That's DULUTH MINNESOTA! It doesn't matter what the law is, it only matters what the judge wants to do. In "smaller matters," it seems to come down to what kind of mood the judge happens to be in at the time. They don't seem to even take the time to think about it logically. Perhaps it causes too much stress on their brain cells. Example follows:
When my wife hit a post in a local parking lot, I didn't think anything of it at first. "We'll have to pay to have our bumper fixed," I thought. Then I came to find out that the post she hit was illegal in the first place. First, it was supposed to be a handicapped parking sign, but the sign had broken off and was never repaired. Second, state law regulates how tall parking signs must be so that they maintain maximum visibility. The post was not in compliance. In fact, it was so short that you couldn't even see it over the hood of your car when parked directly in front of it. The post had several scuff marks on it and was leaning to the side at an extreme angle proving that we were definitely not the first to have hit this post. To make a long story short, we pursued damages against the owner and entity that was responsible for the maintenance of the lot. We were denied by a stuck-up judge who ignored the photographic evidence and the state law we cited. The judge himself admitted, and I quote (as close as memory serves me), "Yes, I don't deny what you're telling me. I believe you that the post is too short and it is not in compliance with the law, but I'm just not going to grant you your claim." Ridiculous. So in other words he, as a public servant, being paid using my tax dollars to uphold the law, simply decided he was going to take the day off. What a hero! Justice is served! NOT. Of course, that post remained un-repaired for a very long time. I'm sure long enough for several other unfortunate souls to impale their vehicles upon it. So I paid the $300 to have my own bumper fixed plus the $60 court filing fee. I put the new bumper on myself to save some cash. I often wonder, when I pass by that post, how many thousands of dollars of aggregate damage that P.O.S. has done to the community.