Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[rhadin]

Apparently the judge in the Pirate Bay case is a member of 2 copyright preservation organizations -- a fact he didn't disclose. This is reported by Ars Technica. That at least makes the trial and the results questionable.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Apparently the judge in the Pirate Bay case is a member of 2 copyright preservation organizations -- a fact he didn't disclose. This is reported by Ars Technica. That at least makes the trial and the results questionable.

I saw that too.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Apparently the judge in the Pirate Bay case is a member of 2 copyright preservation organizations -- a fact he didn't disclose.....

The judge says it's not a conflict. Right....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8014626.stm

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well - what to do against an unjust law that still gets protected by most governments?

Frankly, (and I don't mean this to sound glib) that's what voting booths are for. In the case of the United States, the government is the people. If you don't like what your government is up to, you should vote the bums out of office.

I do understand the frustration with going through a political process to get change, but it's not like it's something that rises to the level of the civil rights movement. It's not a life-or-death thing.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Frankly, (and I don't mean this to sound glib) that's what voting booths are for.

I'm afraid you cant vote companies or CEOs out of office.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

The judge says it's not a conflict. Right....

We have to see what happens. Legally it might not be a conflict but it definitely does not look good and he should have taken this into consideration and resigned from the case.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I'm afraid you cant vote companies or CEOs out of office.

Another disambiguation?

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I'm afraid you cant vote companies or CEOs out of office.

Neither companies nor CEO's have anything to do with it. CEOs and companies influence politicians, but money can't buy an election itself. The two examples that spring immediately to mind are Ross Perot and Steve Forbes. Sure, money helps, but it's not sufficient, if people decide they've had enough of you.

And, incidentally, there is a way to "vote" CEOs out. It's called voting with your wallet. In fact, it happens all the time. Without consulting Google, do you remember who was Apple's CEO when the Newton was released?

[Ervserver]

as good a reason for appeal as any, this judge should have known better. Should be fired from the bench

Originally Posted by tompe

We have to see what happens. Legally it might not be a conflict but it definitely does not look good and he should have taken this into consideration and resigned from the case.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Frankly, (and I don't mean this to sound glib) that's what voting booths are for. In the case of the United States, the government is the people. If you don't like what your government is up to, you should vote the bums out of office.

I do understand the frustration with going through a political process to get change, but it's not like it's something that rises to the level of the civil rights movement. It's not a life-or-death thing.

Voting specific politicans out of office doesn't change a law automatically and beside that tirsales said "most governments", not "only the german government". The process is a "little bit" more difficult than in the US here. In Europe we would have to start such a political change in nearly all EU-countries and then we would have to start again on EU-level (to change their directives). It's nearly impossible if you consider the different laws, constitutions and election systems within the EU-countries. Even five or ten lifespans wouldn't be enough...

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Frankly, (and I don't mean this to sound glib) that's what voting booths are for. In the case of the United States, the government is the people. If you don't like what your government is up to, you should vote the bums out of office.

You mean through referenda? Because it's sort of hard to vote for a party that is in favor of copyright reform, as there hardly are any. (especially in the US this would be impossible btw, given your WTA vote stealing system)

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by tompe

We have to see what happens. Legally it might not be a conflict but it definitely does not look good and he should have taken this into consideration and resigned from the case.

Ethically, it's a conflict. Morally, it's a conflict. Legally? Only in countries with no true legal standard is it NOT a conflict for a person who is an advocate for one side of an issue to be a judge in a case on the issue.

It doesn't matter whether TPB broke the law. There's no way a judge can rule impartially in this matter when the judge is an advocate for the opposing side.

Derek

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I'm afraid you cant vote companies or CEOs out of office.

You can vote a company CEO out of office by buying shares in the company, and voting at the company's AGM.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can vote a company CEO out of office by buying shares in the company, and voting at the company's AGM.

Granted. Do you have the money?

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Granted. Do you have the money?

Actually, you only need to buy one share to be entitled to go to the company AGM and vote. You may not win but it gains the right to speak at the AGM, which is useful for activists who want publicity for their cause.