

Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial - jasim
http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/06/banana-republic-justice-behind-the-scenes-of-the-pirate-bay-trial/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy+%28Falkvinge+on+Infopolicy%29

======
doe88
And then some mock Assange when he expresses fears that it could be the
perfect scheme to grab him and extradite him to the US in the end. Reading
this, I would also be myself cautious in the Sweden justice system. And btw my
position is not against Swede at all, I think the justice system of my own
country (France) is no better and is also rigged toward what the
establishment/politics have decided.

~~~
mtgx
I think Assange is right to fear that he would be turned over to US. They
would find a way or a loophole or just an excuse to do it.

~~~
subsystem
No loopholes needed, just ask Ahmed Agiza.

------
subsystem
The biggest mistake they made was not hearing the case in the supreme court.
There are some strange things in the verdict which I think if not revised at
least should be addressed to regain some trust from the public. For example:

"One factor making this case special is that the main crime is not
particularly severe, as seen individually they are of limited scope, not
organized and not commercial", p43.

"It should be noted that in paragraph 9 in directive 2004/48/EC of the
European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of
intellectual property rights the following is concluded: 'Infringements of
intellectual property rights appear to be increasingly linked to organised
crime. Increasing use of the Internet enables pirated products to be
distributed instantly around the globe.'", p46

"That copyright infringement by illegal file-sharing is a social problem,
which in later years spread like wildfire, does according to the court of
appeal appear close to a publicly known fact", p46.

"The court of appeals overall assessment finds it clear that the illegal file-
sharing quickly reached proportions at which the general preventive
considerations must have great importance in the application of the law.
According to the court of appeal there are therefore concerning this form of
copyright infringement very special reasons to see the crime of such severity
that the sentencing should be imprisonment", p47.

So... Judges joins copyright organization. Copyright organization tells judges
that file-sharing is bad. Judges sees file-sharing as a huge social problem.
Judges sentence defendants to exceptional sentences without being biased?

[http://cybernormer.se/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/defavgdok.p...](http://cybernormer.se/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/defavgdok.pdf)

------
monsterix
I have been reading about this for quite a while. Why is it that we never come
to see faces and names of people who exert state control like this? For
example, name and pictures of people from MPAA, US of A and Sweden and
everyone in between starting from the lobby to those pushed over to set an
example.

Though it's quite natural for people facing unjust trial to surface more
often, it might just do good to the world if we can see faces of agents
pushing the case for say RIAA, SOPA and so on... wouldn't it?

360 degree transparency will help if this is truly in the interest of public
(as any Government claims).

~~~
maeon3
Corruption likes to hide in the shadows, that's why you don't hear about the
names and see faces of the individuals doing this. As soon as a name becomes
known, all sorts of political shifting occurs. They've got several layers of
scapegoats and fall-guys to take the hit when abuse of power, corruption and
treasonous behaviour are provable.

The types of crimes committed in suppressing the pirate bay are orders of
magnitude more alarming than the notion of some 15 year old somewhere
downloading a Brittany Spears CD and listening to it on his ipod. This has
nothing to do with fairness, it has everything to do with taking a step to own
the internet and every bit/byte that travels across it, why? So you can tax
it.

Congressmen need to curry favor with entities with lots of cash, and you can't
get them on your team unless you can threaten them with restrictive
legislation. The congressman is like a parasite with tentacles into the host's
brain. The parasite's power is only as great as it's ability to convince the
host that it is in the best interests to feed the parasite. What we see here
is the parasite trying to drill a hole and insert another tentacle into the
host. You don't ask for lower regulations, you must forcibly remove it with a
weapon or surgical instrument. You do not ask a parasite to stop regulating.

~~~
monsterix
True that!

> "As soon as a name becomes known, all sorts of political shifting occurs.
> They've got several layers of scapegoats and fall-guys to take the hit when
> abuse of power, corruption and treasonous behavior are provable."

After political shift/transfer bring out the new profiles and names. I am sure
their number wouldn't be more than let' say - Facebook? :)

------
w1ntermute
Why was the "Banana republic justice: " prefix removed from the title? I
really don't like the subversive censorship on HN. Who are these mods, and who
are they to make a decision on how/when titles should be changed?

~~~
archgrove
Because it's inflammatory, and patently nonsense. By any non-mad definition,
Sweden is _not_ a banana republic. Saying so prejudices the points made
(though frankly, the entire "article" is 1 sided hyperbole).

~~~
pyre

      | By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a
      | banana republic
    

This can't be a kangaroo court! We're not in Australia, so there are no
kangaroos here!</sarcasm>

The prefix "Banana Republic Justice" can also be seen as claiming that Sweden
handed out banana republic-style justice in this case, not that Sweden is a
banana republic.

------
jacquesm
And even after all of that the piratebay still operates as though nothing ever
happened.

You have to give those guys props for stamina.

~~~
sp332
The four guys on trial were not involved with the site at the time the trial
first started. There were already other people running it by then.

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, but seeing your compadres nailed to a tree in this fashion would likely
be enough to give most people pause.

To push on in light of that seems fairly determined to me.

~~~
nwh
I imagine that the operators have absolutely no connection to the pirate bay.
Access by Tor, pay to PRQ with an anonymous method (they even do cash), and
there's really very little risk in it for them. The money flow could very well
be followed, but one would hope they have planned for that.

------
3pt14159
I do not know if the facts presented here are true (although I expect that
they are) this publication is _heavily_ biased as it was founded by the
creator of the Swedish pirate party.

~~~
ruswick
Yeah. I took one look the site, decided that it look illegitimate and/or
suspicious, and closed the page.

~~~
jacquesm
Falkvinge is a polarizing figure. He says these things to wake you up and make
you think. If a left-wing do-good society such as Sweden can have a court case
this perverted then likely in other countries it is even worse.

A charged headline will help in bringing the audience to the content, if 'one
look' is all it takes for you to dismiss the data as illegitimate and/or
suspicious then perhaps I can allay your worries by stating that he's 100%
legit:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickard_Falkvinge>

------
flog
I'm trying to figure out how to get Adam Curtis to make a doco about all of
this political machination. It would be an entertaining and interesting watch.

Surely someone on HN has his ear? Whisper the idea would you, please.

~~~
subsystem
<http://www.tpbafk.tv>

A documentary film-maker has been filming this since 2008. It scheduled for
release in 2013 and will be released as download (cc licensed), but also on
Swedish national TV.

------
sameerp1
This article operates on the premise that the defendants are not guilty. But
can someone explain how/why creating a site like the Pirate Bay that
encourages or at least tolerates piracy is not a crime. I ask in all
seriousness.

~~~
nirvana
So, if someone made a webstie that was pro-marijuana, would you assume that
was a crime? They're encouraging/tolerating piracy.

The pirate bay did not host nor distribute any pirated files. So where's the
crime?

~~~
sameerp1
So would owning a site called childporn.com and allowing people to post direct
links to download child pornography without any attempt to stop it also not be
a crime? Again, I'm being serious that I really dont know the answer. These
are the actual issues at play. Can one really free themselves of legal
responsibility by just saying we don't host or post the files ourselves?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Is Google committing a crime if it indexes a CP site? Are _you_ committing a
crime if somebody links to CP in your blog's comments? Of course not. Having a
link to something is not a crime.

~~~
archgrove
Because Google and you are not setting out _explicitly_ to build a set of
links to copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. It's
all about intent. If I go to a high-street store called "Kitchen Goods" and
buy a knife, that store's fine. If I go to a store called "Jay's back-alley
shivs" run out of the inside breast of his raincoat between 02:00 and 04:00,
he's probably _not_ fine.

The law recognises intent in most situations, and the Pirate Bay exists to
provide access to expensive-to-create content without compensating the people
who made it. Hence, they have problems (and justifiably so).

~~~
belorn
Actually, in regard to the Appeals Court, its the majority usages of the site
that count. If your blog's comments is _mostly used_ for illegal activity, you
are guilty of facilitating the crime by having said blog. Intent was not
mentioned by the Appeals Court to have any baring on the matter.

This is how they said Google was not guilty, but the pirate bay was (they
mentioned Google specifically in the question and answer).

------
Androsynth
note: this comment isnt directly about this post, it is comparing the comments
of this post to the comments of one of yesterdays posts:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368>.

Yesterday there was a debate about whether the spewing leaded gasoline fumes
into the air was something that should be regulated by the govt or privately
litigated. The pro-regulators handily won the votes battle, but this post is
an example of why it is bad in a general sense.

The government is a giant complex system. It is also extremely prone to the
slippery slope. If you allow the federal govt one new dept. they will make 5;
if you allow the govt to increase budget by $1B, they will increase it by
$100B; if you allow them to regulate one industry, they will regulate them
all.

You can't judge the govt by a single mandate, you have to judge it as a whole.
This is why federal regulations are bad in a general sense, because you start
with something 'good' (the environment) but you are giving them permission to
eventually regulate IP and other areas where more powerful business interests
may not allow the regulations to turn out the way you want.

If you want the negative externalities of businesses (eg clean air) regulated
by the govt, you have to acknowledge that they now have permission to regulate
everything similar. But while the public has limited resources (energy, time
and money) to fight for 'good' regulation, the corporations have essentially
an infinite amount of each. It is a nebulous, interconnected system and the
slippery slope is a very real dilemma here.

So its easy to downvote an anarcho-capitalist because you think the clean air
act was a good thing or because private litigation is a bad thing, but you
have to look at their underlying reasoning. Every inch you give the state, it
takes a foot and in the end you only approve of 1/12 of the moves they make.

------
white_devil
Disgusting, but par for the course in today's world.

------
hamai
According to Firebug this article page made 298 requests, totaling 2.1 MB,
taking my poor computer 52.79s (onload: 50.11s) to process everything. Is this
really necessary?

------
contingencies
Down with government! The internet is dead! LONG LIVE THE INTERNET!

Honestly though, Sweden will never be forgiven. I hassle Swedes every time I
see them now, and have done for nearly a couple of years. Mostly they are
ignorant (particularly the older ones), but some of the young people are on
our side (though not necessarily following the issues). Seems their political
and legal systems have slipped together in to extremely right wing, corrupt,
and US-aligned without anyone in the country noticing.

~~~
duuude
Uhm... since when did Sweden's political and legal systems slip into a being
extremely right wing?

Compared to the US, Sweden is extremely left wing (whether you like it or
not).

~~~
ben0x539
Who isn't extremely left wing compared to the US?

~~~
Rovanion
I imagine Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea. But I may be wrong.

------
nirvana
As countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about
the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've
seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and
procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best
interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution.

In fact, this tendency is so common, historically, that it is one of the
reasons the US had its revolution, and one of the reasons the form of
government created in the USA was so different from the rest of the world, at
the time. Many protections were enshrined in the US constitution, designed to
prevent exactly these abuses.

However, even in the USA, these protections have become meaningless... because
at the end of the day all systems rely on people. When all of the people with
power in any system are answerable to the state (And the state only) the
system quickly becomes merely an agent of the state's interests... and not a
defender of the public's interest.

We see this most starkly with the states demonizing of "terrorism" (when in
many cases it isn't actually terrorism it is going after)... with its massive
power grabs due to the "War on drugs" (after decades of demonizing drugs) ...
and now, lately, after "piracy" (with decades of demonizing "pirates".)

Things will continue to get worse in this regard-- because there is no
effective force to counter it. US elections, no matter which party wins, put
"anti-terrorist" and "anti-drug" and "anti-piracy" people in office.

Note Obama who promised a "softer war on drugs" picked the Architect of the
Drug War, Joe Biden as his running mate and his tune immediately changed after
getting elected. Bush was no better, etc.

It has been decades since blatently unconstitutional asset-forfieture laws
were enacted under Reagan. Further, in those decades we've had uncountable
incidents of police outright stealing property under them, never charging
someone with a crime.

I can think of nothing more corrupt than, for instance, florida cops stopping
tourists to take all their money. (similar incident happened in texas.)

Despite public awareness and many appeals to the courts over the years, this
practice is only growing bigger.

So, what is to be done? They're getting away with it, and show no signs of
stopping.... and the alleged methods to hold them accountable: The law, the
courts, the supreme court, and elections have all failed.

~~~
powertower
Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt
police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality.

There was a story that made the rounds a while ago…

A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over
the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up
running over his legs.

Minutes later that felon crashes the car.

At the same time cops run out on him (while lying on the ground) and (having
learned of him trying to kill the other cop), react badly and give him a half-
a-dozen or less punches and kicks ... lasts a few seconds.

When the media reported on this, they cut out everything but a man laying on
the ground and a group of white cops attacking him.

Everyone had a field-day on the internet saying how this was a police state.

But no one acknowledged _that the same exact day_ , 100s of thousands of cops
did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their
lives to do so.

~~~
rdtsc
> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops
> did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking
> their lives to do so.

Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is
what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers.

It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow
cops who don't fuck up need to be acknowledged and sent a fruit cake. The
hidden assumption here is perhaps that everyone starts to accept that there a
lot of corruption and screws up by cops (this is indicative by the focus on
"well there are a still some good cops, right, right...?")

> Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt
> police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality.

This is just the normalization of reporting. Before these stories were not
reported and were covered up. If it weren't for citizens with cameras (phones)
we would have not seen a lot of police brutality videos.

When US is claimed to be a corrupt police state that is often in comparison
with its propaganda image or the image people imagine US should/could be.

Nobody is surprised if North Korean cops take bribes or torture someone.
Nobody believe it is a state with the "rule of law" in it. But a lot of people
are surprised if a cop in US does, because people (fortunately) still expect
more from US law enforcement.

But as I pointed out that starts to change.

~~~
duaneb
> But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does

I don't think so. I would assume people in all jobs abuse their power, not
just police, and not just in the US.

------
eriksank
Well, the main actors are still laughing about this and asking us: "You do not
like this and so what?", and they are right, because indeed: "So what?". They
damn well know that nobody is going to do anything about it anyway. We all
know that the next time, they will be even more arrogant and even more
condescending.

