Yeah, I read that too. The interesting part is this:
"He also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR), an organisation that lobbies for tougher copyright laws, reports Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme today.
Despite today’s reports judge Norström denied that his involvement with the two copyright organisations constituted a "conflict of interest" in his ability to preside over the most high-profile trial involving illegal filesharing in European history.
“Every time I take on a case I assess the chances for any recusation, but in this case I don’t believe that my impartiality was affected,” said Norström."
Now, this judge sits on the board, is involved, has seen any information presented by these organizations, has associated with functions and meetings and gatherings and discussion in and for an organization that is supported or affected by big content money. How is that not a conflict of interest? How can his association not have any influence on him? How can it be tested and shown that his association with those organizations did not have an influence and cause a conflict of interest? It can't be tested, all we have is what he said, his denial of a conflict of interest. Thats a little like a person on trial saying "I didn't do it" and the judge saying "OK, you didn't do it because you said so." The accused doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt. I doubt seriously that the judges association with these organizations did not have some sort of influence on him, it has to have had some sort of influence in his thought process. Like minded people band together, like minded people join the organizations that think as they do, like minded people generally think along the lines of other like minded people, its human nature to do so and can't be helped. Is this judge a complete moron? There should be a retrial, not for the benefit of the Pirate Bay people but for the benefit of justice in ensuring an impartial and fair verdict. I doubt that a retrial with a judge that was not influenced by thinking alike along the lines of big content would allow such an unproven 'making available' theory to be introduced as proof based solely on simply that big content said so, and thus I think the outcome of the case would be completly different.
<begin joking part>
hey, I just realized...I copy and pasted part of the article from the link....according to the Pirate Bay verdict i'm a pirate and thief now. I'm not alone though ...looks like lots of links posted here at PureBasic...hmmmm....looks like were all a bunch of pirates and thiefs now according to the Pirate Bay verdict, including Tipperton who quoted someones post without their express permission. Oh the shame of it all, oh the agony, oh the soul wrenching moral confusion and delima. I wonder if we will all get the same jail cell, or our own individual cells? Or maybe some will be unfortunate enough to get a cell with someone nammed Bubba who has been really really lonely and whos first words to you are "Ya sure got a pretty mouth"? I can see us all now sitting around and having conversations with the other inmates..."What did you do to get sent here?" .."I used an axe to kill 10 people. What did you do?" ..."hmmm..I ..errr...I..uhhhh...posted a link to some place on the internet."
Were doomed, doomed I tell you...oh the humanity.<end joking part>
