Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (5618.1)
    I think my views on this issues would be well known to some here, so posting this for other people to talk about, not for me to be a broken record.

    That and I do not know Swedish law at all.

    Still, I have to say this verdict surprises me.

    Edit: Ah, sorry Ariana. Was scanning got a new thread post verdict and missed the existing one on the live feed. Close away.
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2009
    Corrupt judge who works for the prosecution
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2009
    what on earth do you do when you're told to pay $3.6million?

    (what are your views Jtraub? dare I ask?)
  2.  (5618.4)
    Go into bankruptcy if you don't have it, at least in the US mechanics exist for the court to take the money without your express consent in a number of ways. Here I could not tell you here what they are going to do, other than appeal.

    What I do know is 3.6 million is a very small amount of money compared to the theoretical user base of a free service that its adherents claim is both legitimate and needed on a cultural level. Provided the later group consists of enough people who would actually part with a small about of money to help when it is actually asked of them. Anyone trying to raise the money for them yet?

    Anyway, becuase this thread was sparred when the other closed. Ariana: ok, to chat here about it?
  3.  (5618.5)
    I'd happily give those guys a couple of bucks. Anyone know if there's a paypal or something to donate to?
    • CommentAuthornorther
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2009
    They'll probably win the appeal, especially after what happened with the judge.
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2009
    Nah. My guess is that it's imaginary money, a placeholder for precedent and the media - they never made the money, don't have it, and the other side never lost it. The verdict makes the creative math of the content protectors seem a little less like fairy gold, but it's still invented money with no anchor in real production or investment.

    There may be a mistrial because of the judge basically being a dunce - you'd have to be if you think you can have that membership, association and employment record, just declare yourself impartial, not mention it at any point during the trial, and not have any further questions asked.

    Even If there isn't a new trial, the appeals are going to waddle their slow, slow boring way to the highest court. If that court has any sense, I can't imagine they would dare set the strong precedents a sentence from them would make. With what's been going on between the police, court and enterprise organizations in this case, a sentence from the highest court would punch an even bigger hole in court and police monopoly on investigation, prosecution and punishment. If they do, wouldn't they be undermining their own position by condoning enterprise organizations' organized efforts to draft laws to their own liking and act preemptively on them?