AAPL Stock: 118.3 ( + 0.49 )

Printed from

Judge in Pirate Bay case accused of bias

updated 09:35 am EDT, Thu April 23, 2009

P Bay Judge Said Biased

The judge that ruled against the Pirate Bay has today been accused by one of the site's attorneys of an unfair bias that invalidates the case. Lawyer Peter Althin in his motion to the Court of Appeal alleges that Judge Tomas Norström is or has been a member of the same copyright support groups as the media companies involved in the lawsuits, giving him an incentive to rule in their favor. Althin plans to demand a retrial and notes that one judge was already excluded from the case in the fall for similar reasons.

A lawyer for additional Pirate Bay member Gottfried Svartholm Warg, as well as a separate attorney uninvolved with the case, also supports the notion that the judge is too deeply linked with the industry to provide a fair view of the case. Judge Norström himself doesn't deny his associations but claims they don't present a conflict.

In the trial, the Pirate Bay's defense had argued that no actual illegally pirated files were hosted on its servers and thus that the site wasn't directly contributing to piracy as had been claimed in the primary charges. Prosecutors had responded by saying that providing a search for pirated files amounted to responsibility, but have been countered in the wake of the verdict by complaints that such broad wording would make Google and any other search site guilty of piracy by making it possible to search for pirated material.

Critics have also alleged from the outset that the arrests and trial were brought as special favors for the music and movie industries.

by MacNN Staff



  1. Darylal

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Gun Manufacters next?

    Didn't gun manufactures successfully argue that they were only making the guns and were not responsible if they were used in something illegal. Even though some of the weapons they create only have one purpose, to kill other people.

    Guess they had an NRA card carrying judge for there trial. Or as usual big corporations get what they want out of the legal system.

  1. eldarkus

    Joined: Dec 1969



    Guns don't kill people. It's the bullets. And bullets don't technically kill people.. it's the person who pulled the trigger.

    Not that I own a gun or am a member of the NRA, but guns have several purposes. self defense, hunting and target shooting to name a few.

    Comment buried. Show
  1. ajhoughton

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Google comparison

    The Google comparison is ridiculous. The Pirate Bay is intended for copyright infringement. Google is not.

    They are being prosecuted for their intent, and quite right too.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: Google comparison

    It isn't ridiculous. It's based on the wording of the prosecutors.

    Prosecutors had responded by saying that providing a search for pirated files amounted to responsibility,

    As such, Google allows searching for files. You can use google to find pirated files. Ergo they are as responsible. In fact, this is the same c*** they try pulling on YouTube over copyrighted materials.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: gun mfrs

    Gun manufacturers never successfully argued anything in court. They basically got legislative relief from the gov't, because there's an amendment that says gun ownership is OK, and, thus, that implies trying to sue a gun manufacturer over defective equipment is unconstitutional or something.

    Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that they were being sued by money-crazed lawyers (I know, shocking isn't it) trying to sue the manufacturers just because they sold a gun used to kill someone, which is just a plain ridiculous argument (like do others get to sue the Ginsu people for making the knife that killed their relations?). Or suing because some idiot leaves their loaded gun on their bed, their son comes home, and blows his brains out.

    However, this does basically kill attempts for valid lawsuits, like someone blowing their hand off because of a defective pistol or something.

    Of course, this all comes from a gov't who believes it should be OK to spy on its citizens without requiring a warrant (despite what the constitution says) in the name of "security", or imprison people without ever having to prove they're guilty (gee, I think there'd be something in a constitution about that, too).

    Of course, you have a citizenry who put up with an administration that lied to get the country into a war that literally drove it into the debt it resides in now.

  1. QualleyIV

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: Re: gun mfrs

    testudo, you are a horrible lawyer. If you don't know anything about what you're talking about, why don't you refrain from saying anything...

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented