Og så at det ene er lovligt, det andet ulovligt..

Jeg har aldrig sagt noget om skæve genre Bjørnie. Har sagt at man ikke tør eksperimentere fra pladeselskabernes side. Med det mener jeg f.eks. at store kunsntere som måske gerne vil tage en plade i en ny retning og har brug for en del studietid og penge til at eksperimentere, ikke kan få lov til det af deres pladeselskab.

Beatles er jo f.eks. et strålende eksempel på et band som bare er blevet tvunget i studiet og så ellers bare har fået stillet alt til rådighed som de nu skulle bruge for at skabe nyt materiale istedet for at prøve at fastholde dem i deres første succesfulde albums stil.

Udover det betyder det også at de skæve genre du snakker om næppe vil blive tilskrevet et label og bliver nødt til at brande dem selv.

Hvis nye kunstnere er talentfulde og får masser af opmærksomhed på nettet, så skal de nok blive samlet op. Branding burde være udnødvendigt ved mindre du vil få lort til at ligne guld.

Og så at det ene er lovligt, det andet ulovligt..

Det er også ulovligt at smide tyggegummi på gaden i Nordkorea.

Pirate Bay Judge Accused of Bias, Calls for a Retrial

Posted: 22 Apr 2009 07:52 PM PDT

king kong defenseIt’s been almost a week since the verdicts of one year in prison and heavy financial damages were passed against the four accused in the Pirate Bay trial. The sentence seemed surprisingly tough to many analysts, with the court chosing to judge on intent only, dismissing all technical evidence.

But did The Pirate Bay Four receive a fair trial? Today, an event on Swedish national radio SR threw everything into doubt - and it’s barely believable, like something straight out of Hollywood.

The copyright industry likes to have the outcome of processes clear before engaging them so it’s perhaps unsurprising that SR today revealed that the judge Tomas Norström is in league with it on many fronts. The judge has several engagements - together with the prosecution lawyers for the movie and music industries.

Swedish Association of Copyright (SFU) - The judge Tomas Norström is a member of this discussion forum that holds seminars, debates and releases the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review. Other members of this outfit? Henrik Pontén (Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), Monique Wadsted (movie industry lawyer) and Peter Danowsky (IFPI) - the latter is also a member of the board of the association.

Swedish Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (SFIR) - The judge Tomas Norström sits on the board of this association that works for stronger copyright laws. Last year they held the Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies.

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) - Tomas Norström works for the foundation that oversees the .se name domain and advises on domain name disputes. His colleague at the foundation? Monique Wadsted. Wadsted says she’s never met Norström although they have worked together.

Commenting on the revelations, Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde brokep said, “Spectrial Cliffhanger in S01 with the verdict - S02 started with the judge being biased. Reality beats fiction yet again!”

There are several renowned lawyers and judicial commentators that are attacking Tomas Norström’s decision to take the case, in spite of having a clear conflict of interest.

“I wouldn’t have taken the case,” says former judicial ombudsman Rune Lavin.

Former Director of Public Prosecution Sven-Erik Alhem said, “You cannot hide controversial facts. The attention this gets only leads to unnecessary questioning of bias in Swedish courts. Of course the judge should have informed people of the situation prior to the process and thereby allowed the involved parties to decide if it was suitable or not.”

Lawyer Leif Silbersky made a comment all Pirate Bay supporters want to hear, “If the lawyers [for the defense] act on this immediately, this could mean a re-trial.”

Peter Sunde’s lawyer Peter Althin says he has already put in a request for a re-trial. “In my appeal, I will claim the court was biased and that the appeal court should cancel the verdict and re-submit the case to the district court,” he said.

And the judge himself? “Every time I accept a case I make an assessment on whether I am part of it or not. But I have not felt that I am biased because of those commitments,” he said.

During the trial it was the judge, Tomas Norström, that was responsible for ensuring that the trial was fair and that the lay judges did not act in their own interests.

Previously one of the original lay judges in the case had to step down when his involvement in a music rights group became known;

“Three lay judges were appointed,” said Judge Norström one week before the trial. “On a question from me to the lay judges on whether they had any involvement in copyright associations or similar, or if they are or have been artists one of them answered Yes.”

That lay judge was removed. It’s anyone’s guess why the judge didn’t think the same should apply to him.

Whether or not Tomas Norström allowed his personal interests to get in the way of a fair verdict is open for debate, but there can’t be an intelligent human being reading this news that doesn’t feel that it would’ve been better for everyone if he simply backed away from this case and let someone else take over. He has compromised the entire case and verdict.

Rick Falkvinge of Sweden’s Pirate Party said the revelations were indicative of “corruption on a completely unforgivable level.”

This is a breaking news story, check back for updates.

Thanks to Billy

Post from: TorrentFreak



Enjoy retrial.