Pirate Bay Trial: Official Verdit is Guilty

[DangerousDaze]

But nope, stealing is bad and its YOUR stuff so you don't want me to see it or touch it before i've given you money. It's all about you, your rights, you wants and your power... odd that.

The sheer arrogance of this astounds me.

Yes it's about "me" (the content producer) because I made it. The only right you have is to decide whether or not you want to pay me in advance to experience it. If you don't want to take that chance because you don't think it will be worth your money, fine, take your business elsewhere.

And yes, stealing is bad. Couch it in whatever terms best salves your conscience, but that's what you're doing.

[Hotcod]

It sounds like your reasoning has more to do with personal convenience and serving your interests than it has to do with what's right.

I can see where your coming from to a point. Money was tight in college. I did dishonest things to get by all the time. I used the cafeteria to stock up on cereal, fruit, and other meals by pocketing items in disregard of the "no food can leave the grounds" policy. I "shared" rent with a guy in blatant disregard of his rental agreement that specified that roommates were not allowed.

During all this, I never once tried to justify my dishonesty with convoluted logic. I knew what I was doing was wrong. I did it anyway.

Now, I could argue that my need to eat and have a roof over my head was more important than your need for entertainment, but that would be disingenuous. I can only say that my conscience troubled me thoughout the lean times because I didn't try to justify it with semantics.

I know that it's legally wrong. I'm not arguing that. I know that the times that i don't buy something i've tired and liked are wrong, i'm not arguing that. As much as i wish i could say i've brought everything i've tried and enjoyed i can't.

Yet what i am arguing is that the system is wrong. In my view the right of the content creates vs the rights of the content consumers are out of whack. So to me stepping out side the system in and of it's self isn't wrong. And that's what i'm arguing. I've not been trying to argue that i'm a perfect moral person just that the other side has it's problems to.

In the end some good has come out of wrong of pure piracy. Take spotify for example, it's an streaming itunes with all the major lables on it. I've been using it a hell of a lot. For the cost of a few ads i get exactly what i've been arguing for in this thread and more. I can not only try before i buy but have a legal way of listening to things i might like but might not like enough to spend money on. I would be willing to pay a small fee to use it if it comes to that in the long run but the point is that the music industry is at last trying out a system that i whole heartily agree with. In the case of artists streaming ad supported albums i can listen to them and if i enjoy them and if i don't buy them then the creator has still gotten something back from me. In my view every one wins and i don't see why that idea as it's core is so evil to you people.

Dose that mean i won't ever download albums i like with out paying for them again? no. Money is tight and as much as i try to make it up over time i will still sometimes steal music. There is no defence of that and i won't offer it. I will admit that i've not talked about it before because it would confuse the pure point i was trying to make. People would use the fact that i do pirate as a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand. I honesty hope that that hasn't made me look disingenuous.

My logic for my argument of try before you buy is sound to me even if you see it as convoluted and is one i'd apply to any content i would ever create. In that respect at lest i'm not being hypercritical. And i get that because it is linked to piracy why you might find it wrong and think i'm only talking about it to make my self feel better. But i'm not. Like i've said give me a legal way to try before i buy that suppourts the makers and i'll take it. Because THAT is what i want, i don't want to have to get around the system i just want it to work in a way that i agree with. Which is all every one wants really. I'm just willing to step over a mark because i can in a way that in and of it's self dose not active harm.

[Hotcod]

The sheer arrogance of this astounds me.

Yes it's about "me" (the content producer) because I made it. The only right you have is to decide whether or not you want to pay me in advance to experience it. If you don't want to take that chance because you don't think it will be worth your money, fine, take your business elsewhere.

And yes, stealing is bad. Couch it in whatever terms best salves your conscience, but that's what you're doing.

No it's not all about you. If you expect me to give you money that i've worked just as hard to make as you did to create the content then i have a right to know if i want the product not just your word. This is the core of my argument.

It works for TV shows and with spotify and last fm it may even start working for music. give me a legal way to try your content that you can make money out of and i will use it. Up until now people have just not had to do that because there where no other means of levelling the playing filed. In other words content creators have always had the power and that power in my view has been abused. Now that consumers have a way to subvert that power the industries have started to fight them... but now they are starting to adapt. Which is in my view good.


I find it funny that you find my statement for arguing for more equal rights to be arrogant then go on to say that you as the content creator are the only one that matters. Because clearly money grows on trees and dose not require effort or work for most people to have.

[DangerousDaze]

If you expect me to give you money that i've worked just as hard to make as you did to create the content then i have a right to know if i want the product not just your word.

Read the reviews. Watch the trailers. Use any legal means.

If you want the whole thing then put your hand in your pocket and if you don't want to take that chance, fine.

I'm a businessman. You have no right to my creations unless you buy them first.

[Ox]

My logic for my argument of try before you buy is sound to me even if you see it as convoluted and is one i'd apply to any content i would ever create. In that respect at lest i'm not being hypercritical.
You don't have an argument for "try-before-you-buy." You've got two. One is very good. One is very bad. Your problem is that you are conflating them.

Your first, very good, argument for TBYB is prudential. TBYB makes you more likely to spend money on music and films, it makes you a loyal customer, and it makes you less likely to pirate. You are happier and the content owner gets more money. So it's a smart idea for both of you to use TBYB. This is a very good argument.

Your second argument is moral. You take the conclusion of the first argument, that TBYB is a good idea for everyone. Then you say, "If TBYB is a good idea for everyone, I may force everyone to use TBYB." That's a bad argument. You should not force people to do things simply because it's a good idea for them to do those things.

You also try to leverage your preference to TBYB into a moral concept: you have a moral right to TBYB. Yes and no. You have a moral right to refuse to buy stuff unless the seller has a TBYB policy, of course. But why do you think you have a right to compel others to offer free samples? I source the right to control a product in the activity of creation: by investing my labor in my writings, I acquire ownership of that configuration of words and may do with them as I wish. By working for your money, you acquire ownership of that money and may do with it as you wish. You can't tell me what to do with my content, and I can't tell you what to do with your money. We can only agree to trade or agree to walk away.

But you haven't promised to buy anything yet. You want to read my words, and only then will you decide whether to give me anything back. I don't like this deal. Why do you get to make me give something up with nothing in return? I don't say you have to give me money, and if I like your money, maybe I'll show you my writings. That would obviously be unfair. So why is it fair to make me work without pay?

[Hotcod]

Read the reviews. Watch the trailers. Use any legal means.

If you want the whole thing then put your hand in your pocket and if you don't want to take that chance, fine.

I'm a businessman. You have no right to my creations unless you buy them first.

That your view and that fine but please don't try and hide behind some mock outrage about how awful it is that i'd like to know if i want what i'm buying. It's an uneven system that has until the last 10 years favoured you. You are the one with all the power and legal rights in this respect. Just please don't pretend that you are not looking out for your interests first and are invested in a system that services you best. Just like i'm clearly invested in a system that services me best.

The point i'm making is that in my view your system is far more immoral than mine. And that the systems i'd want to see, such as spotify, are better for more people over all than your system.

and Ox, i won't respond in detail to your post since i think this post is relevant to it but the argument your making for my 2nd, moral, argument being bad ignores the fact that the current system is one i can argue is immoral. And while that dose not make subverting the system right the fact is that by doing what i do and other people doing the same the system that i see as wrong is being forced to change in to something i see as right. Once the system is one i see as right i will gladly take part in it. While it's not really an answer to your post i feel it's a relevant point.

But i do have to back out of the argument a bit at this point since i have to go draw things that i'm behind on drawing

[DangerousDaze]

It's an uneven system that has until the last 10 years favoured you.
How is it uneven? You are not compelled to pay me money. I'm not forcing you to purchase my product. If you don't want to give me any money then don't, but don't think you have a moral entitlement to what I'm offering in return.

The system you're referring to is just commerce.

[Hotcod]

How is it uneven? You are not compelled to pay me money. I'm not forcing you to purchase my product. If you don't want to give me any money then don't, but don't think you have a moral entitlement to what I'm offering in return.

The system you're referring to is just commerce.

But if i am going to give you money i'm the one taking all the risk. Given that i don't have to give you money but you clearly need or at lest want the money i don't see how that is even. You are making your living in this case by people giving you money for something they don't need. I can carry on my life just fine with out buying your product but you can not carry on life just fine if every one did the same. So in this system you are the one that needs me more than i need you but i'm the one who has to take the risk of giving you money for something i may not want. How the hell you see that as fair i have no idea.

The only reason it exists as it dose is that the people who buy your product have never been able to do so on anything but your terms. You have the power in the system and so the system favours you. THAT is commerce. Now the market has changed, we don't have to deal with your terms, you so you no longer how the power in the system. As such so we can demand a system that no longer favours you.

It clearly changes if the product you have is physical and something i need. As i said the argument i'm making dose not extend to the whole of commerce simply to digital entertainment in the digital age.

I'd like to point out that if i make my living doing something i want to do it will be in creating exactly this kind of content. I should really be arguing that the system is ok as it is as that would be better for me in the long run. But the point is I'm invested in this argument from both sides and as such it's only the moral part of it that i can make a choice on which side to pick. From both sides the only moral view i can find is the one i've talked about in this thread.

[Generation ABXY]

My old comparison is the 'magic ray gun' analogy. It has two settings: copy, paste. If you hit 'copy', it retains memory of the exact thing it was aimed at. If you turn it to 'paste', then, when shot, it makes an exact replicate of what was last stored. It works just like copy/paste in a word processor, with physical objects. Why, with this, would we let anyone starve? Because they can't afford it? No, we'd feed them.

Why let anyone go without media when it's so easily duplicatable?

So digital media is a matter of life and death? Let me know the first time someone actually dies because, “Oh, my god, they have to have that album.”

(Oh, and I might agree that copyright may be in need of some reform, though I doubt people here would be willing to wait even 14 years to hear their favorite band's latest album.)

How is it uneven? You are not compelled to pay me money. I'm not forcing you to purchase my product. If you don't want to give me any money then don't, but don't think you have a moral entitlement to what I'm offering in return.

The system you're referring to is just commerce.

Exactly. People keep saying the content providers aren't expected to take any risk, but they do take it. By putting a price on any of their product and not allowing you to try it first, they are taking a risk that you are going to take your money elsewhere. They can't force you to buy something, they can't attack you for buying something else and they don't have something that you need, just what you may want.

[Ox]

and Ox, i won't respond in detail to your post since i think this post is relevant to it but the argument your making for my 2nd, moral, argument being bad ignores the fact that the current system is one i can argue is immoral.
I don't think it does. You have two reasons why you think the current system is immoral:
1. It doesn't have TBYB, which is a good idea. I think I addressed this.
2. It somehow is unequal and ignores the rights of consumers. Again, I think I addressed this: it has precisely the same rights for consumers and sellers. Both are entitled to demand the status quo. They may agree to alter the status quo if they wish, but neither can change the status quo without the other's consent. That's precisely equal.

And while that dose not make subverting the system right the fact is that by doing what i do and other people doing the same the system that i see as wrong is being forced to change in to something i see as right. Once the system is one i see as right i will gladly take part in it. While it's not really an answer to your post i feel it's a relevant point.
Why is it relevant? You could more easily change the system through a series of targeted assassinations. Why not kill me, a well-spoken advocate of the current system, to silence me and change the system? Killing me will be far more effective than your piddling little copyright violations.

EDIT:
So in this system you are the one that needs me more than i need you but i'm the one who has to take the risk of giving you money for something i may not want. How the hell you see that as fair i have no idea.
Oh, this is very interesting. Very interesting indeed. You think whomever needs the deal more is the one who should sacrifice more. But, of course, in any individual sale of music, the content owner doesn't really give a shit about your $15. It's only when you aggregate all the sales of music that the content owner is more vulnerable.

Well, I'll say two things about that. First, if you think the person who needs the deal more should sacrifice more, then you must have very interesting views about, say, outsourcing to the Third World. The company could probably stay in business if it had to shut down (and the stockholders would only lose money even if it went out of business), but the workers would starve without the work. So I imagine you must say that Nike doesn't exploit the little child laborers enough. Those greedy child laborers!

And second, there's an easy way to resolve the issue. If you form a union with your other consumers, you can engage in joint negotiations with the content owners and get a better deal. But this sort of "unfair" deal exists everywhere: you don't really need a stereo, but the stereo company needs consumer money to stay in business. So if unfairness is your only concern, you should take things that aren't yours more often.

It clearly changes if the product you have is physical and something i need. As i said the argument i'm making dose not extend to the whole of commerce simply to digital entertainment in the digital age.
Why? If I have a giant tub of ice cream and my power goes out, it will all turn to gross slush long before I could possibly eat more than a tiny fraction of it. There are a lot of perishable goods out there, and there are a lot of people who have more physical goods than they could ever use. Jay Leno cannot possibly drive all his cars, and I'm sure Bill Gates has a house he's never even seen and has forgotten where he put it. Doesn't your logic about unfairness apply to these physical goods, even if you also care about scarcity?

[Hotcod]

You getting in to strawman territory again ox. No one is actively hurt if i a download an album. Killing you (even for being big headed) is inarguably immoral and clearly by doing so some one, you, is actively hurt. It's the same difference as when you tried to make stealing the same as copyright infringement. It looks the same but they are two very different things.

The only reason for you to make this example is that you either don't understand why it's different or for you to set up a clear and easy target to knock down that looks close enough to my argument that some people might not see the different. Either way it's to me a strawman.

and i am honestly done now. I'm using this as an excuse to avoid work which i really need to stop doing... but debating is so fun and you know just how to tempted me back heh.

Anyway, even if we clearly won't agree i've enjoyed the debate. It's been an invigorating free way of entertaining my self ;)

edit

I am sad i didn't get telefrog to say i sent the thread in to awesome mode :( i might be losing my touch

[Generation ABXY]

No one is actively hurt if i a download an album.

Except for the person who isn't being paid for it. Now they have to work that much harder in order to make a living.

[Goronmon]

Except for the person who isn't being paid for it. Now they have to work that much harder in order to make a living.The same could be said for anyone who decides not to buy or download said album.

[Ox]

You getting in to strawman territory again ox. No one is actively hurt if i a download an album. Killing you (even for being big headed) is inarguably immoral and clearly by doing so some one, you, is actively hurt.
First, killing someone isn't "inarguably immoral": millions of people, often highly respected, have justified killings as moral on one basis or another. I think killing is sometimes permitted. I even think killing is permitted to rectify an inherently immoral system. I think killing would arguably be justified if it would end copyright infringement, for example. So it's not inarguably immoral.

Second, I'm not attributing this view to you. I know you don't think killing is justified in this instance. I'm not claiming you do think that. Let's go over some terminology:

"Strawman": a position I falsely claim an opponent endorses, which I deliberately set up to be weak and easily refuted, in an effort to make my opponent look bad.

"Arguendo ad absurdum": Literally 'arguing toward the absurd,' this is a legitimate technique that exposes logical flaws in an opponent's argument. I take the moral principles underpinning your argument and reason from them to the logical conclusion, which is a principle you do not accept. If you do not accept the conclusion of your moral principles, you must not subscribe to those moral principles. It demonstrates you have misstated your moral principles.

Here, I've used arguendo ad absurdum, not a strawman.

As for "actively hurt", it all depends on how you define it. I'd claim my economic interests are "actively hurt" when you obtain valuable property (i.e., my writings) without paying me. Any court in the country would agree. Right or wrong, I have a legal entitlement to withhold this data. Right or wrong, you obtained it anyway. Right or wrong, my interests have been "actively hurt" by your actions. So "actively hurt" cannot be the distinction between copyright infringement and immoral action.
It's the same difference as when you tried to make stealing the same as copyright infringement. It looks the same but they are two very different things.
I don't know how many times I have to point out I never did this to get you to stop saying it. I didn't do this. Stop saying it, please.

The only reason for you to make this example is that you either don't understand why it's different or for you to set up a clear and easy target to knock down that looks close enough to my argument that some people might not see the different. Either way it's to me a strawman.
And this is the sort of thing that actively hurts me. It's insulting to be denigrated in this way, especially since (as outlined above) your accusation is wholly unfair and untrue. My feelings and reputation are hurt. Does this count as "actively hurt"? Are you immoral? Why or why not?

[Hotcod]

ok i'm not responding to the whole of that, i said killing you over this was immoral and the fact you take that to mean i was talking about any one ever is just another case of you setting you strawmen. I'm starting to wonder if this is just how you debate, you take what is said and find a way to argue with the word that suits you rather than with the point being made. Since it's felt for me many time in this thread that you where arguing about things that where not related or relevant to show you where right. It's an odd kind of point scoring or something if it's not a knowing tactic

Except for the person who isn't being paid for it. Now they have to work that much harder in order to make a living.

No, with out downloading it i would have never brought it. I am with music not a even a potential consumer until i've heard the album. If you won't give me legal way to do it form which you can make money then i'll do it in a way that dose not take anything away from you. Once i've heard the album then if i like it i'll buy it when i can if i don't then i'll delete it and move on. Me downloading the album takes the chances of me buying it from 0 to something for no cost to you. How evil.

It's the same stupid argument that download of a game is a lost sale.

[DangerousDaze]

I'm going to try and meet in the middle. I've bought more crap and regretted it than I care to admit and I fully understand why this pisses people off. Anything that can be done (legally!) to prevent this from happening again is to be welcomed and encouraged.

I, however, won't ever "bend" the rules. I'll do as much research as I possibly can in advance and then I'll make a decision based on that.

[violent]

So what have we learned?

[Ox]

ok i'm not responding to the whole of that, i said killing you over this was immoral and the fact you take that to mean i was talking about any one ever is just another case of you setting you strawmen. I'm starting to wonder if this is just how you debate, you take what is said and find a way to argue with the word that suits you rather than with the point being made. Since it's felt for me many time in this thread that you where arguing about things that where not related or relevant to show you where right. It's an odd kind of point scoring or something if it's not a knowing tactic
Okay. This will be my last post to you in a little while. I'm not fucking psychic. I do not know you. The only things I know about you are what you write. Some people think killing really is inarguably immoral. If you say it is, then I might assume you really think that. If you mean to say "killing over this is inarguably immoral," then say fucking that. Otherwise, I may have trouble understanding you. This is not a 'strawman,' this is me foolishly assuming you mean what you say.

However, in this case, I'd encourage you to read the very next paragraph of my post:
"Second, I'm not attributing this view to you. I know you don't think killing is justified in this instance. I'm not claiming you do think that."

Oh! Look at that! I didn't attribute that view to you! And then I explained why I wrote that earlier paragraph: because it's important to discuss what "actively hurt" means and why killing wouldn't be justified here. After all, if I thought killing you would end all copyright infringement, I would seriously consider it.

So, in conclusion, I have two requests for you in the future:
1. Try to write exactly what you mean, as clearly as you can. I don't get on your case about spelling or grammar, but if you expect me to understand you, you have to try to meet me halfway.

2. Read all the way through my post before assuming I'm using a strawman.

[Hotcod]

I'm going to try and meet in the middle. I've bought more crap and regretted it than I care to admit and I fully understand why this pisses people off. Anything that can be done (legally!) to prevent this from happening again is to be welcomed and encouraged.

I, however, won't ever "bend" the rules. I'll do as much research as I possibly can in advance and then I'll make a decision based on that.

Changes to the system that legally help avoid people wasting money on stuff are good. I'm sure most of us can agree with that. I can't recommend spoitfy enough in that respect. The fact that that exists at all is a good sign for the future of the record industry and is the kind of changes i'd like to see more of.

That said i can honestly respect you sticking to the rules and i can understand why you don't like the fact that i don't and see what i do as wrong. We could debate that until the cows come home but it in the end comes down to very personal moral views of the world and i can't and shouldn't expect every one to agree with mine.

So yes i think it's a good place to meet. I know my views are a little extreme in some respects but what you said is the most important aspect of my argument.

[Raen]

The thing is there are a variety of try before you buy options with legal media. Most bands will put up stuff, maybe not a whole album but at least something, on Last.FM or MySpace or PureVolume. I don't know how Spotify is doing in terms of new content, I've yet to try it, but it certainly is a very valid (and simple) way of trying before you buy. In fact I'd argue that it's more simple. And finally most physical music stores I shop at have CD players (this is indie and big label shops) which allow for you to listen to the album on headphones. Even if you don't buy it from there and go for Amazon etc... to save money you still have a legal way of trying. The last is, I would say, by far the most complete option as it guarantees that you can try the whole album if you so choose (assuming the store has the album and offers the service).

[pomeroy]

So what have we learned?

That piracy threads are the worst threads on the internet.

[violent]

That piracy threads are the worst threads on the internet.

Excellent work.

[total]

That piracy threads are the worst threads on the internet.

I think they're an interesting read honestly. I can't say I agree with everyone posting in this thread but I'd like to at least think I'm hearing different opinions than my own and the reasoning behind them. I was just thinking about this thread on my way home actually, and I would love to be able to sit down and have a conversation face to face with some of the people posting here. I can't type as much anymore (arthritis kicking my ass lately) but there is a lot going on in this thread that I would love to discuss. The length of copyright, the extent of infringement, what is actually considered infringement (I see quite a few people posting that because they have cable or pay their TV tax they don't feel downloading a TV show is "wrong.")

I encourage everyone to keep a cool head and steer clear of personal attacks. We are all adults (well mostly) and can have a civil discussion.

[Ghostbear]

So what have we learned?

That seals on dry land are hilarious!

[Sandman]

I'll admit, I pirate stuff. I'm trying to cut back on it with cheap legal ways to get things like netflix, gamefly and hulu but there is only so much you can save on. I find myself using amazon mp3 and iTunes more often for their sales now (especially amazon, new Depeche Mode for $4 today!!).

Also, I may be the exception but if I like an artist whether I buy the record or not I'll usually find a way to see them live. Good music is usually better live and I don't know if you've bought a ticket for a live show lately but damn those things can be expensive.

[TrackZero]

YouTube is one thing; it actually hosts the content. The Pirate Bay just links to the content... just like Google.


Exactly. I think the key issues involved with this isn't the accused or their punishment. It's the ramifications to everyone ELSE involved. This opens up google and ISPs to serious legal issues. Further moves towards a completely gated community locked down internet. All because certain industry groups can't take a good hard look at the new infrastructure in place and try to find their spot in it. Had this been back at the turn of the century, I can understand. But at this point, groups like the RIAA and MPAA are the proverbial ogres trying to smash people for taking their treasure (or at least, the treasure they assume they deserve).

Until these groups can get their act together with regards to digital distribution, I have no pity for any perceived losses they're having. I want their content. I want to pay for their content. But I want it on demand and without advertising. Give me a service and a price point. Stop fucking around in an outdated legal system that was never designed to judge technical issues and endanger unrelated services that are provided to me as collateral damage.

On the flip side, I have no pity for anyone who's being given a proper service and price for their entertainment and still decide to try to steal it.

[Ox]

Exactly. I think the key issues involved with this isn't the accused or their punishment. It's the ramifications to everyone ELSE involved. This opens up google and ISPs to serious legal issues.
No, it doesn't. Not unless Google sets out specifically to design its site to make it easier to find pirated content and actively solicits pirates to get their pages ranked on Google.

People seem to think that, if the law says one thing is bad, everything even arguably vaguely similar to that one thing is inevitably also going to be illegal. That's not actually how the law works. That's especially not how the law works in Sweden, which isn't even a common-law jurisdiction. I realize it can be laughable to see judges and legislators try to comprehend technical matters wildly outside their own experience and expertise (see, e.g., a system of tubes). Well, sometimes that works in the opposite direction, as well.

[Goronmon]

Well, sometimes that works in the opposite direction, as well.Sometimes?

[Ox]

Sometimes people get pretty close, actually. I'm often surprised at how savvy people are about the legal system. Then I get someone who doesn't understand the difference between a prosecutor and a defense attorney and I get sad again.

[Johan]

Then I get someone who doesn't understand the difference between a prosecutor and a defense attorney and I get sad again.

The difference is in who pays the bills, and how much. Right? :D

Except in the case of a public defender, in which case one of those differences is a similarity.

[Ox]

To you, yes. But if you happen to be a criminal defendant, I strongly advise you to send all your letters discussing your case and strategy to the defense lawyer, not the prosecutor.

Rule of thumb: if you find yourself writing on the envelope the words, "c/o The District Attorney's Office", STOP.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3481/themoreyouknow2g.jpg (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=themoreyouknow2g.jpg)

[cp#]

I like that the site is still up.

[Generation ABXY]

So what have we learned?

Never get involved in a land war in Asia, and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line?

[total]

No, it doesn't. Not unless Google sets out specifically to design its site to make it easier to find pirated content and actively solicits pirates to get their pages ranked on Google.

I think Track makes a good point to the technologies involved as a whole. There have been numerous attacks by the RIAA and the MPAA against the technology itself because the technology at hand could be used to pirate. I'm sure there are quite a few that remember their legal attacks at the mp3 file format, P2P and torrents. Hell I remember getting into an argument with a certain mod on a certain site, let's just call him Evil, about the legitimacy of torrents. He actually got pissed at me for posting Ubuntu torrents or some such. Attacking the technology, which might not be the case here, sets a dangerous precedent. I really do see it in the same light as gun ownership. Just because they could be used for something nefarious doesn't mean they will be and we should outlaw them. Hell there was an article on /. a few weeks back about legislation trying to get passed that would increase the penalty of tech crimes if the accused used a proxy. Basically it seems like a system is being set up in which everyone is a criminal in some sense in regards to IP. You are just waiting for whatever corporation to send you a court date.

[Hotcod]

What's funny is if you don't secure your wireless and claim to leave access open as a belief or such as i know there is no way to prove that the IP trace links you and not some one on a laptop to the crime. Well so long as you clean up after your self when you get a letter telling you your going to be taken to court, if you did in fact do anything. In other words the idea that IP addresses are some how a prove anything any more is silly. Unless i'm missing something but i thought than an open wireless rooter should put the IP in to reasonable doubt and so long as there's nothing on your computer that shows you did anything wrong.

Come to think of it i don't know if this is even right, any one know more about this stuff want to chip in or will i have to go learn things for my self?

[Sandman]

What's funny is if you don't secure your wireless and claim to leave access open as a belief or such as i know there is no way to prove that the IP trace links you and not some one on a laptop to the crime. Well so long as you clean up after your self when you get a letter telling you your going to be taken to court, if you did in fact do anything. In other words the idea that IP addresses are some how a prove anything any more is silly. Unless i'm missing something but i thought than an open wireless rooter should put the IP in to reasonable doubt and so long as there's nothing on your computer that shows you did anything wrong.

Come to think of it i don't know if this is even right, any one know more about this stuff want to chip in or will i have to go learn things for my self?

I believe the person that owns the connection is responsible for the activities of anyone that uses it. Whether they are aware of it or not.

[Hotcod]

I believe the person that owns the connection is responsible for the activities of anyone that uses it. Whether they are aware of it or not.

well that just gets a bit silly given how easy it is to bypass most wireless protection. But say there's some one i dislike who has an open network can i go pirate stuff from there network and then set the record company on them? even if they prove some one else downloaded it, which would be hard, they would be screwed.

Given that you can't go after the ISP in that same way it seems a bit odd that i have to responsible for some one else actions simply for having an open network. Even if it's protected some one could hack it and use it that way. In fact it's something i'd look to do if i was a hardcore pirate. If they can't prove that the computer i'm using downloaded the file then it find it amazing that the the fact my ip was used leaves me open to legal action.

If this is how it goes that's rather crazy

[Shadowstorm]

I believe the person that owns the connection is responsible for the activities of anyone that uses it. Whether they are aware of it or not.

That's ridiculous.

[Ox]

I think Track makes a good point to the technologies involved as a whole. There have been numerous attacks by the RIAA and the MPAA against the technology itself because the technology at hand could be used to pirate.
Sure. The MPAA tried to prevent the introduction of the VCR. Xerox was sued by book publishers. Now, call me crazy, but do you mind if I ask how many of those suits succeeded?

Attacking the technology, which might not be the case here, sets a dangerous precedent.
As you note, that's not the case here. And I think you have to win to set a precedent. So far, the RIAA and MPAA are having about as much success as the guy who thought his pants were worth $63 million.
I really do see it in the same light as gun ownership. Just because they could be used for something nefarious doesn't mean they will be and we should outlaw them.
Which is exactly the position the American legal system takes. Of course, I can't speak for whether every country on Earth will have exactly the same policy as us. And American judges are increasingly looking to foreign law...
Hell there was an article on /. a few weeks back about legislation trying to get passed that would increase the penalty of tech crimes if the accused used a proxy. Basically it seems like a system is being set up in which everyone is a criminal in some sense in regards to IP. You are just waiting for whatever corporation to send you a court date.
First, there's a difference between a crime and a civil suit. Second, it seems pretty easy to avoid that increased penalty: don't commit a tech crime.

I believe the person that owns the connection is responsible for the activities of anyone that uses it. Whether they are aware of it or not.
Not entirely true. You may be responsible for some stuff, on the general principle that you are expected to take reasonable steps to prevent others from using your property for wrongdoing. I'm not allowed to permit squatters to set up a meth lab in my basement, then say, "Oh, I never go down there. Meth lab, you say? Golly." But neither are you automatically responsible for everything that takes place over your Internet connection. Of course, we tend to assume that the person using your Internet connection is you, so you'll have to prove that someone else used it in the first place.

Hotcod goes off to point out it's possible that a router could be hacked. Certainly, if you have industry-standard protection on your router and some malicious pirate hacked your system, you would not be held responsible. The usual standard is reasonable care: so long as you exercise reasonable care, you won't be held responsible for the acts of others.

Incidentally, I might advocate a little skepticism about urban legends like this one. Despite what seems to be popular opinion, the entire legal system was not dreamed up in a meth-fueled binge. There are crazy aspects to the legal system, and there's more stuff that isn't a very good idea, but the majority of it is not completely insane. If you hear some theory about the law that is completely insane, it usually means the theory is not entirely accurate.

[Ancalagon]

Pirate Bay demands retrial, claims judge was biased (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/)

The judge in The Pirate Bay trial has been accused of bias, after Sweden's national radio station revealed that Thomas Norström was a member of the same pro-copyright groups as several of the main entertainment industry reps in the case.

Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme claimed Norström is signed up to the Swedish Copyright Association (Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt), which also counts Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted as members. All three represented the entertainment industry in the case against BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay.

Additionally, the judge sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws.

I got to hand it to these guys, they are very clever. They obviously knew this before the trial, but they waited until it was over. Had they won, they wouldnt have played this card.

[Narradisall]

Pirate Bay demands retrial, claims judge was biased (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/)



I got to hand it to these guys, they are very clever. They obviously knew this before the trial, but they waited until it was over. Had they won, they wouldnt have played this card.

lol.

I foresee this entertaining me for some time.

[Johan]

Pirate Bay demands retrial, claims judge was biased (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/)

That's some damn good investigative work, and a hilarious 'ace' to have up one's sleeve. They are very, very smart guys.

[DangerousDaze]

That's some damn good investigative work, and a hilarious 'ace' to have up one's sleeve.

I don't see how this has any bearing. They were already planning an appeal which would have been heard by a different judge anyway. The case will be re-judged on its merits, not on the alleged bias of the previous judge.

[Ancalagon]

I don't see how this has any bearing. They were already planning an appeal which would have been heard by a different judge anyway. The case will be re-judged on its merits, not on the alleged bias of the previous judge.

Ox would know better, but as far as I know, a retrial is not the same as an appeal. Besides, with an appeal they would have already been found guilty, with a retrial the slate is wiped clean, so to speak.

I also think it highlights bias and even possible corruption - what was a member of the Pro IP law doing judging a case about whether IP law had been violated? Not going to sit well with people who already dont like the recording industry (and I suspect there are lots of people out there).

[Johan]

I don't see how this has any bearing.

You don't see how the judge having a potential conflict of interest has any bearing in the result (guilty) of the trial?

:confused:

I have no more words for that.

:confused:

[DangerousDaze]

You don't see how the judge having a potential conflict of interest has any bearing in the result (guilty) of the trial?

:confused:

I have no more words for that.

:confused:

That's not what I said. If this information had come out during the original trial then I would have been clamouring for a mistrial because it has a massive bearing. It's clear from this thread that I really don't like what TPB stands for but even I would agree that this was a conflict of interest.

My point is that it's too late for this information to be useful to them; the trial's over.

There will be an appeal but it will be heard by someone else, so that ace card isn't really worth anything at this point.

[Ancalagon]

My point is that it's too late for this information to be useful to them; the trial's over.


No, they will use it to have the trial declared null and void, that I would think is valuable.

But as I said, wait for Ox to arrive, since I'm quite sure that a retrial carries different implications to an appeal. Might be things like what evidence is admissable.

[DangerousDaze]

As far as I know (not being a lawyer in any jurisdiction) you can only declare a mistrial prior to the return of a verdict.

/edit - what this means is that the appeal claim will be cast iron so it's almost certain that there will be a retrial.

[Johan]

That's not what I said. If this information had come out during the original trial then I would have been clamouring for a mistrial because it has a massive bearing.

The verdict will be overturned because of this evidence, I would think, and that makes this much better for the convicted than a simple appeal of their conviction.

It's a monumentally stupid "oversight" (I doubt it was an "oversight" though) by the trial judge. Horrendously stupid.

I'm quite sure that a retrial carries different implications to an appeal.

For one thing, if the verdict is vacated, they would be innocent again, rather than guilty and trying to prove innocence. THAT is a huge difference.

[DangerousDaze]

The verdict will be overturned because of this evidence, I would think,
That remains to be seen. At worst it means the process will start again, but it was going to do that on appeal in any case.

[Johan]

That remains to be seen.

Hence, "I would think." :p

If the judge being a member of a group with a clear bias/stance on the issue before the court isn't an example of judicial misconduct, and doesn't lead to vacating the conviction, then I'd be stunned. The Swedes aren't dumb.

[DangerousDaze]

Hence, "I would think." :p

If the judge being a member of a group with a clear bias/stance on the issue before the court isn't an example of judicial misconduct, and doesn't lead to vacating the conviction, then I'd be stunned. The Swedes aren't dumb.

Also bear in mind that this gives the prosecuting side another chance. They monumentally fucked up their side of the proceedings in the original trial and that's not a mistake they're likely to repeat.

[Shadowstorm]

Also bear in mind that this gives the prosecuting side another chance. They monumentally fucked up their side of the proceedings in the original trial and that's not a mistake they're likely to repeat.

Stranger things have happened :P.

[DangerousDaze]

Stranger things have happened :P.

With that bunch of morons? You're probably right! :)

[Ox]

I got to hand it to these guys, they are very clever. They obviously knew this before the trial, but they waited until it was over. Had they won, they wouldnt have played this card.
I can't speak about Swedish law, but Americans courts would not take this well. You're not allowed to sit silently in a case of trial court error, wait until the verdict, and then use it to overturn the verdict.

So they're not clever at all: they are morons. By waiting until the verdict to raise this issue, they waived it (assuming arguendo that Swedish law is the same as American, which it's probably not). At least, they're morons from a legal standpoint. If the goal is a PR thing where people will assume the outcome was the result of bias and to bring discredit upon the legal system, then they may indeed be clever.

Ox would know better, but as far as I know, a retrial is not the same as an appeal. Besides, with an appeal they would have already been found guilty, with a retrial the slate is wiped clean, so to speak.
This is probably the best summary of the difference between an appeal and a retrial I've ever seen.

I also think it highlights bias and even possible corruption - what was a member of the Pro IP law doing judging a case about whether IP law had been violated?
Once a judge is on a particular court, he's usually assigned cases randomly or on the basis of geography. If a party thinks the judge is biased, they can ask him to recuse himself (in America, at least). If he thinks he can't hear the case fairly, he could also step down voluntarily. But it's generally not possible for a judge to game the system to make sure he can hear cases that he wants to.

If the judge being a member of a group with a clear bias/stance on the issue before the court isn't an example of judicial misconduct, and doesn't lead to vacating the conviction, then I'd be stunned. The Swedes aren't dumb.
Eh, I don't think it's that bad. If a judge joins a neighborhood watch program and visits schools to try to convince kids to stay off drugs, does that mean he's hopelessly biased and can't hear any criminal cases?

The Swedish Copyright Association is most likely simply an organization of copyright attorneys and other experts in the field. Judges routinely belong to organizations like this. The second organization sounds like it might be a concern, but I'm reluctant to condemn the judge simply because some wild allegations were made in a post-verdict motion. That's traditionally the time in which lawyers indulge their flights of fancy.

[Johan]

I'm reluctant to condemn the judge simply because some wild allegations were made in a post-verdict motion.

I think calling these allegations "wild" sounds like your reluctance leans in one direction and not the other. I find the concern here legitimate and a potential example of bias on the part of the judge.

[Ox]

I think calling these allegations "wild" sounds like your reluctance leans in one direction and not the other. I find them legitimate and a potential example of bias.
And the day you own a black robe and a little hammer is the day I have to start pretending to respect your opinion. ;)

[Johan]

And the day you own a black robe and a little hammer is the day I have to start pretending to respect your opinion. ;)

See...there is an example of covert eloquence in flaming and insults (which, btw, you get away with, a lot). :rolling my eyes here!:

[Telefrog]

And the day you own a black robe and a little hammer is the day I have to start pretending to respect your opinion. ;)

I have a navy blue bathrobe and my "little hammer" is ready. :p

[Shadowstorm]

And the day you own a black robe and a little hammer is the day I have to start pretending to respect your opinion. ;)

That wasn't very nice :(.

[violent]

This thread got sexy.

[Voodoo]

And the day you own a black robe and a little hammer is the day I have to start pretending to respect your opinion. ;)

Ox! The second recipient of a warning within P&R. Congrats! :cool:

[Ox]

I was just kidding, but Voodoo is right. I shouldn't make jokes like that. My apologies to Johan and anyone else who was offended.

[Johan]

I was just kidding, but Voodoo is right. I shouldn't make jokes like that. My apologies to Johan and anyone else who was offended.

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't report it, and all is well. I'm trying on a less prickly persona for Christmas.

Don't remind me it's April. It'll ruin the delusion.

[Doctor Setebos]

This thread got sexy.I put on my robe and wizard hat.

[violent]

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

Aight, aight.

[Goronmon]

Ox! The second recipient of a warning within P&R. Congrats! :cool:I was actually a little tricky because I moved the thread from the Lounge about two pages in. I wonder how many people didn't notice the change. :o

[Ox]

I did, and thus have no excuse.

I rend my garments in a distraught yet somehow also alluring manner.

[DangerousDaze]

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

Heh, that's exactly what I was thinking!

[Carnifex]

TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-lawyer-is-biased-calls-for-a-retrial-090423/) has an article with details about the call for a retrial. It seems the judge's possible bias was first reported by swedish national radio and not the defence lawyers.

Intrigue and drama! I find this whole case very entertaining. :D

[Narradisall]

TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-lawyer-is-biased-calls-for-a-retrial-090423/) has an article with details about the call for a retrial. It seems the judge's possible bias was first reported by swedish national radio and not the defence lawyers.

Intrigue and drama! I find this whole case very entertaining. :D

I myself am looking forward to the Broadway Musical.

[Ancalagon]

I can't speak about Swedish law, but Americans courts would not take this well. You're not allowed to sit silently in a case of trial court error, wait until the verdict, and then use it to overturn the verdict.

So they're not clever at all: they are morons. By waiting until the verdict to raise this issue, they waived it (assuming arguendo that Swedish law is the same as American, which it's probably not). At least, they're morons from a legal standpoint. If the goal is a PR thing where people will assume the outcome was the result of bias and to bring discredit upon the legal system, then they may indeed be clever.


Ah, it seems they didnt know about it beforehand, first surfaced on the radio.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14959

Apparently they are using this information in their appeal for a retrial.

[Ox]

I'm still not sure I understand why this is evidence of bias. The judge is a member of an organization that supports the existing copyright laws? Are there judges out there who belong to anarchist groups? If you are a member of the bar and a judge, I kind of assume you have a vested interest in the status quo.

I mean, think about the logic: usually criminal defendants say they have no problem with the criminal laws, and indeed that they complied with those laws. Here, the argument effectively seems to be the judge should have been neutral as to whether the law is a good idea. "Sure, we broke the law, but you should let us off the hook because it's a dumb law." Judges sometimes do that, but they don't like it when you state it bluntly like that.

Nor is the mere fact that some of the lawyers also belong to this group really all that significant. Having a shared affiliation isn't any more inherently biasing than belonging to the same religious denomination. It's not unheard-of for lawyers and judges to go hunting together in the States; if that's not automatic evidence of bias, I can't quite see how having the same membership card in your wallets would be.

And, of course, appellate courts (again, at least in the States) are notoriously reluctant to rebuke a judge for failing to recuse herself. I know, I've tried that claim a couple of times. Short of a confession from the judge that her verdict was affected by the relationship, it's unusually difficult to win with that argument.

Finally, just because the news broke on the radio doesn't mean the issue isn't waived. The membership of the Swedish Copyright Association isn't secret, right? You generally can only escape waiver if there's no way you could have known about the new fact. Ultimately, I'm still highly skeptical the verdict will be overturned on appeal. I'm even more skeptical that it would be just: there's no actual evidence the judge's verdict was corruptly motivated, so any retrial would be simply because of the appearance of possible bias.

[biosc1]

I'm still not sure I understand why this is evidence of bias. The judge is a member of an organization that supports the existing copyright laws? Are there judges out there who belong to anarchist groups? If you are a member of the bar and a judge, I kind of assume you have a vested interest in the status quo.


I guess it comes down to whether he was an active member or just a member.

I'm even more skeptical that it would be just: there's no actual evidence the judge's verdict was corruptly motivated, so any retrial would be simply because of the appearance of possible bias.From all reports, they do not expect this to be overturned due to his supposed bias. It sounds more like a "shot in the dark" attempt.

[Johan]

It would be much more fun and interesting if it were overturned. Isn't justice supposed to be entertaining, too?

Guess not...

[BlackPete]

The Snow Patrol weighs in: (http://torrentfreak.com/snow-patrol-pirate-bay-sentences-way-over-the-top-090424/)

Gary Lightbody from Snow Patrol has criticized the sentences received by the crew of The Pirate Bay, branding them as “way over the top”. The band’s frontman also says if you’re a file-sharer and you know how to get music for free, “f**king go for it.”

I also remember Trent Reznor saying similar things, but I'm too lazy to google for that right now.

See, the artists themselves are damn dirty pirates!

[Generation ABXY]

On the other hand, if one wanted to be more cynical about it, they could easily reckon that saying such a thing might endear him to pirates and potentially hurt his competitors.

I mean, although that quote doesn't say how he specifically phrased it, one could say that he doesn't really have the right to speak for other artists. For example, if he said you can feel free to pirate his work, I'd be perfectly fine with such a statement – though how their label might react is another thing entirely (I know book publishers have lots of little rules; I can imagine it is the same in the music industry).

[ShivaX]

On the other hand, if one wanted to be more cynical about it, they could easily reckon that saying such a thing might endear him to pirates and potentially hurt his competitors.

I mean, although that quote doesn't say how he specifically phrased it, one could say that he doesn't really have the right to speak for other artists. For example, if he said you can feel free to pirate his work, I'd be perfectly fine with such a statement – though how their label might react is another thing entirely (I know book publishers have lots of little rules; I can imagine it is the same in the music industry).

Well Trent runs his label iirc, so he can say and do whatever he wants with regards to his label and music. Not so much for anyone else. If you want to give away shit for free, more power to you, but don't expect everyone else to do it.

[BlackPete]

I think there's just a disconnect between most musicians and the money guys (producers, publishers, etc.). The musicians want you to hear their music and it's a blessing for them to be heard. The money guys are in it for the money; but they know it's hard to muster outrage at stealing from the poor bean counters, so they just victimize the artists instead.

There's not even that many artists actually making money off of CD sales, etc. and they make their money from tours instead. I suspect this is probably why the Snow Patrol don't really care about downloaders. To them, it's free advertising.

[ShivaX]

I think there's just a disconnect between most musicians and the money guys (producers, publishers, etc.). The musicians want you to hear their music and it's a blessing for them to be heard. The money guys are in it for the money; but they know it's hard to muster outrage at stealing from the poor bean counters, so they just victimize the artists instead.

There's not even that many artists actually making money off of CD sales, etc. and they make their money from tours instead. I suspect this is probably why the Snow Patrol don't really care about downloaders. To them, it's free advertising.

Well I know that artists tend to make a lot more from touring and the like than CD sales anymore. Then again those CD sales are what pays for the tour in the first place. Noones going to front money for a band noone's heard of and don't give a shit about. Record sales are a yardstick for how popular a band is and if they're worth the risk for the record company.

[Raen]

Well I know that artists tend to make a lot more from touring and the like than CD sales anymore. Then again those CD sales are what pays for the tour in the first place. Noones going to front money for a band noone's heard of and don't give a shit about. Record sales are a yardstick for how popular a band is and if they're worth the risk for the record company.

Exactly, and that's one of the issues with the music industry the way it is. I know they don't like illegal downloads, or just free downloads in general, but whilst they are around they should at least take them into consideration. I know some indie labels do try and keep track of how their stuff is doing on pirate sites etc... I'm not saying that embracing it is the right answer, but making use of it while it's there sort of makes sense to me.

[Shrinn]

From all reports, they do not expect this to be overturned due to his supposed bias. It sounds more like a "shot in the dark" attempt.

From a legal standpoint it's not that effective. From a PR standpoint I'd say it's more significant. The knee jerk reaction is "Bias!"

[Shadowstorm]

Well I know that artists tend to make a lot more from touring and the like than CD sales anymore. Then again those CD sales are what pays for the tour in the first place. Noones going to front money for a band noone's heard of and don't give a shit about. Record sales are a yardstick for how popular a band is and if they're worth the risk for the record company.

CD sales aren't the only things that pay for a tour. Record sales are not as big of a yardstick for measuring how popular a band (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=The+Billboard+200) is anymore precisely because of file sharing and other related factors. Things like Soundscan and Billboard only account for physical releases IIRC, not web releases. That's how it stands for the major labels currently.

Most, if not all, independent labels run their own webshops, and these labels do not give sales information to the major labels because they are separate entities so, effectively, there is no global tool for accurately measuring how popular band X is in relation to all "tracked" bands because of this.

[ShivaX]

CD sales aren't the only things that pay for a tour. Record sales are not as big of a yardstick for measuring how popular a band (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=The+Billboard+200) is anymore precisely because of file sharing and other related factors. Things like Soundscan and Billboard only account for physical releases IIRC, not web releases. That's how it stands for the major labels currently.

Most, if not all, independent labels run their own webshops, and these labels do not give sales information to the major labels because they are separate entities so, effectively, there is no global tool for accurately measuring how popular band X is in relation to all "tracked" bands because of this.

Which is why the labels go by record sales.

[Deadend]

last.fm, zune, and a few other programs track songs played. Those are the numbers that should be regarded. They don't track if it's pirated or purchased, just if it's listened and last.fm has metatags on songs too.

Know what people want?
MGMT and Coldplay.

I also like the Pirate Bay's move of now mentioning the 'bias' of the judge. They knew the whole time, but didn't want to use it, as they were hoping for a win. The whole thing is a joke still and I really hope at the end of Sweden decides to make a ballsy move and stop giving a shit about IP laws, as I am fairly certain most of the music on the radio, movies in theaters and a huge portion of the TV shows watched in Sweden are not made there. So the lawyers for the IP-holders are basically the sock-puppets of foreign corporations.

[Telefrog]

I think there's just a disconnect between most musicians and the money guys (producers, publishers, etc.). The musicians want you to hear their music and it's a blessing for them to be heard. The money guys are in it for the money; but they know it's hard to muster outrage at stealing from the poor bean counters, so they just victimize the artists instead.

There's not even that many artists actually making money off of CD sales, etc. and they make their money from tours instead. I suspect this is probably why the Snow Patrol don't really care about downloaders. To them, it's free advertising.

Sure, but that's based on the notion that they can get people to pay to see one of their shows. I have yet to see too many bands that are satisfied with playing all shows entirely free just because it's a blessing to be heard. :p

[Goronmon]

I also like the Pirate Bay's move of now mentioning the 'bias' of the judge. They knew the whole time, but didn't want to use it, as they were hoping for a win.Did they know the whole time? Last I heard they weren't even the ones who first found out.

[Deadend]

Did they know the whole time? Last I heard they weren't even the ones who first found out.

Unless their defense team decided that doing research was for chumps, they damn well should have... and kept quiet on it, just like they did.

[DangerousDaze]

Unless their defense team decided that doing research was for chumps, they damn well should have... and kept quiet on it, just like they did.

They shouldn't have kept quiet on it. The law does not look favourably on people who withhold evidence in order to sucker punch the process.

Also, if you were going into a trial where you could face jail time, would you honestly go there knowing that you're facing a judge who you feel is already biased against you? No, you wouldn't.