First Swede Convicted For File-Sharing Now Cleared 278
Caine writes, "A 29-year old Swede, who was the first to be convicted under last year's new file-sharing laws, has been cleared on appeal. The court of appeal did not consider the screen dumps provided by the Antipiracy Bureau enough evidence to be able to convict the man. Since the crime does not carry a high enough punishment under Swedish law to allow for a search of the defendant's house, this means it will be virtually impossible to prove file-sharing crimes in the future."
Heh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly 'scot free' (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly 'scot free' (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
Re:Heh (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly 'scot free' (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a common belief, especially in the US, that Sweden has a higher rate of suicide than other countries; this is actually a myth, as Sweden has an average suicide rate. The myth was probably started because the secular government of Sweden started to measure suicide statistics openly before other countries did. President Eisenhower saw this as a chance to promote his political ideology, and maintained that the statistics showed Sweden was the country of "free love, high taxes and suicide" (none of this was particularly true at the time). Also, the dark, relatively cold climate of Sweden in the winter has added fuel to this myth. (see "Suicide and Season" below).
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rates [wikipedia.org]
Re:Screen dumps inadmissable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Courts do not have the technical expertise to understand how pathetic and stupid it is to use a screenshot of a common program running as a evidence in a trial that changes the outcome of millions of people. I can accept you get a fine for it, but this was a legal matter which carried a conviction. Not anywhere near where you want evidence like that.
Best part is, they "trusted" the evidence since it came from such a renomed organization, namely the people paid of by the entertainment industry to throw their own customers in jail. Not exactly a outfit I'd enjoy taking care of my savings..
Re:The ads on TFA say it all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Interesting)
The usual rejoinder for which is, who defines criminality or terrorist behaviour? What stops that from becoming broader?
Considering some of the behaviour currently being flagged as suspicious by over-enthusiastic law-enforcement, not much, apparently.
Ditto copyright. DRM has already given much greater control over "copyrighted" material than copyright ever did, and the lobbying doesn't appear to be slowing down. How long before it becomes illegal to read anything without paying per word? It's nice to know there will be some countries where it won't be illegal to use your computer, or acquire information for yourself.
Re:Screen dumps inadmissable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
> When the people are cheering because the state can't use the mechanics of society to
> effectively enforce the law, that means there's something very fundimentally wrong.
Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the law. Then it's a reason to cheer.
What the fuck??? (Score:1, Interesting)
I call BLULLSHIT! In these 'search' cases the law makes absolutely no fucking sense at all (how do I really feel about this? don't get me started... too late.).
If police do an 'illegal' search on a murderer's house and find a gun that proves his guilt, it proves his guilt. The mental mastribation that lawyers and judges go through to say that the gun is not admisable in court is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is throwing common sense and logic out the window. A fact is a fact, and denying that fact is completely stupid. The proof that the person is a murderer does not really go away even though the lawyers (judges are lawyers too) want to put on blinders. What is really happening is that society is being punished (allowing a murderer to walk free) for a policeman's crime (the illegal search). If one criminal were to break into the murderer's home and steal the gun, and later the police recover it from the thief, it could be used in court as proving the murderer had possession of a murder weapon... even though it was obtained through illegal activities (which the thief will be punished for). Bottom line: if the police broke the law, punish them, not society. The evidence should be still admisable, but the police involved in the illegal search should be punished with enough of a penalty that they won't do something like that at whim. Punish the person who did the crime, not everone else. And don't give any of the 'the police are an extension of society' crap. Police are people too.
This goes for all similar circumstances. A guy pulled over for speeding and the police officer not having reasonable call to search the car still finds 20 Kg of cocain (or whatever your preference) in the trunk. The guy still had 20 kg of cocain in the trunk. etc etc etc. The cop still broke the law. Punishing one person's bad behaviour by not punishing another's behaviour is just plain stupid.
Anyway, stupid rulings and interpretations of the law like this show that we have unfortunately drifted into having legal systems and not justice systems. Somehow we should take a lot of the power out of the lawyers hands to prevent them from coming up with these convoluted brain farts. I know as a now repatriated Canadian that I would love to be able to elect the judges... and would love to have ballots to recall supreme court justices during every federal election.
Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
So there are many in Sweden who think the law needs to be changed. Many feel that the copyright law was heavily changed in favour of the music industry and not taking into account peoples former rights regarding copyrighted materials.