In a criminal case, both sides can appeal, no matter what the verdict is. Although usually, if the verdict is an acquittal, the prosecutor will need more evidence for the next level of court*. This means that if you are acquitted the prosecutor can still drag you through at least one more trial before a final verdict.
In the case of TPB "everybody" here thinks we will not have a final verdict until the trial has been through all three national levels, and maybe even once through the European court. This is because of the immense importance of the case in setting a precedent for the future.
FYI: I live in Sweden, but am not a lawyer.

* Sometimes this extra evidence is actually found while the first trial is still in court.

Nobody knows yet, whether or not the three founders of TPB and their financer will do prison time: the first court did indeed sentence them to prison, but the verdict was appealed. The next court has yet to start proceedings. Once that court is done we still have to wait for the Swedish Supreme court to have it's say (I have no doubt the verdict will be appealed by the loosing side...). We might even have to wait for the European Court to say something in the matter, before anybody actually has to do any time.

As I remember it, concensus amongst geeks here in Sweden was indeed that TPB could not be convicted in court unless there was a conviction for copyright infringement first. At the moment, nobody knows whether this still stands or not, since there is a mighty mess about the case: the verdict from the first court has been appealed, and has not arrived in the next court yet.

I fear the PRS would simply start asking for payments from companies who _own_ equipment that _can_ be used to listen to radio stations that fall under the PRS licence rules. Whether or not the equipment actually _is_ used to listen to said radio stations is something the PRS could disregard completely.

Disclaimer: I live in Sweden, not the UK.

But we have got something very similar: our version of the BBC has started making a lot of its material accessible via the web. So suddenly everybody who owns a computer and has an internet connection is required to pay the TV-reciever fee....

What you fail to take into account is that no French law is really ever used. To anybody. Unless of course you are a criminal, terrorist or foreigner. French laws are essentially a bunch of guidelines to stear you in the right way, but if you break them tastefully, you may very well get away with it. And being the President de la Republique means you can get away with murder....

I haven't yet been on trial, although I have, most unfortunately, been personally involved in a trial: a few years ago I was beaten up by some guys the cops caught and dragged to court.

As for questions like "Do you believe in God?"I would answer it honestly, but can't see any situation in which the question would be relevant.

My intention was not to let the jury do all the interrogation of witnesses and fact-finding on their own, but rather as a compliment to what the prosecution and defence do. Would it be useful? Quite honestly, I have no clue.

There is an easy way around this: let the jurors ask questions to any witness they like, and demand clarification of any facts they need explained in more detail. And let them do this at any time before delivering their verdict, be it while the witness is still in the stand or much later.

Since both the DA and defence council are obviously biased one way or the other, letting the jury do some fact-finding of their own seems reasonable to me. (Caveat: I live in a country that does not use a jury system, so my proposal might entail problems I cannot forsee. Instead of a jury, Sweden has a system in which volunteers are elected to serve in four year periods. All courts are presided over by a judge, who obviously has legal training, but the other people needn't have it).

"What is the problem that prevents Microsoft from bringing newer versions of IE to Windows 2000?"
The answer to that question doesn't have to be any harder than "Because some executive decided it shouldn't be done".

I do suspect, though, that the reason could be a bit more technical. Since IE is (according to all statements by Microsoft) an integral part of the operating system, it can be dependent on various things being present, and will not work correctly without these. The differences between the various versions of Windows could be too great to handle easily, so the easy option is to drop support for older versions of Windows.

Apart from the obvious "Linux is a threat to us and therefore we are not a monopoly" I think Microsoft may very well percieve Linux as a threat to them, but for slightly less obvious reasons.

The major reason that Linux is a threat to Microsoft is that it is (usually) free, and nobody can compete with free in the long run. Given enough time, Linux would eventually conquer the desktop. But it would be decades, if not centuries. If nothing else, Linux's small presence on the market means that Microsoft cannot raise it's prices too much, or people will start seriously looking at the alternatives. And if they discover the alternatives are good enough (or better then Windows) for no money (or very little money) the game will be up for Microsoft.

There is a more threatening aspect of Linux though. It is not one that matters every day, but in the long run Microsoft must deal with the fact that a lot of "Linux" is a community. A community of users and developers spread around the globe cannot be purchased and shut down as if it were a competing company. Suppose Microsoft purchased Cannonical and shut it down. They have not really gained anything, since they can't stop the individual developers from continuing their work, even if it is in their spare time.

Even if Microsoft started buying all companies that released a Linux distro, they cannot win: once it becomes obvious that to become a millionaire you just have to release a Linux distro, new distros will be popping up so fast that rabbits will reproduce slowly, by comparison.

I think the only way for Microsoft to keep "winning the game" against Linux is to constantly produce better and better software for lower and lower prices. Since Linux's market share seems to be growing, Microsoft is already under pressure to not raise their prices too high, and this pressure will increase several times over with increasing market share for Linux.

Like so often before, the devil is in the details.

While I have no major principal objections to copyright infringers being kicked off internet (if they use internet for the infringement), I would want to know more of the details before making my mind up.

For starters, I would want everybody to be given a fair trial, and only when they have been found guilty three times should they be kicked off internet. I get the impression that with the present suggestion it's enough to be accused of copyright infringement three times to be kicked off. That is taking other people's right too easily: it should require a trial according to the country's requirements.

Secondly, I think there should be a time limit to how long you are banned from internet. I see no reason why a mere copyright infringer should be banned from internet for life. It's not like you can use copyright infringement to kill someone...

Thirdly, I would like to know what provisions the law provides to protect the technically challenged. Suppose my neighbour hacks into my WLAN, and starts sharing files. I suppose the recording industry would like to hold me responsible, but should they be able to do so? In my opinion, no. Granted, the recording industry will not like the "I am an idiot with technology"-defence, but this kind of trial should be held to the same standards as all others: the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable (or similar) doubt.

Fourthly, what of family members? Suppose I get kicked off internet for copyright infringement. What of my wife and my children? As far as I know, no modern democracy allows collective punishment, so it should be acceptable for my wife and children to get internet access at home. So why then bother with banning me, if the effect is that the internet connection is simply passed to my wife?



For an interesting comparison, move the "getting banned from internet for copyright infringement" to the world of printed matter: any person or company thrice accused of copyright infringement gets banned (for a short period of time, eg a year) from reading and writing. The effects would be quite devastating... You would have to have somebody read the bus timetable to you, you would have to have somebody write your checks for you, you would have to have somebody read your letters to you... And if a newspaper were accused of infringing someone's copyright three times, they could obviously not print a single letter the next year!

I can't understand why they would ask for this kind of information. And the fact that they ask is enough to tell me I porbably don't want to work for them (even assuming I lived in the area).

However, it can be put to possibly good use. Apply for any number of jobs with them, and provide a suitable number of account details, including everything they need to log in. Just slip in some pre-arranged details, so htey can log on to a web page displaying eg child porn. If the server is outside the USA the local, regional and federal authorities have very little power to do anything about it, until the next step: when your accomplice, who just happens to be the one running the server, lets you know that 'your' login credentials have been used, call the cops and let them know an employee of Bozeman is looking at child porn at his work computer.

When this has happened a few times, I hope the politicians (or other high-up) will remove this preposterous demand.