This was the general 'you' of people arguing for extension of copyright, and not the personal you to whom I respond. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Still, the general argument made for copyright extension is that it encourages creativity. While making it retroactive only encourages people to live on old accomplishments, instead of making new creations. Indeed, the current copyright terms are so generous that prolonging them even longer will under no circumstances benefit the creator. Thus, any argument for a copyright extension made on the basis of encouraging creativity contains a logical fallacy.

Retroactively prolonging ownership is even worse. Think for a minute about artists who sold the copyright of their works when the copyright period was shorter. What they sold was a lease on their works for a limited time, knowing that their works would enter the Public Domain afterwards - and that they and their descendants would have free access to their works from then on. When government retroactively changes the terms of copyright, they also change the basis for all these agreements - without further compensation to the original artists. That's when a discussion of ethics become interesting.

You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else? It is with art as it is with science, you build upon that which has come before you. Sometimes you are inspired, and borrow (such as both Beatles and Disney did a lot of), and sometimes you react. But indifference is never the source of great art.

You know that I'm not the person you originally responded to, right?

Anyway, SydShamino used the word 'should' which say nothing about law, but does say something about what feels right. It is thus a question of ethics. And from an ethical standpoint, it is questionable to use the law to make retroactive changes to ownership - especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies. The fact that the laws in question are the result of heavy lobbying from an industry which does not represent the original creators does add insult to injury.

Well, what did the law state when the early works of Beatles were created?

The (theoretical) idea of a long copyright period is to encourage creativity. But what's the point of extending the copyright of that which has already been created? Extending periods retroactively will only stifle creativity, since creative reuse is hindered - while what has already been created is already there. From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.

There have been answers to those questions from much more prominent Swedish legal experts, so I'm not going to bother my cousin. The answers in the media have been:

1) The chairman of the Swedish organization of judges was very surprised that the judge in the TPB trial did not mention the memberships in question. (It is the judge's duty, in Sweden, to mention everything that might bias him/her.)
2) Google is general purpose, TPB is not - at least that is the motivation in the conviction documents.
3) This is the question where everybody has their own answer. The view of a 34 year old judge in the lowest circle of courts doesn't carry any special weight. We do generally have much lower compensations in Sweden, than in the US. You can only sue for actual losses.

Oh, and he is a she.

But since Sweden is not a part of the same judicial tradition as the US, this has no bearing on the TPB trial. In Sweden, you are pretty much guaranteed a second trial at a higher level, unless it is a question of a small-time crime (or the case is very simple). This being a high profile trial, making an appeal to the second level was a given, even before the trial started.

If the second level court decides the judge was biased, they will order a re-trial at the first level - which will then be followed be an appeals process. The reason the lawyers may not go through with a re-trial, is that it will only mean another trial that won't add anything of interest. Since this is a very special trial, the Supreme Court may take the case too - or order a re-trial at the second level. So a re-trial at the first level may not be worth it, we were probably looking at 3 or 4 trials anyway.

IANAL, but my cousin is a judge here in Sweden.

There is an election to the European parliament this year too. There are not so many representatives to elect, but there is usually a much smaller participation. So, if you want to cause a stir, the EP election is a better bet.

And then there's always the church election come fall... ;)

Probably from the fact that the TCP/IP driver used to say it did. It was under BSD license with the advertizing clause.

I'm not sure exactly when they wrote their own, but I think it was after Win2k. So, I would think Vista or Server 2k3 might be it. (Gut feeling says Vista - but I haven't used Windows after 2k, so I haven't checked.)

...and you are likely to be spammed by a Grue!

(Joke stolen from Silly friend - couldn't resist... ;)

I prefer using animals...

Whoosh!

(The "sic" meant that he knew what he was doing, and reflected on the loser <=> looser error with the shocks <=> shock's error; similarly to writing "greengrocers apostrophe's" as mentioned in the link.)

Mightily cold? Like in "we sometimes have snow for a week or two in the winter"? I think you are mixing up Sweden and Switzerland again...

(Ok, bonus points for writing this the week we actually have snow. It'll be gone coming weekend - and next time we'll see any snow is probaly february. Yes, I am bitter, I like skiing.)