Pirate Bay Founder Fined For ‘Continued Involvement’ In The Site(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Pirate Bay Founder Fined For ‘Continued Involvement’ In The Site
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-fined-for-continued-involvement-in-the-site-120627/
2 comments
Should say: "Pirate Bay founder fined for absence of evidence against 'continued involvement' in the site"
Fairly or unfairly, the fine was levied for "continued involvement". I don't think we have any way of knowing whether their evidence is any good... Though if we're going to play guessing games about guilt and innocence, I would point out that Neij doesn't deny the charges -- he only denies they could have enough evidence to prove it.
And TorrentFreak is not exactly an objective source...
“In civil cases it’s guilty until proven innocent and in a previous case I declined to give the details who I transfered the site to. They say if it’s not me, then I could easily say who it is.”
That's kind of a weird legal system.
That's kind of a weird legal system.
Actually, the real standard in a civil case, at least in the US, is "the preponderance of evidence". When you offer nothing in your own defense, guess how the court is going to rule?
It's like saying you sold a car, but absolutely refusing to show a bill of sale, registration in the new owner's name, etc.
It's like saying you sold a car, but absolutely refusing to show a bill of sale, registration in the new owner's name, etc.
Then where is the "preponderance of evidence" that he's still involved in running it?
How's he even meant to reliably document the transfer of the thing in this case? What is the standard of evidence they actually expect for him to be proven as not involved now? It's really not at all obvious how this guy is meant to clear his name. Not that he seems to care about it of course. It's just obvious how broken and pointless the entire case is.
How's he even meant to reliably document the transfer of the thing in this case? What is the standard of evidence they actually expect for him to be proven as not involved now? It's really not at all obvious how this guy is meant to clear his name. Not that he seems to care about it of course. It's just obvious how broken and pointless the entire case is.
> When you offer nothing in your own defense, guess how the court is going to rule?
Innocent, hopefully.
If someone accuses me of something, I'd hope they'd try to prove it.
Innocent, hopefully.
If someone accuses me of something, I'd hope they'd try to prove it.
There is no guilt or innocence in a civil case. Instead there is a finding for one of the parties involved. In this case one party said, "You used to do this and you said you wouldn't anymore. Do you still do it?" and he answered "I'm not going to tell you." Of course the finding is going to go against him.
They did. He is on record for running the site, and didn't offer any evidence that he is no longer running the site.
How the heck does one prove they're not doing something anymore? Whether that "something" be beating your wife, cheating on your spouse, or running an illegal website? Can't prove a negative.
If he's able to prove that someone else is involved, then it appears that he's involved again.
Well, presumably there was some amount of evidence submitted that he was still running the site. We don't know how strong it was, but if the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" then something beats nothing.
In the US there's also such a thing called the Fifth Amendment that says you must not be compelled to be a witness against yourself, which is the freedom to not talk to the police or anyone about anything that might incriminate you.
They also can't use your silence as evidence of anything.
They also can't use your silence as evidence of anything.
It's true that no one can force you to testify. (And indeed it seems clear that Neij didn't testify in his civil case in Sweden.) But that doesn't mean you're going to win your case.
You have a right to remain silent, but that doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
You have a right to remain silent, but that doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
This is a civil case, not a criminal case. The Fifth Amendment does not protect you in a civil case.