«

[red_avatar]

Originally Posted by _r.u.s.s.

judge is supposed to be "arrogant", judging on pure facts and don't involve personally in the matter in any way

No, a judge is meant to be OBJECTIVE. Arrogance means that the judge already believes he knows it all before the case has even been brought forward meaning that testimonies won't alter his oppinion. In this case, it's obvious that the judge was going to rule in favour of copyright from the get go so how can you have justice?

In my personal experience, judges are devious scumbags. If, like in this case, they already strongly lean towards one side, they'll often undermine the other side. There's a reason why court rulings are so often overthrown after the appeal. The ideal would be to have a judge that has no strong oppinion about the situation and let him make up his mind based on the merits of the case. Giving it to a judge who is the opposite of this, shows a real lack of sense on the side of the justice system.