Regardless of whether Judge Tomas Nördstrom should have excluded himself.
The judgement has set the stage and in combination with the IPRED law also now in place - the Film and Record companies are going to capitalise on the situation, until any appeal says otherwise.
Should Judge Tomas Nördstrom disclosed his interest, absolutely. Should the defence team researched and raised the issue - absolutely.
But do not get diverted from the issue that IPRED has been passed into law - the piratebay case is only of interest to parties supplying search engine services. Whether it is illegal to provide links to copyrighted material.
This has clearly been a 2 stage strategy, from a Governmental level. They have been lobbied by industry, undoubtedly aided by US Government and diplomatic agencies (you have to give them credit, the US are very aggressive in aiding and promoting their country's interests).
The Swedish Government and therefore the judiciary were/are under intense international scrutiny regarding our copyright laws. At a state level, it was obviously felt that a message needed to sent, it has been.
Until the judgement is formally appealed and considered, then processed and finally heard - until then you have a clear set of rulings.
Criminal intent if you supply information which aids the discovery of copyrighted material, Criminal intent if you share copyrighted material.
Over the last 15 years, it has been clear that law makers internationally have demonstrated an inability to understand the technology and specifically how legislation can be used to regulate it. In combination with lobbing and factual manipulation for commercial gain, the film/music industries have also muddied the issues.
Just look at the IPRED and DMCA.
This has not helped a solution to evolve.
But no law will ever be sufficient, if the citizens cannot understand what is morally right or wrong.
To clarify, in the past when we bought an LP or CD - we bought a personal license to play that music, for personal use (e.g. not public performance, like in a mall or pub.)
Pubs, libraries, etc were covered by different licenses.
Regardless of the fact that consumers want a portable digital archive of the film/music they have bought. It does not excuse the fact that downloading copyrighted material, which you have no intention of paying for - is a crime - pure and simple.
We as individuals have shown that we cannot regulate ourselves, we are unwilling to exercise a sensible self-judgement - we know what is right and wrong.
Sweden had a similar problem with alcohol - people could not regulate their consumption - therefore the government provided us with regulation and controlled our consumption.
In the tradition of Sweden - it is logical that the Government would provide a moral framework, however draconian - where we have shown ourselves incapable of exercising personal ethics.
We got an intervention. How we got it is a mute point, collectively as citizens, we brought this upon ourselves.