Yes and no. I think they're trying to find a single point of responsibility. TPB crew keeps dancing around who was responsible for which aspects of TPB, which makes prosecution extremely difficult.
It does, but it is also a dangerous game, the judge could simply order them to give testimony as to who is responsible for any one of those aspects. Somebody has to actually do it, if nobody 'did it' then somebody is lying... and lying to a judge is not very smart.
I've been surprised by exactly that. What I'm reading into the trial so far -- and I'm only reading the English summaries, so I'm probably missing out on a lot -- is that TPB aren't really completely owning up to, "He wrote the code, he did the graphics, he did this, we did that..." It almost even sounds like every time the prosecution tries to nail down responsibility for anything, the defendant says, "I only did that a little".
IF that's what's going on, then IF I were the judge or a jury member, I would interpret that as people avoiding responsibility for their actions, which to me would imply that they thought they were guilty of a crime.
Interesting. So, if they were so sure that they were not guilty then they'd have no problem in owning up to who did what. After all, if you are sure it is legal then that would be the cleanest strategy. By being wishy-washy they suggest that they are not so sure it is legal.
