The biggest mistake they made was not hearing the case in the supreme court. There are some strange things in the verdict which I think if not revised at least should be addressed to regain some trust from the public. For example:
"One factor making this case special is that the main crime is not particularly severe, as seen individually they are of limited scope, not organized and not commercial", p43.
"It should be noted that in paragraph 9 in directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights the following is concluded: 'Infringements of intellectual property rights appear to be increasingly linked to organised crime. Increasing use of the Internet enables pirated products to be distributed instantly around the globe.'", p46
"That copyright infringement by illegal file-sharing is a social problem, which in later years spread like wildfire, does according to the court of appeal appear close to a publicly known fact", p46.
"The court of appeals overall assessment finds it clear that the illegal file-sharing quickly reached proportions at which the general preventive considerations must have great importance in the application of the law. According to the court of appeal there are therefore concerning this form of copyright infringement very special reasons to see the crime of such severity that the sentencing should be imprisonment", p47.
So... Judges joins copyright organization. Copyright organization tells judges that file-sharing is bad. Judges sees file-sharing as a huge social problem. Judges sentence defendants to exceptional sentences without being biased?
http://cybernormer.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/defavgdok.p...