Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Executive Tampers With Evidence In Piracy Case
An anonymous reader writes "TorrentFreak reports on an internet piracy case from Finland, which saw four men found guilty and fined €45,000. During the trial, the defense attorney took note of inconsistencies in log files used as evidence against the men. An investigator for international recording industry organization IFPI revealed after questioning that the files had been tampered with. He said an MPAA executive was present when the evidence gathering took place, and altered the files to hide the identity of 'one of their spies.' 'No one from the MPAA informed the defense that the edits had been made and the tampering was revealed at the worst possible time – during the trial. This resulted in the prosecutor ordering a police investigation into the changes that had been made. "Police then proceeded by comparing the 'work copy' that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that police and the defending counsels had received. Police found out that the material had differences in over 10 files," Hietanen reveals.'"
There is a difference between redaction, which hides material to which you will still know exists but not the actual information and removing information entirely and not notifying the defense and the court.
Read the Story. The police had other copies and were able to compare the files verify that the only changes made were to hide the identity of their informant.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
But apparently the judge didn't, otherwise there would have been a mistrial declared and either perjury or contempt of court charges.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
There is a large difference between the malum prohibitum of copyright, and the malum in se of evidence tampering.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In Finland we don't have jury trials. There is judge and 2 or more lay judges who decide the matter in hand.