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.'"

17 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. And... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... this surprises anyone how, exactly?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unsurprising things make the news all the time. It doesn't have to "surprise anyone" in order to write an article about it.

    2. Re:And... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not. Prosecutors generally take a dim view of someone else tampering with evidence. It is one thing for them to twist things and entirely different when someone else does it.

    3. Re:And... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On a very minor technicality. The alteration wouldn't have altered the outcome of the trial. The IFPI weren't falsifying evidence. They just wanted to hide a piece of information that might compromise other ongoing investigations. The only thing they did wrong was not properly document the redaction.

    4. Re:And... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why assuming IFPI is telling the truth now, when they've already been caught lying?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:And... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not the thing that really amazes me. What amazes me is that he gets to explain why he tampered with the evidence. Why is that in any way relevant? Evidence that has been tampered with by either party is worthless. Yes, I will even believe him that he only tried to erase his tracks and how he was entrapping the defendant, but in what way does this make it better?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:And... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe. Prove it!

      It's now on them to prove that this was the only thing altered. You alter your source IP, you can as well alter what he downloaded. Show me evidence that you didn't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Some how I doubt it will matter by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.

    Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.
     

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Some how I doubt it will matter by NFN_NLN · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.

      Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.

      ... and you're suppose to just take their word that those were the only changes? If they had access to make changes then the chain of evidence is tainted... who knows that happened.

    2. Re:Some how I doubt it will matter by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read the story.

      4 Defendants previously found guilty are still guilty.
      2 Defendants previously acquitted are still acquitted.

      Nothing has changed.

      Police had untouched copies and that is how the differences were found. No evidence was manufactured, only some non-related material was deleted to protect their source. This is a procedural error at worst (failure to notify). Lawyers get a tongue lashing and nothing more.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. MPAA is legalized form of organized crime by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The MPAA executive involved in this should be prosecuted and receive the exact sentence of the accused individuals. Anything short of this warrants some vigilante justice against the organized crime syndicate that the MPAA has become.

  4. Re:Handcuffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Usually I don't support "send a message" type of prosecutions (Aaron Swartz, as just one example) but these guys need to be smacked down, hard. Fines are insufficient; anything short of significant jail time won't do a damn thing to the MAFIAA sociopathic execs who honestly believe they are above the law.

    A message needs to be sent, and this looks to be an open and shut case. I sure hope to see handcuffs.

    Hope all you want. Fuck-all will be done. MAFIAA earned their synonymous name, and are just as powerful.

    Watch and see.

  5. Vigilante Justice by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is something I am troubled by on a regular basis. It is increasingly clear that our government and legal system are stacked against common citizens.

    At some point, it will occur to those being prosecuted for sharing some songs on the internet and being fined for more than they'll ever make in their lifetime, that the U.S. is a dictionary definition of a fascist state where government is intertwined with corporations and industry. The real problems are the corporate executives that can do this crap with no repercussions. There needs to be repercussions. If the legal system doesn't provide a way to bring the fight to the door of the powerful, then I fear that the our society will break down to the point where citizens must be vigilantes to get any sort of justice over the prosecutors, politicians, and the people who run the corporations.

    1. Re:Vigilante Justice by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. "Second amendment solutions" are not a solution in a working society. It means that something is seriously wrong.

  6. Re:Handcuffs by Marksolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad all legal streaming services are having a hard time paying the protection fees required to operate.

  7. Re:Handcuffs by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I say we treat this RIAA/MPAA goons like all the other criminals in this country.

    pre-dawn raid, shoot their pets, haul everyone found near their compounds out for questioning, trash their house, charge them with RICO.

    and most importantly, freeze their bank accounts so they can't pay for lawyers.

    Lets also call all their freinds, family, and furture employers to let them all know what scumbags they are, and lets run a special on them in gangland.

  8. Re:Fisticuffs. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only 'cause it's cheaper and more profitable for them to make the weapons, sell them to the government, then have government pay for the army and its use to "liberate" the resources they need.

    The only reason why we won't see the big "corp wars" of Cyberpunk is simply that it's not cost effective. Why bother fighting when you can use governments to do it for you, for free?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.