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.'"

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter

[Aryden]

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.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter

[icebike]

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.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter

[icebike]

How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?

Chain of evidence rule.

Please quote that rule, from Finland law.

Police had the logs.
They gave lawyers a copy.
Lawyers changed their copy for court presentation.
Police compare logs and find the differences.
At no time were the police logs out of police custody.

So just what part of the chain of evidence was broken? The Police copy is still pristine.

Re:And...

[digitig]

But apparently the judge didn't, otherwise there would have been a mistrial declared and either perjury or contempt of court charges.

Re:And...

[Richard Dick Head]

What surprised me is that the prosecutor appeared to take the tampering seriously.

Well, read the summary again

which saw four men found guilty and fined €45,000

By my tally, I have: Government:45000, Lawyers:Untold thousands, MPAA:0, Joe Sixpack:0

In summary: Two parties come to court to squabble. The lawyers and the government walk away with all the winnings. Case is then closed.

This was a win for the people comrade! I find your lack of faith [in the courts] disturbing! </sarcasm>

Re:Aaron thought he was above the law, too.

[Mr. Slippery]

Aaron Swartz thought he was above the law as well.

There is a large difference between the malum prohibitum [wikipedia.org] of copyright, and the malum in se of evidence tampering.

Re:And...

[BeTeK]

In Finland we don't have jury trials. There is judge and 2 or more lay judges who decide the matter in hand.

Re:And...

[Svartalf]

Actually, it's not a technicality- not even close.

It's a criminal offense in most jurisdictions to do this and it pretty much taints ANY evidence submitted by the source(s) which now must be disregarded by the court. It's called altering evidence, which is intrinsically viewed the same as falsifying it for good reason. If the evidence was valid, why did it need to be "altered"? If it's to protect the parties in question, that's a dirty hands situation, which WOULD have altered the outcome (You can't come running to the courts when you just broke the law yourselves... Typically calls for a motion to dismiss when you have this come out...).

The Judge now can sanction the IFPI/MPAA and their counsel in varying ways including jail time for contempt of court.