MPAA Accused Of Tampering With Evidence In Key Copyright Case In Finland

from the above-the-law dept

Tue, Apr 30th 2013 3:12am — Mike Masnick

Once again, it appears that folks in the MPAA seem to believe that they are completely above the law. In an interesting revelation in a big copyright case in Finland it came out during the trial that important evidence was tampered with, and when asked about it, IFPI officials who were in the courtroom said that it was an MPAA exec who was in the room with them when it happened, though they declined to name the exec.

The case involved some servers in Finland that were apparently used by a warez group there called Angel Falls. The tampered evidence came out when an expert investigator was on the stand, and showed some video of his investigation. However, the defense pointed out that the username in the video did not match up with the relevant entry in the logfile, at which point it was revealed that the MPAA exec had tampered with the evidence in an attempt to cover the tracks of the "user" who was a part of the investigation. According to TorrentFreak's summary of the events:

The video, a screencast of the investigation, showed a particular username accessing an Angel Falls FTP server. However, the corresponding text log for the same event showed a completely different username.

“When the IFPI investigator was asked about this he acknowledged that the names did not match. He said that the Finnish anti-piracy people and IFPI had collected the information together, but there was also an MPAA executive in the room while the evidence gathering took place,” Hietanen explains.

The IFPI investigator was then asked to reveal the name of the MPAA executive. He declined, but did offer an explanation for the inconsistencies in the evidence.

In an apparent attempt to hide the identity of one of their spies, the MPAA executive edited the evidence gathered during the session.

“The IFPI investigator handed over the evidence material to the MPAA senior executive who then changed the text file before the anti-piracy organization handed over the evidence to the Finnish police,” Hietanen says.

Incredibly, the MPAA exec had not told the defense of this change, which is why it came out in court when they spotted it. This has resulted in the police starting an investigation into possible evidence tampering (they found 10 changes to the files), as well as the overall case ending in a less spectacular fashion than the MPAA and IFPI had clearly hoped. Two of the defendants were acquitted entirely, while the other four were given suspended sentences. The plaintiffs' request for 6 million euros also was knocked all the way down to merely 45,000 euros.

Still, the really incredible thing here are the actions of the MPAA and their continued apparent belief that they are entirely above the law, so long as they're pursuing someone they feel is involved in copyright infringement. It calls into question the "evidence" presented in other cases as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: finland
Companies: mpaa

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Circlejerk Justice

Why is it not apparent to the courts that these server seizures are being conducted and handled by the civilian plaintiffs?

In criminal cases, do the police let the victim conduct the investigation and view the evidence? Does an angry relative get to dust for prints on the murder weapon and determine who the murderer was?

In civil cases, do we let the aggrieved take action before a judgement? If my neighbours conifers are blocking the sunlight do I get to 'seize' them by cutting them down, then go to court? Or do the courts decide first if they are a menace - that I should be compensated and the conifers removed?

This is really showing up the police as a bunch of incompetent no-nothings when it comes to modern technology. They would never approach a robbery or assault in the same way by accepting the victims sole testimony as enough evidence to convict.

But in computer 'crime', they let the 'expert' gather evidence. The same 'expert' who tells us a crime has been committed in the first place, but we don't actually know if it has or not - which is why we leave it to the 'expert'!

—nospacesorspecialcharacters

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:25am

The MPAA - Editing reality since 1432.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:27am

Even if true that one person unilaterally decided to change the logs, I'm not sure you can credit this to the entire MPAA unless you can show more people knew about it and condoned it. If Marcus gets caught with a pound of weed while driving to his next 8-Mile showdown, I wouldn't say that Techdirt thinks it's above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:35am
  
  Re:
  MPAA has a known love of revisionist history so It would not be too shocking to learn that it's something more than one person is involved with.
  
  That said, I agree that this is jumping the gun
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    We've got a sworn statement to a court that an executive was tampering with evidence as well as having their own inside man (corporate espionage?).
    
    We commonly accept that an employees actions speak to his company. Without any kind of response from the MPAA I'm happy to believe that this was sanctioned behavior.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They prob got bonuses for their involvement
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alana (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Considering what we know about the MPAA as a whole and what they DO, I don't think placing this as a decision the organization made is exactly uncalled for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:43am
  
  Re:
  There's a rather large difference between doing something wrong and/or illegal when acting on your own, versus when acting as a representative of a company or group though. In the first case, you're right, all the blame would fall on the individual that did the act, but in the second the person is acting as a representative of the group that sent them, so in that case they would indeed share at least some of the blame as well.
  
  Also, I find it rather unlikely that an MPAA representative would decide to do something so severe as tampering with evidence that they planned to bring to court all on his own, or without at least some knowledge of his intended actions being known to those who sent him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    "There's a rather large difference between doing something wrong and/or illegal when acting on your own, versus when acting as a representative of a company or group though."
    
    What's the incentive for the indivual to act, unless there's some quid pro quo from his employer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:05am
  
  Re:
  The point of using a log file as evidence is that it shows what actually happened. If it has been edited, then it no longer shows what actually happened, only what the editor wants you to see.
  
  Suddenly, the log file is no longer evidence of anything except evidence tampering.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:33am
  
  Re:
  > Even if true that one person unilaterally decided to change the logs,
  > I'm not sure you can credit this to the entire MPAA
  
  Even if true that one person unilaterally decided to pirate using the internet,
  I'm not sure you can blame the entire internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Even if true that one person unilaterally decided to pirate using the internet,
    I'm not sure you can blame the entire internet.
    
    They don't. They just blame everyone but themselves...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:11am
  
  Re:
  On the other hand Marcus, if caught with a pound of weed while driving to his next 8-mile showdown, would not have been caught violating the law while serving in his official capacity at Techdirt. This MPAA executive was.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Until you realize that Techdirt is in the pocket of Big Weed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's a pretty aromatic pocket.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  It's a pattern of activity that leads one to this assumption about the AA's as a whole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:42am

I wonder will this person face the consequences of his actions in the same way you or I would. I wouldn't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:45am

Circlejerk Justice
Why is it not apparent to the courts that these server seizures are being conducted and handled by the civilian plaintiffs?

In criminal cases, do the police let the victim conduct the investigation and view the evidence? Does an angry relative get to dust for prints on the murder weapon and determine who the murderer was?

In civil cases, do we let the aggrieved take action before a judgement? If my neighbours conifers are blocking the sunlight do I get to 'seize' them by cutting them down, then go to court? Or do the courts decide first if they are a menace - that I should be compensated and the conifers removed?

This is really showing up the police as a bunch of incompetent no-nothings when it comes to modern technology. They would never approach a robbery or assault in the same way by accepting the victims sole testimony as enough evidence to convict.

But in computer 'crime', they let the 'expert' gather evidence. The same 'expert' who tells us a crime has been committed in the first place, but we don't actually know if it has or not - which is why we leave it to the 'expert'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:21am
  
  Re: Circlejerk Justice
  Thanks for noticing. The most worrisome fact in this article is that the IFPI and the MPAA were allowed to gather evidence in the first place.
  
  If the justice system was actually fair we'd see the case dismissed precisely because of the interference of the plaintiffs in the process.
  
  Or maybe not. Maybe the politicians accused of corruption by the people and representative outfits (such as the ACLU) should be allowed to go gather evidence in their homes and seize stuff? Sounds fair, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- artp (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:15am
  
  Evidence they did not tamper with is:
  The RIAA does NOT understand digital technology. Or the Internet. Or computers.
  
  Way to go, Team Analog!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:03am

How does Adam Savage put it?

I reject your reality and substitute it with my own?

Something like that...I'm too lazy to look for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Unknown, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  It's "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stig Rudeholm (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:10am

Well...uh... That's completely different!
Evidence: It's only tampering when someone else is doing it.

Copyright: It's only infringement when someone else is doing it.

Bombings: It's only terrorism when someone else is doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Well...uh... That's completely different!
  Remarkably, a lot of people in power seem to think that it's only an issue when someone else does it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:15am
  
  Re: Well...uh... That's completely different!
  Your interests are special interests. My interests are just common sense.
  
  That's a common concept throughout human history.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:37am
  
  Re: Well...uh... That's completely different!
  Copyright: it's only censorship when someone else is doing it to us.
  
  Due process: it's only required when we are being accused.
  
  Fair use: it's only permitted when we are using it.
  
  Public domain: it only exists when we are taking from it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:17am

Shameful MPAA behaviour, should be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natai (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:34am

Of course, if MPAA execs feel they are above the law, this is only reinforced when they are continually allowed to accompany law enforcement officials in this capacity. As the alleged victims in cases like this, no one associated with the MPAA (actually no one other than law enforcement) should have been allowed any where near evidence in the first place.
Maybe if a few cases like this get thrown out on those grounds some of this would start to change...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:40am

You know who else thinks they're above the law? All of the intentional pirates who violate other people's rights. Of course, Mile will never talk about that. Perspective? What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:44am
  
  Re:
  Seems like someone is a little mad their heroes got caught with their hands in the cookie jar(or evidence locker as the case may be)....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think everyone who breaks the law should have to pay, no matter who they are or whom they work for. If this person broke the law, I want him to pay. Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that Mike is completely obsessed with the thought that anyone even remotely related to a pro-IP field might break the law, but then he's completely blind to when his pirate buddies do the same. Perspective. Mike will never have it. That's why he'll always be an extremist zealot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Zealots are pretty cool. They have Psy-blades and shields.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rekrul, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Zealots are pretty cool. They have Psy-blades and shields.
        
        I thought they carried Tesla Cannons...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nah, Electron Maces and Indoctrinators are where it's at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        varagix, 30 Apr 2013 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I prefer my religious zealots with chainswords and power armor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "extremist zealot"
      
      Well, I'd guess you are the sort of person who would understand that phrase. Why else would you attack every article with the same misdirection just because your "team" got caught breaking the law again?
      
      If only you were willing to discuss reality rather than call names...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nah, the MPAA didn't actually break Finnish law regarding evidence. It's one of the interesting differences between Continental Europe and the UK, for example - in the UK, this would have been a serious offence. In Finland, it's just a quirk of the legalisms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Howard (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your first comment seemed reasonable. Then you barf up this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The first comment wasn't even reasonable. It was just another attempt to attack in order to deflect yet another story of how the people he obsessively defends are abusing the law when it suits them.
        
        Put it this way - does the news start every story about police brutality, legal corruption or other abuses of power with a lecture on how bad the criminals they're fighting are? No? That's because it's both blindingly obvious to everyone already and completely irrelevant to the story at hand.
        
        Same here. Mike has stated many times that he neither pirates nor supports piracy. But, it's irrelevant to this story about how the MPAA are yet again abusing the law when it suits its own aims. Whether pirates are bad doesn't excuse the MPAA's behaviour, nor justify it.
        
        AC's original comment also fails to take into account a number of important nuances. e.g. if both sides are breaking the law, which one is worse - the person who gets a free copy of a song or the person falsifying evidence submitted to a court for criminal charges? There's a whole lot of false equivalence going on if you can't see the latter is worse.
        
        So, no, his first comment was not reasonable. It was only couched in language closely resembling that of a thinking adult. Thankfully, he rarely keeps that charade up for long.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Howard (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, you're right.
        Let me correct myself: the first comment sounded reasonable compared to the later mindless rantings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rekrul, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that Mike is completely obsessed with the thought that anyone even remotely related to a pro-IP field might break the law, but then he's completely blind to when his pirate buddies do the same. Perspective. Mike will never have it.
      
      You want some perspective? It's only because of copyright infringement (AKA pirating) that some of television's earliest works have survived and are available to the public (whether through legitimate or unauthorized sources).
      
      Name one other industry that wants the entire world to bend over backwards to serve it?
      
      "Governments? Gotta pass laws to protect us! Police? Gotta bust copyright infringers! Hardware makers? Gotta include the restrictions that we specify! ISPs? Gotta institute a "strikes" system to deal with infringers! Search engines? Gotta delete whatever links we say and add automated systems to kill links on a single keyword match! Video sites? Gotta have automated systems that flag any video that even looks like it might contain some of our content! Theaters? Gotta search people and use night-vision goggles to make sure nobody is recording our movies! Cyberlockers? Gotta put them out of business! Makers of blank media? Gotta add a tax to compensate us because people might use them for pirating! New technology? Gotta kill it! More than a certain number of people saw/heard our work? Gotta pay a license fee!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Evidence tampering is an actual crime. Non-commercial infringement generally isn't. Perspective.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If there's one thing the trolls on Techdirt have taught me it's that copyright infringement is no different than murder.
        
        They're both against the law, duh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DH's Love Child (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not according to the trolls. Copyright infringement is FAR more serious than murder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly Anonymous, 1 May 2013 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They're both against the law, duh."
        
        There are a lot more countries where downloading for non-commercial personal use is legal than there are where it's illegal. A lot of them are also where pro-copyright organizations have the strongest presence. Imagine that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - S. T. Stone, 30 Apr 2013 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quick question: how would you prosecute the millions of people who infringe upon copyrights every day (whether they realize it or not)?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's civil, not criminal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:00am
  
  Re:
  AC going the extra Mile to try to defend his buddies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  That maybe the case. However that does not justify the random and unsubstantiated accusations which come so easily from your overlords. They seemingly think that framing people for profit is acceptable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stig Rudeholm (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  There is, however, a major difference here...
  
  A lot of laws are anchored in the opinion of the majority. Like murder, for instance. Most people generally agree that murder is bad, so we gladly stand behind a law that says you can't commit murder.
  
  Most copyright laws, though, are generally not anchored in the will of the people.
  
  I have no problem with thinking I am above laws that are thrust upon us without the support of the actual people being governed by those laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    So you put yourself above others. Got it. You fit right in here at TD. Home of the overly-entitled douchebags.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In your opinion ... Others see things differently, like you put yourself before all others.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some would call that a lack of perspective.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So now you're trashing Thomas Jefferson?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stig Rudeholm (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      """So you put yourself above others. Got it. You fit right in here at TD. Home of the overly-entitled douchebags."""
      
      Oh, I agree that there are overly-entitled douchebags that put themselves above all others, but I guess we will disagree on who those people are...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Home of the overly-entitled douchebags."
      
      That's the MPAA and RIAA.
      
      And, I'll tell you this.
      
      I've said it once, I'll say it again and again...
      
      People don't follow stupid laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Cool. I guess I will decide which of your rights are unimportant and then violate the shit out of them. You won't mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        squall_seawave (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        correct me if i am wrong but that's not what the entertainment industry is doing with the first sale and sharing right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright isn't even a right granted/protected by the constitution you moron. It's just a concept that the constitution gives power to congress to decide how it's governed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stig Rudeholm (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong.
        
        A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
        
        And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better."
        
        True
        Slavery was legal
        Prohibition was legal
        Interracial marriage was illegal
        All those laws have been changed
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "decide which of your rights are unimportant and then violate the shit out of them"
        
        As I recall, the RIAA tried doing that before in the Tanya Anderson case, deciding they had the right to fake being a grandmother to try and take her daughter out of school.
        
        Anyone who thinks that kind of shit (let alone the rest of the things they do to "justify" extortion) is acceptable is someone who belongs in Camp X-Ray.
        
        You can lie and call advocates of responsible copyright reform here "thieves" or "piracy advocates", but you may never attempt to claim the high ground while you do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rights like a fair trial?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're either a basement bound teenager or a rabid member of the copyright elite. I can't really tell which.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 1 May 2013 @ 6:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tsk... You obviously are just trolling now.
        
        Laws that violate my rights as a person that don't harm others (such as copyright laws) can be viewed as stupid laws.
        
        I'm in the camp of reforming the laws we have so that people can live more freely and openly without worrying about the fact that, currently, everyone commits 2-3 felonies a day and don't know about it. In some places it's illegal to eat icecream on the sidewalk, or sing in a swimsuit or go to sleep in bed with your shoes on. Or how, in some areas, you can shoot at Native Americans if there's 3 or more walking down the street as they constitute a war party.
        
        All of those laws I mentioned above? Stupid laws, no one follows them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AC Unknown, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How are we entitled when all we want is reform? I think that you're the one who is "entitled" because all you do is listen to your paymasters say "jump" and you say "how high?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      All of your comments seem intentionally ironic. I mean you literally just posted this on an article where the MPAA was caught tampering with evidence. Here. A comment about how others are entitled and elitist... here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  Well... your forefathers thought they were above the (british) law and violated other (british) people's rights. Of course, you will never, ever talk about the fact that there are times in history when it is the RIGHT thing to do: To put yourself above the law...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And US copyright did bot include foreign works back in the day. Pirate on founding fathers, not that I'm condoning that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  You know who else thinks they're above the law? All of the intentional pirates who violate other people's rights.
  
  I don't think I'm above the law. I simply want the laws to benefit society as a whole, and to reflect the views of most people.
  
  I'm pretty sure that most people think that laws against tampering with evidence are a good thing and they benefit society (so that everyone, even accused criminals, get fair trials). When it comes to current copyright law, the evidence is on the side that it does not benefit society as a whole and instead looks to benefit a very small number (record label execs, a few mega-stars, and lawyers), whereas a lack of copyright could benefit nearly everyone with quick and easy access to the sum total of human knowledge and culture.
  
  How's that for perspective?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  Hey, look over there!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Mile? What's that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 30 Apr 2013 @ 4:43am

MAFIAA FTW!

oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 5:04am

if the situation had been reversed, if it were any other industry involved, not only would the case have been kicked out of court, the perpetrator, regardless of who it was, would have been arrested straight away and sent for trial. as it was the MPAA involved, and as it was a case against alleged 'pirates', not only did the case continue but there have been no charges brought against the person concerned! if this isn't a disgraceful display of how the law and the courts are totally bias against anyone accused of file sharing, i dont know what is! those accused were still sentenced even though the evidence had been tampered with and from what i read, there were at least 10 instances of this that were noticed! how many were there in reality? how many previous cases have been tainted in the same way, purely to get people convicted, fined heavily and imprisoned? for this exec to have had to do this, it must surely show that the original case was so weak that it would not have gone in the industries favour? when are governments, politicians and law enforcement agencies actually gonna wake up and see exactly how the entertainment industries are completely taking the piss out of them? disgraceful performance!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:11am

Nullify, nullify, nullify, you alone are the final arbiter on a jury. The Supreme Court has even said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  Jury Nullification is not an acceptable response in some jurisdictions. Because A jury is only supposed to rule on questions of Fact, not questions of Law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:16am

Good to know that in Finland people can just change evidence and nothing happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 6:55am

But Mike, these are the people that so strongly believe in helping the blind!!!! Why would they tamper with evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:12am
  
  Re:
  and justice is (allegedly) blind so they are "Helping"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 7:55am

Idiot MPAA
If you're going to just type the dang log then why bother extracting it? Just type it. Like they usually do. Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

Anyone else skeptical???
Who actually believes that an MPAA Executive would know how to use a computer, much less where to find the log files and how to alter them?

I smell collusion here between this Exec, who may have been pushing the buttons, and the IFPI who was probably opening the files, putting the cursor on the name that needed to be changed, then "looking away".... We didn't see anything....

Just saying if it smells like conspiracy, and quacks like conspiracy, then it's obviously a duck...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Trygstad (profile), 30 Apr 2013 @ 10:57am

Inadmissible in the U.S.
When the chain of custody of evidence has been broken or comprimised, it becomes inadmissible in American courts. I guess the rules in Finland might be different...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]