backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by enjoycoke.. on Apr 22 at 8:40 AM

A screenshot allegedly taken of Jim Keyzer's Facebook profile, with his new employer clearly visible.  (Source: Kopit.se)
Investigation may be compromised

New allegations from Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde surfaced over the weekend, connecting investigator Jim Keyzer in the police case against The Pirate Bay to an improper relationship with one of the case’s instigators, Warner Music.

A press release from The Pirate Bay says that Keyzer is expected to be a key witness in the media industry’s case, and that he may have been responsible for canceling a lawsuit where The Pirate Bay attempted to sue a number of media companies for “digital trespassing.”

The site says it discovered that Keyzer was under the employ of Warner Bros as early as March 16, when Swedish-language blog Kopit.se discovered that he joined the “Warner Bros” network and changed his listed employment information accordingly. The Pirate Bay says it called Keyzer to confirm the change of information, which he acknowledged as being the reward for “work well done” for his new employer.

Monique Wadsted, an intellectual property lawyer representing Hollywood in the criminal case, confirmed Keyzer’s change in employment, likewise confirming that Keyzer’s employment was probably for a “job well done.” However, she said that Keyzer’s investigation was completely aboveboard, with “nothing inappropriate” done to corrupt the work of the police inquiry.

“Talk about a legal outrage,” says Sunde. “Keyzer is in charge of the investigation. No matter the reasons to switch employer, this investigation has not been fair. We have felt that the investigation has concentrated on trying to locate something to point out as wrong with The Pirate Bay instead of determining if the activities of the site are unlawful or not.”

According to Sunde’s lawyer, Peter Athlin, if The Pirate Bay’s allegations are true, then the current investigation will have to be “remade,” presumably with police investigators starting over to build their case.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
surprise suprise
By qball101 on 4/21/2008 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 5
Wow, what a surprise... US corporation buys justice, that's never happened before.

Great to see that the people who investigate these things feel that it's some sort of extended interview process that can lead to a bigger salary if they cast aside their ethics.




RE: surprise suprise
By just4U on 4/21/2008 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
Setting aside sarcasm, I do have to agree with you on this. From a public viewpoint it's definitely seems in poor taste at the very least. But, also could have legal ramifications one would think to.


RE: surprise suprise
By eye smite on 4/21/2008 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
Hehe, you expect anyone in big business these days has ethics at all? I don't, it's how much money will you pay me to sell what little ethics I have. lol


RE: surprise suprise
By rsmech on 4/21/2008 11:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your lack of shock something like this could happen, but maybe a bigger shock is that US corporations aren't the only ones doing this.


According to Swedish laws
By Anosh on 4/21/2008 10:32:09 AM , Rating: 3
If the police had followed Swedish law this case should never have started.

Swedish law states that, for the police to be able to raid and confiscate the sentence must lead to jail. But in this case what TPB is doing has not been determined as whether it leads to jail or not which means the raid should never had occurred.

Clearly US based companies pressured a few individuals to take action and decisions that should never have been made. While some where pressured others were tempted with rewards.

I guess we're seeing the latter now.




zero wing
By jlips6 on 4/21/2008 4:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Catz!




By enjoycoke on 4/22/2008 8:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is So stupid!
Googles YouTube pirates a million times more stuff every day and they MAKE money out of it all unlike most of these torrent sites.
I can never get over how easy it is for me to watch a movie in parts of a TV show on youtube while google makes money out of it while torrent sites that "ARE NOT EVEN HOSTING" the files are getting hit like this.
Googles youtube pirates heaps more, makes it super easy and they host the stuff and make money out of it, how can you make all this any more criminal.




Well...whoops.
By lompocus on 4/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well...whoops.
By mmntech on 4/21/2008 9:34:07 AM , Rating: 5
It's conflict of interest. I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know, it would make his testimony inadmissible. I'm probably wrong but at the very least, it casts reasonable doubt.

I want to see the Pirate Bay win, not because I condone piracy but because I want to see the entertainment industry taken down a peg. I think we're all sick of their "holier than thou" attitude towards what you can do with media you've legally purchased for your exclusively private use.


RE: Well...whoops.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/21/2008 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 4
Depends on their laws. Here in the U.S. this would essentially kill their entire case and force them to do it all over again as the case is contaminated. I'm not current on the laws governing this case so it's possible this will only strip his testimony away without derailing the entire case.

In either case I find TPB quite amusing, and their Legal Threats page is a barrel of laughs.


RE: Well...whoops.
By just4U on 4/21/2008 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't understand why they'd employ the lead investigator. Job well done or not .. it's inapropriate. Perhaps once it all blew over that might be a different case but ... while things are going on? Does not make sense, and certainly doesn't seem like a smart move.


RE: Well...whoops.
By fic2 on 4/21/2008 10:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
I would think that it would taint anything that he touched including evidence that he might have had access to. Chain of evidence - well, that goes right out the window since he had motive to taint everything.

Definitely stupid of Warner, but about par for the course.


RE: Well...whoops.
By Samus on 4/21/2008 8:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, this guy should be fired for being a dumbass.

His siter's cute though. Give her the job.


RE: Well...whoops.
By tmouse on 4/21/2008 10:35:05 AM , Rating: 1
I'm at a bit of a loss on the logic here. So he is hired on or about 3/16/08; the case was filed on 2/1/08 and at that time the investigations are more than likely finished. It’s unlikely he was still working the two jobs at the same time and very likely he no longer had access after he was employed by WB. I do not see any "conflict of interest". Now if someone can show any fiduciary connections before 2/1/8 then that evidence is questionable. His testimony will be on his actions during the investigation, unless someone can show he was paid off before or during the actual investigation to falsify evidence this is all smoke and no flame. The police never assume anyone is innocent during an investigation that’s why they call them suspects. They also do not start an investigation where there is no suspicion of a crime, ALL investigations are done under the suspicion that a crime has been committed and someone is guilty. Their job is to find evidence; if they cannot then there is no case. Some evidence will not be presented because of a myriad of legal reasons but that’s the duty of the court systems NOT the police. Let’s face it what evidence is questionable? This case will not revolve on whether or not PB facilitates piracy that much is oblivious; it’s whether what they do is a crime in that jurisdiction. They have clearly stated that they know illegal content is transferred using connections they supply. They have said that they cannot control it and do not care to do so anyways. Their defense has always been that what they do is not a crime in their country.


RE: Well...whoops.
By just4U on 4/21/2008 10:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, this guy will have to testify in the case. Now that he's no long a law enforcement official and in the direct employ of Warner Brothers, couldn't that mean that what ever he says on the case is somewhat jaded?

That's the way I see it anyway.


RE: Well...whoops.
By tmouse on 4/21/2008 11:04:52 AM , Rating: 3
Nope, as I said his testimony will be on what he did and what he found during the investigation, when he , presumably, had no relationship with WB. All prosecution evidence is biased toward their point as well as ALL defense evidence is biased for the defense. The other side has to show a flaw in the evidence. It is not unheard of for a case to take years to come to trial and police do move on to other more lucrative jobs. As the lead he will state what his TEAM has found, any questions about bias will be addressed by using supporting testimony from the other team members. Using the lead is just a time saving measure. The vast majority of the evidence is always in the hands of the prosecution before any case is filed so there is no “taint”. More than likely the defense had copies of all of the evidence before he joined WB. For this to mean anything a relationship will have to be shown before the conclusion of the investigation.


RE: Well...whoops.
By just4U on 4/21/2008 11:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for explaining. I do think it tends to send the wrong sort of message tho and leads one to wonder about possible inapropriate activities during the investigation.

I mean it's a given, everyone can exercise their options while looking for bigger and better employment but something like this will definitely lead to speculation.


RE: Well...whoops.
By fic2 on 4/21/2008 11:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
If I was on the jury (assuming there is a jury) I would be wondering what verbal promises of employment were made to the investigator if the case came out the way Warner wanted it to. Definitely more than a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more, say no more.

To me it says that the cop probably made up things just to get employed by Warner.


RE: Well...whoops.
By tmouse on 4/21/2008 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 3
Possibly some will, however they will have to then discredit the whole team, which could be harder. I seriously doubt their testimony will give the prosecutors any "smoking guns". They will say they found links to illegal software on the site, maybe even some files (I do not know). They might have gotten some admissions about knowledge of the presence of the material from the PB staff that was interviewed. I think there will be some analysis of the amount of piracy links vs. other links to show a more facilitatory role than just a casual amount of piracy. I am just guessing but the defense will probably ask for a court decision about dismissal based upon whether a statute for assisting copyright infringement even exists. If that fails they will ask the court to provide the requirements for defining such a crime, then comes the trial. Their best chance is the dismissal, if that fails then they will need to discredit the investigation but I think then they will be in a bad situation. It will be hard for them to convince anyone they were unaware of any “piracy” occurring in the “Pirates Den”.


RE: Well...whoops.
By superkdogg on 4/21/2008 12:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
You do a very good job of explaining your point, but I disagree based not as much on fact as on gut feeling.

I'm guessing here, but I doubt that Warner Bros. is typically scanning the rosters of law enforcement for their new hires. The simple fact that he conducted an investigation that they think will be favorable to WB and then was hired shortly after the investigation (don't forget the 6 weeks includes the time it would take to apply, have an interview, get the job offer, and actually start-which pushes the timeline back to the forefront) to work for WB should or will make the juror curious.

I don't know that there's anything overtly illegal about the relationship (depends on whose laws are being used I suppose) but what I do know is it looks awkward at best. That hire presents a huge hurdle for WB and for investigators to overcome in court because even if it is entirely legitimate it appears somewhat uncouth and could easily be spun to look like WB had the offer out there contigent on a successful investigation prior to closing the investigation.

I'm pretty sure that law enforcement's primary motivation at any given time is to ensure safety and protection for all people in their jurisdiction and this dual relationship implies favorable treatment even if there actually was none. Favorable treatment is a big no-no for law enforcement, and if there were any promises of rewards or actual rewards changing hands during the investigation, it's completely illegal.


RE: Well...whoops.
By glitchc on 4/21/2008 4:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. If the action appears as a conflict of interest to an outsider, then it is a conflict of interest, even if the individuals/corporations involved are being ethical in their transactions.


RE: Well...whoops.
By tmouse on 4/22/2008 8:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
I do not disagree that the timing was poor, but we simply do not know when the police side of the investigation was complete. In a case like this the prosecutors may have taken quite a while to file while looking for precedents ect. so the investigation could have concluded much earlier. WB and many other media companies have quite actively and regularly looked for investigators in the police and military for the last 6 years. It is not a well know fact but it was started by companies like Direct Tv in their reign of terror from 99-04. Again I do not believe it means much, the investigation probably did not reveal much more than everyone knows and the information can probably be validated by many. The PB connected people who wanted pirated stuff with others who provided it; it probably was the majority of their business. Whether this is illegal in their jurisdiction I will not even hazard a guess, I think this is the crux of the defense, the fall back will probably be there is no way for them to stop it (which may have some merit but their lack of any attempts will not help their case).


RE: Well...whoops.
By Some1ne on 4/21/2008 5:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want to see the Pirate Bay win, not because I condone piracy but because I want to see the entertainment industry taken down a peg.


I condone piracy and I want to see the entertainment industry taken down a peg. Go TPB!


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki