Investigation into Alleged Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Distribution of Music

Investigation into Alleged Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Distribution of Music

Piracy occurs when copyrighted material such as TV programs, music, and movies are replicated and consequently sold at lower prices in grey markets. The ease of access to technology in the recent past has opened more avenues for piracy to take place. Music piracy, for instance, has lately become a simple task since CD writers are readily available on shelves at low prices. As a response to the rampant piracy, governments have made laws to tackle the menace. Anti-piracy laws tend to be tougher and more punitive in developed countries in Europe and the US. However, developing countries in Asia and Africa have limited to zero anti-piracy laws due to the more pressing national issues facing them. Nonetheless, players in the music and IT industries have the capacity to identify the origins of pirated content and conduct raids in private residences and employers’ workspaces with police aid.

Types of Evidence Provided

From the picture, there is both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence, in this case, refers to what will implicate the suspect on the workplace site without the need for further investigation. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence refers to what can potentially implicate the piracy suspect once when if successfully linked to piracy (Kerr, 2001). The data footprints obtained from the digital and external devices in the workstation (computers, iPads, phones, flash disks) can provide crucial evidence to prove that the suspect actually pirated the songs as accused.

Digital Evidence

Investigators can rely on electronic devices at the workstation to obtain digital evidence. By undertaking digital forensics, computer hard drives and phone memory can provide evidence to implicate the music piracy suspect. Even though the suspect might have already deleted implicating evidence from the computer or phone files, the latest technology allows investigators to retrieve the data and the time the songs were downloaded (Kerr, 2001). However, forensic officers and investigators are likely to face a few challenges, including anti-forensic techniques employed by the culprit. Anti-forensic techniques such as encryption allow piracy suspects to prevent investigators from accessing the original files.

Documentary Evidence

Another important evidential source is the documents stocked on the extreme left of the workstation table. Documentary evidence refers to any evidence existing in written form. The evidence will be particularly useful to the prosecution since written evidence is more useful than witness evidence in a software piracy case (Prayudi et al., 2014). Unlike documented evidence, witness evidence has a factor of suspicion. Documented evidence, however, narrows down the plaintiff’s complaints by providing the factual and legal complaints raised by the complainant. It is okay for the police to assume that the papers may contain the list of songs alleged to have been downloaded by the piracy suspect operating from the workstation.

Physical Evidence

Physical evidence is also useful in piracy investigations. From the pictorial representation of the workstation, there is significant physical evidence, including the marker pen, desktop, and CDs. These tools can be potentially used when downloading content, hence forming firsthand hypotheses to prosecute until proven otherwise (Kane, 2021). Documentary evidence existing in textual files can also be used as physical evidence to prove culpability. Among others, investigators need to prove the authenticity and the source of the files stored in physical devices (Kane, 2021).  Just like witnesses and documentary evidence, physical evidence ought to exist throughout the evidential lifetime, hence the need for the police to take custody of the physical evidence until the conclusion of the case. It is important to take custody of physical evidence to prevent suspects from interfering with them.

Search Warrants Requirements

Anti-piracy authorities must ask one basic question before seizing computers for investigations: do the owners have any privacy concerns about their devices? If the answer is ‘yes’, investigators are obligated to obtain search warrants before seizing the devices (Kerr, 2001). In the case at hand, electronic devices that need warrants before acquiring them include desktops, USB devices, and mobile phones. Investigating authorities must obtain search warrants unless dictated otherwise under exceptional circumstances. Before obtaining an arrest warrant for the case at hand, the plaintiff must convince the courts that they have evidence to prove culpability beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, the police and anti-piracy authorities must restrict their search to the areas stated in the search warrant. In an office setting, for instance, the search should be limited to the desk/area for which the warrant was given (Kerr, 2001). A search warrant only allows the police to extend their search if doing so will guarantee their safety and that of others at the scene of the crime. The police can also extend their search if it will potentially prevent the accused from destroying/erasing evidence.

Digital warrant requirements also apply when seeking a computer data interception warrant. Such a warrant has a limited scope, with anti-piracy officials only allowed to listen to, monitor, and record suspicious data/files (Kerr, 2001). However, the complainants and the relevant authorities must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the information sought is actually relevant and necessary to prove the case. Besides, the likely offence has to be mentioned during the application stage. The requirement is meant to push the plaintiff to conduct sufficient investigations for the case to stand.

The most useful warrant in the case at hand is the warrant to examine computer data. Law enforcement must first apply for the warrant and prove the necessity and relevance of seeking such a warrant (Moore, 2014). The application must also state the particular information being sought by law enforcement, apart from stating the likely offense thereof. Once law enforcers have seized and examined the relevant data, they have to make a return filing showing the computer system or specific location where such evidence was found. The information will enable the concerned parties to determine the hash value of the electronic devices seized, thus laying the ground for the case.

All warrants pertaining to internet or computer activity have to be obtained by law enforcement officials. Thus, private players must collaborate with the relevant law enforcement agencies when applying for warrants. These and other warrant requirements are necessary to avoid a situation where a water-tight piracy case is thrown out on technical grounds.

Challenges Associated with Recovering Evidence from a Private Residence Compared to an Employer’s Workspace

Conducting searches to obtain evidence from private residences has a number of limitations when compared to workplaces. In instances where houses are occupied by more than one tenant, law enforcers must obtain consent from all parties before conducting a search (Goodison, Davis & Jackson, 2015). The search may be complicated if one of the tenants objects to the search. Another challenge occurs when the target resident is not present. If the police/law enforcement proceed with a search without the approval of the target suspect, he/she has a right to sue for suppression of evidence at a later date. However, workplace searches do not require the approval of multiple parties before being executed.

Also, there are high chances of unintended evidence tampering in a private resident compared to a workplace. Children may, for instance, unknowingly damage computer hard drives subject to investigation (Goodison, Davis & Jackson, 2015). In such a case, it is not admissible to blame the suspect for evidence tampering. The situation is different at the workplace where those who damage evidence take personal responsibility.

It is also easy to clear the path of evidence contamination at the workplace compared to a residential environment. The staff in a workplace under investigations can be instructed not to touch devices under investigation. However, that is not possible at home as children, and other family members may use the devices, thereby tampering with crucial evidence.

Conclusion

Piracy of copyrighted content is on a rampant increase thanks to technological advancement, which has opened more avenues for digital theft. Piracy denies artists their deserved revenue since pirated content is sold in ‘grey markets’ at relatively lower prices. In turn, governments and industry players have formulated mechanisms to tackle the menace. This includes raiding workplaces and residences to acquire evidence to implicate suspects. However, law enforcement agencies and complainants encounter challenges while carrying out investigations. These obstacles include stringent privacy requirements and potential evidence tampering, particularly in private residences.

References

Centre for Cybersecurity Belgium. (2021). Cyber Security Incident Management Guide Centre For Cyber Security Belgium. https://www.cybersecuritycoalition.be/content/uploads/cybersecurity-incident-management-guide-EN.pdf

Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital evidence and the US Criminal      Justice             System. Identifying technology and other needs to more effectively acquire and utilize digital evidence.

Kane, M. (2021). Putting The Suspect At The Computer. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/cyb_pan_user_en.pdf

Kerr, O. S. (2001). Searching and seizing computers and obtaining electronic evidence in criminal investigations. Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for United States        Attorneys.

Moore, R. (2014). Cybercrime: Investigating high-technology computer crime. Routledge.

Prayudi, Y., Ashari, A., & K Priyambodo, T. (2014). Digital Evidence Cabinets: A Proposed Framework for Handling Digital Chain of Custody. International Journal of Computer Applications, 107(9), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.5120/18781-0106

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Directions: Please answer each of the following questions as thoroughly as possible after reading the scenario. Please note that you will likely have to do a little bit of research outside of the course page to be able to thoroughly answer the questions.

Investigation into Alleged Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Distribution of Music

You are an investigator with the local police department. You received an anonymous call that the person who sits at the workstation above has been downloading copyrighted songs off of the internet (this is called piracy) and selling the songs on a CD to anyone who is interested in purchasing the CD at a fraction of the cost at a legal retailer.

Answer/Discuss the Following:

Look at the picture (Computer desk) attached and identify all potential evidence and explain which type of evidence each artifact is and how it will be used to strengthen the investigation.
Discuss any privacy rights and search warrant requirements that need to be considered as they pertain to both personal space and internet activity.
Describe some of the challenges associated with recovering evidence from a private residence compared to an employer’s workspace.
Format Requirements