Slashdot Mirror
'Pirate' Website Owner Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison
Grumbleduke writes "Anton Vickerman, who owned SurfTheChannel.com, has been sentenced to 4 years in prison following his conviction last month for 'conspiracy to defraud.' This is the first successful prosecution of an individual in the UK for running a website merely linking to allegedly infringing content (several earlier cases collapsed or resulted in acquittals). Vickerman was prosecuted for the controversial offense of 'conspiracy to defraud' for 'facilitating copyright infringement,' rather than for copyright infringement itself, and it is worth noting that the relevant copyright offense carries a maximum prison sentence of only two years — half of what was given. FACT, the Hollywood-backed enforcement group who were heavily involved in the prosecution noted that the conviction 'should send a very strong message to those running similar sites that they can be found, arrested and end up in prison,' but it remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on pirate sites, or encourage development of the largely hopeless legal market for online film."
So when can we expect "conspiracy to defraud" cases to be initiated against, e.g., the suits in charge of RBS leading up to the 2008 financial crisis?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
FACT: you are a dumbass.
As the author of the summary, perhaps I should clarify.
With regard to "merely linking", he was convicted of conspiracy to defraud for "facilitating copyright infringement" through running a website. The website didn't host any videos, but merely linked to them. The "merely" is applied to distinguish linking from hosting, or sharing directly (there have been a few successful prosecutions in the UK for people actually sharing stuff). This distinction is important because there's a lot of doubt in the UK (and elsewhere) as to whether or not "linking" is actually copyright infringement.
Also I might just be tired, but the summary makes it seem like he got four years out of a maximum of two possible - that's not the case. He got 4 years out of a maximum of TEN possible according to the articles I've seen about it.
The point I was trying to make here (and I note that what I wrote was edited, not sure what I actually wrote, but I wouldn't have spelt "offence" with an s in that context) was that had he actually been charged with criminal copyright infringement, he would have faced a maximum of 2 years in prison. But because FACT/the MPAA went with the broader, but highly controversial (to the extent that the Law Commission recommended it be repealed years ago, and there are strict restrictions on when public prosecutions for it can be brought - this was a private prosecution) offence of "conspiracy to defraud", which criminalises a "dishonest agreement" to do something that may not itself be unlawful or cause any harm. But yes, that offence does have a maximum sentence of 10 years.