'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."

Comments

Good boyyy!!!! You're going to get a treat, UK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A snausages just for you, boy!! Who's a good U.S. lapdog? Yes, *you* are!!

Conspiracy to defraud

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Conspiracy to defraud

[wild_quinine]

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?

No. Clearly not. Those people are important

Actually though, the conspiracy to defraud bit is important. He can't be charged with Copyright Infringement, because he didn't do it. He can't be charged with contributory copyright infringement, because that's not even a crime. So instead he's been done on 'conspiracy to defraud', a law which is considered wobbly at the best of times.

But it gets worse. The sentence handed down is double the maximum possible sentence for copyright infringement.

We've done him worse than he would have been done for the crime he didn't even commit.

Merely linking?

[Havenwar]

While I'm a rather happy pirate and pirate supporter, I don't think you can quite count it as "merely linking" if you actively source pirated material to link to. The flimsy excuse the pirate bay has for instance is that it's "just an indexing site" and can just as happily be used for legal material... when you are going out and looking for pirated stuff to link to, "merely" leaves the table.

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.

And now I feel all dirty for having to take the wrong side in this argument. I wish people would understand that if we stopped using hyperbole and chest thumping tactics we'd win on default in the eyes of the public. With articles like this, misrepresenting facts, twisting words, transparent agendas... That's as low and useless as the *AA tactics we oppose.

I need a shower, proceed with the discussion without me.

Re:Merely linking?

[Dyinobal]

Ten years for running a site that linked largely older content that wasn't on TV or offered any where on line. Ya The guy deserves years in a federal pound you in the ass prison.

The problem is this guy should of ran the site under the guise of a corporation, JPmorgan only got fiend like 4 million dollars after making 21 million on a price fixing scheme in New York. No one went to jail and they got to keep a cool 17 million dollars that they stole from the people of New York.

Re:Merely linking?

[pla]

I don't think you can quite count it as "merely linking" if you actively source pirated material to link to.

Welcome to the intersection of copyright as the default state of any creative work, and the internet.

Everything on the internet has a copyright on it, and you do not (usually) have permission from the copyright holder to link to it.

Yes, we can all quibble over this as an egregious example, but it sets a really bad precedent that moves us solidly back in the direction of "producers" and "consumers", rather than "participants".

Re:Merely linking?

[Grumbleduke]

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.

Jail Time for Civil Offenses?

[CanHasDIY]

So, I suppose this means giving people jail time for minor civil infractions (while letting major crimes, such as international larceny and funding terrorism, go unpunished) is the new normal?

Looks like Vickerman's real crime was not being wealthy enough to buy his way out of trouble...



This world, she is fucked...

Re:Jail Time for Civil Offenses?

[CanHasDIY]

He wasn't tried for a civil offense. You must be out of the loop since the TRIPS agreement maintained by WIPO introduced crimInal liability for copyright offenses years ago.

Not at all, I just flat-out will not accept the re-assignment of a civil infraction into a criminal one, just because some corporate assholes paid off a couple politicians.

Society should not allow people to be jailed and have their livelihoods stolen over goddamn entertainment media. It's sick, and I for one refuse to so much as acknowledge the idea.

Re:Good boyyy!!!! You're going to get a treat, UK!

[cpu6502]

States are now puppets of the corporations. This is something I can't seem to make anarchist-capitalists understand. They don't comprehend that money == power. With a government the corporations may not exist, but the large companies and rich owners would still be in charge and writing the laws that make us all victims to their whims.

ALSO: How can a judge enact a punishment that is double that proscribed by law? This looks like a stupid decision just waiting to be overturned by an appeals court.

Re:Good boyyy!!!! You're going to get a treat, UK!

[Hatta]

You clearly don't understand anarcho-capitalism. There would be only one law: Keep your hands off other people and their property without their permission.

When the entire city, including the roadways, police, education system is owned by a private corporation, how does one live a lawful life without selling oneself to the corporation?

Knowing all that, how on earth do you get the idea that following these ideas can end up with the "rich" stuffing poor people into meat grinders for their amusement?

The gilded age. There but for government regulations won by a strong labor movement go we.

The only way anyone could get rich is by serving wants of the masses with lower priced higher quality goods and services than the competition.

Yes, and because of economies of scale the rich can provide higher quality goods and services than the poor can. The consequence of this is wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Money makes money faster than labor does. Without specific provisions(like say, government regulation) to stop this, inequality will rule until the poor rise up and slaughter everyone. Is that what you want?