'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: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.