Exceptionally Troubling Ruling In The UK: Owners Of Links Site Guilty Of 'Conspiracy To Defraud'
from the how-so? dept
We've written about the entertainment industry's overly aggressive legal campaign against the owners of SurfTheChannel -- a linking site -- before. Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about how the private UK anti piracy group, FACT, had helped set up the raid on the offices of Scopelight, a startup creating search technologies. This wasn't a typical police raid: FACT (again, a private organization representing private companies) was allowed to come along for the raid. Scopelight built SurfTheChannel as a search engine that could find video. Some of that video was authorized, some of it was not. However, the two founders, a husband and wife team, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and Kelly-Anne Vickerman, were arrested after this raid and charged with "conspiracy to defraud." Note that they were not charged with copyright infringement. If "conspiracy to defraud" sounds familiar, it's the same vague law that was used against the owner of OiNK (unsuccessfully), against the owner of tv-links.co.uk (also unsuccessfully), and also against the creators of Mulve (don't know what happened to that case). Considering how this has failed in two key cases before, and it didn't look like SurfTheChannel was any different, it seemed unlikely to work here either. And, in fact, there were other serious problems with the case, including the issue that FACT itself (again: private organization) was given the Vickermans' computers.Unfortunately, however, the court has found Anton guilty of "conspiracy to defraud" for which he faces 10 years in jail. 10 Years. His wife was found not guilty. Of course, FACT and other entertainment industry interests are cheering this on as a huge victory, and promising to use this to stifle all kinds of useful innovation... er, go after any other site they consider to be "pirate" sites, even if those sites have perfectly legitimate and non-infringing uses. The broadness of the law, and the vague and contradictory standards with which it has been applied in the UK should be exceptionally worrying to people -- especially those in the UK. It is no longer safe to try to create a useful service to help people find entertainment content, because you may get raided, private companies may get your computers and you may end up in jail. London has been building itself up as a tech/startup hub of Europe, but with rulings like these, don't be surprised to see entrepreneurs move elsewhere.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anton benjamin vickerman, conspiracy, kelly-anne vickerman, surfthechannel, uk
Companies: fact, oink, scopelight, tv-links
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, what other country does private interests get exclusive access to the evidence?
You only have to look at the last 2 letters in FACT's acronym to see that they are full of shit.
Copyright Infringement is NOT Copyright Theft. Perhaps they should change their name first, it might just give them a bit more credibility. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy is a menace to society
On a serious note, does the UK government not see how totally disproportionate the punishment is here? Do they really want to put web site operators in jail for a decade? Is society better off now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This guy is a menace to society
Not that this makes it right. Conspiracy to defraud is a very bad law - even the Home Office admitted it was "arguably unfairly uncertain" after the Law Commission told them to repeal it a while back. It really needs to die.
Hopefully, though, he will appeal and we'll get a nice Court of Appeal case laying out the law on linking, hosting etc. (if we don't get that from the O'Dwyer extradition appeal first).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This guy is a menace to society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
They'd control the internet, which means, according to the fear-mongers...
They could control everything, like power grids and such...
Would be funny to see an airstrike fail horribly because they hacked the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So...
"But sir..."
"I said launch the damn nukes!"
404 Error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There, finally some closure. Better late than never I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
thankUser('Jesse');
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean how do we know that a group with a strong incentive to find the defendant guilty didn't decide to start up the computers and 'add' some 'evidence' of their own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sometimes they just buy them am house or if its Peter Mandelson you just take him on a cruise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For members of the Canadian parliament bribers get to substitute that for places that are hot in our winters with lots of beaches and young women in barely there bikinis. Even better are trips to Rio on some fact finding mission or other to investigate the poverty on display on Rio's beaches during Carnival!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK is overrun with
Losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is overrun with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was a site which hosted links ... what am I missing here?
"The owner of TV streaming links site SurfTheChannel has been found guilty of conspiracy to defraud at Newcastle Crown Court today for �facilitating� copyright infringement"
Errr - what?
Why not just charge them with - oh IDK - facilitating copyright infringement or something like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are using some broad wording in the law along with their very own MAFIAAesque interpretation. And it seems some judge$ agree with thi$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law, however, is a lot more worrying: It has been used for completely different companies with wide areas of interpretations and it seems pretty much to be a 50/50-chance of ending up in jail, completely depending on the judge. These kinds of rubber-laws are what dictators use to stay in power and it is very troubling to see it used in a previously free and democratic country, since it is a turn towards the end for the 3-forked system of power (the lawmakers are becoming police and judges in these cases!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what if they have considerable non-infringing uses
There's a big difference between a tool that has multiple uses and a person who does multiple things. The person gets all of the benefits of society and so the person must follow society's rules and respect others.
The site isn't a tool, it's an extension of the people who work there and the people who work there apparently profited from piracy.
This site likes to echo the common complaint that search engines can't edit their content despite the fact that they brag about selecting the best stuff all of the time. It would be very easy for the search engines to blacklist obvious pirates like they blacklist sites that compete against them.
This guy had a choice and he clearly chose to profit off someone's hard work without sharing any of the profits with the people who produced the content. It's a laugh to hear everyone around here talk about the beauty of a sharing economy. When the search engines start sharing their ad revenue with the folks who make the sites possible, I'll start to think it's possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if they have considerable non-infringing uses
You can add to that the not-so minor detail that the Metropolitan Police have been not-so-gently ticked off for their far too cozy relationships with private organizations like FACT and stunts like handing evidence over to them before the courts get to see it AND the defendants solicitors get to see it.
Yeah, I know it's all "Big Search" that has brought about all the "piracy" and "Big Search" needs to be reigned in in your view but then so does anyone whose opinions differ to yours.
And there isn't a thing that's stopping "Big Content" from buying ad space from Google or Microsoft or Yahoo on their own sites.
Oh...just a second, they already do!
Have another glance under your bed, bob. There be monsters there I'm sure, even if they aren't visible to anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if they have considerable non-infringing uses
...but you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what if they have considerable non-infringing uses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/british-banker-emails-signal-age-irresponsibility-4950519
After all, it's not like these profiteer bankers posted links to content on the internet, or anything serious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much is some? Was it 50-50. Or was it overwhelmingly infringing with a small amount of non-infringing material; in the hope of mounting a contrived free speech defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much is some? Was it 50-50. Or was it overwhelmingly infringing with a small amount of non-infringing material; in the hope of mounting a contrived free speech defense? Or alternatively, was it overwhelmingly non-infringing with only a small amount being infringing? If that last one was indeed the case, mounting a free speech defense should be paramount. Anyone know for sure which it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://surfthechannelfraudtrial.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/5/
Highlights:
*Judge leaves jury little choice after directing as a matter of law that knowingly linking to infringing content is illegal despite no such offence in the UK;
*Judge ignores SportsRadar High Court judgement that states if an infringement takes place it takes place in the country the server is based (linking to infringing content legal in Spain where SurfTheChannel was based);
*Judge states �if I have got the law wrong then a higher court than this one will sort it out�;
*FACT Ltd staff admit to �around 15 surveillance operations a month� carried out on UK citizens but say �we are a private company so don�t have to abide by the Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act�;
*Pascal Hetzscholdt admits that senior MPAA personnel including John Malcolm contacted NBCUniversal to pressure them into terminating A&E Television Networks partnership agreement with SurfTheChannel;
*Jury not told of DeBeasi�s ownership of paedophile site �JailBaitBox.com� which contained images of �girls under the age of consent that you want to fuck� according to DeBeasi�s blog;
*Vickerman provides unchallenged evidence that Anti-Piracy company�s, in particular Aiplex Software, are responsible for automated adding of around a million links to the STC website.
In addition, at the beginning of the trial, the Private Prosecutors (MPAA/FACT) sought and were granted a Public Interest hearing with the Judge. This private cozy 3 hour session excluded the defendents and their lawyers. After that session the judge's hostility towards the defendents increased quite dramatically. Any quesses as to what they discussed in private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQAzpV7GC0U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH PUH-LEASE. Did you even look at the site? This is why the "sharing is caring" internet warriors are loons. They're not just lying to everyone else, they're lying to themselves. If you didn't make it, don't take it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please tell me what was taken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you believe they haven't done that, feel free to continue lying to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The ability to watch programmes you otherwise would have to pay for in some way."
Your statement seems a bit all or nothing. I'm pretty sure the site was not as black or white as this. For example, not all programmes would have been exclusively on paid TV. Some were free to air. Even if someone did not own a TV licence in the UK to "pay" for these programmes, it is still legal to use 4OD or BBC iPlayer (free services).
If a programme was exlcusively on paid TV or only available via DVD or some other paid medium then the man is guilty of providing a service which links to other peoples hosted copyright infringing material.
Is that the same as a lost sale? How do you measure what is "lost"? Are you sure someone watching these programmes doesn't put money back into the system in other ways?
I don't know the answer to these questions but I do know that conspiracy to defraud and 4 years in jail seems a bit extreme for telling someone where something is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They took that? Where from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing was taken by this person.
He ran a website with LINKS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be silly, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't be silly, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't be silly, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhat dodgy ground here
On the page, it links to the Attorney General's advice on the law: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/conspiracy%20to%20defraud%20final.pdf
Qu oting from that document, point 15 (page 4/5): "The dishonest obtaining of land and other property not protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 adn the Trademarks Act 1994, and other confidential information. The Fraud Act will bite where there is intent to make a gain or cause a loss through false representation, failure to disclose information where there is a legal obligation to do so, or in the abuse of position;
Dishonestly infringing another's right; for example the dishonest exploitation of another's patent in the absence of a legal duty to disclose information about its existence;..."
This refers to conduct that can only be prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud, as the Fraud Act 2006 is designed to be a more specific and incisive law, and it is statutary law as opposed to the common law conspiracy to defraud.
Therefore, if I am reading this right (and I am not a lawyer by any means), this case falls short of the Fraud Act because there can't be any evidence for dishonesty.
This particular branch of common law appears to be built up to encompass fraudulent behaviour even when that behaviour itself is not an offence, which I admit seems counterintuitive, however I will restate that there are no specific rules and regulations as it is not statutory laws - there is no "law" per se. It is only the accumulation of judicial decisions over the years - and I don't have the time (or the ability) to comb through the case law of the last however many years to see where the lines are drawn.
What I would say though, is that an appeal should be made, and the Court of Appeal will sort it out. That is their job, after all, to interpret the law effectively. Its one of the defining aspects of the British judicial system as far as I am aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somewhat dodgy ground here
Didn't come through all that well in my last comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]