The owner of Surfthechannel.com has been sentenced to four years in jail after providing links to illegally copied TV shows and films.
Anton Vickerman was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in June for "facilitating" copyright infringement.
The site used to be one of the UK's most visited sources of pirated files.
The 38-year-old from Gateshead had designed the service's pages, hiring others to source material and carry out other back-end functions.
Surfthechannel.com had acted as an index of professionally made online videos - both legal and illegal - encouraging its users to send in new links and check that they worked.
However, it did not host the video files itself, but instead pointed visitors to other sites including Megavideo and China's Tudou.
The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said that at its height in 2009 the site attracted more than 400,000 visitors a day, generating more than £35,000 in advertising revenue a month.
The maximum sentence that could have been given at Newcastle Crown Court would have been 10 years.
Mr Vickerman ran the site through a limited company, called Scopelight, which sent earnings to a bank account in Latvia.
He was arrested after Fact and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) hired a private investigator who took photographs of Mr Vickerman's home and computer equipment in July 2008 after pretending to be interested in buying the property.
Police raided the house a month later, arresting Mr Vickerman and his wife.
Kelly Vickerman was found not guilty by the jury.
Despite the arrests Surfthechannel continued to operate and only went offline in May, coinciding with the start of the trial.
Media industry representatives, including the British Video Association, welcomed Mr Vickerman's guilty verdict saying it made it clear that copyright theft would not be tolerated.
But others have expressed concern that Mr Vickerman was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud rather than being prosecuted for copyright infringement.
The Techdirt blog has described the law as being "vague" and noted that the charge had previously been unsuccessfully levelled against the owners of Oink and tv-links.co.uk - sites which had also offered indexes of links to pirated material.
Anton Vickerman was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in June for "facilitating" copyright infringement.
The site used to be one of the UK's most visited sources of pirated files.
The 38-year-old from Gateshead had designed the service's pages, hiring others to source material and carry out other back-end functions.
Surfthechannel.com had acted as an index of professionally made online videos - both legal and illegal - encouraging its users to send in new links and check that they worked.
However, it did not host the video files itself, but instead pointed visitors to other sites including Megavideo and China's Tudou.
The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said that at its height in 2009 the site attracted more than 400,000 visitors a day, generating more than £35,000 in advertising revenue a month.
The maximum sentence that could have been given at Newcastle Crown Court would have been 10 years.
Mr Vickerman ran the site through a limited company, called Scopelight, which sent earnings to a bank account in Latvia.
He was arrested after Fact and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) hired a private investigator who took photographs of Mr Vickerman's home and computer equipment in July 2008 after pretending to be interested in buying the property.
Police raided the house a month later, arresting Mr Vickerman and his wife.
Kelly Vickerman was found not guilty by the jury.
Despite the arrests Surfthechannel continued to operate and only went offline in May, coinciding with the start of the trial.
Media industry representatives, including the British Video Association, welcomed Mr Vickerman's guilty verdict saying it made it clear that copyright theft would not be tolerated.
But others have expressed concern that Mr Vickerman was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud rather than being prosecuted for copyright infringement.
The Techdirt blog has described the law as being "vague" and noted that the charge had previously been unsuccessfully levelled against the owners of Oink and tv-links.co.uk - sites which had also offered indexes of links to pirated material.
Source: BBC News
0 comments:
Post a Comment