Surfthechannel owner sentenced after piracy conviction

[Bald Bouncer]

The owner of Surfthechannel.com - a site that provided links to illegally copied TV shows and films - has been sentenced to four years in jail.

It used to be one of the UK's most popular sources of pirated content.

Anton Vickerman, from Gateshead, had designed the service's pages, hiring others to source material and carry out other back-end functions.

The 38-year-old was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in June for "facilitating" copyright infringement.

The maximum sentence that could have been given at Newcastle Crown Court would have been 10 years.

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.


Surfthechannel.com indexed links to online
videos but did not host the media files itself

Private investigator

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.

Fact welcomed the case's outcome.

"Mr Vickerman knew what he was doing from the outset, having been involved in the pirate community for some time," said the organisation's director general, Kieron Sharp.

"This was not a passive search engine. Surfthechannel was created specifically to make money from criminal activity and it became the biggest site of its kind on the internet within two years.

"The sentencing indicates the severity of the offences committed and the sophistication of his criminal enterprise and should send a very strong message to those running similar sites that they can be found, arrested and end up in prison."

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.

BBC News

[4me2]

Hopefully he's got the money sitting away safely for when he gets out.

[beerman]

So it doesn't host any content, it just points people in the direction of where the videos are? Isn't that what Google does?

[Over Carl]

So it doesn't host any content, it just points people in the direction of where the videos are? Isn't that what Google does?

I think the pirate bay trial showed that silly things like laws should have no bearing when it comes to people accused of aiding piracy.

[Bald Bouncer]

Hopefully he's got the money sitting away safely for when he gets out.

No chance they will have POCA on the case and he will either pay what they claim within a year max or will be looking at several more years in jail

[super mike]

2 x GBH with intent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
Robbery and possesion of imitation firearm: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-31615845/
Paedophilia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dangerous.html

All less than 4 years.

Even if you are of the persuasion that this site was illegal, how is a four year sentence in any way, shape or form proportionate to the action? It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Bald Bouncer]

2 x GBH with intent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml
Robbery and possesion of imitation firearm: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-31615845/
Paedophilia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dangerous.html

All less than 4 years.

Even if you are of the persuasion that this site was illegal, how is a four year sentence in any way, shape or form proportionate to the action? It's absolutely ridiculous.

The answer is very simple no big business or Government lost anything in the crimes you listed, they don't give a shit about unimportant people but when it comes to something that may effect the billions one of the most powerful industries in the world make then expect them to make sure they get as much as they can. The media industry is the most protected in the world even though they pay next to no tax but they do come through with nice big thick brown envelopes.

[hoponbaby]

The site owner has posted his side of the entire story http://surfthechannel.com/

[Bald Bouncer]

The site owner has posted his side of the entire story http://surfthechannel.com/

Very interesting read and with first hand experience of this you should not doubt anything he say's this is exactly how they work the corruption and bribery is endemic within the legal system in the UK and the blind eye 'appointed' judges turn to abuse of process, law breaking, manipulation of evidence, lies and criminal acts committed by FACT, ELSPA or whatever other body funded by multinational billion dollar industries.

They make outlandish claims on losses but the entertainment industry have only declared two films as having made a profit since 1986 for tax purposes, they are allowed to make unsubstantiated claims in a court of law that's whole basis is to rely on facts not wild claims (no one else would be allowed to do this without supporting evidence), they often talk about how it effects people on the street when in reality even if you accept there claims the £10 of disposable income Joe Blogs might spend on going to the cinema would actually help 'the people' far more if it was spent in the local economy on something like a take-away thus generating local employment, tax revenue and money movement rather than being syphoned to off shore accounts of billionaires who pay no tax.

I hope he is granted an appeal but I also know if he gets it FACT will hand pick the Judges who hear the case and his chances of winning are limited at best.

[evilsatan]

Incredibly long read but so fascinating you have got to read it all. I am horrified at the alleged underhanded tactics employed in this case. I was convinced the industry was corrupt but not to this extent.