No more Channel to Surf as Anton goes to jail

First there was TV Links; then there was TVShack (see Kat Posts here, here and here. Now at last there's Surf the Channel (STC), the latest in a line of cases considering the liability for operators of websites which provide links to unauthorised copyright content such as movies and TV shows. Earlier this week, Anton Vickerman, the former operator of STC, was sentenced to four years imprisonment by His Honour Judge John Evans in Newcastle Crown Court for conspiracy to defraud by facilitating copyright infringement under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. He was also disqualified for five years from holding the office of a company director etc or from practising as an insolvency practitioner (see here for the Sentencing Remarks.

In evidence, Vickerman stated that STC was his answer to the absence of a search engine which provided internet users with a convenient and easy means of searching for particular films or TV programmes: he was already aware that TV Links had previously engaged in a similar operation but he believed that he could do better and persevered with STC even though he knew that the TV Links website had been shut down following the intervention of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT).

Vickerman registered the STC domain name remotely and set up servers outside the UK. The first link to a movie was posted on STC on Christmas Day 2007. The site grew rapidly with the assistance of various volunteers whom Vickerman recruited (i) to locate the files for film and television programmes on third party sites outside the jurisdiction (primarily China) and then post links to those sites on STC and (ii) to upload the files for film and television programmes to third party sites outside the jurisdiction (again primarily China) and then post links to the same on STC. In some cases, the links were posted before the film had received a theatrical release in the United Kingdom and, in many cases, within hours or days after that release. By April 2008, there were 40,000 links on STC, of which 2,000 were to movies. By August 2009, there were two million links on STC, of which in excess of 5,500 were links to movies.

Not surprisingly, STC was an internet sensation. It rose to be the world's 514th most popular website. Judge Evans observed in his reasons for sentencing that STC was so popular because ‘it was enabling access to material that millions of users wanted, that for the most part they could not access elsewhere or at least could not access as easily as they could at STC in an area where competition was limited, because it was unlawful’. Also not surprisingly, STC was a very attractive proposition for advertisers who, according to Judge Evans ‘were unquestionably more than willing to enter contracts for the deployment of their advertisements on STC knowing that the adverts would reach huge audiences logging on to the site’. In July 2008, the income from advertising was averaging £10k-£15k for the month and by mid 2009 £50k-£60k. From 2009 to 2011, STC produced a profit of £250,000 from a turnover of just under £1m. However, this dropped off significantly after that, no doubt in the wake of the efforts of FACT and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to thwart the operation of STC. When copyright owners complained, Vickerman flooded STC with ‘legal’ links to material that had come from rights holder sites and proclaimed that STC had a policy of compliance with take down notices. Judge Evans described such behaviour as ‘engaging in a game of cat and mouse with the industry’ and as having a ‘huge impact’ on film industry by causing it to suffer ‘a loss running into the millions’.

Vickerman was arrested and released on bail in July 2008. Within hours of his release, he had secured a new computer and carried on as before right until the eve of the trial in May 2012. Judge Evans was scathing of Vickerman’s behaviour, which he repeatedly categorised as ‘arrogant’ and a being characterised by a ‘refus[al] to accept that [he was] doing anything improper’. The judge was also critical of Vickerman’s ‘unwillingness’ to disclose the password to his computer which ‘unquestionably hampered’ the investigation: he labelled it as ‘absurd’ that an intelligent man who could recall minute details of the investigation could not recall the password without access to a keyboard.

Sentencing Vickerman, Judge Evans accepted that, in terms of culpability, this case may not have been the worst form of conspiracy to defraud which one could contemplate. However, noting the jury’s finding that Vickerman had engaged in deliberate dishonesty, he could not regard Vickerman’s conduct as attracting only the minimal penalty. Judge Evans recognised that he had to strike a balance noting on the one hand that ‘a very long sentence [was] no more likely to impact upon [Vickerman] than a shorter one’. On the other hand, he recognised that ‘those who are inclined to conduct themselves as you have need to understand that in doing so they put themselves at risk of serving a lengthy prison sentence’. He also highlighted that Vickerman’s sheer arrogance and lack of remorse were aggravating factors in arriving at the sentence outlined above.

As it turns out, Mr Vickerman was not one to go away quietly. In a very long blog entry on the STC website Vickerman stated ‘My name is Anton Vickerman and I am the proud owner of the now dead video search engine SurfTheChannel.com (STC). By the time you read this I will be starting my new life behind bars after receiving what is expected to be a “loony sentence” from Judge John Evans of Newcastle Crown Court for running my site from 2007 to 2012’. When this Kat tried to check more recently, the blog tirade had been removed from the website.

The IPKat notes that there is a degree of symmetry within the two camps which oppose each other in the battle between rights owners and those who campaign for liberalisation of copyright law.  Just as a small number of vindictive and heavy-handed actions by or on behalf of copyright owners forfeit considerable sympathy for the legitimate and reasoned case for copyright protection, so too do the reckless and arrogant conduct of a few people distract attention from the serious case that is made for reducing that level of protection.

Merpel adds, how refreshing it is to read of a judge calling a party to legal proceedings "arrogant", rather than (as so often happens) the other way round ...