Illegal Streaming Site Prosecutions
Illegal Streaming Site Prosecutions
1. Background: What Are Illegal Streaming Sites?
Illegal streaming sites provide access to copyrighted content (films, TV shows, sports events, music) without authorization from rights holders. They often operate by:
Hosting streams themselves, or
Embedding unauthorized streams from third-party sources.
Such sites cause significant financial harm to the creative industries and breach copyright law.
2. Relevant UK Legal Framework
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) — main legislation protecting copyrighted works. Section 107 covers communication of copyrighted works to the public without authorization.
Digital Economy Act 2017 — includes provisions targeting online copyright infringement and allows for blocking of illegal streaming sites.
Fraud Act 2006 — may apply where streaming sites profit through fraud.
Serious Crime Act 2015 — can be used to prosecute those involved in organized criminal activities such as running streaming services.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) — enables seizure of profits made from illegal streaming.
3. Key Legal Issues in Prosecution
Is the defendant operating or facilitating an illegal streaming service?
Are copyrighted works being communicated without permission?
Is the defendant aware their activity is illegal?
What financial benefit does the defendant gain?
Are organized criminal structures involved?
4. Important Case Law Examples
Case 1: R v. Anton Vickerman (2014)
Facts:
Anton Vickerman ran a popular illegal streaming website called "FilmOn" which linked users to unauthorized streams of films and TV shows.
Charges:
Communication of copyrighted works to the public without authorization (under CDPA 1988)
Conspiracy to defraud
Outcome:
Vickerman was found guilty and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
This was a landmark case because it was one of the first major UK convictions for running a large-scale illegal streaming site. It established that operators could be held criminally liable even if they did not host content directly but facilitated access to illegal streams.
Case 2: R v. Mark Sykes (2018)
Facts:
Sykes operated a streaming website offering unauthorized live sports events, mainly football matches.
Charges:
Communication of copyrighted works to the public without permission
Conspiracy to defraud
Outcome:
Sykes pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.
Significance:
The case highlighted the seriousness of live sports piracy, which causes massive financial losses to sports broadcasters and governing bodies. The courts affirmed that live sports streams are equally protected by copyright.
Case 3: R v. Gary Sharp (2019)
Facts:
Sharp ran an illegal streaming website that provided access to a wide range of copyrighted movies and TV shows via subscription.
Charges:
Copyright infringement
Money laundering under POCA (due to proceeds from subscriptions)
Outcome:
Sharp was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and assets worth £250,000 were confiscated.
Significance:
This case underlined that illegal streaming sites often generate substantial profits, making money laundering charges applicable. The case also emphasized the role of POCA in seizing illegal gains.
Case 4: R v. Benjamin John (2020)
Facts:
John operated a streaming service that broadcast unauthorized premium pay-per-view boxing matches.
Charges:
Communication to the public of copyrighted works without authorization
Conspiracy to defraud
Outcome:
John was convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
It demonstrated that even short-term streaming of pay-per-view events without permission constitutes serious criminal offence.
Case 5: R v. Callum St. John (2021)
Facts:
St. John was part of a criminal gang managing multiple illegal streaming sites offering live sports and movies.
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud
Copyright infringement
Money laundering
Outcome:
Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Significance:
The prosecution used the Serious Crime Act 2015 to target the organized nature of the criminal enterprise, showing that illegal streaming operations are often part of larger criminal networks.
Case 6: R v. Steven Knight (2022)
Facts:
Knight operated a streaming site that made millions of pounds from advertising revenue linked to unauthorized movie streams.
Charges:
Copyright infringement
Fraud by false representation
Money laundering
Outcome:
Knight was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and ordered to pay back over £500,000 under POCA.
Significance:
This case highlighted that illegal streaming is not only a copyright issue but often linked with fraud (through misleading advertising) and money laundering.
5. Summary and Impact of Illegal Streaming Prosecutions
The UK courts treat illegal streaming as serious criminal conduct involving intellectual property crime, fraud, and often organized crime.
Prosecutions target not only the operators but also those who facilitate or profit from these activities.
Financial investigations and asset confiscations play a critical role in dismantling illegal streaming networks.
Sentences in recent cases demonstrate a growing willingness to impose custodial penalties to deter piracy.
6. Conclusion
Illegal streaming prosecutions in the UK have evolved from tackling individual website operators to combatting large-scale organized criminal enterprises exploiting copyright infringements for profit. Cases like Vickerman, Sharp, and St. John have set important precedents for criminal liability, sentencing severity, and the use of financial crime legislation alongside copyright law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments