The background investigation into the case was carried out by the Hollywood-funded, MPA-affiliated, UK anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft. FACT has no official powers and is a limited company in the UK, but as this article will reveal it has a surprising level of influence when it comes to obtaining information.

Before being sentenced Vickerman arranged that for his side of the story to be posted on the SurfTheChannel website. In close to 20,000 words he describes the past five years as a “very British miscarriage of justice.” In addition to the story Vickerman also posted an archive containing evidence to back up his claims.

Among other things, the archive contains a FACT document headlined ‘Operation Stemp – Subject Profile: Anton Vickerman’, which is a dossier of information the FACT Intelligence Unit compiled on the SurfTheChannel admin, his family, and his associates.

The document begins by stating that Vickerman is believed to be the operator of two “torrent sites” – surfthechannel.com and snarf-it.org, both of which “sell copyrighted material”. It follows with Vickerman’s home address, notes that his wife lives with him, lists the make, model and license plate of her car, and indicates she was being watched as long ago as May 2008.

According to FACT, Vickerman worked on the famous Suprnova.org torrent site and used several aliases including FD, Shadow, Serious, Casper and Ben Vickerman. But from here things start to get more intimate.

In the next section of the profile FACT conduct a “Financial Analysis” of Vickerman, noting that he had previously defaulted on seven credit agreements.

And then, just when people in the UK might incorrectly presume that their finances are a private affair, FACT notes that Vickerman had two standing loans being paid back at the rate of £209 per month and goes on to describe the details of his mortgage, how much he pays each month, and the fact that he and his wife never missed a payment.

The data gathering continues to include the personal details of Anton Vickerman’s mother and father who are both pensioners.

Kelly Vickerman, Anton’s wife, was described as having two bank accounts and a credit card (with £1,025 outstanding) and an account with the comms provider BT. Initially FACT had considered that an account might have been held with comms provider BSKYB so wrote to the company asking for information – FACT apparently have “an agreement” with BSKYB to obtain information.

BSKYB responded back saying no accounts were held at the Vickerman’s address

As noted earlier, FACT incorrectly described streaming links site SurfTheChannel as a BitTorrent site, but they go even further when justifying the need to conduct surveillance on the Vickermans.

The documents go on to list the reports provided by FACT’s private investigators as they track Vickerman up and down the country during and after his meeting with a movie industry undercover operative in a London hotel. They also list requests to use covert filming techniques when an operative posed as a potential housebuyer. Part of the operative’s report and filming is shown below.

The depth of the investigation and the amount of information obtained by FACT on the Vickermans is quite remarkable. The data and correspondence collated runs to dozens of pages but perhaps what is most noticeable is the manner in which everything is presented. The whole thing looks like a police operation yet it was not – it was an investigation being carried out by a UK company on behalf of other companies in the United States.

But for FACT and their Hollywood paymasters overseas, the effort will have been worth it. Four years in jail for Anton Vickerman is a very aggressive punishment and what could yet prove to be a significant deterrent to others looking to follow in his footsteps. The MPAA will be very pleased with their investment this morning, there can be little doubt about that.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The website was a thorn in the side of the UK and US entertainment industries who went to extremes to bring the site down. Among other things, the MPAA and FACT hired an undercover agent to gain access to the defendants’ house under false pretenses.

The case eventually went to trial in May and today a judge at Newcastle Crown Court sentenced 38-year old site owner Anton Vickerman to four years imprisonment. Vickerman’s wife faced the same charges but was found not guilty in June.

Today’s sentencing marks the first time that the owner of a linking website has been found guilty of conspiring to defraud the entertainment industry.

A previous attempt at making the same charge stick against the owner of the OiNK BitTorrent tracker failed during 2010.

Although SurfTheChannel did not store any copyrighted material itself, the site did organize links to copyrighted streams on third-party sites. According to the prosecution, the website was making at least £35,000 a month.

The UK Pirate Party is deeply concerned by the sentencing.

“The way this issue was investigated, prosecuted and the resulting sentence are, deeply concerning, inappropriate and disproportionate given the activities that Anton Vickerman was engaged in. A four year prison sentence is twice the maximum that could have been handed down if Vickers had been charged with online copyright infringement,” party leader Loz Kaye says.

“As we have said before, this was not a case brought using copyright law. The interest groups involved couldn’t present a case of copyright infringement and decided to press for the use of the common law offence of “conspiracy to defraud”. This offence is incredibly controversial in English law as it criminalises conduct by two or more parties that would not be criminal when performed by an individual,” he added.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), the local anti-piracy group which played an essential role in the investigation, is delighted on the other hand.

“This case conclusively shows that running a website that deliberately sets out to direct users to illegal copies of films and TV shows will result in a criminal conviction and a long jail sentence,” FACT Director General Kieron Sharp says.

“The sentencing indicates the severity of the offenses committed and the sophistication of [Vickerman's] 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.”

The MPAA previously noted that it would use the sentencing of Vickerman to support the extradition process of TVShack owner Richard O’Dwyer. While the two sites were indeed comparable, the crucial difference is that O’Dwyer is not charged with fraud but copyright infringement.

That said, the sentencing today definitely spells trouble for UK-based website owners who operate similar streaming sites.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Aside from the use of an undercover agent to gain access to the defendants’ house under false pretenses, the case also witnessed the unprecedented involvement of US authorities in a UK court case, in which a defendant in the US was offered a deal after agreeing to cooperate and testify in a trial overseas.

Initially, it appeared that a criminal prosecution wouldn’t be progressed, but eventually the case went ahead after all. The trial against SurfTheChannel owner Anton Vickerman and his wife Kelly started at the Newcastle Crown Court last month and came to a conclusion today.

The Court found owner Mr. Vickerman guilty of conspiracy to defraud by “facilitating” copyright infringement. Mrs. Vickerman faced the same changes but was found not guilty.

Today’s landmark ruling is the first in which the owner of a linking website was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the entertainment industry.

A previous attempt at making the same charge stick with the prosecution of the owner of the OiNK BitTorrent tracker failed during 2010.

Although SurfTheChannel did not store any copyrighted material itself, the site did organize links to copyrighted streams on third-party sites. According to the prosecution, the website was making at least £35,000 a month.

FACT was quick to herald the Court’s verdict.

“This was a criminal conspiracy for criminal profit to fund a criminal lifestyle and Vickerman is now paying the price,” FACT Director General Kieron Sharp says, commenting on the case.

FACT further informs us that they will continue to go after pirate websites in the future.

“We look at piracy in all forms with a particular focus on those facilitating access to pirated content by running sites, hosting servers, obtaining the source material and often profiting from their activity by generating revenues from membership, donations and advertising.”

Lavinia Carey, Director General of the British Video Association, hopes that the verdict will deter others from starting similar websites so legitimate alternatives can thrive.

“These businesses are relatively new and should not have to compete against pirate websites that do nothing to reinvest in the production of new films and programmes. The verdict in this trial makes it evident to all that copyright theft will not be tolerated and that such sites are criminal operations,” she says.

The UK Pirate Party on the other hand is very worried about the verdict.

“This was not a case brought using copyright law. The interest groups involved couldn’t present a case of copyright infringement and instead decided to press for the use of the common law offence of “conspiracy to defraud,” Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye told TorrentFreak.

The Party is also worried about the intensive cooperation between private interest groups and law enforcement.

“In addition to flying in the face of recent findings in similar cases, this prosecution was driven by private interests, it is well known that the very groups representing the victim helped with the investigation, were present at the arrest, given access to the evidence and were present at police interviews.

“This is deeply concerning. Add to that the unorthodox and intrusive measures reported to have been used during the investigation and the pressure put on overseas witnesses and it becomes deeply worrying,” Kaye says.

Vickerman is scheduled to be sentenced July 30th and is facing a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

After a chain of events that reads like a Hollywood blockbuster script, the case is now on trial with husband and wife team Anton and Kelly Vickerman as the defendants.

As is often the case, the investigation into the alleged pirate site was not started by the police, but by Hollywood. In 2008 and working closely with the MPAA, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) hired former Dutch policeman Pascal Hetzschold to try and make contact with SurfTheChannel’s owner.

Using the cover “Roger Van Veen,” Hetzschold pretended to represent a venture capitalist who was interested in the site. After a few emails back forth, SurfTheChannel operator “Anton” agreed to meet with him in London.

During that meeting Anton opened up about the site according to Hetzschold. He allegedly explained that the site made $50,000 in revenue each month from an average of 400,000 visitors per day. Anton also admitted that he founded the site which he ran in collaboration with two other people.

After the meeting was over the two parted company. Or at least, that’s what Anton was led to believe. In reality, Hetzschold tailed the SurfTheChannel owner a distance of nearly 250 miles back to his home in Gateshead where he lived with his wife Kelly.

Now that the MPAA and FACT knew where the couple lived, they were ready to carry out the second part of their plan. In preparation for a possible police raid on the premises, they sent over private investigator Paul Varley as a prospective house buyer. Once he had gained access to the family home Varley took a series of pictures, with a special interest in computer equipment.

The MPAA/FACT undercover operation eventually resulted in a raid on the Vickerman’s home. During the raid it became apparent how closely the Hollywood group had been working together with the authorities. Not only were Hollywood representatives taking part in the questioning, they also brought along investigators who were allowed to examine the equipment.

After looking into the case for a few months, UK authorities decided not to start a criminal prosecution. However, that wasn’t the end of the SurfTheChannel case.

Determined to hold the site’s operators responsible for linking to third party streaming sites, the MPAA focused on a programmer from the United States. After teaming up with the US authorities, a criminal investigation was started against Boston resident Brendan DeBeasi in 2011.

DeBeasi had been hired to maintain and code for SurfTheChannel, for which he was paid the sum of $9,850. For his collaboration with the streaming links site he was charged with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, facing up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

However, DeBeasi wasn’t convicted in the United States. Instead, he worked out a deal with the authorities who agreed to dismiss the copyright infringement charge in exchange for a testimony in the UK Vickerman trial. In addition, the programmer agreed to pay the MPAA the $9,850 he made from his work at SurfTheChannel.

In other words, the US authorities agreed to drop copyright charges in the US in exchange for a testimony in a UK fraud case, which to our knowledge is unprecedented.

Possibly because of this fresh witness, the criminal prosecution against the Vickerman couple was started after all. In what Hollywood describes as the largest copyright related fraud case in UK history, their trial started last week at Newcastle Crown Court.

During the court hearings some of the above details were brought up, as the Sunday Times reports.

Prosecutor David Groome argued that SurfTheChannel facilitated mass copyright infringement resulting in massive losses for the movie industry. Defense lawyer David Walbank on the other hand noted that the site’s servers were located in Sweden, which means that the site might have not operated illegally under UK law.

The case is expected to last a month but which way it will go is hard to predict. Both are charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud and pleaded not guilty.

In 2010, linking website TV-Links was deemed to be a ‘mere conduit’ of information and its admins were acquitted. From a functional viewpoint this site was similar to SurfTheChannel.

However, the TV-Links case was conducted on a question of copyright and the charges against the SurfTheChannel operators are for fraud. Nevertheless, a similar approach failed when tested against the former operator of OiNK, Alan Ellis.

Another interesting angle comes from the case against the operators of BitTorrent tracker FileSoup. They had their case dismissed last year after the court concluded that the criminal investigation was built on evidence solely provided by industry groups. As the cloak-and-dagger behavior detailed above illustrates, there can be little doubt that Hollywood was deeply involved in the criminal investigation against SurfTheChannel.

Update: We deleted the reference to a “lifetime” imprisonment which appeared in the Sunday Times. The maximum term in fraud cases is 10 years.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.