Man convicted for website offering links to TV Shows

[TVC_Admin]

Tweet

In the normal course of events, that being where the police don't witness a crime at first hand, they frequently have to rely on information originating from third parties as to the commission of a crime .

It doesn't seem at all unusual to me that, where that third party informant is both a material (and involved) witness as well as being the owner of the property (or representative of the owner, as in the case of FACT) their being invited to both identify their property and the equipment they witnessed actually being used to commit the offence.

This is synonymous with the police being accompanied by a trading standards officer, a VAT inspector, an RSPCA inspector, a customs officer, an insurance investigator, a TV licence operative or a council dog warden or whoever at the scene of any incident they are called to attend.

As the judge remarked in his sentencing, Vickerman is a truly arrogant felon, a man who was only in it for the money and was far too arrogant to accept that he alone was the author of his own misfortune. He blames everyone else for his own greed and the fact that he was caught red handed. In fact the reason why he was apprehended is because his partner in crime got caught in the US

He was of course found guilty and sentenced in respect of two sample charges of conspiracy to defraud. Whether we are talking about the supposedly phenominal (cynicism intentional) financial loss to the film industry claimed by FACT, the simple fact he was making £60k a month from advertising or his blatant money laundering , he was doing a whole lot more than just putting up links to infringing material.

As with many other sites before STC, Vickerman was uploading content acquired from newsgroups to foreign based video streaming sites, then linking to the content on his own site. The fact that he was stupid enough admit that and then post instructions on how others could help him in his own forum defies explanation.

The police have now reportedly started the lengthy process of finding out where he has hidden the money he earned. By the sounds of it they have already identified his use of false identification in the name of Natasha Benoit of Horizon Networks Ltd at Parex International Bank of Latvia - the same false identity he used when he pocketed the advertising money for himself from SuprNova and when he stole from us.

The issues regarding FACT are indeed entirely appropriate, but in this instance they met the higher burden of proof necessary for a criminal conviction (note: "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond all reasonable doubt" - an important distinction) thus Vickerman's greed has helped set a very uncomfortable precedent for what will undoubtedly be the first of many convictions.

As for the sentencing, from the perspective that we once knew Vickerman (and distanced ourselves from him because he stole from us) our objectivity is somewhat impaired. He is a crook, he always has been, he is a liar and he is a fool who has been caught without help from anyone - save a bloke he owed money to in the USA (Brendan Debeasi - aka "DC"). It appears that Brendan turned witness for the MPA and grassed Vickerman up when threatened by the FBI with a $250k fine, 5 years in prison and 3 years conditional discharge (link to FBI site)

From the REGISTER

But the Vickerman case turned when sysop Brendan DeBeasi, who had been hired by SurfTheChannel, agreed to co-operate with the prosecution. A civil action then followed

Let's not kid ourselves here, Anton Vickerman is an odious and stupid individual who deserves all he gets and, through his greed, has set a precedent that probably affects us all.

(Aside: As a lawyer myself, I wouldn't necessarily agree that silence is the only tactic to employ when dealing with the police or that it is always the best. It is just one tactic, and nobody is under any obligation to help police in the prosecution of themselves, but there are times when it can be a useful strategy to be seen to be cooperative. For many people, being kept on police bail whilst they clump around investigating causes stress at home and at work, and silence can have adverse implications when it cmes to suing the police at a later date for unlawful arrest - "false arrest" - and detention. The best tactic is to get yourself a lawyer, and say nothing until they arrive. However, forums are for opinions, not for law lessons)

[JasonFWard]

However, forums are for opinions, not for law lessons)

lol, I learned what little I know about the law mostly from reading forums, wondering about the veracity of some claim or other and then googling for some decent source material. That and having to* do the research for my girlfriends university criminology module.

*having to - in the sense that it was easier to do the research for her, than it was to live with the consequences of telling her she's supposed to do it herself.

[TVC_Admin]

Hehe. No shame in that mate. Trouble with Googling is that you seldom get the full picture

[TVC_H4U]

TVC_Admin has a name for us folk Jason - "Google Lawyers".

You mention government bodies mostly attending the scene to gather evidence. Not a company and generally I am not aware of the none government bodies you mentioned attending the Interview or be provided with only copy of any evidence.
Their is not much more than making acquisition, attending the scene, handling evidence and being at the interview that i'd need to set someone up. Seems a lot like malpractice on the Police part to me.

Not that it was relevent, Police threw case out and FACT went via Cival route.

Yes - Never talk to the Police but DO talk to a Lawyer (even when INNOCENT) this is my strategy but a good law abiding citizen like myself does not have a such an encounter planned.

[TVC_Admin]

I do, I have to admit. The problem is that law isn't something that can be dealt with in shortform, summaries don't convey the full picture

To credit the police (as a force, not necessarily as individuals) with having half a brain is to flatter them beyond belief. Basically it seems that the police mucked up their original criminal case to the extent they couldn't proceed, and FACT pressed on with an action in tort (doubtless pushed by the MPAA), which was ultimately picked up as a criminal action during the initial proceedings.

Unfortunately the police have a tendency to arrest first, whatever the reasons, and then make life hell for everyone by putting you on police bail. To an innocent person, that means the possibility of trouble at work, stress at home, innuendo in the local newspapers and speculation in the forums

Generally, never go into a police station unless it is to apply for a job, ask the time or report a crime. If they ask to speak with you because they are investigating something, that is the time to get a lawyer to speak with them on your behalf. If they insist on speaking with you, force them to get a warrant for your arrest, that will make it very hard for them to conduct a fishing exercise for evidence to use against you. There is a reason why they have to offer you the services of a state appointed lawyer when they arrest you, and it is because they have a long history of abusing the rights of suspects in their enquiries.

No all lawyers are the bastards they are portrayed as being

[JasonFWard]

The problem is that law isn't something that can be dealt with in shortform, summaries don't convey the full picture

I wouldn't begin to pretend my knowledge is anything but incomplete, and indeed the holes in my knowledge are vast and spacious. I have also followed (and continue to follow) the law meets technology blog Groklaw which although 99% about US law, and concerned mostly with copyright and patents, but despite all that it has given me a much greater insight into the court process, how lawyers make a case, how until a judge says (in common law countries) how a law is to be interpreted its all just opinion, and even then just how narrow an interpretation a judge will often give. In the news section of these forums there is an announcement about TVC's court cases, where (and I'm paraphrasing) it says "this judgment is very peculiar to TVC's circumstances and doesn't green light other peoples potential operations", some years ago that just wouldn't have made much sense to me, eitther the law says X or it says Y right? No, now I understand a courts decision can be so specific, or rely on the actions or inactions of others in the past, but in such a way as to close the door for others, and now that sentence in the news section makes sense to me.

People mostly I think expect the law to be logical, to be in someway like a computer program. In a kind of "follow these instructions and you will be law abiding" and on forums I certainly see lots of people saying "the law says X" and sometimes it pretty much does (I have before now gone and got the Act of Parliament just to read it and make sure it really does say that) but then you realise that judges when reading a law can and do sometimes also check Hansard to check what politicians meant by a particular phrase, or that new defenses can and do (slowly) come to exist for laws that may have existed for a long time just shows, for me, how the law is almost a living, breathing creature, but one formed of hundreds of committees that don't all make the same decision at the same time, but somehow, over time and from a distance, the creature moves in a co-ordinated fashion.

Sorry if some of that is incomprehensible, it was really just a slurge straight out my head into a post.

[tacoben]

I would agree that the best policy if you are in trouble is to keep quiet and get some proper advice but I have to say over the last fours years I have to praise the police that dealt with me.

I was pick pocketed and after the initial report some items were found and finally everything was found in someone's flat. So on a few occasions I spent time giving statements and identifying things.

Then very recently after a drunken binge I found myself sleeping it off on a bench in a police station. The time between 22.30 and 04.00 is a blank but with no money or ID and some rain they were nice enough to pick me up off the street rap me in newspaper and forgive me for vomiting in the police car. In the morning I apologised and then hoped that I did not commit any crime during the night.