People who merely stream pirated content into their own homes are difficult to track online. They pose much greater challenges than BitTorrent users, for example, who can lead investigators straight to their door. But for FACT chief executive Kieron Sharp, there are opportunities to find people via non-technical means.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen we\u2019re working with the police against a company that\u2019s selling IPTV boxes or illicit streaming devices on a large scale, they have records of who they\u2019ve sold them to,\u201d Sharp said.<\/p>\n
The suggestion here is that box sellers\u2019 customer lists contain the personal details of people who obtain Premier League and other content for free so, once identified, could be open to prosecution.<\/p>\n
With conventional thinking under copyright law, prosecuting a set-top box\/Kodi user for streaming content to his own home is a bit of a daunting prospect, not to mention an expensive one. Copyright cases are notoriously complicated and an individual putting up a spirited defense could cause problems for the prosecution. The inevitable light sentence wouldn\u2019t provide much of a deterrent either.<\/p>\n
With all that in mind, it appears that FACT is more interested in prosecuting under other legislation.<\/p>\n
During an\u00a0interview<\/a>\u00a0with BBC Radio 5 Live\u2019s Chris Warburton this week, Sharp said that people streaming into their own homes are committing a criminal offense, i.e., something that could interest the police and attract a fine or custodial sentence.<\/p>\n \u201cThe law has always been the case that people who are doing something illegal, streaming in their own homes, through these devices, are committing a crime. What\u2019s happened recently is that\u2019s been clarified by an EU judge in one case and by a civil judge in another,\u201d Sharp said.<\/p>\n The EU case was\u00a0BREIN v Filmspeler<\/a>, which in part determined that people who stream content from an illegal source do so in breach of copyright law. The judge in the civil case was Justice Arnold, who in a UK Premier League blocking case reached the\u00a0same conclusion<\/a>.<\/p>\n While it\u2019s now fairly clear that streaming pirate content in the EU is indeed illegal, is a civil wrong, and can be dealt with by suing someone, it\u2019s not immediately clear how that turns into a criminal offense. It wasn\u2019t clear in the interview either, so Warburton pressed Sharp again.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is the bit of the law that you are breaking when you\u2019re streaming, how are you committing a criminal act?\u201d he asked Sharp.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are various pieces of legislation,\u201d the FACT chief said. \u201cThe one we\u2019ve been looking at is under the Fraud Act which would say you are committing a fraud by streaming these football matches through to your television, watching them at home, and not paying for the license to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n At this point, everything begins to slot into place.<\/p>\n For the past several years through several high-profile Internet piracy cases, FACT has shied away from prosecutions under copyright law. Each time it has opted for offenses under the Fraud Act 2006, partly because longer sentences were available at the time, i.e., up to 10 years in prison.<\/p>\n However, earlier this year FACT\u2019s lawyer\u00a0revealed<\/a>\u00a0that prosecutions under the Fraud Act can be easier for a jury to understand than those actioned under copyright law.<\/p>\n With this wealth of experience in mind, it\u2019s easy to see why FACT would take this route in set-top box cases, especially when fraud legislation is relatively easy to digest.<\/p>\n Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cA person is guilty of an offense if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud,\u201d the Fraud Act\u00a0reads<\/a>.<\/p>\n To clarify, an \u2018article\u2019 includes \u201cany program or data held in electronic form,\u201d which is perfect for infringing Kodi addons etc.<\/p>\n Given the above, it seems that if the Court can be convinced that the person knowingly possessed a pirate set-top box programmed for fraudulent purposes, there could, in theory, be a successful prosecution resulting in a prison sentence and\/or a fine.<\/p>\n Obtaining services dishonestly<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cA person is guilty of an offense under this section if he obtains services for himself or another\u2026.by a dishonest act, and\u2026.he [knowingly] obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full,\u201d the\u00a0relevant section<\/a>\u00a0of the Act reads.<\/p>\n There are probably other angles to this under the Fraud Act but these seem to fit so well that others might not be needed. But how likely is it that someone could be prosecuted in this manner?<\/p>\n Sharp reiterated to the BBC that FACT could get the identities of box buyers as part of investigations into sellers, and as part of that \u201cwould see what the situation is\u201d with their customers.<\/p>\n \u201cIt may well be that in the future, somebody who is an end-user may well get prosecuted,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n But while the possibilities are there, Sharp really didn\u2019t seem that keen to commit to the hounding of stream consumers in the future, and certainly not now. FACT\u2019s strategy appears to be grounded in getting the word out that people are breaking the law.<\/p>\n \u201c[People] think they can get away with it and that\u2019s an important message from our perspective, that they must understand that they are committing offenses, apart from all the other issues of why they should be paying for the legal product. This is something that should be of concern to them, that they are committing offenses,\u201d Sharp said.<\/p>\n The big question that remains is whether FACT and the English Premier League would ever take a case against a regular end-user to court. History tells us that this is fairly unlikely, but if any case did end up in court, it would definitely be hand-picked for best results.<\/p>\n For example, someone who bought a box from eBay would probably be of no real interest, but someone who had extended email exchanges with a seller, during which they discussed in detail how to pirate English Premier League games specifically, would provide a more useful test subject.<\/p>\n And then, when there are two people involved (the knowingly infringing buyer and the seller, who would also be prosecuted) that also raises the question of whether there had been an element of conspiracy.<\/p>\n Overall though, what people probably want to know is whether lots of people are going to get prosecuted for fraud and the answer to that is almost certainly \u2018no.\u2019 Prosecutions against the little guy are resource hungry, expensive, offer little return, and tend to generate negative publicity if they\u2019re perceived as vindictive.<\/p>\n A single highly publicized case is a possible outcome if FACT and the EPL got really desperate, but there\u2019s no guarantee that the Crown Prosecution Service would allow the case to go ahead.<\/p>\n \u201cProsecutors should guard against the criminal law being used as a debt collection agency or to protect the commercial interests of companies and organizations,\u201d recent\u00a0CPS advice<\/a>\u00a0reads.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, prosecutors should also remain alert to the fact that such organizations can become the focus of serious and organized criminal offending.\u201d<\/p>\n FACT could, of course, conduct a private prosecution, which they have done several times in the past. But that is a risk too, so it seems likely that education efforts will come first, to try and slow things down.<\/p>\n \u201cOur desire has always been that sports fans, football fans, would pay for the commercial package, they would pay a fee to watch and that is still our position,\u201d Sharp told the BBC.<\/p>\n \u201cBut working with our clients and members such as the Premier League and Sky and BT Sports, we have to consider all the options available to us, to put a bit of a brake on this problem because it\u2019s growing all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"