Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy Crime

Men Behind UK's Largest Pirate Service Jailed For 30+ Years (torrentfreak.com) 52

Posted by msmash from the setting-an-example dept.
TorrentFreak: Five men behind pirate IPTV service 'Flawless' were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison today, after a private prosecution by the Premier League. A FACT test purchase in 2017 led to the involvement of four territorial police forces, three regional Trading Standards units, and the arrest of service kingpin, Mark Gould, in 2018. In less than two years, Flawless served over 50,000 UK households while generating millions in revenue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Men Behind UK's Largest Pirate Service Jailed For 30+ Years More

Men Behind UK's Largest Pirate Service Jailed For 30+ Years

Comments Filter:

  • "private prosecution" How does that work? (Score:4, Informative)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:28PM (#63562283)

    "five-year Premier League private prosecution"

    While this was a private prosecution, the Premier League – and by extension Premier League clubs – will now recoup the costs of the investigation and prosecution from the Crown, meaning that tax paying football fans and taxpayers in general will pick up an incredibly large bill.

    • Private prosecution = public remuneration. The public having to have already paid for the televising of the matches (TV licence, Sky subscription, etc.) now have to pay more. Ain't that peachy.

    • like Charles Ingram they control the evidence not the state.

      If the Charles Ingram case was in the USA the state by law must let the Defense have access to all evidence (all of the master tapes)
      and if the prosecutor only haves edited tapes from production team then that is very big issue and likely is an Brady Violation

  • It would appear that there was a... flaw in their business model.

  • i just want to know what his setup was

    • Skimmed the article but I gather he used multiple set-top boxes tuned to foreign satellites (not that uncommon but not legal AIUI) then re-broadcast via streaming, complete with a reportedly pretty good UI in the app.

      So, instead of paying Sky's price of £80p/m to watch a limited number of matches (because the FA decrees that you can't broadcast matches at certain times of the day, to "encourage" fans to pay to see them IRL) his customers got pretty much everything for £10p/m.

      Oh FA, my heart fuck

      • what was his infrastructure generally... how didnt sky notice the same guy had 30 boxes? where did the end user connect to?

  • Who were they scamming?
    Not their customers.

    Set a fair five years for the length of the copyright privilege, THEN you can spend our money chasing "pirates".
    • It wasn't "piracy" it was Piracy. He literally operated a streaming service which provided content he had no license to distribute, and made a tidy profit while doing so.
      • It wasn't a "scam" or a scam.
        They gave their customers what they paid for. TV programs at a reasonable price.

        And until copyright returns to being the benefit for the PEOPLE that it was intended to be, we should hope more people provide the same service.

  • Christ on a cracker, is this Les Miserables? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:38PM (#63562305)
    Thirty years for violating a wealthy business's prerogatives...

    It's a time-honored canary in the coal mine of justice when property crimes against the rich are pursued more doggedly than violent crimes against the average.

    • Re:Christ on a cracker, is this Les Miserables? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:44PM (#63562329)

      Agreed.

      Prison may be indicated, but I think an appropriate punishment would be a few years in a low-security prison with forfeiture of all cash and assets acquired after the crime started to bring in profit for the offender.

      A crime was committed, fine, but this sentence is effectively extreme brutality of the rich against someone who dared to take a slice of their pie.

      • Re:Christ on a cracker, is this Les Miserables? (Score:4, Informative)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:54PM (#63562363)
        RTFA. This is what it amounts to -- maximum sentence is 11 years, and they'll be out in five or so given that the UK has a functional parole system. UK isn't perfect, but it isn't a failed Mafia state like the US is.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

          I'm actually Canadian... we do similar stuff here and I don't like it.

          The sentence ought to mean what it says on the face of it. You shouldn't give a guy '30 years' if it's really 5. It ought to be '5 years plus parole' or something. Doing it this way is intended to intimidate both the offender (presumably into early deals with guilty pleas) and the public.

          And none of this 'time off for good behaviour'. You're in PRISON. You shouldn't really have an opportunity to behave badly if that's done properly.

          • You shouldn't give a guy '30 years' if it's really 5.

            The court did not do this. It's a badly written article. The "30 years" is the combined total of all of the sentences handed to all of the men that appeared that day for sentencing.

            There was one person sentenced to 11 years, two people sentenced to 5 years each, etc..

            • As much as I'm annoyed at having TWO reactionary posts nullified... thank you for posting the clarification.

        • Not to say that there arenâ(TM)t âmafiasâ(TM) in the UK, or that there arenâ(TM)t huge systemic biases either; otherwise - sure, they will split those years between the perps, and they will be given all the rights and benefits any human should in a modern judicial system, including parole. But does it stop the power elites from trampling over the man in the street? Absolutely not. Iâ(TM)m not saying that this crime was justified as a ârobin hoodâ(TM) poke in the eye of t
      • Yeah, unless a property crime is actually likely to harm a human being, the penalties should be largely financial and civil. Treating laws as matters of Order (the O is always capitalized) rather than as mediating human relationships is the main signal of rampant authoritarianism.

    • Re:Christ on a cracker, is this Les Miserables? (Score:4, Informative)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:53PM (#63562361)

      It's 30 years COMBINED among all of them. Longest individual sentence was 11 years, next longest was five.

      Also, UK isn't a barbarian state like the US -- unlike in the "Land of the Free" (what a joke), people are typically paroled after serving 50% of their time, so the max that anyone will be jailed for is 5.5 years.

      • Get bent, Commie.

      • Also, UK isn't a barbarian state like the US -- unlike in the "Land of the Free" (what a joke), people are typically paroled after serving 50% of their time, so the max that anyone will be jailed for is 5.5 years.

        In the US you would typically not expect not to serve any jail time at all as a copyright infringement is a civil matter between the rights holder and the infringer.

        In the most extreme case I can so far find where it elevated to criminal charges, Artur Sargsyan (Sharebeast) received a 5 year prison sentence.

        So an 11 sentence paroled at 5.5 in the UK considered civilized but a straight 5 year sentence in the US is considered barbaric? Interesting standard.

    • That's funny, I didn't realize they halted all criminal investigation and prosecution in order to pursue this case.
      • The issue is priority. Western countries in general have gone too far with this copyright shit. People are willing to support artists and athletes with their money; they're much less willing to support baleen-whale corporate conglomerates.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by el_cepi ( 732737 )

      and 11 years to Elisabet Homes

  • I realize sports were involved here and angering monied folks but it is generally a bad thing when states begin to crack down on unofficial and unsanctioned information streams.

  • Is there any league or association in soccer that isn't corrupt? I refuse to care about the world cup because of FIFA.

    And I barely watch AFL now with all their bloody gambling ads.

  • Whew (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:45PM (#63562331)

    I know I'll feel *much* safer knowing this guy's in jail. Off to a UK football (soccer) match!

  • 30 years? (Score:3)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @06:21PM (#63562437)

    These guys would have gotten off with less if they stole the crown jewels. The sentence is a travesty, this is not justice.

    • And, in the meantime, the repulsive Balwani, who actually put people's lives in danger, got just 13.
    • It was a combined 30 years for all of them so no they would not have gotten less for stealing the crown jewels. realistically it was basically an organised crime group, they raked in millions and definitely got what they deserved.

  • ... Francis Drake?

  • The 30+ years refers to the total of all of the sentences. It seems as if they decided to start their own streaming service using pirated content. A couple of the guys made seven figures (in pounds, not dollars) on this. This is not one guy stealing cable in his house and watching the big game (or do you say "match" in the UK?).

    I understand that the official provider was probably ridiculously overpriced, but I'm not sure how you could think you'd get away with this. They must have had some serious infra

  • Especially if you can argue that your motives were well intended according to your native culture.

  • FACT still exists? And now they're doing footie matches? Well I never...
  • Not much sympathy for them. They were pirates for profit only, basically reselling the streams. Just looking for a get rich quick scheme

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close