Unveiling The Consequences of Illegal Streaming

Craig MacKenzie
Craig MacKenzie

Published: June 3rd, 2024

6 mins read

Most people will have encountered people who sell streaming devices that allow them to access paywalled content, often for a one-off fee as low as £100. Given that many people pay over that for a single month of SKY TV access, it is no wonder that the sale of such devices is a growing industry.

Few will be surprised to learn that selling such devices is a criminal offence (see 296ZB of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment.

Paywalled TV content is a big business, but the providers also have to pay huge amounts of money for the rights to broadcast content, such as £5.1 billion for Premier League football.

Even those in seemingly reputable positions are not exempt from the law. A recent case in the Court of Appeal involved a defendant who, despite being of previous good character and a Deputy Headmaster, ran a sideline in the sale of streaming devices.

The court dismissed an appeal against a sentence of 12 months imprisonment and rejected the suggestion that the sentence ought to have been suspended:

'We cannot fault the balance that the judge struck. He was entitled to conclude that this offending was so serious that overriding weight should be given to the imposition of immediate custody in order to achieve appropriate punishment. His judgment was neither wrong in principle nor unreasonable. Accordingly, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal must be dismissed.'

So, despite the pressures on the prison estate, even this man of impeccable character could not avoid an immediate custodial sentence. The court endorsed a deterrent sentence in this case.

What factors will a court consider?

The relevant sentencing principles are:

First, illegal downloading and distribution are often difficult to investigate and detect. It can give rise to serious problems and losses (nonetheless real for not being readily quantifiable) to the music and entertainment industry. Deterrent sentencing in such a context is appropriate.

Second, the length of time (including any continuation after service of cease and desist notices) of the unlawful activity will always be highly relevant.

Third, the profit accruing to the defendant due to the unlawful activity will always be relevant.

Fourth, and whether or not the defendant makes a significant profit, the loss accruing to the copyright owners so far as it can accurately be calculated will also be relevant, as will be the broader impact upon the music industry even if difficult to quantify in precise financial terms: because broader impact there always is.

Fifth, even though this particular type of offending is not the subject of any Definitive Guideline, there may be cases where it will be helpful to a judge to have regard to the Definitive Guidelines on fraud, bribery and money laundering offences. In some cases, such as the present, that will positively be required because one or more of the counts on the indictment, as here, will be a count that comes within the guideline's ambit. But even where that is not the position, there may be cases where a judge, at least if only as a check, may wish to refer to the Definitive Guideline to get a feel for the appropriate sentence.

However, there will be other cases where the Definitive Guideline may be marginal and perhaps have no assistance. That will be a matter for the judge's assessment of the individual case. Where the Definitive Guideline is required to be taken into account because one of the counts on the indictment is within the ambit of the guideline, that of itself will no doubt lend assistance in deciding what the appropriate overall sentence will be.

Sixth, personal mitigation, assistance to the authorities and bases and pleas of guilt are to be taken into account in the usual way.

Seventh, unless the unlawful activity of this kind is very amateur, minor or short-lived, or in the absence of particularly compelling mitigation or other exceptional circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence is likely to be appropriate in cases of illegal distribution of copyright infringing articles.

How can we help?

We ensure we keep up to date with any legislation and case law changes so that we are always best placed to advise you properly. If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, please get in touch with Craig MacKenzie, Partner and head of High Profile & Private Crime.

How can we help?

Complete the form opposite, let us know a few details, and one of our team will get back to you shortly. Or you can call us or request a callback.

0800 689 3206 - Monday - Friday: 09:00 - 17:00

Request a call back

By submitting your enquiry you agree that Forbes can contact you.

© 2024 Forbes Solicitors is the trading name of Forbes Solicitors LLP Offices in Preston, Manchester, Salford, Blackburn, Blackpool, London and Leeds UK Main Office: Rutherford House, 4 Wellington Street (St Johns), Blackburn, Lancashire, BB1 8DD • Vat No: 174 394 344 Forbes Solicitors is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 816356). Details of the SRA’s Standards and Regulations can be found here. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

This website has implemented reCAPTCHA v3 and your use of reCAPTCHA v3 is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.