1,000 UK Broadband Users Warned of “Illegal” TV Streaming by FACT

The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) has sent a warning message (via email and text) to over 1,000 broadband internet users in the UK that have been identified as using “illegal TV streaming services“, which calls on them to “immediately cease using illegal TV streaming services or face the risk of prosecution“.

“People who access illegal TV streaming services are potentially liable to prosecution for criminal offences, including under Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. FACT’s latest campaign warns end users that they are not anonymous and that watching unauthorised content carries serious risks,” states the new announcement.

The latest campaign comes shortly after a recent high-profile case involving Jonathan Edge, from Liverpool, who was jailed for his role in running and personally using an illegal streaming service. Edge was sentenced to three years and four months in prison, in a prosecution supported by FACT and Merseyside Police.

Crucially, Edge’s own use of the unauthorised service was “treated as a distinct crime“, leading to a separate concurrent sentence of two years and three months, “highlighting that end users, not just suppliers, can face criminal prosecution for illegal streaming“.

Detective Sergeant Adam Dagnall, Merseyside Police’s Cybercrime Unit, said:

“Merseyside Police takes illegal streaming seriously because it often helps fund organised crime and puts users at real risk. Not only is it a criminal offence, but the unauthorised streaming services frequently contain malware that can compromise personal devices and lead to the loss of information such as banking details, or be used to commit identity fraud.

Legitimate providers have security measures that protect users from these threats. Please don’t be tempted by cheap so-called ‘fully loaded’ or ‘jailbroken’ devices, even as Christmas gifts – you could end up getting more than you bargained for.”

However, it’s worth noting that Edge’s case was rather at the extreme end of things, which in reality means that casual viewing is more likely to be treated like a civil offence (unless you’re also assisting in the distribution of copyright content). The cost and complexity of successfully prosecuting casual viewing usually means that rights holders will adopt other methods, such as warnings and demands for settlement, where viable (e.g. the difficulty of identifying the person who actually committed the offence on a shared internet connection and or whether it was a brief accidental or full viewing).

The example case used above is also much more clear-cut than the casual viewing of a dodgy stream via a random copyright infringing website. This is because the c.1,000 people being contacted reflect those who had purchased access to so-called “loaded” Firesticks, Android, or Kodi devices from Edge. The details were uncovered as part of the police’s investigation into Edge’s operation. Most such viewing on dodgy streaming websites, which rarely keep logs, doesn’t provide such clear and linkable evidence. Lest we forget all the usual challenges from those using proxy servers, VPNs and other methods to mask their activity.