Illegal Streaming Prosecutions
1. United States v. Kim Dotcom (Megaupload Case)
Jurisdiction: United States (extradition proceedings from New Zealand)
Core Issue: Large-scale criminal copyright infringement via streaming and downloading
Facts
Megaupload operated as a cyber-locker service that allowed users to upload and stream content. Although it had some lawful uses, prosecutors alleged that the platform intentionally incentivized piracy, paid uploaders for popular infringing content, and failed to meaningfully remove copyrighted material.
Legal Charges
Criminal copyright infringement
Racketeering (RICO)
Money laundering
Wire fraud
Legal Reasoning
The U.S. government argued that:
Streaming copyrighted content without authorization constitutes a public performance under copyright law.
Even if Megaupload did not itself upload the content, intentional inducement and profit-sharing made it criminally liable.
The platform’s internal communications showed knowledge and encouragement of infringement.
Significance
This case established that streaming platforms themselves, not just individual streamers, can face criminal liability if they:
Know infringement is occurring
Profit from it
Fail to take genuine preventive steps
It also showed that streaming can support criminal charges, not only downloading.
2. United States v. Brian Thompson (IPTV Streaming Case)
Jurisdiction: United States
Core Issue: Illegal IPTV streaming of live television channels
Facts
Brian Thompson operated a subscription-based IPTV service that streamed thousands of live TV channels, including sports and premium cable content, without authorization.
Legal Charges
Criminal copyright infringement
Conspiracy
Legal Reasoning
The court focused on:
The commercial nature of the service
Subscription fees and profit motive
The scale and organization of the operation
Streaming live TV was treated as a continuous public performance, which made it more severe than one-off infringement.
Outcome
Thompson pleaded guilty and received a federal prison sentence, plus forfeiture of profits.
Significance
This case made clear that:
Live streaming copyrighted content is treated very seriously
IPTV operators are prime targets for criminal prosecution
Profit and scale are decisive factors
3. R v. Anthony Scott (Kodi Box Seller Case)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Core Issue: Selling devices configured for illegal streaming
Facts
Anthony Scott sold Android/Kodi boxes pre-loaded with add-ons that allowed users to stream copyrighted films, TV shows, and live sports for free.
Legal Charges
Fraud
Copyright infringement offenses under UK law
Legal Reasoning
The court held that:
Even if the seller did not stream content himself, selling tools specifically designed for illegal streaming constituted a criminal offense.
Marketing emphasized free access to paid content, showing intent.
Outcome
Scott was convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance
This case confirmed that:
Facilitating illegal streaming can be criminal
Device sellers are liable if infringement is the primary purpose
“I didn’t host the content” is not a valid defense
4. United States v. Justin Seals (iStreamItAll / Jetflicks)
Jurisdiction: United States
Core Issue: Massive illegal streaming libraries
Facts
The defendants ran subscription streaming services offering tens of thousands of TV episodes and movies, larger than Netflix, without licenses.
Legal Charges
Criminal copyright infringement
Conspiracy
Money laundering
Legal Reasoning
The court emphasized:
The sheer volume of content
Paid subscriptions
Deliberate evasion of copyright enforcement
Streaming was treated as repeated, intentional infringement rather than passive access.
Outcome
Seals received a multi-year federal prison sentence, one of the longest for streaming-related crimes.
Significance
This case is often cited to show that:
Illegal streaming can result in long prison sentences
Courts view large streaming libraries as organized piracy operations
5. Filmspeler Case (Court of Justice of the European Union)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Core Issue: Streaming devices and copyright law
Facts
A company sold media players configured to stream copyrighted content from illegal sources.
Legal Holding
The CJEU ruled that:
Streaming from obviously illegal sources is not lawful
Selling devices designed to enable illegal streaming violates EU copyright law
Temporary copies made during streaming are not exempt when the source is illegal
Significance
This decision:
Eliminated the argument that “streaming is legal because nothing is downloaded”
Strengthened criminal and civil enforcement across EU member states
6. United States v. Alejandro “Alex” Perez (Sports Streaming Case)
Jurisdiction: United States
Core Issue: Unauthorized sports streaming websites
Facts
Perez operated websites that streamed live pay-per-view boxing and UFC events without authorization, earning revenue through ads and subscriptions.
Legal Charges
Criminal copyright infringement
Wire fraud
Legal Reasoning
The court emphasized:
Live sports are high-value content
Repeated unauthorized streaming equals willful infringement
Advertising revenue established commercial advantage
Outcome
Conviction, prison sentence, and forfeiture.
Significance
Sports streaming cases show that:
Live events are especially protected
Even “free” streams can be criminal if monetized indirectly
Why Illegal Streaming Is Sometimes Civil and Sometimes Criminal
Courts typically consider four main factors:
Commercial intent (subscriptions, ads, donations)
Scale (number of users, volume of content)
Knowledge and intent
Organization and persistence
| Situation | Likely Response |
|---|---|
| Individual viewer | Usually no prosecution |
| Small-scale sharing | Civil liability |
| Commercial streaming service | Criminal prosecution |
| IPTV / sports streaming | High criminal risk |
Key Legal Principle Established by Case Law
Illegal streaming is treated as a “public performance” of copyrighted works.
When done:
Knowingly
Repeatedly
For profit
…it becomes criminal, not just a civil matter.
Conclusion
Case law across the U.S., UK, and EU clearly shows that:
Streaming is not a legal loophole
Large-scale or commercial streaming leads to serious criminal penalties
Courts increasingly treat illegal streaming operations like traditional organized piracy
RELATED Blog
comments