Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

UFC Continues Anti-Piracy Battle, Subpoenas Justin.tv & Ustream.tv

Print  
  Page 1 of 2     1     2  
Posted By Message

DCRage

Representin' The MA's

DCRage Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,684
Career:978-738
Joined:Aug 2007
Chips:
576
The world's largest pay-per-view content provider shows no signs of slowing its anti-piracy efforts. Ultimate Fighting Championship officials today announced they have subpoenaed Justin.tv and Ustream.tv – two sites with user-provided live video content – due to their broadcasts of illegally uploaded content, including the UFC's pay-per-view events. Zuffa LLC, the UFC's parent company, has served both sites subpoenas that demand they reveal the identities of users who uploaded UFC content. Today's release specifically points to one user from a single IP address who uploaded this year's UFC 108 and UFC 110 events, which drew 36,000 and 78,000 non-paying viewers, respectively. "I can't wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content," UFC President Dana White stated. "This is a fight we will not lose." Today's release cites a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that allows copyright owners to obtain subpoenas from a federal court that orders a service provider to disclose the identity of subscribers who allegedly engage in infringing activities. Due to the UFC's hefty PPV price tags, the promotion's content is a frequent target of privacy.

Article

Post #1   7/23/10 5:29:31PM   

DCRage

Representin' The MA's

DCRage Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,684
Career:978-738
Joined:Aug 2007
Chips:
576
And for those who keep complaining about why they're so expensive, I'll repost this bit from the last such story:

Currently, the promotion has just a handful of authorized online PPV affiliates – UFC.com, Yahoo! Sports and MMAFighting.com, for example – who charge the same $44.95 fee. Lawrence Epstein, the UFC's general legal counsel, said the Internet price is mandated by the promotion's contract with pay-per-view providers such as DirecTV and DISH Network and cannot be lowered.

They should re-do the contracts then.

Post #2   7/23/10 5:31:47PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
25
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,142
Career:2,746-1,521
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,487

Posted by DCRage

And for those who keep complaining about why they're so expensive, I'll repost this bit from the last such story:

Currently, the promotion has just a handful of authorized online PPV affiliates – UFC.com, Yahoo! Sports and MMAFighting.com, for example – who charge the same $44.95 fee. Lawrence Epstein, the UFC's general legal counsel, said the Internet price is mandated by the promotion's contract with pay-per-view providers such as DirecTV and DISH Network and cannot be lowered.

They should re-do the contracts then.



I don't think a re-do would do any good. I believe the contract basically says that they can't provide it on the net for a price lower than they are providing it for on TV. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

_______________________________________

Post #3   7/23/10 6:43:09PM   

kopower

Heavyweight Champ

kopower Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,607
Career:2,252-1,209
Joined:Jul 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
1,385
Glad I didn't provide a stream for the ppv's. Probably gonna be a huge monitary fine.

_______________________________________
Billy Madison-

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the playground is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no props, and may the mods have mercy on your soul.


Post #4   7/23/10 6:55:05PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710
I have a horrible feeling that I'll be receiving a summons in the mail. I'm not exactly discreet about my practices.

Dana sure is taking the Napster approach to this whole deal. I imagine that the fines are going to be absurdly large.

Post #5   7/23/10 8:17:48PM   

RyanC

MMA Sensei

RyanC Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,290
Career:472-317
Joined:Aug 2009
Camp: Journalistas
Chips:
128

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I have a horrible feeling that I'll be receiving a summons in the mail. I'm not exactly discreet about my practices.

Dana sure is taking the Napster approach to this whole deal. I imagine that the fines are going to be absurdly large.



Post #6   7/23/10 8:22:47PM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I have a horrible feeling that I'll be receiving a summons in the mail. I'm not exactly discreet about my practices.

Dana sure is taking the Napster approach to this whole deal. I imagine that the fines are going to be absurdly large.



Unless you actually supplied the PPV for people to watch there's no way anything will happen to you. The UFC can't punish individuals for watching the streams, but they can punish the people who put the streams up for the public to view.

Nothing is going to come of this anyway. They just picked some schmo who streamed a couple of events on his channel and are going to try to ruin his entire life to make an example of him, but it isn't going to work. If the RIAA couldn't do anything about it the UFC sure as hell isn't going to be able to do it with 1% of the resources.

Wonder how much money they waste before they give up on this.

Post #7   7/23/10 9:39:29PM   

JoeWarren33

MMA Sensei

JoeWarren33 Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,566
Career:2,037-1,270
Joined:Apr 2009
Camp: Playground Legends
Chips:
233


I feel bad for the guy's who aree gonna get hit for this, seeing how they provided everyone with free fights. We should all throw $5 their way

But to be serious for a moment, it's a real shame the prices for these ppv's on tv. I really wish they could do what Impact FC did and charge $29.95 for a PPV, I mean, thats reasonable.

Post #8   7/23/10 10:04:26PM   

ncordless

MODulation

ncordless Avatar
12
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,844
Career:1,873-1,070
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,098
Trying to shut down streaming on the internet is like trying to stomp dry a puddle in the rain. As long as there is demand there will be people who will steal intellectual property and share it. The more the UFC branches out worldwide, the more places that can provide streams that are all but out of reach for the UFC to try and sue. Eventually they will learn that it is part of the price you pay in the entertainment business nowadays. Until then, anybody that hosts a stream in the US is playing with fire.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

Post #9   7/24/10 1:36:03AM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
25
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,142
Career:2,746-1,521
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,487

Posted by Aether

Unless you actually supplied the PPV for people to watch there's no way anything will happen to you. The UFC can't punish individuals for watching the streams, but they can punish the people who put the streams up for the public to view.



Well, it won't be the UFC doing the punishing, but your statement is far from true. If the UFC were smart, it won't follow in the footsteps of the music industry...BUT, they could very easily go after individuals if they wanted to.

_______________________________________

Post #10   7/24/10 9:27:23AM   

ziegler3334

Standup Guy

ziegler3334 Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:255
Career:547-284
Joined:Aug 2008
Chips:
30
I get why the UFC doesn't want this to go on, but they could view it another way...

Dana calls us thieves for watching it online. Well Dana, I bet most of the people watching online have in fact purchased one in the past year, i know i have. I cannot afford 50 bucks a month, but I want to stay a fan. Like any other sport, you kinda have to watch it if you're going to stay interested. So the people watching these streams are sacrificing quality (audio and visual) and the time to find a stream, but still want to watch it. If it's a good show, those people will be more likely to buy a PPV in the future. It's almost like a trial run for people. But by Dana namecalling and posturing, it only makes casual fans more turned off. Did anyone ever feel bad for Lars Ulrich when he went after Napster? In fact, I think it hurt Metallica's image, and their ticket sales reflected that. However, as the marketplace changes with programs like these, businesses need to adapt with it. Fighting change can only lead to a waste of money. I like the comment of someone "its like trying to stomp dry a puddle in the rain". Thats so true. So Napster doesn't download free music anymore...does anyone have trouble downloading free music? I know i don't. The lesson the UFC can take from this, is that a "we'll catch you" approach will never solve their problem, because it will still go on. Find some way to use it as a promotional tool. Their sales havn't dipped from streams have they?

And Dana, insulting your fans is a great way to make sure even more people won't take you seriously.

theres my two cents

Post #11   7/24/10 11:23:09AM   

Rush

Laying down the beats

Rush Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,291
Career:759-539
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
835

Posted by JoeWarren33


I feel bad for the guy's who aree gonna get hit for this, seeing how they provided everyone with free fights. We should all throw $5 their way





That would certainly send the UFC, and everyone else a message. If one guy got burned (like that poor kid with the music, if he even existed) and had to pay some fine, then everyone on the net that watched the stream paid 5$ to cover his fines and legal fees (5 x 50 000 = 250 000). That would certainly send a message. How that message is interpreted would be up to the interpreter, but I think it would be a strong one.


In terms of how many people are watching streams and whether this is hurting the UFC, well that is the age old debate on the ethics and reality of stealing.

If their PPVs are bringing in .5-1 million buys, and 50000 are watching on streams, that is 5-10% there. But, to be realistic, I doubt much of that 5-10% would have bought the PPV had the stream not been available. I'm not saying that it makes it right.

Which brings us to the ethical part of it. People do not seem to have a problem ordering a UFC, and calling over 10 friends to watch it, even charging their buddies 5$ a pop. But if that same person orders a PPV and streams it on the net for the same 10 friends, all of a sudden he is a thief? I know that isn't the way it usually goes down because these things are viral on the net, but I think the ethical aspects of the situations are comparable for the person actually hosting the stream.

Post #12   7/24/10 11:52:41AM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Aether

Unless you actually supplied the PPV for people to watch there's no way anything will happen to you. The UFC can't punish individuals for watching the streams, but they can punish the people who put the streams up for the public to view.



Well, it won't be the UFC doing the punishing, but your statement is far from true. If the UFC were smart, it won't follow in the footsteps of the music industry...BUT, they could very easily go after individuals if they wanted to.



It's not far from true. The reason the music industry is able to prosecute individuals for file sharing is because of the way P2P networks work. Users download and upload file fragments to and from each other. The users are being sued for violating copyright laws by duplicating and distributing their product.

While you are allowed to sue anyone for anything in america in a civil suit, they would surely be unsuccessful at actually prosecuting any individuals for simply viewing something that someone broadcasts on a their website.

If they were going to sue any individual users it would be for sharing files on P2P networks, not for viewing material hosted publicly on a website.

Last edited 7/24/10 3:21PM server time by Aether
Edit note/reason: n/a
2 total post edits

Post #13   7/24/10 3:01:56PM   

Taylor8766

Belt Contender

Taylor8766 Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:942
Career:740-512
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: East Coast Pitbulls
Chips:
42
you know what else sucks, is I havent beenable to find anywhere that you can watch movies online anymore.

also i always watch fights on adthe

Post #14   7/24/10 5:37:12PM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039

Posted by Taylor8766

you know what else sucks, is I havent beenable to find anywhere that you can watch movies online anymore.

also i always watch fights on adthe



7 or 8 of the major sites dedicated to streaming tv shows and movies were taken down and had their accounts seized about 2 weeks ago, that's probably why you can't find places to watch movies. I'm guessing you probably used ninjavideo.

Post #15   7/24/10 7:41:56PM   
 
  Page 1 of 2     1     2