# Dana White: The FBI will come to your home and take you to jail if you stream our PPV



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

> @danawhite I'm talking about ufc ppv piracy. Why would all the viewers get punished if they aren't the ones streaming ufc ppv events?
> 
> @karateblackbelt the government is literally going to people's homes and taking them to jail. Wait and c what happens in the next few months
> 
> @karateblackbelt it's illegal and everyone knows it. The FBI is going after everyone!!


http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/new...still-leading-charge-against-internet-piracy/

Well well...


----------



## dudeabides (Sep 30, 2008)

What does Joe say you can't stop again :confused02:


----------



## music5x5 (Jun 9, 2010)

Dana always says to buy the PPV and invite your buddies over to watch the fight. What if you have millions of buddies and you want to virtually invite them over?

Anyway, the FBI hasn't been able to stop music, movie, or software piracy so why is he confident that the PPV piracy will stop?


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

very funny dana :bored04:


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

You can't stop this, especially since it's world wide.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

For clarification is he talking about the ones providing the stream or the ones viewing it?


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Lmao. Not a chance. They would go after the people behind the streams long before the viewers. 

Chances are if the fbi is paying piratets visits. They had a pre existing case and the ufc was only a small part of the issue.

For those actually scared, just use a VPN service. Good luck finding you in Luximberg lol


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

The Utimate ******* Bureau Of Investigation.

Real Stake Outs, Real Raids.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

music5x5 said:


> Dana always says to buy the PPV and invite your buddies over to watch the fight. What if you have millions of buddies and you want to virtually invite them over?
> 
> Anyway, the FBI hasn't been able to stop music, movie, or software piracy so why is he confident that the PPV piracy will stop?


Dana isn't dumb enough to think he can stop it but you best bet that he will make sure a bunch of them get punished enough to at least discourage everyone from doing it. They aren't trying to eliminate it they are trying to minimize it.


----------



## Rusko (Feb 4, 2010)

Lol FBI in Belgium, I ain't scurred.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Terror Kovenant said:


> For clarification is he talking about the ones providing the stream or the ones viewing it?


Probably both, people are providing it and people are watching, either way technically those people are stealing and they can be punished for it.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Probably both, people are providing it and people are watching, either way technically those people are stealing and they can be punished for it.


I don't actually think viewing the stream is illegal but providing it is.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Terror Kovenant said:


> I don't actually think viewing the stream is illegal but providing it is.


Providing it is for sure.

But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?

Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


I'm not arguing morals here, I'm just curious of the specifics of the law. Usually when you read the little FBI warnings at the start of sporting events or other such activities they usually talk about creating unauthorized reproductions. They don't say anything about watching it. Theres really no difference between watching the stream or watching the fights the next day on sites like mmacore.

EDIT: The only moral comment I will make is,

Doesn't the FBI have more important things to do than tracking down people watching ******* sports? Theres plenty of real criminals out there to spend time and money on


----------



## astrallite (Mar 14, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


I think in this case it's actually like someone _else_ stole the candy and you are eating it.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Terror Kovenant said:


> I'm not arguing morals here, I'm just curious of the specifics of the law. Usually when you read the little FBI warnings at the start of sporting events or other such activities they usually talk about creating unauthorized reproductions. They don't say anything about watching it. Theres really no difference between watching the stream or watching the fights the next day on sites like mmacore.
> 
> EDIT: The only moral comment I will make is,
> 
> Doesn't the FBI have more important things to do than tracking down people watching ******* sports? Theres plenty of real criminals out there to spend time and money on


Yeah, they do but at the same time Zuffa's as business and you can't really blame the UFC for wanting to crack down on it, if we were in their shoes we would do the same thing. Especially in this economy, you want every dollar you can get.

Nothing will probably come from this, but if someone actually did get arrested for this, it might hurt streaming. I remember Homeland Security actually shut down Channelsurfing.net so the FBI does take this seriously but I buy all the UFC's anyway.


----------



## Icemanforever (Oct 5, 2010)

Lol, ain't no stopping the internet DW....ya stop one site and another one pops up to take its place.

"It aint a war if there is no end to it".


----------



## kay_o_ken (Jan 26, 2009)

this needs to become a reality show if it actually happens, it will be like to catch a predator only with people who steal ufc events


----------



## Mirage445 (Dec 20, 2006)

kay_o_ken said:


> this needs to become a reality show if it actually happens, it will be like to catch a predator only with people who steal ufc events












*Have a seat right over there.*


----------



## footodors (Aug 26, 2007)

open wifi, could be anyone right?


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Nothing will probably come from this, but if someone actually did get arrested for this, it might hurt streaming. I remember Homeland Security actually shut down Channelsurfing.net so the FBI does take this seriously but I buy all the UFC's anyway.


I heard the NFL had a big hand in that. The FBI might do it for the NFL, but not the UFC. Sorry, Dana.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Mirage445 said:


> *Have a seat right over there.*


Nah man, more like....

"Listen here motherfucker, we bought this company ten fuckin' years ago, we made this fuckin' business and you're gonna come in here and steal our fuckin' production?! *THAT'S ******* ILLEGAL!!!* We busted our asses, we got this motherfucker legalized in every state but New York and that's because we don't ******* answer to any fuckin' Unionized bullshit. We put on the best fights in the world, if you wanna steal someone's bullshit, try those crazy fuckin' Russians, you gotta pay 55 bucks for the best pound 4 pound fighter in the world baby!!! Have a fuckin' seat jerk off."


----------



## Rusko (Feb 4, 2010)

Can't stop the internet baby.


----------



## Vale_Tudo (Nov 18, 2007)

Since the events start at 3am for me I rarely watch them live, but when i do i buy them for the superior quality.

But most of the time, I'll just find a HD rip the second i wake up on sunday morning, then it takes me 30-40 minutes to download the entire thing. All i need to do is avoid spoilerish forums like this one until then 

Honestly though, i think piracy has helped the UFC far more than it has hurt them. I got into the UFC through a torrent


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

I would say the UFC is paying the FBI to help them crack down on it. I imagine they are well short of funding these days!


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

Man the FBI should really be focusing on crimes that matter. Piracy has been around forever, and honestly its just as easy to access shit as it always been. 

Btw what are you gonna do arrest 1000s and 1000s of people and not expect backlash from it? I can understand going after the guy who does the stream, but anyone viewing it will never happen.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Vale_Tudo said:


> Since the events start at 3am for me I rarely watch them live, but when i do i buy them for the superior quality.
> 
> But most of the time, I'll just find a HD rip the second i wake up on sunday morning, then it takes me 30-40 minutes to download the entire thing. All i need to do is avoid spoilerish forums like this one until then
> 
> *Honestly though, i think piracy has helped the UFC far more than it has hurt them. I got into the UFC through a torrent*


This all day long, i don't justify _stealing_ their product but there are a LOT of fans who can't buy themselves a PPV for whatever reasons and became a fan through the internet.

Hell, i got into MMA thanks to the internet.


----------



## "El Guapo" (Jun 25, 2010)

Yea I agree, can't believe people waste time trying to catch these people. Literally all of the people involved with the UFC are absolutely minted right now, the FBI should be interested in far more important matters.

Watching internet streams keeps the casual user interested in the UFC, when Joe Silva gets of his ass and provides a decent card I'm sure a good portion of those people would buy a PPV if it featured good fights/favourite fighters. 

How they can expect people to afford every single UFC PPV is beyond me. Quite frankly I would be bored of the UFC by now if I had to wait months before I could afford to buy another PPV, there is a long enough wait between some events as it is! Dana should be grateful people go out of their way to provide such comodities! (grr angry rant over..)


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

Any minute now...Dana's totem will stop spinning, he will wake up to reality and he will realise: YOU CAN'T STOP THE INTERNET!


----------



## Leakler (Sep 23, 2010)

You would think the FBI had more important things to do..


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

After they imprison all those streaming the events they're going to shut down piratebay.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


The difference is the candy bar is gone once you eat it and the shop is short one candy bar, same goes for anything tangible. If you replicate a video/song etc., the original still exists ... in fact there's actually more of it.

I'm not a big advocate of piracy or anything, but frankly I find to to be a big gray area when even if i do pay the money, it barely goes to the people I'm actually watching. 

It's not like other products which require tons of heavy machinery etc. to create, this is just me paying to watch two top guys fight, and some mouthy bald guy taking 99.9999% of it to buy his 10th hummer while his fighters live off ketchup. 

I'll pay for the good ppvs, watch the ok ones at bars, and if i can't be bothered, i will stream it and Dana and his empty threats can kiss my ass. I doubt he's even heard of proxies or VPNs.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Probably both, people are providing it and people are watching, *either way technically those people are stealing* and they can be punished for it.


&


TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, *if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?*


Actually, no. Technically you are _not_ stealing. The difference between stealing and watching a copy is: if you stole a candy bar in a store, the candy bar is gone and the store owner can't sell it anymore. But if you watch a copy of something, the original is still there - you didn't take _away_ anything.

The media industry was quite successful in brainwashing the people. They use the term "piracy" for "copying" to create the image of a big crime. Pirates use weapon force to kill and rob people of their goods. People who copy media don't do that. They don't use weapons, they don't threaten anybody to kill them, they don't kill anybody, those they copy from will still have their goods afterwards. The image the media industry tries to create is complete nonsense.

Now there comes the argument that people who copy won't buy the product. This is mostly a correct observation, BUT that doesn't mean they would have bought the product if they didn't copy it. That's a false assumption/claim the media industry makes. It's false logics. Cause/effect/consequence cannot be reversed as they do. 
They claimed copying brought the decline of profits in the music industry. This is not true. At the time when the profits of the music industry were on a decline, the DVD industry was on a rise. Customers just swapped the market were they spent their money. So it was the DVD market which brought the music industry to a decline (because they had a new/more attractive product). The same happened a couple of years later with the DVD industry. They again claimed copying was the cause of their decline. And again that was not true. At the time when the DVD industry was on a decline the gaming industry was on a rise and that's were customers spent their money. 
The media industry calculates with infinite profits, but don't take into account that customers only have a finite amount of money to spend. Despite the possibility of copying customer _do_ spend their money, but they do it for the product that's most attractive. So the different media sub-industries (music/movies/gaming/sports-entertainment/etc) have to make their products more attractive (either in content or in value for money ratio) than those of their competitors instead of whining around.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, *if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?*
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Fun fact #42: the German Pirate-Party made it into Berlin's city parliament last weekend.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Fun fact #42: the German Pirate-Party made it into Berlin's city parliament last weekend.


With an incredible 9% of the votes.

Next fun fact: Yesterday was International talk like a Pirate day - ARRR!

...and even more fun fact: there is google with Pirate language settings


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Some people's sense of entitlement baffles me. I have watched streams before but I am absolutely realistic about the fact its theft. It is. I have done it accepting it was wrong but how the hell can you try and justify it. If everyone did it every fight there would be no UFC. The only time I ever have streamed was on real shit hotel wireless because the UFC offers a good stream but it is impossible to watch if you don't have a fast enough internet connection.


----------



## Keanman (Nov 5, 2008)

Terror Kovenant said:


> EDIT: The only moral comment I will make is,
> 
> Doesn't the FBI have more important things to do than tracking down people watching ******* sports? Theres plenty of real criminals out there to spend time and money on


Sadly no. They like to waste time on all sorts of things like who hacked into Scarlett Johansson's phone and leaked nudey pics. I agree this person should be tracked down. Then he or she should be given a medal.


----------



## otronegro (Aug 23, 2011)

I was THAT bored! :thumb03:


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

lol ok I live in Sweden, have a pirate-friendly ISP and use a VPN on top of that. I'm not saying that I stream anything, but if I did then I wouldn't be too scared.

Dana plz don't be a moron, bigger media-companys have failed epicly against piracy and you think you are going to anything different.


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

Im going to try it, I will keep you posted :thumb02:


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

catch me if u can coppers


----------



## Fard (Nov 5, 2010)

thread necromancy?


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

pfft.... the hell they will.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

A spammer was before Rival, just so guys know.


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

I dont want to get into this debate again but i still do think that even if there is some other dimension where this vision of danas would be possible its stl a bad idea....the internet, streams and torrents, is no doubt a huge reason in how the UFC has expanded globally. Its like danas always said every1 understands fighting no matter what culture you have but not every even had an option to watch UFC

I remember when here in brazil we couldnt watch it and had to download the shows, its thanks to the internet that they became so huge here and i dont see them complaining about us now are they? UFC needs piracy to keep growing in new markets


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> &
> 
> 
> Actually, no. Technically you are _not_ stealing. The difference between stealing and watching a copy is: if you stole a candy bar in a store, the candy bar is gone and the store owner can't sell it anymore. But if you watch a copy of something, the original is still there - you didn't take _away_ anything.
> ...


To be consistent, Trademarks, patents, logos, copyright and intellectual property rights all fall into this category. I mean that if you support copying of one it would be inconsistent not supporting the others.

*Trademarks:* If i produce a beverage with a can that i put coca cola logos all over it would not that be the same case as streaming copyrighted material ? One cannot proof I would buy more coca cola if that clone coca cola did not exist.

One could say, "no it is not the same thing because you cannot compared selling something to simply sharing".

That is a romantic thought but say what if the guy who streams copyrighted events has commercial clips making money of viewers. Alternatively, what if the guy who makes pirated coca cola cans of beverage give them away for free or say sell them at self cost prices.

*Patents:* Would it be ok to copy something under patent?


No, I am not in some industry that is fighting piracy but I have had this discussion at work with some ppl. 

What is your standpoint on the coca cola issue or if someone was making money off of streaming UFC ? Show me that you are consistent.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

I love how people can agree with virtualizing a buddy over at the house, but virtual theft does not count. I am not judging and it is possible that I have watched more UFC for free than on PPV. 

Remember rationalizing is irrational.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

To clearify, what I was saying with my last post was that what we do and what is right are sometimes different things. There is a huge force where people want to erase right and wrong to justify their own actions. IMO there is a right and wrong regardless of what we think. The "enough people agree with it so it must be right" does not change that fact.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> To be consistent, Trademarks, patents, logos, copyright and intellectual property rights all fall into this category. I mean that if you support copying of one it would be inconsistent not supporting the others.
> 
> *Trademarks:* If i produce a beverage with a can that i put coca cola logos all over it would not that be the same case as streaming copyrighted material ? One cannot proof I would buy more coca cola if that clone coca cola did not exist.
> 
> ...


First of all, my post didn't say whether it's right or wrong copy. It neither adresses the subject of legality nor morality of copying!

It explains:

a) why copying is on factual basis not the same as stealing (which doesn't exclude that copying copyrighted material is illegal) - there is a reason why there are two different words.

b) how the media industry (somewhat) successfully tried two overcriminalise copying by using the metaphor of sea*robbers* that *threaten* people with *weapon force* and may even *kill* them to discribe and thereby create a certain image of people that copy their material, even though not one of the bolded characteristics is true for them.

c) what a more significant reason is to why certain branches of the media industry make less money.

Again, there is nothing in my post which adresses the question of legality or morality of the act of copying.

So you can see, none of your approaches in your post really adress to anything I have written in my post.

But I will respond to some of your questions nonetheless.

1) Making money out of streaming/selling copied trademark.

Good that you ask, because that is a complete different issue which people tend to mix. (They tend to mix up several issues - the question of the similarity of the act; the question of legality/morality; the question of economic advantage). As soon as someone starts to make money with anything copied there can be made a claim that s/he has taken that money from the original owner, because obviously someone else was willing to pay that money for that product. BUT you can only claim that that exact amount of money has shifted. (i.e. If a PPV costs $50 and the streaming guy sells it for $10 it's not $50 the owner loses, but $10, because that's what someone was actually willing to pay - that's basic economics)

2) Concerning patents.

They do have good sides, or better to say they had there good sides, but nowadays with megacompanies ruling the economy the bad sides prevail. Today a big part of patents are there to prevent new inventions to ever see the markets. Let's take the pharmaceutic industry as an example. A big company has an expensive medicament to _treat_ a certain disease. They make good money of the people who need a lifelong treatment. Now comes a small lab that finds a formula that allows to make a cheap medicament for a _cure_, but that small lab doesn't have the financial resources to enter the big pharma market. What happens¿ The big company buys the patent for that cheap cure medicament from the small lab - and puts it into a safe, where it stays forever. Why is that¿ Because you can make more money out of lifelong expensive treatments than of cheap cures.
Similar mechanics apply to all other different business branches.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

You did not answer the issue with trademarks and copyright. Coca Cola logos printed on a can is not stealing physical logos or coca cola but it is violating trademarks. Streaming a UFC event could be seen same as printing coca cola trademarks on cans.

I see alot think that just if things are digitalised it is different. If we paint a Coca Cola logo on a can we have not stolen the paint itself just as when we stream we have not stolen the video itself. But bringing up the coca cola case makes it more obvious what we are doing does not it?

Trademarks are good for consumers as well. When I goto a Macdonalds in Paris and buy "Le Big Mac" I know what I am buying despite the odd name  So I know what I am buying. At leist, the ones owning the trademark knows what the customer expects when they are buying.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

No they aren't, Dana White.

I just noticed this was from September of last year.


Welp...anyone get arrested yet?


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Roflcopter said:


> Welp...anyone get arrested yet?


Nope. And I've watched a number of streams since then. :thumb02:


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> You did not answer the issue with trademarks and copyright.


I did. At least concerning trademarks. I'm not sure why you are adressing your posts/questions at me out of all posters.


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

I don't think they can go after the viewers of these streams. There is nothing illegal about watching a public stream, even if it's streaming content illegally.

If that were the case, the people who watch the fights on youtube before they're taking down would also fall into this category.


----------



## above (Jun 20, 2012)

This is precisely why dana is an idiot.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

I dunno guys Dana might sick the FBI on you..





lol...


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> I did. At least concerning trademarks. I'm not sure why you are adressing your posts/questions at me out of all posters.


I just picked a dude who I thought was for free sharing of intellectual material. I will post to everyone as well soon.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

My take on the issue. I do not think it is anything wrong with UFC protecting their copyrighted materials, trademarks. I think it is more strange if we people copy it and still claim we are doing nothing wrong.

As example, anyone who think it is ok to stream and copy material that is not yours, do you also agree that copying a trademark say Coca Cola and paint their trademarks on cans ? 

I see that case as similar to streaming media that you do not own property rights to. In both cases we are actually not stealing anything physically. Imagine a society where there are no laws for protecting intellectual property. You could never know that you buy quality and no one would have incentive to a long term reputation.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


If a bar was showing the event illegally and you walked in because you noticed it was on, would that make you a thief?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> I just picked a dude who I thought was for free sharing of intellectual material.


As I already wrote in my first reply to you, my initial post you answer to does NOT deal with the subject of legality or morality of copying. So it does NOT give a statement on whether I think sharing of intellectual material should be free or not. It only deals with technical aspects (in a wider sense).


----------



## BigPont (Nov 19, 2007)

Don't know how this got brought up again but Dana is just blowing smoke trying to scare the people who don't know any better. You can watch a public stream of someone throwing babies and old people off a building and there isn't anything anyone can do about. Not that I've ever seen anything like this before lol.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> My take on the issue. I do not think it is anything wrong with UFC protecting their copyrighted materials, trademarks. I think it is more strange if we people copy it and still claim we are doing nothing wrong.
> 
> As example, anyone who think it is ok to stream and copy material that is not yours, do you also agree that copying a trademark say Coca Cola and paint their trademarks on cans ?
> 
> I see that case as similar to streaming media that you do not own property rights to. In both cases we are actually not stealing anything physically. Imagine a society where there are no laws for protecting intellectual property. You could never know that you buy quality and no one would have incentive to a long term reputation.


You are mixing different things together again. 

Sticking with your Coca Cola example. For the case of selling the product, I've answered you already and won't do it again. That's a different issue which should not be mixed together with the following: Just copying/downstreaming some digitalised intellectual material would be similar to you finding Coca Cola's Coke recepe, brewing it at home and drinking it _yourself_(!) (we are not talking about selling it). Whether you paint your jar for fun with the Coca Cola logo doesn't make a big difference. Now you can tell whether you find that's a big theft or not.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Terror Kovenant said:


> Doesn't the FBI have more important things to do than tracking down people watching ******* sports? Theres plenty of real criminals out there to spend time and money on


Well yeah, but Congress had more important things to do when they spent three full days worrying about if Barry Bonds balls were shrinking so what do you expect, Bin Laden is dead.

Also who the **** is @KarateBlackBelt?


----------



## MagiK11 (Dec 31, 2006)

lmao. I'd like to see them try. hahahaha Dana you make me laugh sometimes.


----------



## xxpillowxxjp (Aug 23, 2010)

Would be a horrible day in America if someone was arrested for watching a PPV stream when that disgusting pervert in new york was let go because he only looked at child porn, he didnt download it. Sick.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

xxpillowxxjp said:


> Would be a horrible day in America if someone was arrested for watching a PPV stream when that disgusting pervert in new york was let go because he only looked at child porn, he didnt download it. Sick.


Exactly why it won't happen. There are soooo many more things that the FBI needs to be concerned with just involving child porn, never mind murders, organized crime or better yet the catholic church. Dana is just saying that because if 1 out of a 100 people see that and get scared it helped his cause. They did the same thing with napster when it was pirating music.


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

The WWE has the same problem, and their shows suffer FAR more than UFC. For the WWE, there was a time where 200K buys was bad, and now 150K is normal (although Wrestlemania does like a milllion and a couple others do 400-500K). It is because the prices have gone up while the quality goes down. When good cards or fights are put on like Silva/Sonnen, clearly people are willing to pay up. Wanderlei Silva vs. Rich Franklin? Not so much.


----------



## Roki977 (Jul 13, 2011)

The main reason why UFC will never be big like some soccer leauges is PPV and Dana needs to be greatful to those stream guys because they are selling PPV as much ass anything else. We even had no option to watch UFC legaly in my Country until few years and only way was stream. When I was trying to by PPV i was geting unsuporeted in my Country.


----------



## StandThemUp (May 30, 2008)

Quick Survey:

If you couldn't watch the UFC PPV's online for Free would you opt to buy them instead? Or would you not watch at all?

That's the question. Dana and the UFC seem to think the only reason people don't buy PPV's is because they can watch them for free. When in reality, if these people couldn't watch them for free, they just wouldn't watch them at all. And if they didn't watch at all, the UFC would not even be nearly as popular as it is. The people that watch the PPV's for free, watch the fights, spread the word and help to promote the sport to plenty of people that can actually afford the PPV's. So the free streams actually help the sport grow to a segment of viewers that would otherwise never pay for it and never see it.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> You are mixing different things together again.
> 
> Sticking with your Coca Cola example. For the case of selling the product, I've answered you already and won't do it again. That's a different issue which should not be mixed together with the following: Just copying/downstreaming some digitalised intellectual material would be similar to you finding Coca Cola's Coke recepe, brewing it at home and drinking it _yourself_(!) (we are not talking about selling it). Whether you paint your jar for fun with the Coca Cola logo doesn't make a big difference. Now you can tell whether you find that's a big theft or not.


IMO the broadcast is not the recipe but the complete product ready to be consumed. For me streaming UFC is the same as me printing Coca Cola trademarks on cans with beverage (say carbonised water since streaming is cheap) and giving it away to people at the city plaza.

Even if one send a torrent or zip file of an event I could not see the zip as a recipe for making the video I am to watch. It is apparent the file format is just a wrapper sort of sending something inside a package (physical example).


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm trying to picture the FBI kicking in the apartment door of some dude who's watching a UFC stream in Vladivostok.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

StandThemUp said:


> Quick Survey:
> 
> If you couldn't watch the UFC PPV's online for Free would you opt to buy them instead? Or would you not watch at all?
> 
> That's the question. Dana and the UFC seem to think the only reason people don't buy PPV's is because they can watch them for free. When in reality, if these people couldn't watch them for free, they just wouldn't watch them at all. And if they didn't watch at all, the UFC would not even be nearly as popular as it is. The people that watch the PPV's for free, watch the fights, spread the word and help to promote the sport to plenty of people that can actually afford the PPV's. So the free streams actually help the sport grow to a segment of viewers that would otherwise never pay for it and never see it.


That's actually what happened with napstar. There was research about it whether it would damage the profit of the music industry and surprisingly to the researches it did not. On the contrary, it helped unknown artist to get known and sell their records.



Gustafsson Fan said:


> IMO the broadcast is not the rbut the complete product ready to be consumed. *For me streaming UFC is* the same as me printing Coca Cola trademarks on cans with beverage (say carbonised water since streaming is cheap) and giving it away to people at the city plaza.


It's not about what it's for you, neither what it's for me (emotional), it's about reasonable transferability of processes (technical). We are talking about consuming a certain product right¿ Because I guess, all the fellow board members in this discussion are consumers in first place, that applies to 99% of the Internet users (whether they buy products or use a stream).

But what's actually the main issue is the problem that society or more precisely the media industry has not arrived yet in the digital age (which may sound astonishing, as they always look like to be the most advanced, but that's only true for technology and not for business models). One of the main characteristics of the digital world IS the possibility to copy information without quality loss and without costs. That's something that was never there in all history of mankind. So there is the possibility of copying information and the basic economic principles of supply and demand still work. So if you stick to the old ways of commerce (Media industry: "I have a product - I you want it, buy it directly from me!") you have the problem of indefinite parallel supply once you have sold one product. You cannot prevent that as copying just is one of the main aspects of this new world. You can make laws against it, but obviously that doesn't really help, because you can't control it. Probably you could if you monitor every computer of the population, but then you would have a dictatorship like North Korea, I don't know if anyone in the Western world wants that. So either you obt for a North Korea model OR you accept the possibilities of the digital world and ADAPT to it and find NEW business models that work in tune with the new possibilities and still make you money (that's the point where the media industry hasn't arrived in the digital world yet).


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

@Voiceless:
There is a consistency between trademarks, logos, file sharing.

Physical stealing is not same as file sharing or streaming agreed. You did not take something from someone that you hold and they no longer can use, correct.

But, the same argument can be said for a trademark. You are not physically stealing something from Coca Cola if you spray paint their trademark on millions of cans and bottles. 

The only difference is that files are physically electrones travelling through a cable while a trademark is a shape represented for example with color on a can or bottle. The trademark is no more physical than the stream. I cannot see why "digital" simply means that old broadly accepted rules should be different. If you think sharing of copyrighted material should be legal then you should go all the way and allow trademark, copyright and patent free duplication as well. I do not know what whether Communism or Anarchism fit that society best. I do know that proplr who vote for Pirate political parties tend to have strong anarchistic or communistic tendencies


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> That's actually what happened with napstar. There was research about it whether it would damage the profit of the music industry and surprisingly to the researches it did not. On the contrary, it helped unknown artist to get known and sell their records.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice. Nothing more I could add so I will just +1


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> @Voiceless:
> There is a consistency between trademarks, logos, file sharing.
> 
> Physical stealing is not same as file sharing or streaming agreed. You did not take something from someone that you hold and they no longer can use, correct.
> ...


Communication with you would be easier if you actually read what people write. First you adress your first post to me although my initial post you respond to had nothing to do with the issues you want to talk about. And concerning the _trademark_ question, I've already given an answer to that AND I've already told you that I've already given you an answer to it.



> The only difference is that files are physically electrones travelling through a cable while a trademark is a shape represented for example with color on a can or bottle. The trademark is no more physical than the stream.


No it's not the only difference, there are several more differences. One major difference is "intent".



> I cannot see why "digital" simply means that old broadly accepted rules should be different. If you think sharing of copyrighted material should be legal then you should go all the way and allow trademark, copyright and patent free duplication as well. I do not know what whether Communism or Anarchism fit that society best. I do know that proplr who vote for Pirate political parties tend to have strong anarchistic or communistic tendencies


It's neither Communism nor Anarchism. It's Digitalism. It's a new form of society. It's the technology that changes and partly defines society. It's like the invention of the book print or the translation of the bible so people could read it on their own and didn't have to believe what the priest were telling them anymore. Complaining about copying in the digital age is like going out of the house when it rains and complaining to get wet. I'm still not talking about right or wrong, I'm just talking about how it IS.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Yeah FBI is going to use their money to send people over to a UFC Streamer that MAY or MAY not be at the location the stream is coming from.

Give me a ******* break. "Watch what happens in the next few months".

What im going to watch is my free ******* UFCs on a shitty stream quality website that sends me adds every ******* 2 minutes. And that freezes on only the best moments like the finish for instance....

And thats what you are working so hard on stopping??? Jesus crist...


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

@Voiceless
Digitalised or not is irrelevant. Trademarks and logos can be digitalised as well and you are still by law NOT allowed to use them freely. 

Making money or not is also irrelevant. Either you are using something that someone else owns or it is not the case. That is the issue regardless of money.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

Everywhere but the US and Canada the 'pay-per-views' are broadcast on premium TV channels for a fraction of the cost.

Dana could treat the fans who actually built this sport while the rest of the world was calling it 'barbaric' with the same respect that he does the new markets he's courting, no?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

@ Gustafsson Fan: I'm not going to explain you everything again.


----------



## Gustafsson Fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> @ Gustafsson Fan: I'm not going to explain you everything again.


The basic issues are not any different because we live in a digital society. It is faster and easier to violate laws now and it is harder to get caught. That does not change anything. I heard all the arguments before and I still see nothing logically or philosophically that proofs anything of what you are saying.

The logics that "Many will benefit from sacrificing a few" is unethic. Another HUGE point is why would someone like Dana White press legal actions unless they were losing revenue? Losing money and proofing that someone losing revenue are different things. It is a false implication (p->q is not equivalent to not p -> not q) that not proofing someone loses revenue means that they are not losing money.

Really, would UFC or any other business by hunting people for fun or for profit ? No they are hunting people because people are reponsible for them losing revenue that is plain and simple protection of market economy.

The companies are portraid as the crooks while the copycats are portraid as the heros of a digital society, wake up...


----------



## WarCraved (Jul 9, 2012)

Not sure if they can even track you if you view from a PS3, or a different device, but anyways... There are certain situations to where hardcore MMA fans can't get the money they need to buy the PPV. They would be hurting some people with die-hard passion for the sport, in my honest opinion.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

If any of this was true, the FBI would be telling Dana to keep his mouth shut so they could do their jobs.

It's just Dana blowing smoke to try to scare people because really, there's nothing that can be done about it.


----------



## kilik (Oct 12, 2007)

if the mpaa cant get fbi to do this then i very much doubt the ufc can make them do it.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Voiceless said:


> @ Gustafsson Fan: I'm not going to explain you everything again.


yeah, don't bother - the guy hasn't a clue at all.


[EDIT] I'm glad I <streamed/didn't pay for> this last event LOL


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Gustafsson Fan said:


> IMO there is a right and wrong regardless of what we think.


Hmm, no, I don't agree. There is no objective morality. 

"Thou shalt not steal" is not a moral fact of the universe. If you contend otherwise, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 24, 2007)

i am boycotting your UFC anyway dana.. so be happy, i am not stealing from you.. i dont wanna take away bread of your kids from the table.. i know your kids are hungry because of these unresponsible criminals and murderers who are knocking dolla dolla bill from ya'lls empty pockets..


bless ya dana, bless ya robin hood..


----------



## tripster (Jun 5, 2006)

Yeah, yeah, Dana. It's illegal to stream your events but what about all the illegal shit you're doing?? C'mon, man, bwst to leave well enough alone.


----------



## IbanezFandango (Jul 1, 2012)

What's this shit about it being illegal to stream events? There's no law against streaming.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

rationalize that your parents taught you no morals much?










those of you who like to judge Chael and others are the Most pathetic of all.

You remind me of the idiots I know sitting in prison spending their time and energy trying to convince their families that they're victims.


----------



## IbanezFandango (Jul 1, 2012)

This is bullshit. Where I live there are no ways of watching the UFC except streaming. The stream starts at 4.00 at night. There are no laws about streaming content where I live. There are laws against putting up streams for others to watch but watching a stream is perfectly legal. I'm not going to pay 60 bucks to watch an event at 4.00 at night when it's also available free and legally so. I'll stick with the free legal alternative over the 60 bucks legal alternative.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

IbanezFandango said:


> This is bullshit. Where I live there are no ways of watching the UFC except streaming. The stream starts at 4.00 at night. *There are no laws about streaming content where I live. There are laws against putting up streams for others to watch but watching a stream is perfectly legal*. I'm not going to pay 60 bucks to watch an event at 4.00 at night when it's also available free and legally so. I'll stick with the free legal alternative over the 60 bucks legal alternative.


So, you aren't doing anything wrong, the guy who provides your stream is.

That's some beautiful rationalizing brother. Anywhere you can get an illegal stream you can also get a legitimate paid for one. At least you made up a new username.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I stream all the time, tough titties.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm sure your parents are proud.

what else do you steal?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

oldfan said:


> I'm sure your parents are proud.
> 
> what else do you steal?


No clue if they are proud of me or not, never asked.

As for stealing, a few things actually, all of which are online, such as music and movies.

edit - millions of people do so everyday online, they just try to justify it, I simply know it's wrong and do it anyways, no reason to lie to myself about it. I could try to justify it by saying I wouldn't watch it if I had to pay for it (I actually wouldn't at this point in time), or listen to that music if I didn't download it (I would, but it would be on Youtube so I still wouldn't pay for it), or watch those movies (I'd netflix them, don't know if that counts towards buying or not, I watch ones that aren't on netflix online), but I'd rather just take it how it is, it's content I'm receiving for 0 cost, if that's stealing then it's stealing, it is what it is.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Putting up a stream is also legal in some countries.

I don't care if it's legal or not - I don't blindly follow laws which don't make sense to me. In my case it's no harm = no foul. Don't like it? Wanna rationalize against that? Go nuts & cry me a river.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

It seems there is a very easy solution to Dana's problem. Put UFC cards on TV like every other major sports organization in the world does minus certain boxing events and pro wrestling. And boxing only does it for high level title fights. 

If PPV is the only thing keeping the UFC alive, then Dana really isn't the capable business man every thinks he is. 

He's a dinosaur.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

oldfan said:


> I'm sure your parents are proud.
> 
> what else do you steal?












Honestly with torrenting, my moral code is strict. Anything I would rather completely go without are the only things I can torrent(that way there is no potential loss of money from the creators of the content). That being said there is very little content out there I would pay for before simply walking away.


----------



## Randomhero FTW (Aug 29, 2010)

RearNaked said:


> It seems there is a very easy solution to Dana's problem. Put UFC cards on TV like every other major sports organization in the world does minus certain boxing events and pro wrestling. And boxing only does it for high level title fights.
> 
> If PPV is the only thing keeping the UFC alive, then Dana really isn't the capable business man every thinks he is.
> 
> He's a dinosaur.


Guess you haven't heard of the fox deal, have you moron? They're still fighting to get it legal all over, let alone get it on free tv.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

We've had the discussions about the moral/ethical implications of streaming before and that conversation went nowhere useful or productive.

My personal stance is anyone taking something for free that wasn't intended to be free is an ass, end of story.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

I torrent,stream,download ANYTHING i want to. 

I dont care at all about the hippie nonsense. There is SO many things out there that Humans do that is or should be wrong BUT we look the other way because its a necessity. So i dont care too much about peoples ethics on online stealing. There are worse things out there to solve then someone watching a PPV event or listening to music.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

Randomhero FTW said:


> Guess you haven't heard of the fox deal, have you moron? They're still fighting to get it legal all over, let alone get it on free tv.


Of course I've heard of the FOX deal. 

How does you post relate to what I posted whatsoever?

The PPVs still out number the free shows by a wide margin. 

Getting the sport 'legal all over' would be easier if they stopped promoting it like a freak show on PPV and had all the shows on TV like a 'real' sport.

One of the big problems they are facing is ignorance and public perception. Asking laymen to fork over $50 for a show is not a good way to get your product seen and understood by the masses.

They're a niche sport at this point and they'll remain that way as long as they keep asking for $50 for the pleasure of watching cards like the last two.

We won't see any real change until the UFC does away with the PPV format entirely.

I`m not going to call you names, though. I came to this forum to get away from that. If I wanted to post on Sherdog, I`d post on Sherdog.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

Hey oldfan, is marijuana legal in NC? 

Not all laws make sense.


----------



## hatedcellphones (Dec 7, 2009)




----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> Hey oldfan, is marijuana legal in NC?
> 
> Not all laws make sense.


No it is not. I'm a career criminal. I've paid the price for that crime more than once. I choose to break that law and accept the consequences.

But I don't steal. How is it that "don't steal" doesn't make sense to you?

are you prepared to accept the consequences of being a thief?



hatedcellphones said:


>


that's a cute picture. It'll be a classic one day after your government takes your internet away. just to stop a few low life thieves


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

oldfan said:


> No it is not. I'm a career criminal. I've paid the price for that crime more than once. I choose to break that law and accept the consequences.
> 
> But I don't steal. How is it that "don't steal" doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> are you prepared to accept the consequences of being a thief?


I don't mind being an internet thief.. Just like I don't mind smoking weed and jaywalking. 

I would never go to the local grocer and steal from them under any circumstance, but if I were homeless and hungry i'd have no problem taking food from a major supermarket.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

> I don't mind being an internet thief.. Just like I don't mind smoking weed and jaywalking.
> 
> I would never go to the local grocer and steal from them under any circumstance, but if I were homeless and hungry i'd have no problem taking food from a major supermarket.


so whether it's wrong to steal or not is determined by how much the victim has?

or is determined by how much you want it?


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

oldfan said:


> so whether it's wrong to steal or not is determined by how much the victim has?


stealing is wrong but if you need to do it, you should steal from someone that can afford to be stolen from. 

What makes stealing worse than the crimes that you commit? Is it just that it's something you don't do so you have a natural instinct to look down upon those who do?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

MRBRESK said:


> *stealing is wrong but if you need to do it, you should steal from someone that can afford to be stolen from. * this was acually the original text of the 8th commandment
> 
> What makes stealing worse than the crimes that you commit? Is it just that it's something you don't do so you have a natural instinct to look down upon those who do?


if you can't see the difference between enjoying a plant that god gave me without involving anyone else and stealing a product that someone else worked to create for profit then nothing I post will help. your parents have failed. Miserably.

now excuse me while I enjoy my morning fatty :smoke02:


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

oldfan said:


> if you can't see the difference between enjoying a plant that god gave me without involving anyone else and stealing a product that someone else worked to create for profit then nothing I post will help. your parents have failed. Miserably.
> 
> now excuse me while I enjoy my morning fatty :smoke02:


Oh yes "God" gave you the fine herb.. just like "God" gave us opium poppies and the coca plant, AIDs, Cancer and natural disasters. He also hates gay people. 
So yeah, I don't really care what your "God" thinks.

My parents have failed? Your arrogance amuses me.

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not judge"?


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

yeah only warning stop all the bs in this thread you guys know better


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

oldfan said:


> so whether it's wrong to steal or not is determined by how much the victim has?
> 
> or is determined by how much you want it?


You sound like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Yes. Taking money from a family that is struggling is objectively worse than being a small part of the group that makes it so Dana can only buy three Ferarris this year instead of four.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

RearNaked said:


> You sound like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
> 
> Yes. Taking money from a family that is struggling is objectively worse than being a small part of the group that makes it so Dana can only buy three Ferarris this year instead of four.


Am I wrong in thinking that the only people affected by less PPV buys are Dana White, Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta and the fighters in the main event (if they've even been cut in a PPV%)?


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

oldfan said:


> if you can't see the difference between enjoying a plant that *god gave me* without involving anyone else and stealing a product that someone else worked to create for profit then nothing I post will help. your parents have failed. Miserably.
> 
> now excuse me while I enjoy my morning fatty :smoke02:


You implying the imaginary meatball in the sky actually exists??


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

SideWays222 said:


> You implying the imaginary meatball in the sky actually exists??


The FSM is real and you're lucky He is a merciful, loving noodle or you might have been struck down for your blasphemy.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

I don't know why the term "stealing" keeps coming up. It's not stealing at all; it's not technically/legally defined as such anywhere outside of silly internet debates. Courts of law define this much differently. Denying that is simply rationalizing in a vain attempt to re-frame something you're not comfortable with & don't fully understand into your own misguided worldview.

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi1.htm

And keep His Lord Highness the Flying Spaghetti Monster out of this.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

MRBRESK said:


> *stealing is wrong but if you need to do it, you should steal from someone that can afford to be stolen from. *


Okay I gotta disagree here. I've seen middle class families homes ripped to shreds by burglars. I've caught said burglars who are often of a much lower class. Said burglars then told me "They could afford it."

Could the family afford to fix their home and their belongings? Probably. Does that make it okay? God no.

Saying it's okay to steal from someone as long as their rich is simply an excuse the thief says so that they can feel better about their actions. Also, I can guarantee said thieves justify home burglaries in their minds as a crime of necessity.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Okay I gotta disagree here. I've seen middle class families homes ripped to shreds by burglars. I've caught said burglars who are often of a much lower class. Said burglars then told me "They could afford it."
> 
> Could the family afford to fix their home and their belongings? Probably. Does that make it okay? God no.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal from someone as long as their rich is simply an excuse the thief says so that they can feel better about their actions. Also, I can guarantee said thieves justify home burglaries in their minds as a crime of necessity.


I don't think he is saying that stealing is okay if it's rich people, I think he's saying if you have a family and you, your wife and kids are starving and there are no other options you need money today, tonight, you have to get it, it's *better* to steal from people who can take a hit and recover and get all their stuff back, than people who can't and will just turn into where you are now with such a hit, which I would agree with.


----------



## Randomhero FTW (Aug 29, 2010)

M.C said:


> I don't think he is saying that stealing is okay if it's rich people, I think he's saying if you have a family and you, your wife and kids are starving and there are no other options you need money today, tonight, you have to get it, it's *better* to steal from people who can take a hit and recover and get all their stuff back, than people who can't and will just turn into where you are now with such a hit, which I would agree with.


And people who watch streams fall into this category how?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Randomhero FTW said:


> And people who watch streams fall into this category how?


I never said they did.


----------



## Randomhero FTW (Aug 29, 2010)

M.C said:


> I never said they did.


You may have not, but that is a common excuse for why people stream. I've probably paid for 3 events my entire life, yet I've seen at least every other one since about UFC80. There are plenty of legal ways to watch the fight while spending as little money as possible.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Randomhero FTW said:


> You may have not, but that is a common excuse for why people stream. I've probably paid for 3 events my entire life, yet I've seen at least every other one since about UFC80. There are plenty of legal ways to watch the fight while spending as little money as possible.


I watch streams because it costs nothing, is extremely easy to get (literally a Google search away) and there's absolutely positively no way to get into any trouble or issues doing so.

No excuses to be made, it is what it is.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Okay I gotta disagree here. I've seen middle class families homes ripped to shreds by burglars. I've caught said burglars who are often of a much lower class. Said burglars then told me "They could afford it."
> 
> Could the family afford to fix their home and their belongings? Probably. Does that make it okay? God no.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal from someone as long as their rich is simply an excuse the thief says so that they can feel better about their actions. Also, I can guarantee said thieves justify home burglaries in their minds as a crime of necessity.


Dana White and the Fertittas are middle class now?

Funny, I thought they were multi-millionares many times over who pay their fighter peanuts and made most of their fortune exploiting people with gambling addictions through their casinos...


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Okay I gotta disagree here. I've seen middle class families homes ripped to shreds by burglars. I've caught said burglars who are often of a much lower class. Said burglars then told me "They could afford it."
> 
> Could the family afford to fix their home and their belongings? Probably. Does that make it okay? God no.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal from someone as long as their rich is simply an excuse the thief says so that they can feel better about their actions. Also, I can guarantee said thieves justify home burglaries in their minds as a crime of necessity.


I wasn't even talking about families. I'm talking about major food suppliers like Woolworths or Coles that have taken hundreds of local businesses out of the game and are continuing to **** other businesses by creating the same products they offer but undercutting them on price. Companies like that can just deal with it. They are the reason some people are now poor in the first place.


----------



## xRoxaz (May 6, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Providing it is for sure.
> 
> But what makes it different from any other thing you have to pay for? If you walk into a store and take a candy bar and eat it you stole it, if you go online and watch a UFC PPV you're technically stealing it aren't you?
> 
> Could just be me, but I'm not seeing why the people watching shouldn't get busted themselves.


no it wud be more like buying something that is stolen, like things off the black market which is a grey market indeed, I think its a huge mess to go after end users then just the providers.


----------



## godm0de (Jan 16, 2011)

Stealing would imply that I have taken something from someone else. When I download a movie or watch a ppv stream I am not taking anything from anybody.
In fact one could argue that when I watch a ppv stream I am actually adding to the value of the advertising time during the show, so in reality despite not paying the $50 I am still adding to the value of the product.


----------



## hatedcellphones (Dec 7, 2009)

oldfan said:


> that's a cute picture. It'll be a classic one day after your government takes your internet away. just to stop a few low life thieves


Jeez. A tad hostile, are we? 

Anyway... I usually just watch it at B Dubs or Brann's. I mean I usually go out to eat on a Saturday night anyway, and the environment is a lot more exciting than just sitting at home and watching it in my boxers. If I miss an event, I usually watch someone's recap of it (Usually the Uncut Sports Show. They'll be honest about if it's actually worth my time.) If there's a "must watch" fight, I'll find some way to watch it for free. I don't believe in buying an entire pay per view for 60 bucks just for one fight.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I've found a rationalization I can live with (semi serious mode activated).

A person providing a stream for a PPV is just like a good friend inviting you to his home to watch the PPV except that you're not bringing the beer. If you punish streamers you'll also have to punish people who watch PPVs in groups.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I've found a rationalization I can live with (semi serious mode activated).
> 
> A person providing a stream for a PPV is just like a good friend inviting you to his home to watch the PPV except that you're not bringing the beer. If you punish streamers you'll also have to punish people who watch PPVs in groups.


Streams also aren't usually half as good quality as the PPV. When it's a really good card with some real star power I ALWAYS shell out for the PPV. 

If Dana wants to fight pirating, the best way is to improve the quality of the cards.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

RearNaked said:


> If Dana wants to fight pirating, the best way is to improve the quality of the cards.


This I doubt highly. It would be a good idea if the UFC put in some thing like NBA TV All Access Pass or whatever it's called where you pay like $15 p/m and that gives you online access to all cards.


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

I think it sucks you guys have to pay for each PPV...here in brazil we have premiere combat, and its like 15 bucks a month and we get all the fights, i get to watch facebook prelims on my huge tv in HD...its awesome, there you guys need to keep switching channels or actually watch no facebook

I actually dont see why they cant show all the fights if you paid for the PPV...thats BS


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

I stream almost every ppv, is it wrong "YES" am i still gunna do it "YES"

Is it stealing, that is the grey area for me

If I buy something I have the ability to return it if it is not the quality I desired or it does not live up to the advertisement ect. If a fight is advertised as going to be a war and 5 rounds of punching fury ect and the guys just hold each other for the five rounds I think I should get my money back if I paid for the ppv, or if the knock out is in less then a minute ect, do I get this option nope, 

If I dont have the option to return a product that does not live up to my expectations of said product it should not be allowed to be sold and it turn can not be stolen. 

If i could not stream the fights i would go to a bar and watch them (which i hate cause of drunk idiots that all of a sudden become experts because they have a tap out shirt on ) but since i can stream i dont have to do that but i would not pay 60 bucks every ppv ect.. 

I live right next to a bar that shows the fights for free that has no cover charge to go in, whats the difference of me watching the fights in my living room or going to that bar next to me, are they gunna stop showing the fights at said bar because i did not go to it. if i went to said bar i would not of bought anything cause i dont drink and their food sucks, i went once a while back to watch a fight the person working their just asked if i wanted anything i said no im here to watch the fights and they said ok and walked away, so whats te difference of me being there or here less then a couple hundred feet away.

again streaming is wrong but is it up there with stealing in my mind..not really heck its not even up there with eating a grape when i walk by them in the supermarket. it is wrong just the severity of the wrongness is where it differs for me IMO

-----------

To the stealing from the rich comment i read, i think allot of you misunderstood his comment, he clearly said stealing is wrong, he just would prefer if you had to steal that they did it to te people that could affored it and not to the ones that could not, nothing more nothing less, i see no fault in that statement.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

M_D said:


> To the stealing from the rich comment i read, i think allot of you misunderstood his comment, he clearly said stealing is wrong, he just would prefer if you had to steal that they did it to te people that could affored it and not to the ones that could not, nothing more nothing less, i see no fault in that statement.





MRBRESK said:


> I wasn't even talking about families. I'm talking about major food suppliers like Woolworths or Coles that have taken hundreds of local businesses out of the game and are continuing to **** other businesses by creating the same products they offer but undercutting them on price. Companies like that can just deal with it. They are the reason some people are now poor in the first place.


I agree with your post MD, i'm glad a few people understand.


----------



## HadouKEN (Apr 6, 2012)

May I ask where you guys stream your fights at? I was unaware you could legitimately do that. I'm afraid of getting a virus on my CPU. I usually just pay for the fights I want to see.

If anyone knows a sight to stream fights I would love to know because there are a lot of fights I want to see that I don't get to.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

No links to streams please.


Sent from my iPhone using VerticalSports


----------



## ACTAFOOL (Dec 10, 2008)

Man honestly i have nothing against streaming but i dont know how you guys do it, i HATE streaming because usuallu the quality is terrible and sometimes servers crash during important moves in the fight...i cant stand it

When i miss a ppv i prefer to download the torrent the morning after, usually the torrents are already up by 3 am here so sunday morning i download the ppv and prelims in HD and then go on the internet lol, but i think its a lot better than streaming

And you can skip the bs and just watch the fights, a 3-4 hour show ends up taking 1-2 hours:thumb02:


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

HitOrGetHit said:


> No links to streams please.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using VerticalSports


Apologies. I know better than that.



ACTAFOOL said:


> Man honestly i have nothing against streaming but i dont know how you guys do it, i HATE streaming because usuallu the quality is terrible and sometimes servers crash during important moves in the fight...i cant stand it
> 
> When i miss a ppv i prefer to download the torrent the morning after, usually the torrents are already up by 3 am here so sunday morning i download the ppv and prelims in HD and then go on the internet lol, but i think its a lot better than streaming
> 
> And you can skip the bs and just watch the fights, a 3-4 hour show ends up taking 1-2 hours:thumb02:


I'm the same as you. I HATE streaming. They always seem to cut out at the worst times IE right before a main event or when something gets exciting. I kid you not, my stream cut out at Weidman Munoz right before Weidman landed the elbow. By the time I got it back up the fight was done. Streaming SUCKS. If I don't have other plans, and no one I know is having the fight, I'll stream it though. I should mention that I actually buy 90% of more of PPV's.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

I havent paid for a PPV since the UFC started supporting CISPA/SOPA. 


Used to buy every one. $50/150 a month.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

M_D said:


> If I buy something I have the ability to return it if it is not the quality I desired or it does not live up to the advertisement ect. If a fight is advertised as going to be a war and 5 rounds of punching fury ect and the guys just hold each other for the five rounds I think I should get my money back if I paid for the ppv, or if the knock out is in less then a minute ect, do I get this option nope,
> 
> If I dont have the option to return a product that does not live up to my expectations of said product it should not be allowed to be sold and it turn can not be stolen.
> 
> ...


Great points from someone who gets it.

HEY WHERE IS THE FBI THESE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THE CUBS FOR FREE










(actually they should be arrested for being Cubs fans anyway)



ACTAFOOL said:


> Man honestly i have nothing against streaming but i dont know how you guys do it, i HATE streaming because usuallu the quality is terrible and sometimes servers crash during important moves in the fight...i cant stand it
> 
> When i miss a ppv i prefer to download the torrent the morning after, usually the torrents are already up by 3 am here so sunday morning i download the ppv and prelims in HD and then go on the internet lol, but i think its a lot better than streaming
> 
> And you can skip the bs and just watch the fights, a 3-4 hour show ends up taking 1-2 hours:thumb02:


I often do that, too. Depending on how interested I am in the card, I _might_ stream it, but I almost always grab a torrent of it. They're always up within mere minutes of the card ending, as well, and in great quality. Pretty hard to beat torrents. :wink01:


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> I havent paid for a PPV since the UFC started supporting CISPA/SOPA.
> 
> 
> Used to buy every one. $50/150 a month.


Do you have some secret when it comes to streams? I never stream a card I'm even remotely interested in because they're extremely hard to find one that doesn't cut out.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Do you have some secret when it comes to streams? I never stream a card I'm even remotely interested in because they're extremely hard to find one that doesn't cut out.


There are crappy streams then good streams. The first page of Google has crappy streams.

Every time an event comes on, I get a stream from a friend as I can't remember the website, and it works great for the most part.


----------

