# UFC sues bar owner for illegal stream......



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

*And here we go.......
*

http://mmajunkie.com/news/17446/ufc-sues-bar-owner-for-alleged-pay-per-view-piracy.mma




> Hot on the heels of an announcement to punish pay-per-view thieves, the UFC is suing a Boston-area man for the alleged illegal use of a UFC 104 feed.
> 
> The Boston Herald reports the promotion is accusing Derek Brady, the owner of a local bar called The Draft Bar and Grille in Allston, Mass., of evading the closed-circuit fees for commercial use of UFC events, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianRClover (Jan 4, 2008)

Wow, that is pretty intense. I guess they weren't playing around.


----------



## dudeabides (Sep 30, 2008)

They're saying a person drinking in the bar had the stream and put it on the bar's televisions, without them having anything to do with it, or not being able to stop it? :confused02:


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

dudeabides said:


> They're saying a person drinking in the bar had the stream and put it on the bar's televisions, without them having anything to do with it, or not being able to stop it? :confused02:


It was the owner of the bar that hooked up his CPU to the bar's televisions.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

JimmyJames said:


> It was the owner of the bar that hooked up his CPU to the bar's televisions.


The article says that Brady's argument is that it was a patron who payed for the stream and hooked it up or something without permission.


----------



## Spidaman (Oct 23, 2009)

what kind of bitch squeals when going to a bar and sees a PPV illegally screened. The kind of bitch that kissed the teacher's arse in school.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

I dont know how the UFC can prove this, if the bar says they actually paid for it legally and have it on a bill...thats gonna be a big counter lawsuit by them for damage of reputation or whatever you call it. 

600k fine might put the bar out of buisness


----------



## jmacjer (Mar 23, 2009)

Spidaman said:


> what kind of bitch squeals when going to a bar and sees a PPV illegally screened. The kind of bitch that kissed the teacher's arse in school.


This made me laugh. laws are laws, where would we be without them?


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

But the bar didn't say that. 



Spec0688 said:


> I dont know how the UFC can prove this, if the bar says they actually paid for it legally and have it on a bill...thats gonna be a big counter lawsuit by them for damage of reputation or whatever you call it.
> 
> 600k fine might put the bar out of buisness


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

Spec0688 said:


> I dont know how the UFC can prove this, if the bar says they actually paid for it legally and have it on a bill...thats gonna be a big counter lawsuit by them for damage of reputation or whatever you call it.
> 
> 600k fine might put the bar out of buisness


Even if they did pay for the stream, if the "legalese" within the EULA (End-User License Agreement - you know that big wall of text that stays on your screen when you make purchases for products or services on your PC that won't go away until you click "I Agree" even if you didn't read it) states that the stream is for private viewing only, then they can get into trouble for showing it in a public place. It sucks, but that sort of thing has been around ever since VHS.

It's going to be a hassle, one where if they notice that the bar owner purchased the stream for private viewing, they might have him dead in the water due to the fact that he agreed to the EULA.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

This bar owner deserves to be sued. Most bars around where I live charge at least a five dollar cover to anyone who comes in on nights they are showing these fights, im guessing this place was no exception. This was a major sleezbag move if the dude was charging a cover for the fights.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

It'll boil down to "he said she said". Meanwhile, the court costs alone will drown the accused...

Prolly was an illegal feed, tho. But it would be interesting to see if there's really any actual physical proof.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Onganju said:


> Even if they did pay for the stream, if the "legalese" within the EULA (End-User License Agreement - you know that big wall of text that stays on your screen when you make purchases for products or services on your PC that won't go away until you click "I Agree" even if you didn't read it) states that the stream is for private viewing only, then they can get into trouble for showing it in a public place. It sucks, but that sort of thing has been around ever since VHS.
> 
> It's going to be a hassle, one where if they notice that the bar owner purchased the stream for private viewing, they might have him dead in the water due to the fact that he agreed to the EULA.


Discouraging, but irrefutable. Hopefully this doesn't put the bar owner out of business, either way.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

swpthleg said:


> Discouraging, but irrefutable. Hopefully this doesn't put the bar owner out of business, either way.


I maintain that this dude deserves everything that happens to him over this if he was charging people to watch these fights. Even if he wasnt, he was still most likely using these fights to draw more business into his bar and make more money without actually having to give anything back to the UFC and there pay per view distributors. Major dirtbag move no matter how you cut it.


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

Lol that y i'm glad i'm leaving in canada. This lawsuit is insane, yes i agree that the bar owner should get punish maybe a fine of 5000 or something. But suing for for over 500k is crazy, the ufc is destroying a man's life. It crazy how they found out about this bad when there are 100s of streaming sites to watch ufc on the internet.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

The UFC is wanting $640K, but they only charge between $500-1500 for the bar to purchase the event? Where are they coming up with the $640K? I understand the owner broke the law, but $640K is a bit much.

Either way, shouldn't the individual actually streaming the event on their PC be sued?


----------



## marcthegame (Mar 28, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> The UFC is wanting $640K, but they only charge between $500-1500 for the bar to purchase the event? Where are they coming up with the $640K? I understand the owner broke the law, but $640K is a bit much.
> 
> Either way, shouldn't the individual actually streaming the event on their PC be sued?


That's what i'm sayin 640k is crazy plus there also suing for legal cost. The ufc is getting greedy.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> The UFC is wanting $640K, but they only charge between $500-1500 for the bar to purchase the event? Where are they coming up with the $640K? I understand the owner broke the law, but $640K is a bit much.
> 
> Either way, shouldn't the individual actually streaming the event on their PC be sued?


I kinda skimmed this whole thing, that 640k number is pretty nuts, but this whole concept of what the man was doing makes me angry. Anyone actually know anything about the legal side of this whole thing and have any precedent for how things of this nature usually go down?


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

Generally speaking, lawyers (especially corporate lawyers) take it up cases with a "best case/worst case scenario" when keeping in mind the results of their work. Yes, they know the best case is they win the lawsuit and get everything they ask for, with the absolute worst case being they get the lawsuit shot down and counter-sued. In reality they know that the end result of the lawsuit will most likely be somewhere in between. So, they ask for the maximum amount they think is legally feasible up front. I think most civil cases are like that. 

In regards to the fiscal amount, well I'm not sure what they are expecting there. I'm pretty sure they are hoping they are going to make out well enough by wining the case with just a small nominal fee and having the bar owner foot the legal fees. They're are probably hoping that the fear of legal action with be enough of a deterrent factor for others who might consider doing the same thing.


----------



## michelangelo (Feb 1, 2009)

Of course. The UFC has a ton of money to pay their lawyers indefinitely when they pay out $5,000 per fighter in their prelim cards. 



Onganju said:


> *They're are probably hoping that the fear of legal action with be enough of a deterrent factor for others who might consider doing the same thing.*


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

UrbanBounca said:


> The UFC is wanting $640K, but they only charge between $500-1500 for the bar to purchase the event? Where are they coming up with the $640K? I understand the owner broke the law, but $640K is a bit much.
> 
> Either way, shouldn't the individual actually streaming the event on their PC be sued?


Can't look at it just like that. I don't know the size of the bar, the amount of customers on normal nights or how much average american spends on beer one night while watching game/ufc card, but lets just say that even if he gained 20 additional customers who all brought him about 50 dollars by buying beer and booze thats 1000 dollars extra gained already, so its fair he has to pay more than just that 1500 he was supposed to.
This prolly wasn't the guy's first illegal stream too, so 2500 dollars or whatever most likely isn't all he has earned with illegal streams so far, but as there is no way to prove that he has done it before you really can't sue him for more than this one time.
With that being said I agree asking for 640,000 $ is ridiculous. Even if the guy illegally streamed the last 100 cards and we add that above mentioned 1000 dollars on top of those 1500/card saved, it only adds up to 250,000 dollars. I suppose it was worth trying for ufc, but no way they'll get more than maybe 20k + legal costs from this. Then again I have heard about plenty of stories about americans being involved with ridiculous and dumb payments/settlements before...


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

People can spin it any way they want, but the bar owner is clearly in the wrong. I don't have a problem with getting stuff for free online (wink), but if you are going to do it, at least don't be stupid about it. This bar owner deserves everything he's going to get.


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

joshua7789 said:


> I kinda skimmed this whole thing, that 640k number is pretty nuts, but this whole concept of what the man was doing makes me angry. Anyone actually know anything about the legal side of this whole thing and have any precedent for how things of this nature usually go down?


The penalty for stealing cable/satellite signal is up to $2000 and/or up to 6 months in jail. I would suspect that very few sentences ever approach the maximum penalty, unless there are prior offenses. However, if it can be proven that the crime was committed "for the financial gain" of the guilty party, the maximum penalty is MUCH more severe. And that would almost certainly apply in this case. Multiple offenses act in a stacking manner, as well (I believe). So, if the UFC can prove that he stole their PPV on several different occasions, the suit could possibly approach a ridiculous monetary amount. It's also written into the law that an aggreived party who wins a case is entitled to recompense for their legal fees. I'm not completely certain that specific law would apply directly to this case, either. But, in my non-lawyer opinion, I'd say it fits well enough to use it to predict the severity of punishment. All the info can be found here, if you don't mind the legalese: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/47/553.html 

I'm sure there is some legal wiggle room for the guy, but either way he's in for a serious hassle and a ridiculous amount of stress. You can bet that he won't be doing this ever again.

On a side note, any bar owner who does this is pretty stupid. Think about how easy it would be for the UFC to bust them. They'd basically just need a single person per major city, working for them. They could call every bar in town in advance, and ask if they are showing the PPV event that night (under the guise of a potential customer wanting to go there and watch). Cross-check the ones that are, to see if any haven't legitimately ordered it. Then go check those out in person. If the fights are showing and they haven't paid, they are caught red-handed. And then on top of that, they could look at credit card receipts from that bar, for the night of every UFC PPV in the last year or so. They then have a list of witnesses as to whether the fights were illegally broadcast on those nights as well. Bar owners are very easy targets, if the UFC is willing to do the legwork.


----------



## Sekou (Oct 25, 2008)

Im guessing the main reason why he was snithced on was due tot he fact it was probably a bad, lagging stream (as most are online) and people probably got tired of watching the skips and fuzzy pixels :laugh:


----------



## Ruckus (Oct 2, 2009)

joshua7789 said:


> This bar owner deserves to be sued. Most bars around where I live charge at least a five dollar cover to anyone who comes in on nights they are showing these fights, im guessing this place was no exception. This was a major sleezbag move if the dude was charging a cover for the fights.


There's a couple of bars around me that don't charge a thing to get in the door for PPVs, they make their money on the food and beverage (which has about a 400% mark up) revenue from a packed bar/grille. This place has a capacity of 211 people and they were packed. 



Woodenhead said:


> It'll boil down to "he said she said". Meanwhile, the court costs alone will drown the accused...
> 
> Prolly was an illegal feed, tho. But it would be interesting to see if there's really any actual physical proof.


I may have misread, but I think the bar has already acknowledged that it was being broadcast by saying they didn't know some random dude was streaming it in their bar. Most judges won't buy that excuse and I'd say they (the bar) are [expletive]. 




UrbanBounca said:


> **The UFC is wanting $640K*, but they only charge between $500-1500 for the bar to purchase the event? Where are they coming up with the $640K? I understand the owner broke the law, but $640K is a bit much.
> 
> ***Either way, shouldn't the individual actually streaming the event on their PC be sued?*


*If they get $640K I will LMFAO!!! Let's just say the average check for everyone at the bar is $25, totall capacity being the same as the bar I mentioned before is 211, that's just $5200+. Add legal fees maybe doubles that total. Kinda extreme.

**There is absolutely no way that the bar had no knowledge of the illegal broadcast, therefore it is their responsibility.

Maybe DW and co. were talking about this when saying they were going after the streamers rather than the individuals they will never catch. Can you imagine if the win this case even at only 25% of the initial suit? That's still $140K, a sum which would deter most bar owners from doing the same thing.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Spidaman said:


> what kind of bitch squeals when going to a bar and sees a PPV illegally screened. The kind of bitch that kissed the teacher's arse in school.


:thumb02: what was this kind of guy even doing in a bar.


----------



## mattreis324 (Mar 24, 2009)

The 640K is just to scare people into not doing this kind of thing in the future. The UFC's lawyers know they won't get anything close to that, but they want to make an example of this guy. 

I think this is the kind of thing the UFC should go after if they want to put a dent in pirating. Going after the sites that host the stream or the bar that shows them is a much better strategy than suing individuals watching the stream at home.


----------



## Bob Pataki (Jun 16, 2007)

How can they actually prove it though, unless they walked in the bar with a camera and recorded them showing the PPV? For the bar to even admit someone was showing it, they must have some solid proof.

This is hardly anything to scare users though, there's a big step between busting a public bar with an illegal stream and a home user, what are the UFC going to do get a SWAT team in your living room? haha.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Ruckus said:


> *If they get $640K I will LMFAO!!! Let's just say the average check for everyone at the bar is $25, totall capacity being the same as the bar I mentioned before is 211, that's just $5200+. Add legal fees maybe doubles that total. Kinda extreme.



It has to be extreme though to set a precedent, like you said they were most likely looking at a $5000 profit (I would guess thats on the low side) If im a bar owner and I can make anywhere from a 5-10 thousand dollar profit it doesn't make sense not to risk it if the fine is only $5-10 thousand. If the penalty is not substantially bigger than the consequence of getting caught there really isn't a risk. Besides if they did it for UFC 108 and got caught what do you think the odds are that they have never done this for any of the previous UFC PPV's?


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

I actually expected more of a fine. It must be a low end place because you know Dana is goin for blood listen or read his interview..."We are going to hurt them"...refering to people streaming the ppvs....So you know that as soon as anything comes up they are swinging for the fences. I would expect many more of these especialy from the people wanting to get in good with Dana.


----------



## PunchUintheFace (Jan 1, 2010)

poor guy.. he's going to have to close his bar down because of a snitch..lol


----------



## N1™ (Apr 8, 2007)

jesus christ that harsh


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Going after commercial enterprises makes a lot more business sense than going after individual viewers. Hopefully, this is what White was talking about when he announced that the dogs were being unleashed.


----------



## js1316 (Jun 17, 2007)

I might be different than a lot of you guys, but really I see streaming as a legitimate law therefore nobody should do it. The UFC PPV's are expensive but just do what I do, get a bunch of friends together and have them chip in for it. If that isn't possible, go to Hooters or something like that and watch it for free, just bring a few bucks for drinks and stuff. 

When you buy PPV's you actually help the UFC out, so I don't understand why you would watch it illegaly where they aren't making any money, if you love the UFC so much do your small part to help keep them in business right? That's only my opinion and the way I see things..


----------



## N1™ (Apr 8, 2007)

Stokes said:


> I might be different than a lot of you guys, but really I see streaming as a legitimate law therefore nobody should do it. The UFC PPV's are expensive but just do what I do, get a bunch of friends together and have them chip in for it. If that isn't possible, go to Hooters or something like that and watch it for free, just bring a few bucks for drinks and stuff.
> 
> When you buy PPV's you actually help the UFC out, so I don't understand why you would watch it illegaly where they aren't making any money, if you love the UFC so much do your small part to help keep them in business right? That's only my opinion and the way I see things..


oh i agree with the action i just think its a bit harsh to sue some bloke that just wanted to air the UFC but presumably didnt have the money for 600000 $, something that im sure is gonna ruin this guy for life


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

I just came to the conclusion...Dana is like a Mob boss....Mess with his money and he will bury you....steel from him and he'll break your legs lol


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

it's not even about winning this case, it's about making the bar owner spend time and $ going to court and fighting the case. Either way he is gonna lose $, perhaps he will make a dael for much less promising to never stream again. Either way a smart move by the UFC, getting individual streamers would be hard but major sites and bars should definately be the 1st target.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

You can be damn sure tho if somebody tries to stream in his bar again, that person will probably get choked out before they can say " hey i got the U..F....ZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Ruckus (Oct 2, 2009)

Toxic said:


> It has to be extreme though to set a precedent, like you said they were most likely looking at a $5000 profit (I would guess thats on the low side) If im a bar owner and I can make anywhere from a 5-10 thousand dollar profit it doesn't make sense not to risk it if the fine is only $5-10 thousand. If the penalty is not substantially bigger than the consequence of getting caught there really isn't a risk. Besides if they did it for UFC 108 and got caught what do you think the odds are that they have never done this for any of the previous UFC PPV's?


Good point, and it is definitely on the low side. I also agree that most likely this bar has been doing this for some time, not just 108. Its interesting as I look for more info on this and the $640K is the maximum statutory damages allowed so the amount is being set by a law already established. (via Boston Herald) If they win, which I think they will it should certainly deter others from doing the same.


----------



## PunchYourNuts (Nov 12, 2009)

damn how come I never heard of this place showing free UFC. I usually pay 10 bucks if I want to watch it at a bar


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

The reason for the exorbitantly high fine is for publicity. This dude is being made an example & will serve as a warning for anyone else doing the same.

Fear.


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

ehh... every bar should do this so then the ufc does away with ppv's and just has them on tv like nfl nba ect.. heck they already showed a commercial on the last ppv for the movie that sponsored it.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

M_D said:


> ehh... every bar should do this so then the ufc does away with ppv's and just has them on tv like nfl nba ect.. heck they already showed a commercial on the last ppv for the movie that sponsored it.


 difference is the NBA has games everyday on major networks so they get huge TV deals. What is a network gonna offer the UFC to bring a few million viewers once a month?? I do believe the UFC could pull more then SF on name alone but i still dont think they could get the kind of numbers that would warrant a primetime spot on a weekly basis, perhaps once a month but again, what will the networks pay?? Prob not as much as the UFC is making already.

On top of that the NBA has a complete monopoly on basketball in north america, so much so they have educational institutions doing the work of finding players for them. The NBA is also a much more worldwide brand with more marketing power but they didnt always have games on every channal in the pre-jordan era.

Alot of things would have to go right for the UFC to just put on televised free shows all the time. They would need astronomical numbers to make what they are making now thru PPV sales and they would need to have more shows, at least once a week like NFL to get the really huge TV deals.


----------



## GMK13 (Apr 20, 2009)

i dont think the ufc will get that much money, but there using this as a statement that they are not messing around.


----------



## shocktheworld (Dec 14, 2009)

*Just don't steal...*

Missing revenue for the UFC means lower fight purses, fewer marquee fighter signings, potentially fewer events, slower expansion of the sport.

Like it or not, corporations have to and deserve to make money. We all benefit from it.


----------



## IP4K (Aug 11, 2009)

Well maybe the UFC shouldn't make the prices so ridic and not let it be streamed, Dana is such a ****


----------



## shocktheworld (Dec 14, 2009)

Would the bar owner have paid even if it was cheaper???

Why does this make Dana a ****?


----------



## michelangelo (Feb 1, 2009)

The only people who benefit from the UFC financially are a handful of elite fighters (the division champs), perhaps a dozen top contenders overall, and of course, the UFC managment and ownership.

Otherwise, the athletes are almost inconceivably poorly paid in comparison to athletes in the other "major sports" in this country. 

To be more specific, the UFC pays out about 7% of it's revenue in fighter salaries. The NBA by way of comparison, pays out 52%; in fact, if you read the NBA labor agreement, it's called "revenue sharing," in recognition of the central importance of the athlete as opposed to the owners and management in drawing fans. Even if you double or triple the published salary figures for the UFC, it's still a paltry amount. 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Dana and the Fertittas in this matter. 



shocktheworld said:


> Missing revenue for the UFC means lower fight purses, fewer marquee fighter signings, potentially fewer events, slower expansion of the sport.
> 
> Like it or not, corporations have to and deserve to make money. We all benefit from it.


----------



## shocktheworld (Dec 14, 2009)

michelangelo said:


> The only people who benefit from the UFC financially are a handful of elite fighters (the division champs), perhaps a dozen top contenders overall, and of course, the UFC managment and ownership.
> 
> Otherwise, the athletes are almost inconceivably poorly paid in comparison to athletes in the other "major sports" in this country.
> 
> ...


Understood - but the salary breakdown isn't my point. From a macro perspective, lost revenue (no matter how revenue is allocated) contributes to the growth of the sport. Sympathy isn't required, it isn't an emotional subject.

As for salaries, I agree that most are underpaid. However, as the sport grows, and a network TV deal is signed, it will eventually benefit ALL fighters at all levels.

Think too of all of the other companies that benefit (and survive) from a growing sport...


----------



## The Horticulturist (Feb 16, 2009)

Dumbass bartender. As soon as he saw it whoever was in charge should have immediately realized the possible consequences, it's part of what you learn before you own any establishment. 

Don't allow it, or Don't get caught!

I know plenty of bars that could show it, so I understand how easy it could be to overlook something like this. Whoever tattled deserves a chastising though, in my opinion.


----------



## underover (Nov 19, 2009)

Im sorry for my sarcastic remarks made towards you and some fellow posters.Ive tried to send a private message, but Im 
not permitted too yet,because Ive only just joined the forum.
Im very scared that the sport I love goes the way of other fighting sports with its corruption.
A few things that have happened in the UFC,especially with TUF in mind, have set off alarm bells in me. It was 6am British Time and I was a little drunk and overreacted.
Ive since looked at some of your posts, and think your a pleasant man. Very sorry.
Im new to using forums, this being the first ive joined, but seen something about the top fights to watch for a newcomer, I cant locate it now but remember thinking on your terms. To many names-thats not what its all about.
I loved Jonatan Koppenhaver (War Machine) vs Jared Rollins on the Ultimate Finale Hughes vs Serra.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Ok, I'm just throwing this out. MMA is a sport and UFC is an entertainment business. I've paid for a lot of PPVs and bought UFC DVDs. If the UFC wants to take reasonable preventative technical measures to ensure piracy is kept to a minimum I will gladly continue to support their company. If they choose to aggressively pursue those committing piracies punitively in this fashion I will quickly refrain from supporting their company. I could understand a lawsuit demanding cost of service to even 3X cost of service to dissuade piracy but 640k for one feed at a bar is just ridiculous. 
The UFC is still entertainment and I’ve never agreed with professional athlete salaries compared to teachers, public safety, military, etc anyway…. This is way too malicious for an entertainment business to retain my interests.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

the UFC wont get 600k even if they win, the judge wont allow it. they just listed that number that seems semi-realistic to possibly get more attenion brought to the piracy problem.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Zuffa could easily get that amount. This guy (allegedly) was running a commercial operation.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

The UFC has every right to take the owner to court.
But to demand 600k for that???
I mean...they should have solid arguement for demanding that ammount. Did they use some kind of mathematical formula??
How did they end up with that ammount??


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

limba said:


> The UFC has every right to take the owner to court.
> But to demand 600k for that???
> I mean...they should have solid arguement for demanding that ammount. Did they use some kind of mathematical formula??
> How did they end up with that ammount??


I believe that's the maximum amount allowable. It will be up to a judge to decide how much, if any, $ they deserve.


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

The PPV Nazi is going to give MMA a bad name...This is not gonna be good...and that squeler sure watched it first then reported it later, what a lil ****.


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

shocktheworld said:


> Missing revenue for the UFC means lower fight purses, fewer marquee fighter signings, potentially fewer events, slower expansion of the sport.
> 
> Like it or not, corporations have to and deserve to make money. We all benefit from it.


Good one, LMAO


----------



## IP4K (Aug 11, 2009)

shocktheworld said:


> Would the bar owner have paid even if it was cheaper???
> 
> Why does this make Dana a ****?


Wow don't even defend dana i hope he runs ufc right into the ground he is all about him self letting people like hendo and as soon as rampage is done he'll be gonna banning sponsers i hope strikeforce becomes a power, and who knows if he would of but 50 dollars for that is simply too much


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

..


IP4K said:


> Wow don't even defend dana i hope he runs ufc right into the ground he is all about him self letting people like hendo and as soon as rampage is done he'll be gonna banning sponsers i hope strikeforce becomes a power, and who knows if he would of but 50 dollars for that is simply too much


lol


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

Fordness said:


> On a side note, any bar owner who does this is pretty stupid. Think about how easy it would be for the UFC to bust them. They'd basically just need a single person per major city, working for them. They could call every bar in town in advance, and ask if they are showing the PPV event that night (under the guise of a potential customer wanting to go there and watch). Cross-check the ones that are, to see if any haven't legitimately ordered it. Then go check those out in person. If the fights are showing and they haven't paid, they are caught red-handed. And then on top of that, they could look at credit card receipts from that bar, for the night of every UFC PPV in the last year or so. They then have a list of witnesses as to whether the fights were illegally broadcast on those nights as well. Bar owners are very easy targets, if the UFC is willing to do the legwork.


This is a good point. 

I feel bad for the individual being sued here (though it's likely he's just a money hungry hog and not even an MMA fan) but I think this is a pretty good move by the UFC, as the lawsuit will deter other bar owners from trying the same shit.


----------



## Wookie (Jul 20, 2008)

Just how retarted was this bar owner? I can see the place as some rathole dive bar that wanted customers but didn't want to pay 500-1500 dollars to show the fight. If I were a bar owner it would be hard to justify paying that much for a fight if I had no kind of idea what kind of returns I would get. Instead of sueing these people they should figure out what would have made them pay for it i.e. giving them a fight or two at a discounted rate so they could see if it was a good investment for their bar or something along those lines. But still who goes to their local bar sees the fight on, watches the whole thing, then goes to the UFC to report them? What a BASTARD!!!


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Was the stream really, really hot? Why did they sue? Who is Sue?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Like people said, the bar owner deserves it for being stupid. It's one thing to watch an illegal stream as a broke fan at home, it's another to profit heavily from it as a retail business.

At the same time, the punishment should fit the crime. A 640K fine or anything more than 10-20K seems like sending a man to the noose for stealing a loaf of bread. Kinda the modern equivalent of the dark ages. You know we're in a corporate dictatorship when someone can be completely financially ruined for breaking little corporate laws, while child molesters are let off on parole after 1 year.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Like people said, the bar owner deserves it for being stupid. It's one thing to watch an illegal stream as a broke fan at home, it's another to profit heavily from it as a retail business.
> 
> At the same time, the punishment should fit the crime. A 640K fine or anything more than 10-20K seems like sending a man to the noose for stealing a loaf of bread. Kinda the modern equivalent of the dark ages. You know we're in a corporate dictatorship when someone can be completely financially ruined for breaking little corporate laws, while child molesters are let off on parole after 1 year.


This is an example of why you are awesome. +rep


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Fieos said:


> This is an example of why you are awesome. +rep


haha thanks you make some great posts yourself sir. case in point ^^^ .


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> Like people said, the bar owner deserves it for being stupid. It's one thing to watch an illegal stream as a broke fan at home, it's another to profit heavily from it as a retail business.
> 
> At the same time, the punishment should fit the crime. A 640K fine or anything more than 10-20K seems like sending a man to the noose for stealing a loaf of bread. Kinda the modern equivalent of the dark ages. You know we're in a corporate dictatorship when someone can be completely financially ruined for breaking little corporate laws, while child molesters are let off on parole after 1 year.


Quoted for truth.


----------

