# Attn All Ufc Thieves



## fosure (Dec 10, 2009)

White Speaks on Piracy - “We’re gonna go after them, we’re gonna go after them hard, and we’re gonna hurt ‘em.”

“The piracy of live sporting events is illegal, it kills jobs, and it threatens the expansion of US based companies,” he told lawmakers. “The UFC is potentially losing millions of dollars a year from piracy.” 

http://www.buddhasport.com/community/piracy/


----------



## ashurian (Jun 2, 2008)

*Dana to sue individuals who stream ufc events haha*

http://www.vancouversun.com/exclusive+vows+individuals+view+piracy/2405444/story.html

LAS VEGAS — Mixed martial arts fans who watch pirated internet content could soon be pressed against the cage, says the president of an industry-leading fight promotion. In a move that could signal a sea change in the viral presence of MMA — the burgeoning sport of caged pugilism — Dana White, president of Ultimate Fighting Championship, said his company is readying a legal assault on individuals and websites that deal in unauthorized content.

“When people start going to jail, people will stop doing it,” White said.

The pay-per-view industry, of which the UFC has emerged as one of the most profitable players with an estimated $349 million US in revenue last year, is the latest front in a war between consumers who want free content and entertainment companies with a product to protect.

The weapon of choice for digital thieves: streaming video websites that beam live pay-per-view signals to their home computers, free of charge.

UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta testified for the US House Judiciary Committee earlier this month during a referendum on internet piracy of sporting events and said his anti-piracy team had uncovered 271 illegal streams of UFC 106 with over 140,000 viewers.

“The piracy of live sporting events is illegal, it kills jobs, and it threatens the expansion of US based companies,” he told lawmakers. “The UFC is potentially losing millions of dollars a year from piracy.”

Thus far, the music and movie industries have been at the forefront of efforts to stop the spread of online piracy. The first shot was fired in 1999, when the Recording Industry Association of America sued online file sharing company Napster for copyright infringement. Since then, the black market for content — and the technology to provide it — has exploded in popularity.

Despite massive campaigns to educate fans on the illegal practice, streaming and sharing websites have become big business, and virtually impossible to curb when hosted in countries with lax copyright laws.

In recent years, the RIAA has begun suing individuals for illegal downloading, a practice that carries on today. Hollywood has targeted websites that carry pirated movies. Last July, Warner Bros. launched a massive campaign to halt the illegal download of The Dark Knight and failed to stem a tide of leaks and links that allowed seven million people to watch the blockbuster movie, according to The New York Times.

The fight industry has by and large limited their anti-piracy efforts to the online equivalent of a cease-and-desist, contacting websites that carry illegal content with a notice that they are in violation of copyright laws. Websites like Justin.tv, one of the biggest online streaming video websites, typically remove illegal broadcast feeds, though they often harbour links to sites that carry other feeds.

An angry White said his company had been considering legal action for years but mounting losses had forced action.

“It’s going to be a battle, man,” he said. “It’s going to be a battle, but I’m ready to (expletive) fight,” he said. “We’re gonna go after them, we’re gonna go after them hard, and we’re gonna hurt ‘em.”

Lawrence Epstein, the UFC’s general legal counsel, said the company could subpoena websites that carry illegal content for the IP addresses and user information of people who watch and download UFC fights, though he declined to say when that would happen.

“We’re looking at all of our legal options, and I wouldn’t rule out anything when it comes to fighting this problem,” said Epstein.

White said the UFC’s anti-piracy team monitors illegal streams during events and aggressively pursues offending websites, though he admitted suing websites and individuals would be a costly effort.

“(Piracy) hasn’t cost us anything compared to what it’s going to cost us to go after these guys,” he said. “It’s gonna cost us a lot of money, but guess what—it’s gonna cost them a lot of money. It’s gonna get to the point where it’s like, you know what, (expletive) it, maybe we shouldn’t pirate MMA any more. These websites … you got these websites like Justin.tv, and they pirate all kinds of things. They play all kinds of (expletive) on there. Well, we’re gonna make it where it’s not worth it to put UFC events up on the website.”

And with at least 12 pay-per-view events a year — at $44.95 US a pop, $55.95 for the HD version — UFC fans may be forced to ask if it’s worth it. Currently, the promotion has two authorized providers of internet pay-per-view—UFC.com, and Yahoo! Sports, at the same price as the standard television broadcast. Epstein says the internet price is mandated by the promotion’s contract with pay-per-view providers like DirecTV and DISH Network and cannot be lowered.

Epstein says an average of eight to ten people split a legal UFC pay-per-view broadcast, bringing the price down to around $5 a head (plus beer and pizza), and events are often available in bars and clubs around the city. But for many fans under 21 — the so-called “Generation Wired” — the choice is simple.

UFC commentator Joe Rogan understands the promotion’s plight but thinks an internet crackdown is an unnecessary step.

“I think that kind of stifles innovation,” he said. “It stifles the direction the internet is going. I like things being out there. I think people are always going to buy UFC pay-per-views. You’re going to get a much better experience watching it on your television than all stretched out looking fuzzy and pixilated.

“They’re trying to protect their money, but the internet is a strange animal.”

Epstein said the UFC had joined a coalition of major sports franchises including the NFL, MLB, and NCAA, and planned to lobby lawmakers to get tough on piracy.

“Are there always going to be people that are going to steal? Yeah,” said Epstein. “There are going to be people that rob convenience stores and banks, too. You can put up bars, you can put up cameras, but people continue to do bad things. You’re not going to stop all of it. I think this is about stopping the good majority of law-abiding citizens, who without education, might not understand that what they’re doing is not the right thing to do.”

Good luck Dana (Lars) White

JUST DOWNLOAD A IP ADDRESS HIDER .. ITS THAT SIMPLE

my ip address claims me to be living in Sri Lanka. BTW i do buy ppv events


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

> Thus far, the music and movie industries have been at the forefront of efforts to stop the spread of online piracy. The first shot was fired in 1999, when the Recording Industry Association of America sued online file sharing company Napster for copyright infringement. *Since then, the black market for content — and the technology to provide it — has exploded in popularity. *


Quoyed from the article this is most likely to happen ........ all over again.

Joe Rogan once said it all "You cant stop the internet baby".



> “When people start going to jail, people will stop doing it,” White said.


Another favorite part of the article.
So I guess in the mind of Dana White nobody does drugs either.....


----------



## ashurian (Jun 2, 2008)

hide your ip address, its that simple


----------



## ashurian (Jun 2, 2008)

Although Ufc 108 turned out to be an okay card, how does dana white expect fans to buy the ppv when it looks so shitty on paper ?


----------



## TALENT (May 21, 2008)

ashurian said:


> Although Ufc 108 turned out to be an okay card, how does dana white expect fans to buy the ppv when it looks so shitty on paper ?


If it looks shitty then don't watch it. Pretty simple.


----------



## Ruckus (Oct 2, 2009)

ashurian said:


> Although Ufc 108 turned out to be an okay card, how does dana white expect fans to buy the ppv when it looks so shitty on paper ?


I realize that the casual fans to mma looked at the card and didn't see any Big Ticket names and that probably hurt the ppv's sales. More will be revealed when the numbers come out and IMO if they hit 400K+, than its all good. Personally though I was excited for the fights as every fighter needed to win, which makes for good matches. My point is this, as more and more casual fans become mma educated, the better cards like 108 will seem. 

There are 5 champions, and at best they fight 2x a year barring injuries. That said, its 10 matches. So in theory there cannot be a belt on the line at every event. 

In response to the OP, bottom line its illegal and a move by the UFC like this was inevitable. Judging by what they pay their middle and lower tier fighters, I think its safe to say they don't like cutting into their bottom line. People are still gonna stream fights regardless of consequences, yet if the UFC can recoup some of its lost revenue, damn sure DW and co. are going to go after it.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Ruckus said:


> There are 5 champions, and at best they fight 2x a year barring injuries. That said, its 10 matches. So in theory there cannot be a belt on the line at every event.


Maybe that should be their target then. 10 excellent PPV events per year each featuring a title fight. They can then compliment that with some free-to-air fight nights. I don't see why the UFC cant operate like that. I believe the PPV numbers for 10 very good events would be as good as the numbers for 16 so-so cards.

As much as I dont enjoy the piracy thing... the UFC product is clearly making individuals very rich off the back of overpriced cards.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

Ruckus said:


> I realize that the casual fans to mma looked at the card and didn't see any Big Ticket names and that probably hurt the ppv's sales. More will be revealed when the numbers come out and IMO if they hit 400K+, than its all good. Personally though I was excited for the fights as every fighter needed to win, which makes for good matches. My point is this, as more and more casual fans become mma educated, the better cards like 108 will seem.
> 
> There are 5 champions, and at best they fight 2x a year barring injuries. That said, its 10 matches. So in theory there cannot be a belt on the line at every event.
> 
> In response to the OP, bottom line its illegal and a move by the UFC like this was inevitable. Judging by what they pay their middle and lower tier fighters, I think its safe to say they don't like cutting into their bottom line.* People are still gonna stream fights regardless of consequences, yet if the UFC can recoup some of its lost revenue, damn sure DW and co. are going to go after it*.



While I understand that the ufc is trying to protect their product here is the problem I have. 

Will the UFC really recoup any money lost from illegal streaming?

The UFC is going to spend money on lawyers, and a tech team to find the illegal streams which is gonna cost them some money. Sure it will make a few people scared of using an illegal stream (a very small amount IMO). 

But are those people that no longer use illegal streams then purchase UFC cards that they would have watched illegally before? I am sure a small amount will but with factors like the current state of the economy in the U.S I really dont think all that many people will be spend $50 to $100 a month on PPV's.

The UFC needs to realize that the internet is like an open illegal drug market. For every stream or site they shut down because of illegal streaming 5 more will take the place of the one shut down.

It is a really tough question to answer, will the UFC make more money if they go the route of the music and film business???? I think that is a hard question to answer.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

I would love to support the UFC but I feel that $50 is entirely too much for a ppv. I will continue to watch them for free until the price is considerably dropped. It's that simple.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

NotDylan said:


> I would love to support the UFC but I feel that $50 is entirely too much for a ppv. I will continue to watch them for free until the price is considerably dropped. It's that simple.


Well the price isnt gonna be dropped any time soon if ever.

I get what you are saying and usually dont pay for cards that I am not all that excited about. But I do pay for cards when my favorite fighters are fighting or if there are some really interesting match-ups.


----------



## Vale_Tudo (Nov 18, 2007)

So Dana & the UFC Is gonna stop Internet piracy when Microsoft, Sony, EA and all these other juggernaut corporations cant? Yeah, I'd like to see that.

Oh, one more thing. I live up here In Scandinavia and there Is no such thing as PPV here. The events start at 4am "my time" 

So I usually just download a torrent Sunday morning when I wake up.

But what about all those UFC dvd's & shirts Ive bought? 
The internet piracy helped make UFC bigger than It would ever be without It. I can see both sides, but you cant stop the internet baby! What you should do Is make It easier and cheaper to watch It.

Have UFC.com do a lag free HD stream for half the price right after the event Is done and I'll buy that the minute I wake up.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

Something I think the UFC should look into doing is have the replay of an event at 25% or 30% off the PPV price. I'll bet they would get quite a few people to buy an event after it happens.


----------



## NATAS (Jun 30, 2008)

hahaha good f'in luck,


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

NATAS said:


> hahaha good f'in luck,


Yea I know it will never happen but is a good idea. Too bad corporations arent into "good ideas" they are into maximizing profits.


----------



## Jesy Blue (May 8, 2009)

i work for Comcast.... do you know how hard it is to stop PHYSICAL cable theft, prove it, and then keep them from not steal it again?
you want to stop INTANGIBLE cable theft? it is gonna take a lot of money.... maybe all of it.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

Vale_Tudo said:


> So Dana & the UFC Is gonna stop Internet piracy when Microsoft, Sony, EA and all these other juggernaut corporations cant? Yeah, I'd like to see that.
> 
> Oh, one more thing. I live up here In Scandinavia and there Is no such thing as PPV here. The events start at 4am "my time"
> 
> ...


Same here. No PPVs except the internet (and in the town I live currently in with 1 Mb/s streaming sucks), events start at 4 am, and I'm the only one that I know that watches MMA, so paying 45-55$ to watch an UFC event half asleep is not going to happen.

I wish I had a few friends to watch it and at a decent hour, I wouldn't have a problem dropping 5-10$ per event, like in the example.

They're going to lose more money pursuing ghosts than they're going to get.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

I know they will never get all the ppl steeling the events. That said there will be some go down but the hardcore "pirates" will always steal it. I myself buy the events but thats just me.


----------



## out 4 the count (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

I pirate a lot of stuff but mostly because it's stuff I wouldn't consider paying money for.

I've paid for every UFC since you could in England because I think it deserves my support. There might well be a lot of people that don't care that much about it to pay a lot of money to watch it live and as far as I'm concerned, who am I to stop them watching it? It may even lead to them getting involved and buying the PPVs and watching them live with their mates. 

Personally I got into the UFC through watching PRIDE/UFC/K1 reruns on an old cable channel in the early 2000s, but I could just have easily got into it from a friend recommending I download a few UFC events. From just a couple of us watching reruns when they were on, nowadays if everybody can make it (it starts at 3am for us, work, gfs etc) we have 6 people for every event.

Also there is nothing quite like watching it live in HD on my 46" LED badboy.


----------



## Zuke (Sep 22, 2006)

I love how people get mad at people from stealing cable from these HUGE MULTI NATIONAL COMPANIES that put countless local channels out of business. The local news is the real news that matters to most. Not the propaganda shown now.

I will never pay for cable, ever. Oh, no. I am stealing from a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR company run by crooks.


----------



## Jimdon (Aug 27, 2008)

I have a hard time believing when people tell me they only stream it when the card is no good, most people that i know who stream, stream all the time, most people i know who pay, pay all the time. Saying you won't pay for something, because you don't like it and then stealing it anyway is pretty petty IMO.



Zuke said:


> I love how people get mad at people from stealing cable from these HUGE MULTI NATIONAL COMPANIES that put countless local channels out of business. The local news is the real news that matters to most. Not the propaganda shown now.
> 
> I will never pay for cable, ever. Oh, no. I am stealing from a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR company run by crooks.


You realize that these huge companies simply take the losses from their actual paying customers in the form of rate increases right? You think they cover their own losses? Your stealing more out of the pocket of everyone else that actually pays for cable than you are out of the company.

Also, how many people who admit to stealing PPV's are the same people who complain in other threads about how the UFC underpays it's fighters?


----------



## footodors (Aug 26, 2007)

So, how do they plan on doing this?
I imagine a few well publicized lawsuits against individuals will be enough to scare 50% of the people from doing it anymore.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

I had no issue paying for the UFC PPV's when they were $34.99. But now that they're $50, I can't justify paying that sort of money for lackluster cards. As for streaming, I'm with the guy in this thread who mentioned just torrenting the event the day after. Who wants to suffer through the awful quality of a stream that can randomly cut out during an important part. I think even if streams begin to disappear, which they won't. Especially with as many off-shore companies as there are out there. But, even if streams were to disappear, Zuffa would still have to tackle the juggernaut of Torrenting. Which they'll never be able to control. If people are streaming to begin with, it means they've searched for alternatives to paying for an event. If they've discovered streaming, they'll soon enough discover private torrent sites to view the PPV the next day with.


----------



## bbfsluva (Oct 18, 2009)

cause everyone knows you can't pirate music, movies, games or apps anymore. they'll never stop people from pirating. and some people do only pay for "great" cards, like me. i'll only pay if there is either a championship fight or a fight that will produce a #1 contender. i just don't have 50 bucks a month to spend on something i think isn't worth it. also, the fighters aren't underpaid because of pirating, they're underpaid because dana and the fertitta's (sp) are like every other fight promoter in the world. all they care about is lining their own pockets. if they had less cards, or had lower prices, i might buy more, but who knows, as much as i despise dana white, maybe i wouldn't. all i know is, when the cards were like 24.95 and 29.95, i was buying a lot more of them.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

all i got from this thread from most ppl is 

a) stealing is OK if it is HIGHLY unlikely you will get caught and many other ppl are doing it

b) stealing is ok if you are stealing something you dont really want (i dont see how you dont want to watch the card but you are willing to steal it)

c) stealing is ok if you are stealing from rich ppl or rich corporations

anything else i missed?? i wont teach my kids that stealing is right if you think something is overpriced, i will teach them not to purchase said overpriced product. Slippery slope you all are on when you try and justify outright stealing and plz dont get it twisted in semantics, IT IS STEALING.

Instead of so many ppl spending and focusing $ to steal copywritten products perhaps they should spend an hour a day to earn $1.50 that would pay for the PPV at the end of the month or they should get some friends to chip in and maybe it would be like 25cents a day or less.... if $50 is really that mind blowing amount of $ that it is gonna seriously put a negative spin on your life you have alot more things to worry about then stealing music/ppv's/movies etc etc


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Anyone want to hear a funny story about Rogan?

I'm sure most people here are aware of MMA-TV (the main organization that the UFC is attacking for streaming). They stream every event, from Sengoku to UFC, and they have been for years. Anyways, I had the opportunity to talk with the owner of the site the other day and he informed me that Joe Rogan himself is a member lol.


EDIT: Alizio, it isn't stealing. Stealing is taking something that belongs to another. Piracy is copyright infringement. There is no "theft" to it. If people were stealing PPVs they would be taking a product that is not replaceable. Digital content has no physical matter and therefore cannot be stolen.

Also, Alizio, do you have a problem with me going down the road to watch the fight at the bar and getting nothing but a water? I could do that just as easily. The bar about half a mile from my house plays all the events.


----------



## Ruckus (Oct 2, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Maybe that should be their target then. 10 excellent PPV events per year each featuring a title fight. They can then compliment that with some free-to-air fight nights. I don't see why the UFC cant operate like that. I believe the PPV numbers for 10 very good events would be as good as the numbers for 16 so-so cards.
> 
> As much as I dont enjoy the piracy thing... the UFC product is clearly making individuals very rich off the back of overpriced cards.


Good idea, not likely though. The ppv numbers over the course of the year is too much money too pass up while still putting out 6 free shows or so. IMO the only overpriced cards over the year were some of those that had a lot of hype behind them Cards like 108 were well worth the price.



JimmyJames said:


> While I understand that the ufc is trying to protect their product here is the problem I have.
> 
> Will the UFC really recoup any money lost from illegal streaming?
> 
> ...


Excellent points JimmyJames...and valid questions as well. The UFC will never shut it all down. However some people, even possibly some on this forum will suffer some consequences as a result of receiving illegal downloads. I personally know several people who have been "shut down" for watching streams of HBO shows and others arrested for providing bootleg copies. Yet I can still walk down the street and get those same bootlegs as well as go over another friends house to watch some streams. I 'm no saint and have done my fair share of certain activities, I just chose not to live that way today and I don't participate or condone in the watching of streaming fights, just my opinion. To each there own though. Foretold is forewarned and if the hammer comes down, be willing to accept the results.

Will they get their (UFC) money back, most likely not. And after a valiant effort to try to stop the unstoppable I'm sure they will cut back. Maybe by than some sort of reasonable alternative will be available.



NotDylan said:


> I would love to support the UFC but I feel that $50 is entirely too much for a ppv. I will continue to watch them for free until the price is considerably dropped. It's that simple.


I have been watching ppv's in my home for quite some time and will continue to do so. The $50 price is really not much at all when 10-20 people show up and everyone chips in a few bucks, its that simple.


----------



## The Horticulturist (Feb 16, 2009)

Dynamic IP
Private Sites
And 50/50 buy/stream ratios from me are over and above my part.



If they think it's only UFC, and not every single type of pay media on the planet being shared, then they are mistaken.

The entire country will collapse within the next few years, so it's not like I'm ever going to lose sleep over this.

Very radical views to some, but I live in a place where I won't be persecuted and jailed for something like this.


/being way too heavy for this thread


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

footodors said:


> So, how do they plan on doing this?
> I imagine a few well publicized lawsuits against individuals will be enough to scare 50% of the people from doing it anymore.


That worked real well for movie and music industries. I mean music and movie pirating is way down.

:sarcastic12:


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

alizio said:


> all i got from this thread from most ppl is
> 
> a) stealing is OK if it is HIGHLY unlikely you will get caught and many other ppl are doing it
> 
> ...


Heh, good point.

Its also against the law to go over the speed limit. 

Everyone has their moral compass, and for some people they consider this to be a victimless crime... and for the most part imho, *it is*.

Dont get me wrong, I pay for every single UFC event ... no splitting the costs. But those that steal UFC events will NEVER pay, so there is no loss of revenue... ergo no victim.

So yeah, I agree it IS stealing... but so is speeding, talking on your cell phone while driving (in some places), not coming to a complete stop at stop signs, blasting thru yellow lights... all of which, IMHO, have much greater risk of seriously effecting innocent bystanders. 

How often are these crimes perpetrated? by each person 12x a year? hell no.
How many deaths have resulted in streaming a UFC event online?

Lets just keep this in perspective about how serious this is :bored04:


----------



## Ruckus (Oct 2, 2009)

alizio said:


> all i got from this thread from most ppl is
> 
> a) stealing is OK if it is HIGHLY unlikely you will get caught and many other ppl are doing it
> 
> ...


Thank you Alizio, couldn't have said it better.:thumb02:


----------



## Keanman (Nov 5, 2008)

While I agree that White is doing the right thing in trying to shut down streams, they are not going to get any significant revenue from doing so. Saying they are missing out on millions is a crock. How many people who are watching terrible streams that drop part way through a fight, are actually going to fork over $50 to watch a PPV when you can just wait until the next day and see it on any number of sites for free? I would venture to guess not very many. How many people are on White's payroll dedicated to finding streaming sites and shutting them down? What's their salary?

Bottom line. The UFC is doing the right thing based on principal, but they won't gain any revenue/viewers from doing so.


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

Keanman said:


> While I agree that White is doing the right thing in trying to shut down streams, they are not going to get any significant revenue from doing so. Saying they are missing out on millions is a crock. How many people who are watching terrible streams that drop part way through a fight, are actually going to fork over $50 to watch a PPV when you can just wait until the next day and see it on any number of sites for free? I would venture to guess not very many. How many people are on White's payroll dedicated to finding streaming sites and shutting them down? What's their salary?
> 
> Bottom line. The UFC is doing the right thing based on principal, but they won't gain any revenue/viewers from doing so.


I just cant watch a sporting event 'the day after'... which is why I agree with you. 

Some people will never pay... and waiting a day later to watch a bootleg copy is fine by them.

I agree that the UFC should take steps to protect their interests, its only logical that they do... but to try to make it seem like they are hapless victims is pointless.

They can try to spin it that way... but its just a money grab... if I were them, I would do the same.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

My opinion on this is that UFC should do with the internet as they did with MMA. Move TOWARDS a legitimate means of relatively cheap internet distribution. I have no claims to how possible or lucrative this would be, but fighting the internet is similar to fighting drugs, with the exception that drugs don't habitually change the game that's being contested.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> Also, Alizio, do you have a problem with me going down the road to watch the fight at the bar and getting nothing but a water? I could do that just as easily. The bar about half a mile from my house plays all the events.


 You realize that the bar paid a couple thousand $ (more depending on the size of the establishment) for the right to let people watch the event at their establishment? Whether or not they charge you a cover or drink minimum is entirely up to them, having already paid for the right to rebroadcast and has nothing to do with the piracy argument.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

I would just hate to go to jail for bootleggin ppv...."Hey Tank what you in for?" .."I killed 3 people"...What about you Syrus? "I raped 4 women and a horse"...What about you Fresh Fish???? "O ME?...ERRR UMMM I stole a PPV"


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

In contrast to what i said earlier i dont think the UFC should waste too much $ fighting these illegal streams etc.... what's the point of the copyright if you have to enforce it yourself?? To me, if you break the law, the police/fbi or whatever party responcible for enforcing that law should be the ones to do most of the work. The UFC should/could find some of the streams and give w/e info the authoritys and see what happens (likely nothing). 

It is hard to beat the internet. The internet is one of the greatest inventions ever to grace mankind but it also shows alot of ppls true colors when hiding behind screens. Stealing has become acceptable because it has become easy and anonymous. When humans are left on the honor system alone everybody seems to lose a bit of morality.


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

TraMaI said:


> EDIT: Alizio, it isn't stealing. Stealing is taking something that belongs to another. Piracy is copyright infringement. There is no "theft" to it. If people were stealing PPVs they would be taking a product that is not replaceable. Digital content has no physical matter and therefore cannot be stolen.
> 
> Also, Alizio, do you have a problem with me going down the road to watch the fight at the bar and getting nothing but a water? I could do that just as easily. The bar about half a mile from my house plays all the events.


This is just tricky semantics, imo. Theft is knowingly depriving someone else of something they have a right to, without their consent. If you steal my bike, you are depriving me of my ability to use that bike. If you return it after an hour, it is still stealing since you deprived me the ability to use it for that hour. If you steal my ideas, you obviously aren't denying me of my right to use those ideas, since they are intangible. What you are denying me, in that case, is my right to be rewarded for my ideas/efforts. Which, to my mind, is every bit as immoral as stealing my physical property.

The difference between streaming and going to the bar, is that the bar pays PPV fees in line with their seating capacity. I have no problem with you going to the bar and ordering a water and watching the fight. The bar pays for your share of the fight, so the UFC isn't being stolen from. You are effectively stealing from the bar, in that case. And they have it completely within their power to police that, by asking you to leave their establishment if you aren't ordering anything.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

is it still illegal if i dont download anything? what if i just stream it?


----------



## imrik32 (Dec 31, 2006)

G_Land said:


> I would just hate to go to jail for bootleggin ppv...."Hey Tank what you in for?" .."I killed 3 people"...What about you Syrus? "I raped 4 women and a horse"...What about you Fresh Fish???? "O ME?...ERRR UMMM I stole a PPV"


You or anyone else will never go to jail for it. 99% of the wireless internet connections are open with no security, and on those you can't prove who actually accessed the information with any solid certainty. Not to mention the fact that you would be the last person to get into trouble after the website hosting it, then the ISP, then you. 

The ufc will accomplish nothing with this, I doubt they'll even try.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

speeding isnt a big deal til somebody hits somebody in your family. Same for cell phones etc etc. I tell you this, if somebody hit my kid because they were texting their BFF or w/e while driving..... i would be in jail for life.

Morals are morals to me. If you can honestly tell me in your heart you dont believe watching a copywritten broadcast on an ILLEGAL stream (low quality and shitty feed usually:thumb02 then more power to you. Unfortunately i dont feel the same and i cant teach my kids the same, i think small justifications like this always lead down the road to bigger and bigger ones.

I'd like to add, im not some stooge who just follows laws some bureaucrat in Ottawa (or w/e captial you may be from) decides is good for me. There are some unjust laws imo (gay marriage, marijuana, drinking age to name a few) that shouldnt be followed by the majority in order to gain change, that's how the people have the power. To me tho, most laws, like the ones said earlier (speeding, texting, drugs) are actually there for a reason. I feel as tho the UFC is just trying to do fair business, if you dont like the product or the price tag you can simply show your disapproval by not watching it. If you go out of your way to make time to get food, set up your PC to your TV, go thru multiple crappy streams to find a good one etc etc etc, i dont see how this isnt premediated theft. 

Unless you believe anything broadcast has no ownership then we open a different bag a worms i dont have time for today


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

alizio said:


> speeding isnt a big deal til somebody hits somebody in your family. Same for cell phones etc etc. I tell you this, if somebody hit my kid because they were texting their BFF or w/e while driving..... i would be in jail for life.
> 
> Morals are morals to me. If you can honestly tell me in your heart you dont believe watching a copywritten broadcast on an ILLEGAL stream (low quality and shitty feed usually:thumb02 then more power to you. Unfortunately i dont feel the same and i cant teach my kids the same, i think small justifications like this always lead down the road to bigger and bigger ones.


I get you point on how "stealing" is wrong, but to compare streaming a UFC event to speeding and killing someone is a huge leap to take there.


----------



## Freiermuth (Nov 19, 2006)

alizio said:


> speeding isnt a big deal til somebody hits somebody in your family. Same for cell phones etc etc. I tell you this, if somebody hit my kid because they were texting their BFF or w/e while driving..... i would be in jail for life.
> 
> Morals are morals to me. If you can honestly tell me in your heart you dont believe watching a copywritten broadcast on an ILLEGAL stream (low quality and shitty feed usually:thumb02 then more power to you. Unfortunately i dont feel the same and i cant teach my kids the same, i think small justifications like this always lead down the road to bigger and bigger ones.


Like murdering someone out of revenge? Haha J/K on that, I have kids too.

I've watched a few torrented UFC events but that's usually when I'm not around when they are live. Do I think that is leading me down a slippery slope? Hell no my man, it's a F'd up world and watching an illegal UFC event isn't even something I bat an eye about.


----------



## Inkdot (Jun 15, 2009)

It's all about supply and demand. 50$ imho is crazy, who wanna pay that for one pay-per-view? Luckily I live in sweden and watch it legal and free (if I feel like staying up till dawn that is), if I don't wanna sit up all night I just DL a torrent the other day. But I don't think thats wrong, or stealing, because I'm already paying for the channel that airs it live.

If they (the UFC) had online streaming for 10-15$ I think alot of this would solve itself.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

JimmyJames said:


> I get you point on how "stealing" is wrong, but to compare streaming a UFC event to speeding and killing someone is a huge leap to take there.


 i agree but i also never said the punishment for stealing a PPV should be the same as for killing somebody.

I called it theft. It should be charged as theft under because that's what it is. Unless we want to change all the broadcasting rights on the entire planet but that will take some doing and im not sure why we would wreck so many industries??? What is worth paying for?? and if it isnt worth paying for what is ok to take for free?? justin.tv etc make $ off ads, they are stealing another product in order to make $$... how could this be seen as proper??

Freiermuth, more power to ya bro, just expressing how i feel aswell, if it's no big deal to you im not telling you it should be

btw if you dont agree with me that's cool, im not saying your a bad person, at least have the courage to have a decent discussion here as to why you dont agree instead of neg rep, thx  The slippery slope doesnt nessicarily invovle you personally but us as a society. If we justify this to our kids, what will they justify next?? Seee where im going?? You may never go further then stealing a little music here and there who knows what we are teaching by example to the next generation tho.... i dont want to go there, it is easier to tell my kids all forms of taking something that isnt yours or something that cost $ for free is stealing.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

I was 5 years old. I stole this fishing bobber from somewhere, when my mom found out she drove right back there and made me give it back. It was the worst experience of my life, however I was set straight by that. I never stole anything again, and I greatly look down on people who steal for any reason other than survival. However, I have never felt wrong in anyway by streaming a PPV.


----------



## SSD (Aug 8, 2009)

I admit it, I have streamed a few ppvs but I couldn't help it--the ppv wasn't worth the price. They need a better system. Can you imagine if they made UFC 108 $30.00 (which is still above its worth)? They'd easily get 800,000 buys. The biggest reason why the UFC is set at such a high price is because they don't want to appear as a "cheaper" product than WWE and boxing. The funny thing is that DW turns around and tells everyone he cares about his fans--hell we still haven't gotten our mega events free on network tv.


----------



## footodors (Aug 26, 2007)

xeberus said:


> I was 5 years old. I stole this fishing bobber from somewhere, when my mom found out she drove right back there and made me give it back. It was the worst experience of my life, however I was set straight by that. I never stole anything again, and I greatly look down on people who steal for any reason other than survival. However, I have never felt wrong in anyway by streaming a PPV.


ha ha that about sums it up for me!


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

First off, don't take offense to this. ;-)

Second, this action that Dana is taking won't put much of a dent in things. He may succeed in taking down a site or three, but they'll just pop up again elsewhere; most likely in places where American laws don't reach. I bet he loses more money fighting this than he would if he just ignored it.

Personal: I get the PPVs via P2P the day after the broadcast, sometimes. Other times I pay for it. Or watch in a bar. It depends if I can afford it or not, plain & simple. And guess what - if I literally don't have the $, then nobody is losing any revenue if I download it, since I couldn't have paid for it anyway. No harm, no foul. And that's why laws exist in the first place - to prevent individuals from getting hurt. No harm, no foul, no crime. (mind you, unjust laws exist)


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

obv the music industry didnt stop pirating either but they did put a nice dent into it and shut down pretty much all major ones


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

If our generation would boycott one blockbuster movie, one major cd, or in this case, one major UFC ppv event, the MPAA/ RIAA / Lars Ulrich / Dana White would STFU and the quality of not only the product, but a new age of information use would skyrocket.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

This thread baffles me. Especially seeing as how subjects of morale such as thievery are brought up. The act of stealing is far different from breaking the law of copyrite infringement. It surprises me that such things are being confused with each other.

The situation is: A company(UFC) is using PPV as a method to enforce that if one should view their events they have to pay money to do so.

The argument: If people are viewing this product in a way that is not intended by the UFC, they are _stealing_ it.

I personally don't understand the logic that connects the two statements. Are people who pirate the UFC avoiding paying money for something that other people are? Yes, obviously. But stealing isn't the word that describes what they are doing. Stealing is the word that major corporations are using in attempt to label the act of pirating as morally subversive. 

The UFC has no ownership over any of the human beings who fight in the cage.
The UFC has no ownership over the radio waves.
And lastly, the UFC has no ownership over the internet.

Yes, the UFC pays fighters in a venue they rented to entertain potential individuals. However, viewing or watching the content they'd rather have you pay for has nothing to do with the word stealing. 

To imply that pirating is the same thing as stealing would be the same thing as saying the UFC owns the air, therefore using the radio waves being transmitted through that air is stealing from them. It's nonsense.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

Servatose said:


> This thread baffles me. Especially seeing as how subjects of morale such as thievery are brought up. The act of stealing is far different from breaking the law of copyrite infringement. It surprises me that such things are being confused with each other.
> 
> The situation is: A company(UFC) is using PPV as a method to enforce that if one should view their events they have to pay money to do so.
> 
> ...


 honestly the only nonsense is to really reach for ways to justify taking something that you know isnt free for free but to each his own, if putting a different word on it and putting a different spin on it makes you sleep better at night more power to you. I guess nobody should pay for phones, internet, tv etc etc by this (flawed) logic. Hell the UFC and all those industries midaswell shut down.

btw the UFC doesnt pocket the entire ppv fee..... ppl think all $50 goes to them?? hehe

btw be nice to me, chumps like me are the reason you get to see high calibre fights monthly


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

alizio said:


> honestly the only nonsense is to really reach for ways to justify taking something that you know isnt free for free but to each his own, if putting a different word on it and putting a different spin on it makes you sleep better at night more power to you. I guess nobody should pay for phones, internet, tv etc etc by this (flawed) logic. Hell the UFC and all those industries midaswell shut down.
> 
> btw the UFC doesnt pocket the entire ppv fee..... ppl think all $50 goes to them?? hehe
> 
> btw be nice to me, chumps like me are the reason you get to see high calibre fights monthly


I have a couple of issues with your post. First, the very last sentence assumes that you're unique in how you pay regularly for UFC events. Whether or not I do, the assumption that I do not is faulty.

Also, a brief statement regarding where you called my logic faulty. Unless you actually provide reasoning as to why you think it's faulty other than saying simply that it is faulty I'm just going to assume you're trolling.

The beginning of your post also discounts all of my points by simply saying 'The only nonsense is (X)'. Again, something that without support I'm simply going to label as blatant trolling.

Now, if we're going to have a discussion; something which I assumed these boards were designed for, at least do so in the proper manner so that we can clearly understand each other.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

Servatose said:


> I have a couple of issues with your post. First, the very last sentence assumes that you're unique in how you pay regularly for UFC events. Whether or not I do, the assumption that I do not is faulty.
> 
> Also, a brief statement regarding where you called my logic faulty. Unless you actually provide reasoning as to why you think it's faulty other than saying simply that it is faulty I'm just going to assume you're trolling.
> 
> ...


 the last part was a joke 

taking something that costs $ for free is stealing. All the fancy talk you want to do to circle around that fact doesnt matter to me. Whether or not it is easy to cut in and view their feed or not is irrelivent to me. I cannot morally look at it as anything other then stealing. Written law is not the only law i follow. I follow Gods laws aswell and i consider this stealing. I guess that makes me a troll. 

It's pretty clear the card would not even be available to view if everybody just viewed it for free.

You know your really reaching for validation bringing up airwaves and such.... oh it's not stealing it's infringement... the original ppl did not state "i took the event because the UFC does not own airwaves". They said "too expensive", "not stacked enough cards", "they are rich anyways" etc etc.... reasons they would not use in any other situation for say a car.... oh its not worth that much i better steal it?? the company that makes it is rich?? only when confronted with the fact that these reasons are invalid do ppl start to reach for other reasons why its ok.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

alizio said:


> the last part was a joke
> 
> taking something that costs $ for free is stealing. All the fancy talk you want to do to circle around that fact doesnt matter to me. Whether or not it is easy to cut in and view their feed or not is irrelivent to me. I cannot morally look at it as anything other then stealing. Written law is not the only law i follow. I follow Gods laws aswell and i consider this stealing. I guess that makes me a troll.


While I can respect that value of another person's opinion, I'd like to say that I mostly understood that the majority of this thread's posters who were referring to pirating as an act of stealing are doing so out of religious faith. 

I'm simply saying, that the corporations labeling pirating as stealing are doing so, so that the religious community relates pirating and stealing; thereby creating a large group of our society who is therefore against pirating, because they believe it to be violating one of the ten commandments, or whatever texts their religious book dictates they should not steal in. Essentially, what I believe is that you're falling into the hands of these corporations by accepting their definition of stealing. If I sell precious gems, and you pick up a precious gem from somewhere on the ground -- that doesn't mean you're stealing from me, because I don't own the earth. 

It is in fact my belief that it is morally subverse for these companies to claim ownership over the things they are, and furthermore I find it more appalling that they'd attempt to use propaganda against the spiritual communities in attempt to accumulate wealth. I attempted to elaborate on my points in my original post; a post I believe you did not give much of a chance. But alas, if you continue to disagree it would seem we are at an impasse, and are forced to respectfully disagree with one another.


----------



## Zemelya (Sep 23, 2007)

there is so much people who have no idea that streaming exists and even if you tell them the have 0 idea on how to find it (and it is kind of challenging to find good stream)...

I would keep it on the down low, maybe go ahead with laws and shit but stay away from 'advertising' the streaming - some will be like 'what ?? you can watch this shit for free????' 

Also quite possibly, going after streamers will only help to advance the technology. remember Morpheus and don't even remember the name 'Satellite' something? Compare it to torrents now. 
same with streaming - now it's all ghetto, shitty apps and quality - kill that and some powerful prog with encryption and super easy access will come out. (and that's for sure)


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

I can see why alot of people dont pay for events, especially overseas. I always have had enough money to pay for events. But not everyone else does. I just dont understand why every event costs the consumer the same amount of money-50$. The purses are not always the same for the fighters. I mean Tito-Forrest 50$? That was the first time that I just said no, no ####ng way! Maybe if they would lower the price for less important fights and charge the 50$ for top shelf fights they would do better. I wouldnt have a problem paying for Machida- Shogun rematch but rashad-silva to me is a 29.99 fight card at best.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Servatose said:


> This thread baffles me. Especially seeing as how subjects of morale such as thievery are brought up. The act of stealing is far different from breaking the law of copyrite infringement. It surprises me that such things are being confused with each other.
> 
> The situation is: A company(UFC) is using PPV as a method to enforce that if one should view their events they have to pay money to do so.
> 
> ...


 The same entity that defines and enforces 'stealing' as a crime has defined 'copyright infringement' as a crime, namely government. Yes, it is a different crime than theft of physical property, but to argue that since it's not identical to stealing, it's not a significant crime, is silly. When the UFC exercises its copyright as it sees fit, it's obeying the law. When individuals violate that copyright, they are breaking it. The law is not immutable, but Zuffa is acting in good faith when they produce their content; those who knowingly take it without compensation are not. Arguing over semantics won't change that.

Ownership of the medium of distribution or fighters is irrelevant to ownership of the copyrighted work itself, which Zuffa happens to own. In both cases, Zuffa contracts with companies and individuals who do have ownership. The satellite companies own the signal they broadcast through government licensing and the fighters grant Zuffa ownership of their performance through contract.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

Zemelya said:


> there is so much people who have no idea that streaming exists and even if you tell them the have 0 idea on how to find it (and it is kind of challenging to find good stream)...
> 
> I would keep it on the down low, maybe go ahead with laws and shit but stay away from 'advertising' the streaming - some will be like 'what ?? you can watch this shit for free????'
> 
> ...


AudioGalaxy Satellite if my memory serves me well


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

I'll be honest. I have both torrented and stream ufc events but I buy them when I can. My financial situation sucks. Hard. I nearly died at work and have been a long time in recovery. Like just now being able to look for work for the first time in 6 months. I don't like having to do this but I love mma. I want to watch it and for the last half a year it has been my only real option.

I will own up to torrenting pretty much every UFC event. Even the ones I buy. I study mma and to do that I need to rewatch fights.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

jasvll said:


> The same entity that defines and enforces 'stealing' as a crime has defined 'copyright infringement' as a crime, namely government. Yes, it is a different crime than theft of physical property, but to argue that since it's not identical to stealing, it's not a significant crime, is silly. When the UFC exercises its copyright as it sees fit, it's obeying the law. When individuals violate that copyright, they are breaking it. The law is not immutable, but Zuffa is acting in good faith when they produce their content; those who knowingly take it without compensation are not. Arguing over semantics won't change that.
> 
> Ownership of the medium of distribution or fighters is irrelevant to ownership of the copyrighted work itself, which Zuffa happens to own. In both cases, Zuffa contracts with companies and individuals who do have ownership. The satellite companies own the signal they broadcast through government licensing and the fighters grant Zuffa ownership of their performance through contract.


Nor am I disputing whether or not it's something that is indeed against the law. However, I'm attempting to put it into perspective. Indeed, by pirating as a US citizen, you're breaking the law. But attempting to make a connection to that law -- that by breaking it you're stealing is completely off. That's all I was saying.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Servatose said:


> Nor am I disputing whether or not it's something that is indeed against the law. However, I'm attempting to put it into perspective. Indeed, by pirating as a US citizen, you're breaking the law. But attempting to make a connection to that law -- that by breaking it you're stealing is completely off. That's all I was saying.


I got that, but the goal seems to be separating 'copyright infringement' from 'stealing' semantically, in order to separate the two morally. The first one works, semantically and legally, but the latter doesn't inherently follow from that.


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

What I don't understand is, all these sh*theads who calculate "damages," well, are the positives added? 

For example: 
"X" is reading Digg, comes across a vid of a KO. He has never seen the UFC before, but he's heard of it. X d/ls the next PPV; he was never going to pay for it, one way or another. 

X likes it, but it's something like Forrest v. Tito II. He's intrigued, but it isn't great. Still, X buys a UFC t-shirt at Spencer's for $30.00. Then, he gets the UFC video game for $40.00. 

Dana and troup come in. Rabble Rabble Rabble! 



Dana Ulrich said:


> F*ck you, c*cksucker. You stole our sh*t. With the way d/l's are calculated, you owe us $10k. FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!


Well, let's see. The T-shirt cost the UFC roughly $1 after manufacturing and selling it to Spencers for $7.00 in mass quantity. 

Profit: $6.00. 

The UFC video game, after all was said and done, let's say they make $30 on the purchase. 

Total Profit: $36.00.

Total they would have made from the PPV, after expenses: Roughly $10.00

So, in the "stealing" of the PPV, that X never would have bought anyways, the UFC made a profit of $26.00, more than if X had simply bought the PPV, and wouldn't have had the $ to buy the hat or the video game. 

Mind you, this was how CD sales were originally calculated. When people d/led the CDs from Napster, people often went out and bought the CD for greater quality. CD sales were NEVER higher than around 2000, when "piracy" was at its peak. 

Then, some a$$holes decided to fudge the accounting, dismiss any profits gained from it, and multiplied it by fictitious numbers. That's why songs are like $35,000.00. It's bullshit number games that the law is too stupid to figure out.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> What I don't understand is, all these sh*theads who calculate "damages," well, are the positives added?


 Yeah, the RIAA and MPAA have made a name for themselves lying about the effects of piracy on their business models and using it to justify the self-serving legislation they 'lobby' for.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised to see Zuffa suddenly taking a hard line approach to this after ignoring it for years, considering all the effort they put into appearing to be of the people. Maybe Zuffa lawyers paid the accountants to make the losses look worse and the marketing department to keep quiet about the promotional benefits in order to raise their own bottom line.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

alizio said:


> obv the music industry didnt stop pirating either but they did put a nice dent into it and shut down pretty much all major ones


This statement is laughable. Back in the days of Kazaa and Napster there really weren't that many people doing it (Slow internet, not many people were computer savvy enough to do it without destroying the computer etc). Now, after all of the press that the RIAA brought to piracy there have been MULTIPLE avenues opened up for file sharing. Back then it was mainly P2P client sharing with a bit of FTP and mIRC thrown in if you knew how to do it and where to go (Probably constituted about 1% of piracy as it was hard when you didn't know what to do, P2P is point and click). Now you have massive sites used for direct downloads (Rapidshare, megaupload and the like have already come under fire for this, but it did nothing), you have absured amounts of bit torrent sites, both public and private, you STILL have P2P softwares in Limewire, bearshare, alliance etc and you still have FTP except it's hidden much better. In no way the RIAA put any sort of "Dent" in piracy, if anything they made it grow much, much more powerful by spreading attention to it.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

I guess Joe Rogan won't be allowed to say "you can't stop the internet" anymore when Goldberg reads off the penalties for pirating a UFC PPV during the broadcast.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

aerius said:


> I guess Joe Rogan won't be allowed to say "you can't stop the internet" anymore when Goldberg reads off the penalties for pirating a UFC PPV during the broadcast.


Well, he's quoted in the article as being against this move, so that could get interesting.


----------



## sicc (Mar 4, 2007)

Wow Dana, I'm sure the pirates are shaking in their pirate boots right now. No other company can put a dent in piracy but somehow Zuffa is going to get it done? Lol, good luck idiots.


----------



## sicc (Mar 4, 2007)

alizio said:


> obv the music industry didnt stop pirating either but they did put a nice dent into it and shut down pretty much all major ones


I lol'd.

http://www.warez-bb.org/ is my favorite.

It's one of the top 500 sites on the web.

They have 1.5 million registered members. And this is just where I go to get my stuff, god knows how many other sites there are out there(torrents, FTP, usenet, ETC.)


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> What I don't understand is, all these sh*theads who calculate "damages," well, are the positives added?
> 
> For example:
> "X" is reading Digg, comes across a vid of a KO. He has never seen the UFC before, but he's heard of it. X d/ls the next PPV; he was never going to pay for it, one way or another.
> ...


So, let's say you own a work truck with your business logo painted on the side. Someone steals it and drives it all over town. Should they be given a pass for all the free advertising they gave you? What if that logo is pasted across every news outlet when the guy wrecks your truck in a high-speed chase? If anything, you should probably be paying him for his services, right?

I'm not disputing that the numbers get inflated. But the "free advertising" bit is an absurd rationalization for people who just want free stuff.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

jasvll said:


> The first one works, semantically and legally, but the latter doesn't inherently follow from that.


I would say you are correct, if you were to make that statement about most. However, as I highlighted upon in my previous posts -- I believe the reason for that is, the industries fighting against pirating believe they can rally certain major culture groups against pirating by illustrating it as morally questionable. And what better way than labeling it as 'stealing'? What I'm suggesting is the label is nothing more than propaganda that attempts to eliminate the legal barrier between pirating and stealing. And as you put; if the law currently distinguishes between the two, why can't we?


----------



## UFC on VHS (Dec 16, 2008)

Im not a theif the UFC charge $65 a HD card in Canada. **** that drp it down to $39.99 and I will buy it more often then 3 times a year.


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

Fordness said:


> So, let's say you own a work truck with your business logo painted on the side. Someone steals it and drives it all over town. Should they be given a pass for all the free advertising they gave you? What if that logo is pasted across every news outlet when the guy wrecks your truck in a high-speed chase? If anything, you should probably be paying him for his services, right?
> 
> I'm not disputing that the numbers get inflated. But the "free advertising" bit is an absurd rationalization for people who just want free stuff.


1) Where did I say anything about advertising? 
2) Offset the amount of the truck. For your analogy to be in sync w/ mine, it's more like someone stole the "5.. $5... $5 Footlong" sign at Subway and ran around town w/ it.


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

TraMaI said:


> This statement is laughable. Back in the days of Kazaa and Napster there really weren't that many people doing it (Slow internet, not many people were computer savvy enough to do it without destroying the computer etc). Now, after all of the press that the RIAA brought to piracy there have been MULTIPLE avenues opened up for file sharing. Back then it was mainly P2P client sharing with a bit of FTP and mIRC thrown in if you knew how to do it and where to go (Probably constituted about 1% of piracy as it was hard when you didn't know what to do, P2P is point and click). Now you have massive sites used for direct downloads (Rapidshare, megaupload and the like have already come under fire for this, but it did nothing), you have absured amounts of bit torrent sites, both public and private, you STILL have P2P softwares in Limewire, bearshare, alliance etc and you still have FTP except it's hidden much better. In no way the RIAA put any sort of "Dent" in piracy, if anything they made it grow much, much more powerful by spreading attention to it.


That's complete conjecture. You even listed several reasons why piracy wasn't as common back in the kazaa/napster days as it is now (slow connections, etc.). Blaming it all on RIAA trying to shut them down is misguided. You have to think that for some of the people who said "wow, I can get free stuff online?!" there were also some that said "wow, I could be prosecuted for this?" or "now that I've heard some convincing arguments about why this is morally wrong, I think I'll stop doing it".

Maybe them going after pirates backfired, and maybe it didn't. I'm not sure anyone could ever put their finger on the exact role it played. Too many variables.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Servatose said:


> I would say you are correct, if you were to make that statement about most. However, as I highlighted upon in my previous posts -- I believe the reason for that is, the industries fighting against pirating believe they can rally certain major culture groups against pirating by illustrating it as morally questionable. And what better way than labeling it as 'stealing'? What I'm suggesting is the label is nothing more than propaganda that attempts to eliminate the legal barrier between pirating and stealing. And as you put; if the law currently distinguishes between the two, why can't we?


Because as I suggested, it *is* the moral equivalent of stealing. 

The legal distinction actually has copyright infringement as the greater crime (thanks to the lobbying of the entities in question); it's almost always a federal crime, and there's atypically broad international cooperation in enforcement (yet another sign of the corporatocracy in action). 

The semantic and legal distinctions likely only exists because the definition of 'stealing' came long before the printing press, patents, broadcasting, or the internet. 

Neither of these has any bearing on the morality of acquiring something without paying for it. The simplest test I can come up with is the 100% scenario, where everyone that views the UFC product does it without compensating Zuffa. How are the fighter's paid? The cameramen? The work crew? There is value being 'stolen' here, whether it's stored in a discrete, portable, and non-duplicable medium or not.


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> 1) Where did I say anything about advertising?
> 2) Offset the amount of the truck. For your analogy to be in sync w/ mine, it's more like someone stole the "5.. $5... $5 Footlong" sign at Subway and ran around town w/ it.


1) I think the whole point of your post was that the "positives" of pirating weren't being addressed. Which was followed by a long example of a guy who hadn't ever heard of MMA before stumbling upon an illegal stream which then enticed him to buy a bunch of UFC merchandise. I guess I thought that constituted "free advertising". 

2) It's still theft, no matter how much better off Subway is afterward. Subway could choose not to file charges, if they prefer the advertising in lieu of keeping their sign. But the UFC obviously doesn't feel that way about it.


----------



## Jesy Blue (May 8, 2009)

Zuke said:


> I love how people get mad at people from stealing cable from these HUGE MULTI NATIONAL COMPANIES that put countless local channels out of business. The local news is the real news that matters to most. Not the propaganda shown now.
> 
> I will never pay for cable, ever. Oh, no. I am stealing from a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR company run by crooks.





Jimdon said:


> You realize that these huge companies simply take the losses from their actual paying customers in the form of rate increases right? You think they cover their own losses? Your stealing more out of the pocket of everyone else that actually pays for cable than you are out of the company.


actually, none of this is correct. 
cable companies don't put local channels out of business; all local channels are available on cable services at the minimum service level for the area.
however you want to get your local news is fine, but cable WANTS more channels to be around, local or digital.

unless someone reports cable theft happening we normally won't know. we find 5% of cable theft accidentally by routine maintenance checks of the lines and someone was sloppy, i.e.: MORONS! we don't increase rates, the channels usually increase the amount we have to they them to provide their services, and we just pass that increase to all of you.


cable is a grocery store. you can buy many things here, and if someone else wants to sell something people want then we'll sell it, no matter who makes it. if someone shoplifts, well that sucks. if the manufacture increases the MSRP, then it simply costs more now and we sell it to you for the increased price.


if you want to speak more on this we can split off to a separate topic. 
i still think unless some super hacking police department is created that rivals the skill of the movie Hackers, this will not stop happening. 
CRASH OVERDRIVE!!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Fordness said:


> 1) I think the whole point of your post was that the "positives" of pirating weren't being addressed. Which was followed by a long example of a guy who hadn't ever heard of MMA before stumbling upon an illegal stream which then enticed him to buy a bunch of UFC merchandise. I guess I thought that constituted "free advertising".
> 
> 2) It's still theft, no matter how much better off Subway is afterward. Subway could choose not to file charges, if they prefer the advertising in lieu of keeping their sign. But the UFC obviously doesn't feel that way about it.


 He seemed to be arguing from a purely business perspective. If the losses are being exceeded by revenues brought in by the 'free' promotion of the product, spending a ton of money on legally enforcing their copyright would be a financial mistake.


----------



## Servatose (Apr 21, 2008)

jasvll said:


> Because as I suggested, it *is* the moral equivalent of stealing.
> 
> The legal distinction actually has copyright infringement as the greater crime (thanks to the lobbying of the entities in question); it's almost always a federal crime, and there's atypically broad international cooperation in enforcement (yet another sign of the corporatocracy in action).
> 
> ...



I enjoy your points, they make for some good discussion. What interests me most is the statement you made regarding the, as you called it "100% scenario," I thought this accurately conveyed the point you appear to be backing.

Essentially, I both agree and disagree with you. First, I'll agree that when looking at a situation like this, that 100% scenario seems to be an accurate means of breaking it down into perspective. However, my disagreement -- which isn't precisely a full-on disagreement, would have me looking toward reasons why some people are paying and some aren't. I think one might be surprised how often the reason for not buying is money. I personally enjoy nothing more than having a couple of friends over, sharing a pizza and some beer. But, with the current recession, it's not easy to cough over $50 every time you want to see a UFC, and if you're an avid fight fan not watching it is simply out of question. So, essentially I agree, if you're going to watch UFC and you can afford to pay the PPV, you should buy it. You're supporting the fighters and the company trying to give those fighters a venue; whether or not it be for personal profit, they are still attempting to give the fighter's a place to fight. But I'd ask you this, if you couldn't afford it, would you have someone simply not view those fights?


----------



## Fordness (May 2, 2008)

jasvll said:


> He seemed to be arguing from a purely business perspective. If the losses are being exceeded by revenues brought in by the 'free' promotion of the product, spending a ton of money on legally enforcing their copyright would be a financial mistake.


I mistook his intentions, then. For that I apologize.

"Free advertising" is pretty much a mantra among piracy supporters. I just kind of assumed that was what he was getting at. Again, I apologize for that.


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

jasvll said:


> He seemed to be arguing from a purely business perspective. If the losses are being exceeded by revenues brought in by the 'free' promotion of the product, spending a ton of money on legally enforcing their copyright would be a financial mistake.


Exactly. The UFC is making more money than what they are losing. Don't piss on our legs and tell us it is raining. 



Fordness said:


> I mistook his intentions, then. For that I apologize.
> 
> "Free advertising" is pretty much a mantra among piracy supporters. I just kind of assumed that was what he was getting at. Again, I apologize for that.


No need to apologize, buddy. Repped you for the discussion. :thumb02:


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

I love the all the high horse riding imbeciles who ironicaly tell the rest of people that NOT equating Copy Rights Infringements to stealing is just a way of making one self feel beter about themselves and it's just a matter of semantics.

A crime is a crime, and NO-ONE is arguing about this not being illigal as per current laws, however if you're gonna be a dumbass, and if it's a crime still why not then call it stealing? well why not call it Murder then? Just because its deficult for some people to conceptialize the difference between stealing and copy rights infringment, doesn't mean stupid things have to accepted.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

So during one of the worst economic years in our history the boys at Zuffa aren't happy with raking in 350 million? Sorry if I don't shed a tear for Dana and friends...


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Servatose said:


> I enjoy your points, they make for some good discussion. What interests me most is the statement you made regarding the, as you called it "100% scenario," I thought this accurately conveyed the point you appear to be backing.
> 
> Essentially, I both agree and disagree with you. First, I'll agree that when looking at a situation like this, that 100% scenario seems to be an accurate means of breaking it down into perspective. However, my disagreement -- which isn't precisely a full-on disagreement, would have me looking toward reasons why some people are paying and some aren't. I think one might be surprised how often the reason for not buying is money. I personally enjoy nothing more than having a couple of friends over, sharing a pizza and some beer. But, with the current recession, it's not easy to cough over $50 every time you want to see a UFC, and if you're an avid fight fan not watching it is simply out of question. So, essentially I agree, if you're going to watch UFC and you can afford to pay the PPV, you should buy it. You're supporting the fighters and the company trying to give those fighters a venue; whether or not it be for personal profit, they are still attempting to give the fighter's a place to fight. But I'd ask you this, if you couldn't afford it, would you have someone simply not view those fights?


I'm not here to judge. I've watched events, illicitly, we'll call it. That wasn't my point in posting. If a person is comfortable with it, do it all day, just don't make excuses for why it's okay for you (generally speaking, not you individually) to do it because of x, y, or z, especially when the paying customers are subsidizing your free ride.

-------------------------------------



rogi said:


> I love the all the high horse riding imbeciles who ironicaly tell the rest of people that NOT equating Copy Rights Infringements to stealing is just a way of making one self feel beter about themselves and it's just a matter of semantics.
> 
> A crime is a crime, and NO-ONE is arguing about this not being illigal as per current laws, however if you're gonna be a dumbass, and if it's a crime still why not then call it stealing? well why not call it Murder then? Just because its deficult for some people to conceptialize the difference between stealing and copy rights infringment, doesn't mean stupid things have to accepted.


Do you mind clarifying who you're referring to? I certainly hope I'm not a dumbass imbecile on a horse.


----------



## Inkdot (Jun 15, 2009)

Message for Vale Tudo

(Sorry about this everyone, I tried to answer a PM but it woudnt let me because apparently I need 50 posts to reply to a PM?)

Sweden airs UFC on TV4 sport, kickboxer Jörgen Kruth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörgen_Kruth) is commentator


Once again, sorry about this everyone, please continue!


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Thread piracy!!!


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> Anyone want to hear a funny story about Rogan?
> 
> I'm sure most people here are aware of MMA-TV (the main organization that the UFC is attacking for streaming). They stream every event, from Sengoku to UFC, and they have been for years. Anyways, I had the opportunity to talk with the owner of the site the other day and he informed me that Joe Rogan himself is a member lol.
> 
> ...


I actually knew this and laughed for a while when i found out


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

attention said:


> Heh, good point.
> 
> Its also against the law to go over the speed limit.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that. I understand that this is all relative, but I don't feel any more remorse watching a stream than I do downloading music, which is none.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

I used to pirate music all the time, and copy DVD's via Netflix. I have many pirated CD's and DVD's, but have since stopped, 'cause it's wrong. It's theft, whether it's digital or not, it's still theft.

I decided to stop 'cause I'm actually in the _Criminal Justice Program_, and want to become a Police Officer. I decided awhile back that I can't continue the same lifestyle, especially wanting a position telling other people the difference between right and wrong. I quit pirating, and although I still have the CD's and DVD's that I initially pirated, I haven't done it since.

Recently, I've been trying to determine whether I actually consider streaming a PPV event wrong, and I've come to the same conclusion as pirating CD's and DVD's. It's most definately theft, and I've decided to stop streaming altogether. In fact, I'm sick and tired of hearing Dana and the Fertitta's whining about _everything_, and I'm no longer supporting the UFC as a whole. I'll still support my favorite fighters by purchasing their merchandise, but I'm completely done feeding the cash cow that is, the UFC, by purchasing their events or merchandise.


----------



## beardsleybob (Jan 3, 2010)

I pay about €15-20 a month on ESPN UK

Much better than PPV


----------



## Bob Pataki (Jun 16, 2007)

They're saying they're going to get the IPs of people who stream, would this even stand up in court? For all they know a streamer clicked the wrong link and bam he's received some UFC footage illegally and is now facing a court case. Really?

It's also assuming justin.tv and other sites retain records of all IP addresses that connect to their servers, and that these sites are hosted in countries where US law can force them to hand over such information.

All seems very ambiguous and unlikely.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

ashurian said:


> http://www.vancouversun.com/exclusive+vows+individuals+view+piracy/2405444/story.html
> 
> LAS VEGAS — Mixed martial arts fans who watch pirated internet content could soon be pressed against the cage, says the president of an industry-leading fight promotion. In a move that could signal a sea change in the viral presence of MMA — the burgeoning sport of caged pugilism — Dana White, president of Ultimate Fighting Championship, said his company is readying a legal assault on individuals and websites that deal in unauthorized content.
> 
> ...



....


AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

NotDylan said:


> I would love to support the UFC but I feel that $50 is entirely too much for a ppv. I will continue to watch them for free until the price is considerably dropped. It's that simple.


Amen, so the PPV Nazi says no PPV for you, I say fu, now I will never submit one penny to UFC, no money for you. Come and get me baby. Anyway they stream it for free in prison too.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Yeah man, lol I like the self-righteous preachers in the topic though. They are funny to me.

If the Fertita brothers left their wallet in a toilet stall and left for 5 minutes and came back and I was in there. I would act like it wasn't there. Take it, ditch their credit cards and ID and steal all the money in their pocket.

Needless to say I have no problems infringing upon their shows. Paying to watch anything is laughable.

The only thing I'll pay for is basic cable, and that's only because they've shut down the systems needed to steal that.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> Yeah man, lol I like the self-righteous preachers in the topic though. They are funny to me.
> 
> If the Fertita brothers left their wallet in a toilet stall and left for 5 minutes and came back and I was in there. I would act like it wasn't there. Take it, ditch their credit cards and ID and steal all the money in their pocket.
> 
> ...


I think paying to watch television in general is just wrong. But the wife wants needs her cable...... so we have it.


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

alizio said:


> obv the music industry didnt stop pirating either but they did put a nice dent into it and shut down pretty much all major ones


Well congrats to them, now if you excuse me I have 5,000,000 mp3s that I will get back to enjoying. Love the two posts above mine, peace brothers, cause that's how we roll....


----------



## JoshKnows46 (Jun 18, 2007)

why not just invite a couple friends/family over and each pitch in 4 or 5 dollars, its cheap and you don't have to watch the fights alone, infront of a small computer screen.

:confused02:


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

JoshKnows46 said:


> why not just invite a couple friends over and each pitch in 4 or 5 dollars, its cheap and you don't have to watch the fights along, infront of a small computer screen.
> 
> :confused02:


I'd steal a UFC broadcast even if it was free. Let alone pay 5 bucks for it.


----------



## JimmyJames (Dec 29, 2009)

Roflcopter said:


> I'd steal a UFC broadcast even if it was free. Let alone pay 5 bucks for it.


That is just the thing for me. How is it stealing when I go to a web site that is posting it for free. They are the ones stealing it. I just happen to be a witness of said theft. :thumb02:


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Is watching live streams or recorded videos of the fight the next day illegal? I realize hosting streams or posting videos is illegal but I don't believe just watching it is. Anyone know?


----------



## JoshKnows46 (Jun 18, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> I'd steal a UFC broadcast even if it was free. Let alone pay 5 bucks for it.


that doesn't make sense, but okay lol...and may i ask why?

i download music all the time, but it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to have to download a whole event. Alot funner to watch it live, with a couple people....to each his own i guess.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

I never download UFC stuff. I watch live streams.




JimmyJames said:


> That is just the thing for me. How is it stealing when I go to a web site that is posting it for free. They are the ones stealing it. I just happen to be a witness of said theft. :thumb02:


Sometimes they don't even steal it. Depending on the streamer. If they are providing a stream they purchased the PPV to get the broadcast, of course someone like that might be stealing tv as well. :laugh:


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Double post


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Roflcopter said:


> Double post


Edit button.


----------



## fightpragmatist (Dec 3, 2009)

Who is Dana planning on sending to jail exactly? I wish he he knew what he was talking about before he talked about it.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Am I confused on something? For those that watch streams I was under the impression that they weren't doing anything illegal. I thought it was those providing the illegal streams that were doing something illegal? I think pretty much everything is illegal anymore though.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Fieos said:


> Am I confused on something? For those that watch streams I was under the impression that they weren't doing anything illegal. I thought it was those providing the illegal streams that were doing something illegal? I think pretty much everything is illegal anymore though.


You can't knowingly benefit from a crime; that's established in law. Besides, viewing the unauthorized stream *is* a crime, per se.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

Im giving Trey parker and Matt Stone 2 weeks and we will see Dana and Bono on South Park...Mark my words...They already made one episode like this


----------



## Jesy Blue (May 8, 2009)

with metallica backing them up?


----------

