# Zuffa suing streamers



## dudeabides (Sep 30, 2008)

> UFC successfully sued at least one man for $12,000 last year for watching two pay-per-view streams. In light of the UFC's announcement that they had shut down another streaming service and would be prosecuting infringers, I decided to look into what happened after the last such announcement they made back in 2012. I initially felt they would have difficulty suing people under traditional copyright infringement statutes used by people like the MPAA (Title 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) because of the difficulty proving the viewer actually possessed the object or engaged in one of the other acts rendering them liable. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been sued for copyright infringement because they viewed a stream. If Zuffa was to be the first to sue someone for this, they run the risk of setting unfavourable precedents.
> 
> It turns out that instead of risking setting unfavourable case law, the UFC lawyers appear to have decided to take a slightly different route, instead suing under Title 47 of the United States Code, §§ 553 and 605.
> 
> ...


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/2/11/5402548/ufc-won-steaming-lawsuit-individual


----------



## MagiK11 (Dec 31, 2006)

Have to give it to the UFC legal team, but i'll continue streaming. :thumb01:


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

They successfully sued one viewer last year-

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/2/11/5402548/ufc-won-steaming-lawsuit-individual



> He was ordered to pay $2,000 in statutory damages ($1,000 per event streamed, the minimum damages allowed by law), $4,000 in enhanced damages and $5,948.70 in attorney's fees and costs. All in all streaming two Pay-Per-View events cost him $11,948.70


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I actually prefer watching UFC fights legitimately in either sports bars or at a friends house. When I'm making enough I'll buy PPVs myself. Honestly from the sound of it I think Zuffa considers one successful lawsuit against a streamer a success.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

This is kind of a gray area for me. I was a huge proponent of buying every PPV up until the last year or so. There's so many freakin fight cards. I make good money but I don't feel like dropping $100+ a month. As of lately I've been working Saturday nights. No way in hell I'm paying to watch a PPV event on Sunday morning. That shit just aint happening.

I'll continue to stream and torrent unless there is a card I feel is worth the money and I have the time off to watch live.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

it was bound to happen its a risk vs reward thing, personally I would rather watch it quietly on tv by myself in my living room.


----------



## Swp (Jan 2, 2010)

Most streams sucks anyway ... I have great internet connection but you never find enjoyable watching ufc life via stream... just record it and put it on torrent few mins later )


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

So they realised they can't get the companies putting out the streams after a lot of talk about it, now they are suing token streamers to try and scare people and get some PR. 
Don't think its going to make much difference to them at the end of the day


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

They can sue me, i´ve streamed basically every event since UFC 90 or so. 

But hey, there's not many bucks to make out of me! ahahahah


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

If you are at all interested in the intercepting of signals illegally and the legalities of it this is exactly what Direct TV and Dish sue people for. Kinda smart to sue for that instead of copyright because its easier to prove in court then actually having the copyrighted file. Direct TV would send letters out to anyone who ordered a programmer which did also have legitimate funcionts and demand $5,000 or they would sue. Direct TV got in trouble for sending out these letters. I would say the best thing to do is torrent UFC on sunday mornings and watch it then, or pay for it. But I would stay away from live streaming. 

You can look up Dish and Direct Tv court cases if interested though.

If streaming it may be a good idea to go through a proxy out of country because it is harder to sue when you are bouncing around different countries makes the legal system much tougher.


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

This wouldn't be an issue if their shows were worth what they charge. WWE realized that and thus created the WWE Network. Instead of following suit, UFC created a pathetic Fight Pass that doesn't solve this issue. This pretty much won't stop anyone from streaming because most people probably won't even come across this. But glad to see this is what UFC is wasting their time with.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

I have streamed before but more often I find it to be more frustrating as the stream freezes intermittently and the quality of the video is absolute garbage. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

kc1983 said:


> I have streamed before but more often I find it to be more frustrating as the stream freezes intermittently and the quality of the video is absolute garbage.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


You ain't been using the right websites.

Google Nutjob Eu.

Dana supports SOPA = me watching live streams of every UFC event I can.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

A firm representing a copyright holder tried to sue me about four years ago over a movie download. I asked a lawyer what to do and he said just ignore it for now and see what happens.

I ignored it and nothing happened. Not a word since.

From what I was told (and IANAL) there are jurisdictional costs involved, they have to file separately in each state they want to sue in and counsel fees involved for each case, so the general tactic for large-scale copyright suits is to use threatening letters to fish out the small percentage who will capitulate out of fear and let the rest go because it's not worth all the associated fees to proceed with all defendants. 

So this poor guy just coughing up the cash, probably not the smartest choice.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

The Best Around said:


> This wouldn't be an issue if their shows were worth what they charge. WWE realized that and thus created the WWE Network. Instead of following suit, UFC created a pathetic Fight Pass that doesn't solve this issue. This pretty much won't stop anyone from streaming because most people probably won't even come across this. But glad to see this is what UFC is wasting their time with.


Couldn't have summed it up better. Then UfC needs to learn to adapt and move forward, not try to stick with an archaic ppv model that makes less and less sense as events become more frequent.

What a waste of time and resources. I'll be enjoying the next payed event via stream and I will continue to do so until the prices go back down or the quality goes back up.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

Guess that explains why the PPV prices keep going up; someone's gotta pay the scumbag lawyers to keep suing people.

I'm not going to say you can't stop the internet, because you can, but that's a massive pain in the ass that'll cost way more than it's worth. What the UFC needs to do is work with the internet instead of against it, they started well with the Facebook prelims then they lost it.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Raising the prices was a really bad move in my opinion. The UFC should take the walmart approach and try to get more customers but sell the product cheaply.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I thought the PPV price hike was supposed to be temporary.


----------



## TheAuger (Jun 30, 2011)

HexRei said:


> A firm representing a copyright holder tried to sue me about four years ago over a movie download. I asked a lawyer what to do and he said just ignore it for now and see what happens.
> 
> I ignored it and nothing happened. Not a word since.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between copyright trolls & what a large company like the UFC is trying to do. You basically got a shake down from a scumbag troll lawyer who is trying to shake down as many people as he can. They rarely have any intention of taking people to court. They work off fear & intimidation, hoping people will just pay rather than go to court. Best thing to do is ignore them.

The UFC on the other hand, is directly targeting people who stream & are actively trying to take them to court. Do I think they are going after a lot of people? No. I think they just want to get the word out there that they have been successful in going after people who pirate UFC content, hoping that it will scare off part of the streaming community. Just a PR move.


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

The way I see it, if I'm going get up at 5AM on a sunday to watch the UFC, I might as well pay for it to get realiable good stream and good quality. So I'm safe.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Its absolute bullshit of the highest order.

What next, sue people for watching fights on youtube?

I can understand companies going after people who host the streams, but going after people that view them is wrong.

Anyways, the same rule applies with streams as it does torrents. Just because your IP shows does not mean you were the person that viewed it, it could be a neighbour jumping on your internet, or a hacker, or even somebody else in the house. Its impossible to prove. Thats why no torrent cases ever get took seriously in the UK... they dont stand up in court.

The UFC is trying an intimidation technique that is proven not to work.


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

Ape City said:


> Raising the prices was a really bad move in my opinion. The UFC should take the walmart approach and try to get more customers but sell the product cheaply.


It's the same thing as CD/DVD/Blu Ray pricing where to make up for the lack of money coming from the people getting it free, they're hammering the people who want to pay for the actual legal product. They figure those people who buy DVD's of all their favorite movies (the same people who buy every UFC PPV in this instance), will continue to do so. Problem is, that number is declining over time, and it will do so considering the stars that are leaving, more cards, etc. In a few years from now I would assume UFC won't be doing paid pay-per-views every month.


----------



## Evo (Feb 12, 2007)

Surprised to see so many people supporting theft in this thread. You can argue it's not worth the money, they're charging too much etc etc but it doesn't justify stealing the content.

When you go into a grocery store that you think charges too much for milk, do you steal the milk or go to a different store that you believe offers a fairer price?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Evo said:


> Surprised to see so many people supporting theft in this thread. You can argue it's not worth the money, they're charging too much etc etc but it doesn't justify stealing the content.
> 
> When you go into a grocery store that you think charges too much for milk, do you steal the milk or go to a different store that you believe offers a fairer price?


It has been discussed many times. Watching a stream is not the same as theft. 

When you go into a grocery store and steal the milk, that milk is physically gone for the shop owner and he can't sell it to anyone else. If you watch a stream, the original owner still has all the material of the video and still can get money for it.


----------



## Evo (Feb 12, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> It has been discussed many times. Watching a stream is not the same as theft.
> 
> When you go into a grocery store and steal the milk, that milk is physically gone for the shop owner and he can't sell it to anyone else. If you watch a stream, the original owner still has all the material of the video and still can get money for it.


It's not the same as theft, yet you're getting a product for free that they're charging money for. You can argue it's not as severe as stealing something physically, but the point is you're still stealing it. You and everyone else can argue all you want that if you couldn't stream it for free you still wouldn't buy it, but then you're still stealing it.

I'd love for you to be in their position losing money to people that justify their theft by saying they wouldn't pay for it in the first place. If that's true then you simply don't get to watch it, not, you get to watch it for free. How does that make any sense at all?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't have the correct kind of card which allows me to get BT Sports.

I either stream or I don't watch.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Evo said:


> It's not the same as theft, yet you're getting a product for free that they're charging money for. You can argue it's not as severe as stealing something physically, but the point is you're still stealing it. You and everyone else can argue all you want that if you couldn't stream it for free you still wouldn't buy it, but then you're still stealing it.
> 
> I'd love for you to be in their position losing money to people that justify their theft by saying they wouldn't pay for it in the first place. If that's true then you simply don't get to watch it, not, you get to watch it for free. How does that make any sense at all?


Because it doesn't make a factual difference for the original owner if someone watches it for free or doesn't watch it at all and hence also doesn't pay. The original owner doesn't lose anything as he wouldn't get any money anyways. 

What you can argue about is that those who are setting up the stream offer the product from the original owner and hence are an unfair/illegitimate competitor on the market and in particular if they would charge money for it that this would be money which would rightfully have gone to the original owner.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Evo said:


> Surprised to see so many people supporting theft in this thread. You can argue it's not worth the money, they're charging too much etc etc but it doesn't justify stealing the content.
> 
> When you go into a grocery store that you think charges too much for milk, do you steal the milk or go to a different store that you believe offers a fairer price?


I consider streams to be more like dumpster diving, annoying and gross but sticking it to corrupt organizations (Cable Companies). The UFC shouldn't run PPV's period but asking for 60 bucks a month and having ads, commercials, shitty fights with exploited fighters yeah no thanks.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

The Best Around said:


> This wouldn't be an issue if their shows were worth what they charge.





ReptilianSlayer said:


> Dana supports SOPA = me watching live streams of every UFC event I can.


The above quotes sums up why I haven't bought a PPV in years. I torrent/stream.



HexRei said:


> A firm representing a copyright holder tried to sue me about four years ago over a movie download. I asked a lawyer what to do and he said just ignore it for now and see what happens.
> 
> I ignored it and nothing happened. Not a word since.
> 
> ...


Yep, that's normally how it goes. Most people who actually get busted are the ones who get scared & take the wrong course of action. Even then, the % of people who get "busted" is miniscule.

And it's not theft.

Trust me: because of what I'm involved with online, if I haven't been "busted" yet, you guys are OK. Just keep an eye on my account status as a sort of canary in the coal mine kind of deal.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I don't necessarily think the people who watch the streams should get in trouble but I do believe the people streaming should get in trouble. It's only supposed to be viewed by one person. Also remember there was one guy charging $25 a pop for people to watch his stream. That is theft no matter what anyone says.


----------



## Stardog (Feb 24, 2013)

They made a mistake thinking anyone in the UK wants to subscribe to BT Sports to watch the UFC. I'd rather buy the PPV's from the UFC's website, but now I can't because BT Sports bought the rights to them all.

If they shut down every stream their overall viewership would not increase much. It's not like they'll get 500k viewers with streams available, and 700k viewers without.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Stardog said:


> They made a mistake thinking anyone in the UK wants to subscribe to BT Sports to watch the UFC. I'd rather buy the PPV's from the UFC's website, but now I can't because BT Sports bought the rights to them all.
> 
> If they shut down every stream their overall viewership would not increase much. It's not like they'll get 500k viewers with streams available, and 700k viewers without.


I was skeptical at first but begrudgingly signed up to BT sports. IT's far superior to the ESPN coverage we used to get. There are also a lot more UFC related shows and the if you are a football fan they actually get some decent premier league games too.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> It's only supposed to be viewed by one person. Also remember there was one guy charging $25 a pop for people to watch his stream. That is theft no matter what anyone says.


So watching it in a sports bar is theft then¿


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Get used to it. The internet will be a very different place in 5 years.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Get used to it. The internet will be a very different place in 5 years.


Not really. It's always been a game of leapfrog. There really isn't anything new here. Maybe it seems that way for anyone not involved more deeply, I suppose.

(the net will be different, though, but in other ways, such as 2-tiered internet, that kinda thing. Maybe not in 5 years specifically)


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

What do you mean by a two tiered internet?


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> What do you mean by a two tiered internet?





> Two-tiered Internet refers to proposed changes in Internet architecture that would give priority to the traffic of those who have paid for premium service. Inherent in the model is the possibility for discrimination between different types of content and services. For example, high speed ISPs might favor classified listings from corporate partners instead of other, unaffiliated partners. The two-tiered Internet is already being implemented on a small scale by some Internet service providers (ISPs).
> 
> The proposed changes conflict with one of the fundamental concepts of the Internet, network neutrality. In a neutral model, traffic is traffic: no preference is given on the basis of source or content. The inherent democratic nature of net neutrality has enabled the Internet to develop as it has, toward the increasingly user-defined model that is sometimes referred to as Web 2.0.
> 
> At a recent conference on the future development of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee spoke out against the two-tiered model: "What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web. Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring."


source

Another article about a recent development & possible ramifications.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

This reminds me of that proposed internet tax which flopped.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

oh gawd I remember that haha

Hopefully it's another flop. But the major ISP's keep trying stuff like this. Throw enough crap at a wall...


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well it were to happen in a snowballs chance in hell how much different could it be?


----------



## Vale_Tudo (Nov 18, 2007)

170 isnt even worth an illegal stream. Absolute shit card


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I disagree I think there are some good match ups on that fight card.


----------

