# UK Police arrest UFC's most prolific uploader



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

From TorrentFreak



> The UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit says it has arrested the world's most prolific uploader of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) content. The 55-year-old, who TorrentFreak believes it has identified, was arrested at his home in Leicestershire this morning.
> 
> cityoflondonpoliceWorld Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events are without doubt the most popular combat-based content available today.
> 
> ...


I guess someone else will take his place.

However, its a blow to those who can't afford or don't have access to the UFC fights.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

"WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014".

Yet they're going after 55 year old men in their homes. Leave em to it.

Another thing that really annoys me is when the UFC takes down some of the best fighter highlights videos on youtubue because of "copyright infringement". Seriously?






Stop taking this work of art down.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

That's so weak. It's the age of the internet. People will get it one way or another. It's actually more promotions for them. We all pay to see big PPVs and rarely ever re-watch the fights unless it's a marquee one.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Worth noting that Sir Paul mostly likely never made money from this. He was just one of the main uploaders, uploading for the community.

I hope he gets off lightly.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> "WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014".
> 
> Yet they're going after 55 year old men in their homes. Leave em to it.
> 
> ...


Once upon a time, the UFC were more than happy to see people download events and make promotional videos because it helped them become a household name.

Now they are a household name, time to sue evil those mother****ers.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Thats a pretty big blow, he was one of the main men if not the only main man.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

I saw that on Google news and had to check to make sure its not the place I know of..

Thankfully its not. 

I know the UFC had one site taken down and they were going to try and go after viewers but I never herd much more about it. I do know its legally difficult to go after viewers of streams but Dana has a hard time with coming to terms with the fact that his cards or the majority of them are just not worth the price. 

The biggest BS I hear is that the viewers are taking money out of the UFC's pocket but what they fail to acknowledge is that if every stream went dry the real effect would be less fans and less interest a lot of people would just move on because most the people who watch streams would have to just stop watching due to financial restraints.

Dana acts like he brought MMA to TV for fans when the truth is he did it as a ploy to get more PPV buys and to tell the truth they are still doing a fairly shitty job.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I saw that on Google news and had to check to make sure its not the place I know of..
> 
> Thankfully its not.
> 
> ...


Yeah, streams should be fine... I don't think he dealt with streaming anyway (could be wrong).

He was a big uploader though, so for the meantime people may struggle getting torrents, usenet and filelocker downloads after the event has aired.

But you are 100% correct about the knock on effects of tackling piracy. Many people simply do not have access to the Events or it is out of their price range. Cutting these people off will result in a drop in popularity.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> "WWE had revenues in excess of half a billion dollars in 2014".
> 
> Yet they're going after 55 year old men in their homes. Leave em to it.
> 
> ...


This will probably have the effect they want, this will scare the more causal torrent users from doing this and that is probably the best they can hope for. The "they charge to much and make too much money so I will stick it to the man" crowd is not going to stop and they know that. Does it really stop piracy, or make them more money, I doubt it, but it's their business to run as they see fit.

I don't get some of this either. They don't even let the UFC tonight on FOX show the stoppages from recent fights. I kind of get why they don't let shows like Inside MMA show them, but why not let your own sanctioned show. I guess because people will record and put it on youtube.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

You kidding me? LITERALLY 3 hours ago I decided to update my "collection" and download everything from Dillashaw-Soto onwards, most of them being Sir Paul links. Hopefully they dont get taken down lol.


----------



## TheAuger (Jun 30, 2011)

This won't effect live streams around the web. It will only have a temporary effect of scaring the casual crowd for a few weeks.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Honestly, before WWE Network (if it's even available in my country), there wasn't any possibility for me to watch the weekly RAW/Smackdown, if it wasn't for pirating (and torrent sites in general, because there were discussions too), I probably never would have started watching the WWE, or the UFC as well, because me starting watching the UFC was related to the WWE as well.

TV is a very tricky thing for me in general, if I want to watch a new TV show, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to or it's pretty complicated. Netflix etc. is not available, so techically if I want to do it legally I have to wait 2 years until my TV providers start showing it too, buy a DVD after the end of the season or maybe buy an expensive ass satellite.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

This means literally nothing, as nothing will change. Seen this happen numerous times before. Whatever.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Only yesterday i grabbed UFC 165 to check out Nurmagomedov's terrible striking... uploader... Sir Paul. He was pretty prolific.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)




----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

slapshot said:


> I saw that on Google news and had to check to make sure its not the place I know of..
> 
> Thankfully its not.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I think everyone sees or knows that, except UFC executives. Would I watch an event if I could watch it for free? Probably, depending on the card. Would I watch it if I would have to pay for it? nope, the entertainment value is just not high enough for that much money. Just me 2c.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You kidding me? LITERALLY 3 hours ago I decided to update my "collection" and download everything from Dillashaw-Soto onwards, most of them being Sir Paul links. Hopefully they dont get taken down lol.


No, but they will certainly go after "the most prolific downloaders" now. Thanks for stepping up, Clyde. You'll be remembered as a martir in this forum. :laugh:


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

He should have been using VPNs, the tor network and that program that changes your mac address. Would have been a lot harder getting him.

A damn shame though.


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

I may or may not have watched tons of Sir Paul videos in my time and I may or may not be sad to see him go.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

You reckon I should cancel all Sir Paul links I'm downloading?


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

Dr Gonzo said:


> He should have been using VPNs, the tor network and that program that changes your mac address. Would have been a lot harder getting him.
> 
> A damn shame though.


Not sure what he did or didn't use, but you would be surprised at how many people don't use anything like that when they are doing naughty things. The internet isn't nearly as anonymous as some people like to believe it is.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

How do the UFC propose the people who can't afford sky tv or ppv watch the events? Are poor people not allowed to be UFC fans? 

People who can afford something, generally buy it. Those who can't afford it either do with out, or steal it. Thus i'd guess the UFC loses little to no revenue because of pirating.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

HitOrGetHit said:


> Not sure what he did or didn't use, but you would be surprised at how many people don't use anything like that when they are doing naughty things. The internet isn't nearly as anonymous as some people like to believe it is.


Yeah I agree. I don't always bother when watching youtube or something. But if i decide to do something on the net that some people may frown upon, I use all the shit I mentioned.


Also, don't we have some dude on here called St.Paul guy? Is it him? If not, maybe he knows shit.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

The Lone Wolf said:


> How do the UFC propose the people who can't afford sky tv or ppv watch the events? Are poor people not allowed to be UFC fans?
> 
> People who can afford something, generally buy it. Those who can't afford it either do with out, or steal it. Thus i'd guess the UFC loses little to no revenue because of pirating.


Piracy isn't actually stealing btw. To steal something would be to remove the original copy. 










The formal term for "piracy" is copyright infringement, but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily or sound any where near as nasty or criminal as piracy, so they use that as their buzzword.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Piracy isn't actually stealing btw. To steal something would be to remove the original copy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True that.

But in addition - Once upon a time they called pirates people who make copies of disks or tapes and sell them down the market at a profit. Nowadays they like to call anyone who downloads anything a pirate.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

*Stupid joke ahead.*



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Piracy isn't actually stealing btw. To steal something would be to remove the original copy.


That makes [email protected] less of a matter than theft or piracy, since the original is not removed or copied, just borrowed for a little bit and then left as it was.

I know. That was awful.


----------



## Warning (Nov 18, 2009)

Stealing is stealing. No matter how many cartoons someone makes to try to defend their crime. 
I download all my cage fighting. I am a thief. I am not going to try to justify my actions with semantics.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> That makes [email protected] less of a matter than theft or piracy, since the original is not removed or copied, just borrowed for a little bit and then left as it was.
> 
> I know. That was awful.












(just kidding).


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> That makes [email protected] less of a matter than theft or piracy, since the original is not removed or copied, just borrowed for a little bit and then left as it was.
> 
> I know. That was awful.


Not always left as was. Sometimes have scratches all over or damaged in some way. 

DVDs and CDs are what Im talking about.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

I've worked for games developers who didn't care less about piracy, but we're forced to take measures by their funding partners. Ive had the same happen to myself when trying to raise funding. Sometimes, you have no choice but to attempt to throttle piracy otherwise you wont get anywhere. When somebody is offering you 500k but insist some form of DRM is used, would you refuse?


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> I've worked for games developers who didn't care less about piracy, but we're forced to take measures by their funding partners. Ive had the same happen to myself when trying to raise funding. Sometimes, you have no choice but to attempt to throttle piracy otherwise you wont get anywhere. When somebody is offering you 500k but insist some form of DRM is used, would you refuse?


I didn't know you worked in that industry. Are you a Software Engineer?


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Piracy isn't actually stealing btw. To steal something would be to remove the original copy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMO it is stealing you are taking the intellectual property of another entity, in this case the UFC, and using their content for your enjoyment without compensation. So to me it is just as much stealing as shoplifting is. Some people are going to get their panties in a real big bunch over that statement but I am just giving my opinion and why I won't do it anymore. I have, not for UFC events, as I came to this conclusion back before I became a MMA fan. Others can justify it however they see fit for their own personal values.

That is all I will say on the subject as I know the kind of responses that will come as this is getting to be an old argument.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Spite said:


> I didn't know you worked in that industry. Are you a Software Engineer?


That's how I started. But moved into art & design with time. I barely code at all any more aside from writing small scripts/tools.

Alas, Im too old for that shit now. When it gets to the point when most games you play are fecking shite to you, then you know its time to change careers! Now I just do graphics and websites and stay well away from game development.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Spite said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know you worked in that industry. Are you a Software Engineer?
> ...


Yeah I hate coding but depending on what jobs come up i sometimes have no choice. Much like you I prefer making websites.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I hate everything but coding.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> (just kidding).


Hell yes!!! I got to see one of the coolest gifs posted in MMAF once again. 
I lolled so much the first time you posted it. :thumb02:


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Term said:


>


How does piracy steal income? People who download events for free do so because they don't want to pay for it.

Liken it to a shoplifter stealing a $50 bottle of scotch. If the shop found a way to prevent the theft, the shoplifter wouldnt then save up to buy the scotch, they'd just go without.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

I am sure some would cave in and just buy it... but the id imagine the number would be so small it would be insignificant. They certainly cannot prove they have lost any income.


----------



## Warning (Nov 18, 2009)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Liken it to a shoplifter stealing a $50 bottle of scotch. If the shop found a way to prevent the theft, the shoplifter wouldnt then save up to buy the scotch, they'd just go without.


Or they would panhandle until they had enough to buy it. Maybe they would spend the day collecting empties to be able to afford the full bottle. Anyone shoplifting alcohol probably has a drinking problem.



The Lone Wolf said:


> How does piracy steal income? People who download events for free do so because they don't want to pay for it.


Kinda the reason people steal anything. Because they did not want to pay for it.


----------



## dsmjrv (Jan 27, 2010)

If i couldn't torrent or stream events at all ever again, i would buy a lot more PPVs.. however many years ago when i was broke, i don't think i would have ever even become a fan if i couldn't watch the fights for free..

In my case piracy is currently taking my money away from the UFC, however i would never have even gotten into MMA in the first place if piracy didn't exist...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> How does piracy steal income?


Ask these fellows...


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Term said:


> IMO it is stealing you are taking the intellectual property of another entity, in this case the UFC, and using their content for your enjoyment without compensation. So to me it is just as much stealing as shoplifting is. Some people are going to get their panties in a real big bunch over that statement but I am just giving my opinion and why I won't do it anymore. I have, not for UFC events, as I came to this conclusion back before I became a MMA fan. Others can justify it however they see fit for their own personal values.
> 
> That is all I will say on the subject as I know the kind of responses that will come as this is getting to be an old argument.


Piracy is NOT stealing income. Dana and his crownies make the false assumption that EVERYONE who's streaming and watching these events online would be purchasing their UFC PPV if the streams weren't available. This is an erroneous and false assumption. If people weren't able to get a stream for the UFC, they're not going to suddenly shell out and pay for the product, they'll go without it.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Streaming is just a techie version of going around some dudes house and watching the fights.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Joabbuac said:


> Streaming is just a techie version of going around some dudes house and watching the fights.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Streaming is just the techie version of going over to your mates house and watching their illegal stream.

If your mate buys it....they BOUGHT it.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Streaming is just the techie version of going over to your mates house and watching their illegal stream.
> 
> If your mate buys it....they BOUGHT it.


Not if they have this baby properly set.










I can almost guarantee Sir Paul did not pay even for the originals he copied and distributed.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Not if they have this baby properly set.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh of course he didn't. It's just one of these things people decide shouldn't be illegal because they do it. People think things like "The police are bullshit and corrupt" because that person is currently in jail after being caught red handed selling heroin to kids.

People make TV shows and products for money. That's their purpose, that's why they are created. When people illegally share their product, it removes that money from the hands of the creator. When people view that product, they are deliberately refusing to pay for the goods they are receiving.

The thing that's most stupid is this "Those people weren't going to pay for it anyways so it makes no difference" point. I'm not going to buy this chocolate bar, so it's cool that I just take it then right? 

It's obvious WHY streaming or downloading of these things is illegal. As I said, Expendables 3 lost MIIIIIIILIONS as a result of it. We all know it, and we don't really care because it's not a big deal to us. We don't need to pretend to ourselves that we're doing the right thing. You want to watch a movie so you watch it. Sorted.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> It's obvious WHY streaming or downloading of these things is illegal. As I said, Expendables 3 lost MIIIIIIILIONS as a result of it. We all know it, and we don't really care because it's not a big deal to us. We don't need to pretend to ourselves that we're doing the right thing. You want to watch a movie so you watch it. Sorted.


I would have felt bad had it not been an absolutely awful movie. Seriously, that shit sucked.


----------



## TheAuger (Jun 30, 2011)

dsmjrv said:


> If i couldn't torrent or stream events at all ever again, i would buy a lot more PPVs.


This is me as well. I probably average buying 2 PPV(s) a year anymore. But if streaming/downloading of UFC content didn't exist, I would likely buy 2-4 more PPV(s) a year. So yes, the UFC is losing money to streaming/downloading.

It's idiotic for anyone to think that the UFC isn't losing money due to piracy. Do I think everyone that steals UFC content would buy it if it wasn't available to pirate? No, but enough people would pay for the content that the total monetary losses each year are likely in the 10s of millions. 

Beyond that, there are plenty of people who also illegally profit off of UFC content. Whether it's a website that asks for donations(charges) for access to high quality streams or a website that collects ad revenue from the volume of traffic that hosting streams or file links brings in, they are making money off of someone else's hard work. We all know a few websites out there like that.

Not only are they losing money, if they don't actively go after people who infringe on their intellectual property, they could lose their rights to assert their copyright in future dealings. How can they UFC go after criminals who sell bootleg UFC merchandise(tees/hats/whatever) if they aren't actively defending their copyright across the all forms of piracy? They can't. If you don't defend you copyright, you can lose your copyright.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I have nothing against the UFC taking down websites that host their content for free. I'll still watch a stream of every single one of them, though, and the streaming will never stop because it's the internet, and people get around these type of things very easily.

I'd never buy another UFC event because they are offering a product that is inconsistent and cannot, on any level, guarantee the product is worth the purchasing price. 60-70% of the events are horrible in my opinion, they aren't worth $30 much less $60. Even a card that has big names on it cannot guarantee you the entertainment value of $60. Thus, purchasing it is risky, so I don't do it.

As for if I'd purchase events had there been no streaming, the answer to that is no, I would not. I'd simply find the fights for free on the internet a few hours later, or the next day. Then assuming there are no fight uploads ever, I'd watch the GIFs/Highlights and read about them. Of course, streaming will never stop, and fights being uploaded to the internet for free will never stop, so it's really a non-issue.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Expendables 3 lost MIIIIIIILIONS as a result of it. We all know it, and we don't really care because it's not a big deal to us. We don't need to pretend to ourselves that we're doing the right thing. You want to watch a movie so you watch it. Sorted.


To be fair, it was leaked online to before its official release. Of course it was going to lose millions.

Entertain execs bitch about how much money piracy costs them but they still manage to increase profits year on year, they still drive about in Ferrari's and live in playboy mansions.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I can almost guarantee Sir Paul did not pay even for the originals he copied and distributed.


Maybe... not that it makes much difference considering he is a brit.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

So in all likelihood he'll get a hefty fine or something? I've watched a fair number of his copies and i'd be willing to ante up and contribute. If everyone who has used his "services" does the same that'd be cool


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

The Lone Wolf said:


> So in all likelihood he'll get a hefty fine or something? I've watched a fair number of his copies and i'd be willing to ante up and contribute. If everyone who has used his "services" does the same that'd be cool


Dana White and Vince are trying to extradite him to the US to stick him in Guantanamo bay. They reckon with enough torture and smorgesboarding they will extract the location of legendary pirate brothers EZTV and ETTV!


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

The Lone Wolf said:


> So in all likelihood he'll get a hefty fine or something? I've watched a fair number of his copies and i'd be willing to ante up and contribute. If everyone who has used his "services" does the same that'd be cool


Will be worth keeping an eye out for his case. As far as I'm aware he didn't profit from it so I'm curious to see what happens to him.

I would not be surprised if he ends up doing time for it, or even as Don jokingly points out... being extradited.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

TheAuger said:


> It's idiotic for anyone to think that the UFC isn't losing money due to piracy. Do I think everyone that steals UFC content would buy it if it wasn't available to pirate? No, but enough people would pay for the content that the total monetary losses each year are likely in the 10s of millions.


There are probably some people who would pay, but certainly not even close as many as the content industry claims.

What the content industry (willingly/purposely) completely neglects in their argumentation is the competition between entertainment products available to be bought, the consumer's limitation in money and the pyramid of prioritisation in the necessity of products.

A consumer only has a limited amount of money he can spend. After paying for the indespensable necessities in life (shelter, food, health etc.) the average person only has a relatively small amount of money left for entertainment prodcts.

People do spend money (as money by itself is worthless, unless you enjoy printed paper or random numbers on your screen/account sheet - money only becomes its worth when you spend it to buy things) - BUT they will prioritise how they spend it.

Example: After the indespensable necessities in life a person has $100 left which he can spend for entertainment products (music CDs, DVDs, computer games, UFC ppv etc.). Those products compete for his money and he will decide on a subjective(!) value-for-money equation how he spends it. If he now decides to spend $80 on computer games and $20 DVDs = total of $100, there is $0 left. That means there is $0 (ZERO) _potential_ income for the other products (music CDs, UFC ppv etc.). So it doesn't matter whether that person downloads copies of music or UFC content or not, because they couldn't get any money from him anyways as there is NO money to be get.

Entertainment products do not "lose" _potential_ income to digital copies, but to competing products. Putting people to jail won't and can't change that, only making the value-for-money equation more appealing. That's the fundamental principles of economics and the free market.

So if in the example above a UFC ppv would cost $20 (=better value for money equation) instead of $60, the person might have spend those $20 on it instead of the DVDs - which means UFC would get $20 and the DVDs $0. 



> Beyond that, there are plenty of people who also illegally profit off of UFC content. Whether it's a website that asks for donations(charges) for access to high quality streams or a website that collects ad revenue from the volume of traffic that hosting streams or file links brings in, they are making money off of someone else's hard work. We all know a few websites out there like that.


Now that's something completely different. In case of those who make profit of digital copies you CAN say that that's money the original content producer loses. But it's only the amount of money the copy distributer makes, not the amount of money the original producer wants to sell it for.


Example: The original producer wants $100 for his product and a consumer pays $20 for a copy. The original producer does NOT lose $100, but $20, because that's the measurable(!) amount of money that has been actually spent on the product.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

What I have gathered so far from this discussion is it's okay to take others intellectual property as long as you can't afford it. Is it stealing if you can?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Term said:


> What I have gathered so far from this discussion is it's okay to take others intellectual property as long as you can't afford it. Is it stealing if you can?


Of course its stealing. Its just so easy to do, and the chances of getting caught are so slim everyone does it. We can hide behind arguments like companies should be adapting and so on, but at the end of the day they are putting on a show, and we are sneaking in to watch it for free, taking cash from the people who made it. Whether they are rich or not is irrelevant, rich people dont deserve to be stolen from just because they have cash. 

I personally say 5 dozen Hail Marys, and 2 Dozen Our Fathers every day to make up for all the streaming and Piratebaying Ive done!


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

> What the content industry (willingly/purposely) completely neglects in their argumentation is the competition between entertainment products available to be bought, the consumer's limitation in money and the pyramid of prioritisation in the necessity of products.
> 
> A consumer only has a limited amount of money he can spend. After paying for the indespensable necessities in life (shelter, food, health etc.) the average person only has a relatively small amount of money left for entertainment prodcts.
> 
> ...


Entertainment products do not "lose" _potential_ income to digital copies, but to competing products. Putting people to jail won't and can't change that, only making the value-for-money equation more appealing. That's the fundamental principles of economics and the free market.

That is pretty much my situation to a tee. If the ufc made their ppv product a reasonable price, say 30 dollars, I would buy every single ppv. By setting their price so high they are therefor asking for almost all of my weekly entertainment cash and that just isnt worth it when j could buy an entire video game or three trips to the movies for the same price.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Term said:


> What I have gathered so far from this discussion is it's okay to take others intellectual property as long as you can't afford it. Is it stealing if you can?


The way I see it is it's ok to watch UFC for free because Dana is a bit of a prick with too much money  I would and will pay to watch the upcoming monster card of Jones vs Johnson, but I wont shell out for cards that suck ass. The UFC has watered down its PPV cards and most arent value for money


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Piracy most certainly is not theft, unless you are profiting from it.

The correct term is copyright infringement. But who cares about a copyright infringer when labelling them pirates sounds much more severe.

There is definitely a case for the industry losing money due to lost sales, but its marginal, we know its marginal because they've been banging the same drum since people started buying TV sets - whos going to go to the movies when you can just watch it at home for free? Tape dubing was going to ruin the music industry. VHS was going to destroy the Movie industry.

Yet still none of this has happened, and despite the internet being their biggest threat yet, they still continue to increase profits.

There is however a moral issue. People who pirate are able to enjoy entertainment for free at the expense of those who support the industry by actually paying for the products. That is wrong, plain and simple. 

The burdon of guilt should not lie solely with the pirate though. In an age where the likes of the MPAA lobby governments to take away our freedoms like pushing through backward internet laws like SOPA and trying to control user content such as youtube videos; it is no wonder that anybody with any knowledge on the subject opposes what the MPAA (and others) stand for. In fact their very stance impassions individuals and groups to outright oppose them, that is why the arrest of Sir Paul will achieve absolutely nothing.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Spite said:


> Piracy most certainly is not theft, unless you are profiting from it.


In the case of a PPV, you watch it for free so now you can spend that entertainment money on something else that perhaps you can't *pirate* as easily, have you not profited?


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Term said:


> In the case of a PPV, you watch it for free so now you can spend that entertainment money on something else that perhaps you can't *pirate* as easily, have you not profited?


Interesting counter argument, that I've never thought of.

Yes, is some cases I think you are right. Even if people aren't aware that they are doing it.

Just out of curiosity, and don't worry this isn't a baiting question - What do you think about Americans who use VPN to order the event online from a different country at a fraction of what Americans have to pay.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> To be fair, it was leaked online to before its official release. Of course it was going to lose millions.
> 
> Entertain execs bitch about how much money piracy costs them but they still manage to increase profits year on year, they still drive about in Ferrari's and live in playboy mansions.


So? This is business we're talking about. If the lads on Dragon's Den invest in a new product, should they just give that product away for free since they are "already driving about in Ferraris"?

Plus, business money and individual money are different things. Someone's bank account isn't a reflection of their business's success, the business's bank account is what's important. Profits are EVERYTHING in business. If UFC stopped making profits, Zuffa would stop running them. Companies need to prove themselves to investors, shareholders, employees, employers. There's soooo much more to business than just "if you have a ferrari you're set". I'd HATE to be a part of the business end of anything (except your mum). Shit seems ridiculously boring. 

We all know companies lose money through online piracy. For years I considered buying UFC DVDs from the beginning to have like a "collection". Now that I'm a few years older, I found out how to just download them all easily and will never spend a penny on it. 

I don't even get the debate. We know that illegal streaming and sharing hurts the entertainment industry fairly hard. We all do it cause we don't really give two fuks about the entertainment industry.

I think the reason some of you say it shouldn't be illegal is because you're just anti-big business. So let's give another example.

Some guy uploads his Machinima Let's Play videos. He's trying to make a splash in that industry, but he has barely any money as it stands. He's hoping to build something from it and make a living in the gaming industry, then boom, someone starts uploading his videos on their channel (with no ads, so they make no money) and people start viewing the other person's videos instead. This ONE guy is losing money because someone else is illegally (?) uploading their content.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Spite said:


> Interesting counter argument, that I've never thought of.
> 
> Yes, is some cases I think you are right. Even if people aren't aware that they are doing it.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, and don't worry this isn't a baiting question - What do you think about Americans who use VPN to order the event online from a different country at a fraction of what Americans have to pay.


Not sure how this effects the cost of tea in China. I wouldn't do it, but I guess you could equate it to purchasing something online from another state so you don't have to pay state sales tax. You are using a legal tool to get a discount on a product. I really don't know the law on such things, but just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should. To be clear I don't think using the internet to get around state tax is theft, in fact I think it a moral imperative. 

I feel if you download a show that you didn't pay for, when the owner of said content expects payment it's theft. If you think it's too expensive then you don't watch it, it's that simple.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> So? This is business we're talking about. If the lads on Dragon's Den invest in a new product, should they just give that product away for free since they are "already driving about in Ferraris"?


Nope, I do not begrudge anyone, any money. If you can drive about in supercars and live in mansions, congrats, you've made it it in life.

But the people in the entertainment industry are a bunch of lying, false properganda spreading cúnts.

It completely winds me up when I hear of musicians actually owing their labels at the end of their contracts so they need to sign again or be sued. When I see adverts about how piracy is costing the poor old sound guy who holds the mic his job - give me a ******* break.

When they say "You're taking money out of the artists pocket". What utter bullshit. 99.99% artists and actors get paid peanuts, if anything by their labels. Most of the revenue goes to the label, not the artist.

Check out the infographic on music artists pay.













So although I don't begrudge people their wealth, I don't like it when they bitch about not having enough money, to the point that they have to make up lies and sensationalise everything.

Oh and do watch this TED video, classic entertainments propaganda exposed.








> Plus, business money and individual money are different things. Someone's bank account isn't a reflection of their business's success, the business's bank account is what's important. Profits are EVERYTHING in business. If UFC stopped making profits, Zuffa would stop running them. Companies need to prove themselves to investors, shareholders, employees, employers. There's soooo much more to business than just "if you have a ferrari you're set". I'd HATE to be a part of the business end of anything (except your mum). Shit seems ridiculously boring.


Thanks for the business lesson, Clyde. I can't believe I've gone 30 odd years, done a degree and worked for FTSE companies without knowing the basics. :thumbsup:

I feel enlightened.



> We all know companies lose money through online piracy. For years I considered buying UFC DVDs from the beginning to have like a "collection". Now that I'm a few years older, I found out how to just download them all easily and will never spend a penny on it.


Of course the UFC loses a ton of money. I sometimes wonder where they would be without all buzz generated online and the downloading of their events before most people even knew who they were. They'd probably be the biggest company in the world if it was not all that terrible filesharing that made people aware of them before they made it big.



> I don't even get the debate. We know that illegal streaming and sharing hurts the entertainment industry fairly hard. We all do it cause we don't really give two fuks about the entertainment industry.
> 
> I think the reason some of you say it shouldn't be illegal is because you're just anti-big business.


I'm not anti-big business, I'm anti-capitalist. So where I don't like the idea of the corporations interfering in government, I have empathy for the artist (i have previously stated I think downloading is morally wrong) who is being screwed.

Essentially, these corporations are not adjusting to market demands.

Since you gave me such an epic introduction to the business world let me return the favour.

(Q1) What happens to any business that fails to adjust to the market?

(A) They go out of business.

(Q2) What happens when a corporation fails to adjust to the market?

(A) They lobby governments to make the market adjust to them



> Some guy uploads his Machinima Let's Play videos. He's trying to make a splash in that industry, but he has barely any money as it stands. He's hoping to build something from it and make a living in the gaming industry, then boom, someone starts uploading his videos on their channel (with no ads, so they make no money) and people start viewing the other person's videos instead. This ONE guy is losing money because someone else is illegally (?) uploading their content.


I get were you're going with this, but its not pirates that guy ought to be worried about  





> Universal Music Group has hijacked several YouTube videos of Bjorn Lynne, an independent musician from Norway. The world's largest music corporation is now running advertisements on videos of music tracks Lynne created, and is refusing to correct the mistake.
> 
> youtubesadsmallDay in and day out automated bots detect and report millions of alleged copyright infringements, which are processed by popular web services without a human ever looking at them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I couldn't give a rat's ass millionaires are claiming they are losing money.
Money is the disease of this world, anyway. Everything is about money, power and status and nothing will ever be enough for these dudes. 

So much money concentrated in the hands of few and I am not saying people shouldn't be entitled to become rich out of their work, but when people accumulate wealth just for the sake of it while lack of funds will litteraly be a reasonable excuse to let people in need of a medical care to die, I have to cringe.

We have to listen that absolute crooks are "successful people", "winners in life", just because they managed to accumulate big bucks by... becoming specialists in making big bucks, not because they are providing outstanding services to society and human kind.

I see people competing for status with not a mansion to live, but several, some they can stay away for over a freaking year, but they will say they own them. It's a flawed inhuman sistem favoring the powerful to become more powerful by the minute while regularly exploiting the weakers to their deaths in their own benefit.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> It completely winds me up when I hear of musicians actually owing their labels at the end of their contracts so they need to sign again or be sued. When I see adverts about how piracy is costing the poor old sound guy who holds the mic his job - give me a ******* break.


World's full of it mate. If you hate industries that run like this, there is no industry in the world for you.



Spite said:


> Thanks for the business lesson, Clyde. I can't believe I've gone 30 odd years, done a degree and worked for FTSE companies without knowing the basics. :thumbsup:
> 
> I feel enlightened.


Don't be a dick man. You wrote that they are driving around in their ferraris like that means they have, as you say, "made it in life". That doesn't mean their business is successful, so you can do whatever business degree you want, it still doesn't change the fact that personal money does not equal a business's money.



Spite said:


> Of course the UFC loses a ton of money. I sometimes wonder where they would be without all buzz generated online and the downloading of their events before most people even knew who they were. They'd probably be the biggest company in the world if it was not all that terrible filesharing that made people aware of them before they made it big.


So you're saying this is too small for a company to focus on? They have people in every area tackling different things. If something is even taking a cent out of UFC's pocket, they are going to address it, just like every business on the planet.



Spite said:


> I'm not anti-big business, I'm anti-capitalist. So where I don't like the idea of the corporations interfering in government, I have empathy for the artist (i have previously stated I think downloading is morally wrong) who is being screwed.
> 
> Essentially, these corporations are not adjusting to market demands.
> 
> ...


Wait wait wait wait, you're anti capitalist and did a business degree? That's like being anti-war and being an American. Doesn't add up. A business's sole purpose is profit.

The UFC isn't going out of business anytime soon, even though people have been claiming they are going downhill since like UFC 20 and they won't last a year.



Spite said:


> I get were you're going with this, but its not pirates that guy ought to be worried about


But if that scenario was happening then he WOULD be worried about the pirates.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I couldn't give a rat's ass millionaires are claiming they are losing money.
> Money is the disease of this world, anyway. Everything is about money, power and status and nothing will ever be enough for these dudes.
> 
> So much money concentrated in the hands of few and I am not saying people shouldn't be entitled to become rich out of their work, but when people accumulate wealth just for the sake of it while lack of funds will litteraly be a reasonable excuse to let people in need of a medical care to die, I have to cringe.
> ...


If you want to think about it, me and you are rich. Hell check the car from your last sig. I know I have like 20quid in the bank right now but I've got a roof over my head and have excess funds which I spend on clothes, alcohol, PS3 games etc. Neither of us donate our money to the local hospital (or if you do, you don't donate ALL of your excess money). It's the same for billionaires on a higher scale. None of us do enough to help other people. People are selfish. They do it on a higher scale than us but it's just the way almost everyone is.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with your statement about "success in life". I would love loads of money, but just to accommodate enjoying myself and give myself a bit more freedom to do what I want. I in no way what so every consider money or wealth to be a symbol of "success". I hate when people consider that to be the case, which most people do. If I wanted, I could have tried to become a lawyer or something and would have made loads. Instead I'm wanting to move into gaming. That's because I'll be interested in the latter, so while the likelihood of me making as much money is slim, I wouldn't consider that to be any less "successful".


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> World's full of it mate. If you hate industries that run like this, there is no industry in the world for you.


A Bold statement from someone who has yet to embark on a career. There are good guys out there Clyde, don't be so cynical. 



> Don't be a dick man. You wrote that they are driving around in their ferraris like that means they have, as you say, "made it in life". That doesn't mean their business is successful, so you can do whatever business degree you want, it still doesn't change the fact that personal money does not equal a business's money.


I was being sarcastic, I thought you'd appreciate it since I did not bite at your mom joke.



> So you're saying this is too small for a company to focus on? They have people in every area tackling different things. If something is even taking a cent out of UFC's pocket, they are going to address it, just like every business on the planet.


No I think they should tackle it in a responsible manner. By responsible I mean by respecting people freedoms and target people who make money from it such as streams. The UFC have previously said that they want to go after and sue people who view streams as well as supply them. The also supported SOPA and they will support whatever bullshit laws the entertainments industry will draw up next, in order to monetize the internet.



> Wait wait wait wait, you're anti capitalist and did a business degree? That's like being anti-war and being an American. Doesn't add up. A business's sole purpose is profit.
> The UFC isn't going out of business anytime soon, even though people have been claiming they are going downhill since like UFC 20 and they won't last a year.


I have a computing degree, although I also studied enterprise as a module on the course.

So, should a businesses sole purpose be profit? Well of course, how else would a business exist. Where we differ however is that you have a capitalist approach to it whereas I have a socialist approach to it. If we were both successful I reckon you would probably make more money than me, but as long as I followed my principals I'd be happy. I am not driven by money, and certainly not at the expense of others well being and happiness (note I am not saying your the opposite).


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> A Bold statement from someone who has yet to embark on a career. There are good guys out there Clyde, don't be so cynical.


I didn't say anything about a career. People lie all the time. Just fact of life. I just ate the last kit kat in my cupboard. If my mum asks, I'm gonna say I have no idea. And you thought Dana White was a liar, I'm knee deep in tinfoil mang.



Spite said:


> I was being sarcastic, I thought you'd appreciate it since I did not bite at your mom joke.


COME ON, I said "I wouldn't like to be on the business end", the only thing easier than that joke is your mum.



Spite said:


> No I think they should tackle it in a responsible manner. By responsible I mean by respecting people freedoms and target people who make money from it such as streams. The UFC have previously said that they want to go after and sue people who view streams as well as supply them. The also supported SOPA and they will support whatever bullshit laws the entertainments industry will draw up next, in order to monetize the internet.


I don't think targeting the people downloading is irresponsible, I just think it's ineffective. You never target the users, only the suppliers.



Spite said:


> I have a computing degree, although I also studied enterprise as a module on the course.


By the end of this year I'm going to have a distinction in business enterprises, communications and project management by the end of this year....in my computing course. That doesn't change the fact that I know fuk all about any of it haha.



Spite said:


> So, should a businesses sole purpose be profit? Well of course, how else would a business exist. Where we differ however is that you have a capitalist approach to it whereas I have a socialist approach to it. If we were both successful I reckon you would probably make more money than me, but as long as I followed my principals I'd be happy. I am not driven by money, and certainly not at the expense of others well being and happiness (note I am not saying your the opposite).


There's a middle ground. You never have to sacrifice your principles for money, but you're not exactly handing out money to every homeless guy on the street.

Considering that for dinner tonight I had a Koka Noodle and woke up at 4pm, yeah, don't worry about me making more money than you mate


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> By the end of this year I'm going to have a distinction in business enterprises, communications and project management by the end of this year....in my computing course. That doesn't change the fact that I know fuk all about any of it haha.


It doesn't matter that you know nothing about it. You'll find that you know sweet FA when you enter industry. The qualification is just to say you can learn whatever they throw at you. This will become even clearer if you do a degree (I asssume your on a BTEC National?). I done AI as part of my degree and I swear to you I do not know how I passed it, but I did.

I learned the hard and harsh way. For years I saw less skilled people get positions I wanted and knew more about simply because the position required a degree... but thats corporate life for you.

A good qualification opens doors, that even people more skilled (but without a qualification) can open.

Oh and don't worry about your mum asking about missing kit-kats because where you may be knee deep in tinfoil your mum's nose deep in pubic hair atm - it keeps making her cough... which is nice and tight on my bell end :thumbsup:

Sorry if this cause any distress to you... tell you what, heres a some flowers for you(orchis italica)


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I get distinctions in the shite because I'm smarter than the people teaching it. Although I did have the rant about how I got 45% in an extremely well done presentation because it was too insulting towards the class. I guess I sacrifice intelligence for being hilarious 

Your mum raised a son which introduced me to the most badass flowers on the planet. She's a saint.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

First of all, let me start this by saying that I own a Television and Live Music production company. So my point of view will be QUITE biased, and rightfully so!



Spite said:


> Many people simply do not have access to the Events or it is out of their price range. Cutting these people off will result in a drop in popularity.


Popularity means NOTHING to a business if that popularity does not equal income. If a store has 300 people in it, making it popular, but nobody is buying anything, the store will close! So it doesn't matter!



Warning said:


> Stealing is stealing. No matter how many cartoons someone makes to try to defend their crime. I download all my cage fighting. I am a thief. I am not going to try to justify my actions with semantics.


Very true words! 



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Piracy is NOT stealing income. Dana and his crownies make the false assumption that EVERYONE who's streaming and watching these events online would be purchasing their UFC PPV if the streams weren't available. This is an erroneous and false assumption.


You are making a 100% False claim here. Piracy DOES steal income. It is a 100% proven fact. Now, not everybody that streams/downloads would have bought, but some would have. And the fact that the product is EASY to steal means many will just go ahead and STEAL it instead of pay for it (why not, its free right?). This has been proven.



Spite said:


> Entertain execs bitch about how much money piracy costs them but they still manage to increase profits year on year, they still drive about in Ferrari's and live in playboy mansions.


Piracy has cost record labels almost EVERYTHING. Record sales are down more than 60% over the last decade. Artists no longer make money from selling albums (with a few rare exceptions) and only make money from LIVE shows (something that cant be replaced by a digital copy).

Film has continued to profit greatly, but because of compression technology, higher speed internet, and a new generation willing to watch cinema in lower quality, the profits are lower than they could be, and will DROP drastically because of the younger generations willingness to strait up steal content.

The people this affects FIRST (and it already HAS) is the crew that works on the films. Our rates haven't increased in 15 years and are actually declining in many cases. So to sit there and say you dont care about that fat cats is ignoring the workers who are hurt the most.



The Lone Wolf said:


> If everyone who has used his "services" does the same that'd be cool


Hey, why not set up fund to pay fines for EVERYBODY who steals a car then?



Term said:


> What I have gathered so far from this discussion is it's okay to take others intellectual property as long as you can't afford it. Is it stealing if you can?


It is such a poor argument that it CANT stand on its own. You pointed it out perfectly.



Ape City said:


> Entertainment products do not "lose" _potential_ income to digital copies, but to competing products. Putting people to jail won't and can't change that, only making the value-for-money equation more appealing. That's the fundamental principles of economics and the free market.


Yes, they most certainly do lose income to piracy. Its not a myth. They do lose money to competition too, but competition is not illegal, theft IS, and it is immoral too! 



Spite said:


> Piracy most certainly is not theft, unless you are profiting from it.
> 
> The correct term is copyright infringement. But who cares about a copyright infringer when labelling them pirates sounds much more severe.
> 
> There is definitely a case for the industry losing money due to lost sales, but its marginal, we know its marginal because they've been banging the same drum since people started buying TV sets - whos going to go to the movies when you can just watch it at home for free? Tape dubing was going to ruin the music industry. VHS was going to destroy the Movie industry.


It is theft and I take personal offense to this. I dont spend 14 hour days on set working hard to make a product for you to steal it.

It does affect MY INCOME and the INCOME of ALL of my employees! NOT 1 of my employees has made a single cent from a record sale in over 10 years, and the be frank, that is the direction technology is taking the film and PPV industry (it wont be as rapid, but it IS happening). It is an issue that should not be ignored.

Just because it has been talked about for a long time that does not mean it is NOT happening! IT IS CERTAINLY HAPPENING and the music industry is ALL the proof one needs to see that it is.



Spite said:


> When I see adverts about how piracy is costing the poor old sound guy who holds the mic his job - give me a ******* break.
> 
> When they say "You're taking money out of the artists pocket". What utter bullshit. 99.99% artists and actors get paid peanuts, if anything by their labels. Most of the revenue goes to the label, not the artist.


This is the biggest load of crap on this entire thread. Piracy HAS cost MANY sound guys their jobs. The number of recording engineers in music is the lowest it has EVER been. All the jobs have dried up. There is no money to be made in album sales, so most albums (with the big artist being the exceptions) are self recorded. When album sales made money, recording engineers worked on EVERY album from small to large. So to say its BS, you are talking out of PURE IGNORANCE! PURE!

I have MANY friends who lost their jobs. IT IS NOT A MYTH! It is FACT. And just because you dont THINK it is happening, doesnt mean it is not. 

Now is the Film/PPV industry in dire straits like the music industry? NO, certainly not yet. But to sit back and ignore that it WILL happen if it is not combated is the worst plan of action! The music industry was arrogant about it and said "napster can never take us down". They were DEAD WRONG!




Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I couldn't give a rat's ass millionaires are claiming they are losing money.
> Money is the disease of this world, anyway. Everything is about money, power and status and nothing will ever be enough for these dudes.


I don't care if millionaires make more millions either. But guess who suffers first when revenue drops? Its not the millionaires, its ALL the crew that depend on the product to make money to feed their families. So stealing from the millionaires, they dont really feel it to much. BUT I DO!!!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I know I'm not doing too bad when I see that Dan hasn't quoted me in a business related post


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> First of all, let me start this by saying that I own a Television and Live Music production company. So my point of view will be QUITE biased, and rightfully so!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I mean no offense by this, but when someone from the internet enters a discussion about piracy claiming to have his own TV and Music company, well then the argument is going nowhere is it?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Spite said:


> I mean no offense by this, but when someone from the internet enters a discussion about piracy claiming to have his own TV and Music company, well then the argument is going nowhere is it?


Thats an easy argument to retreat to when your losing 

His points all make perfect sense to me! Its only logical the streaming/downloading shit for free that you would have paid for before, or a good percentage of people would have paid for otherwise costs jobs, and money to the industry. Theres no getting away from that. 

Ive been to the cinema twice in the last year, I used to go once every two weeks, but I can get it for free now, without having to listen to the knacks playing on their phones for an hour and a half. Thats about 400 euro less Ive personally contributed to the film industry a year because of piracy. 

If a hundred thousand people download the next superhero movie that would alternatively go to the cinema and spend 20 quid, thats 2 mil bucks taken from the industry in one way or another. Of course thats going to cost jobs!


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

> Originally Posted by The Lone Wolf View Post
> If everyone who has used his "services" does the same that'd be cool





DanTheJu said:


> Hey, why not set up fund to pay fines for EVERYBODY who steals a car then?


Because I didnt use that stolen car.

I used Sir Pauls files for my entertainment at little risk to myself, and I appreciate what he's done. Ergo I'm willing to show my appreciation. Will i now stop watching pirated UFC events? Nope, I'll just find another source.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Spite said:


> I mean no offense by this, but when someone from the internet enters a discussion about piracy claiming to have his own TV and Music company, well then the argument is going nowhere is it?


So what you are saying is that there can only be one side to the argument ever? The people who steal money out of my pocket, the pocket of my employees and the pocket of all those in the TV/Film/Music industry are the only ones allowed to have a voice? When the actual victims speak out, we are not to be believed? Good work sir!

I bet you blame the girl who got raped for being too sexy too dont you?



DonRifle said:


> Thats an easy argument to retreat to when your losing
> 
> His points all make perfect sense to me! Its only logical the streaming/downloading shit for free that you would have paid for before, or a good percentage of people would have paid for otherwise costs jobs, and money to the industry. Theres no getting away from that.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your honesty! You are a perfect example of what IS happening. It is not a myth. It is fact!



The Lone Wolf said:


> Because I didnt use that stolen car.
> 
> I used Sir Pauls files for my entertainment at little risk to myself, and I appreciate what he's done. Ergo I'm willing to show my appreciation. Will i now stop watching pirated UFC events? Nope, I'll just find another source.


So if you were promised using a stolen car would have little risk to you then that would justify using it? A law only applies, and morals only apply, if you have low risk of being caught and prosecuted?


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DanTheJu said:


> So if you were promised using a stolen car would have little risk to you then that would justify using it? A law only applies, and morals only apply, if you have low risk of being caught and prosecuted?


No. I have no interest in using a stolen car. I am interested in watching UFC events.

Laws are a consensus on how we should live as civilised people, drawn up by people. Not everyone agrees with these laws. Therefore not everyone will abide by them.

I could wager that everyone on here has broken a law - some more serious than others, but again, the seriousness is subject to opinion.

I watch pirated events, movies etc. Does that make me as guilty as a mugger, or someone stealing a car? Maybe. Do i care? Not in the least. I have my own morals which I set upon myself.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

While I agree that most have violated a law at some time, the point is, this crime DOES harm the industry. It DOES cause a loss of jobs. And your indifference (which is shared by many) is the root of the cause of the job losses! So while you think you are doing no harm, there are people who have lost their jobs because of piracy! 

I hope you feel good about that, and I hope your morals allow for the destruction of others families simply because you don't agree with a law!


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Because you asked for it~ LOL....

I actually agree with most of what you say! Good on you sir!



ClydebankBlitz said:


> So? This is business we're talking about. If the lads on Dragon's Den invest in a new product, should they just give that product away for free since they are "already driving about in Ferraris"?


That is the mind set around here. F THEM, THEY MAKE MILLIONS. It is okay to steal from them. But what they fail to realize is that pain is not felt by the millionaires, it is felt by US, the CREW guys. The producers cut back on production expenses before the allow reduced profits. So those who WORK on the shows lose income and lose jobs!



> Plus, business money and individual money are different things. Someone's bank account isn't a reflection of their business's success, the business's bank account is what's important. Profits are EVERYTHING in business. If UFC stopped making profits, Zuffa would stop running them.


Very true. While profit SHOULD not be the ONLY goal of a business, it will ALWAYS be the #1 goal. With out profit, the business will NOT exist. 



> We all know companies lose money through online piracy. For years I considered buying UFC DVDs from the beginning to have like a "collection". Now that I'm a few years older, I found out how to just download them all easily and will never spend a penny on it.


You bastard! LOL


> I don't even get the debate. We know that illegal streaming and sharing hurts the entertainment industry fairly hard. We all do it cause we don't really give two fuks about the entertainment industry.
> 
> I think the reason some of you say it shouldn't be illegal is because you're just anti-big business. So let's give another example.


You ARE on to something here. People dont think it harms anybody other than the fat cats. Sad part is it barely hurts them while SMASHING the little guys!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I wasn't being sarcastic, when you quote people it's usually to explain to them why they are wrong haha.

But your entire point can be summed up in one expression; shit rolls downhill. The "fat cats" are going to protect their jobs and wages before they protect other peoples. This isn't ALWAYS the case, but really it's understandable. If I'm going to lose my job, or two other people are going to lose their job, I'm going to pick the other two, especially if I don't have to fire them. Brain Games covered this pretty recently with the "saving of people on the railway" simulation.



Lone Wolf, you don't like analogies so we'll stick strictly to UFC events. I'm never giving up this hobby. I absolutely LOVE MMA, so to get rid of it isn't possible for me. If tomorrow UFC moved to Sky Sports, which charges significantly higher than BT Sports, I'd most likely not buy the channel and watch it online. If I didn't have the internet, or couldn't have the internet, then I would most definitely buy the channel because I wouldn't allow myself to go without it.

By having torrents or streams, I wouldn't be paying that channel whatever amount of money it is, which would take money from the UFC. A lot more people would be doing this, so the money would add up. UFC might even get dropped from the channel if it wasn't getting enough views, which would hit then BADLY.

I don't get the argument. It's obvious that streaming or downloading illegal content hurts the entire entertainment industry. We all do lots of things each day that mean very little to us, but over a long time and with a mass of people, will hurt an industry fairly hard. It either doesn't effect us, or we don't care because of the scale, but that doesn't mean we can pretend it's harmless.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> So what you are saying is that there can only be one side to the argument ever? The people who steal money out of my pocket, the pocket of my employees and the pocket of all those in the TV/Film/Music industry are the only ones allowed to have a voice? When the actual victims speak out, we are not to be believed? Good work sir!
> 
> I bet you blame the girl who got raped for being too sexy too dont you?


There is one two reasons why I refuse to further debate this with you.

1). You have your own company and are too emotionally invested in the debate for me to be bothered with it, lifes to short. I come here for bit of craic and fun and sometimes semi-serious discussion

2). You're full of shit and you claim to have your own entertainments/production company to add weight to your discussion. In which case, I simply do not want to engage with you.

If you're keen to make ridiculous comparisons between copyright infringement and ****, then why not try Sherdog, Reddit or TorrentFreak... I'm sure the users there will be more than happy to challenge sensationalist theories.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I wasn't being sarcastic, when you quote people it's usually to explain to them why they are wrong haha.
> 
> But your entire point can be summed up in one expression; shit rolls downhill. The "fat cats" are going to protect their jobs and wages before they protect other peoples. This isn't ALWAYS the case, but really it's understandable. If I'm going to lose my job, or two other people are going to lose their job, I'm going to pick the other two, especially if I don't have to fire them. Brain Games covered this pretty recently with the "saving of people on the railway" simulation.
> 
> ...


I don't pretend its harmless, but I think the harm it causes is negligible. Added to which I simply do not care about what harm it potentially causes. IF pirating didnt exist then yeah, there would probably be more jobs somewhere for something. Does that mean I shouldnt stop drinking and take up smoking just to create more jobs, or so someone else doesnt lose theirs? Should I shop at the more expensive independent grocery store just so the guy doesnt go out of business, even if I cant afford to do so?


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

truth is, I wish I could afford PPVs, those are damn expensive, and none of my friends watch the UFC or even understands english. Plus, it's like at midnight saturday morning, lasts until early in the morning hours, ufc event, here goes my weekend.

some ppvs can be streamed legally through dailymotion but I haven't seen any of these for a while now.

I do intend to, one day, buy PPV events, but that's too much money right now, I'm a single dad, just started my own business, things are tough, I couldn't just pay about $100 a month (2xPPV) just to watch the fights.

damn, I wish I could, and I love the UFC too much to just not watch the events.

if I could, I'd fly to each and every event they put on

but right now, my focus is to pay the damn rent and bills.

and thank god every now and again I can watch the UFC for free so I can get my mood up when needed.

so yea, they lose money
most of us barely can make just enough to get by

they still make billions

so in the meanwhile, I do as I can, and if I can pay, I'll gladly pay twice the price.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I don't pretend its harmless, but I think the harm it causes is negligible. Added to which I simply do not care about what harm it potentially causes. IF pirating didnt exist then yeah, there would probably be more jobs somewhere for something. Does that mean I shouldnt stop drinking and take up smoking just to create more jobs, or so someone else doesnt lose theirs? Should I shop at the more expensive independent grocery store just so the guy doesnt go out of business, even if I cant afford to do so?


I'm ABSOLUTELY with you here. I'm not some dik martyr. I currently have a catalogue of like 30 events waiting to download. I'm not saying it's some massive moral dilemma. I'm just saying let's not pretend it should be legal or it makes no difference or some shit. Catching Sir Paul IS a hit. People will obviously continue downloading, but literally like 3 more catches might make it very hard to get some downloads of bit events.

Btw, anyone have good links to everything after Brown/Hendricks to Silva/Diaz? I think piratebay was down then so links never got updated.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The Lone Wolf said:
> 
> 
> > I don't pretend its harmless, but I think the harm it causes is negligible. Added to which I simply do not care about what harm it potentially causes. IF pirating didnt exist then yeah, there would probably be more jobs somewhere for something. Does that mean I shouldnt stop drinking and take up smoking just to create more jobs, or so someone else doesnt lose theirs? Should I shop at the more expensive independent grocery store just so the guy doesnt go out of business, even if I cant afford to do so?
> ...


The beauty of being an ex-WWE fan. Xtremewrestlingtorrents is the shit, and I think it's the place where Sir Pauls rips came in first. Because of his arrest they closed the registration though. 
Other than that I use only piratebay and kickass torrents. For nba fans I recommend bt.davka.info, they upload all of the games the following day good quality.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I like desirulez for pro wrestling. They have download links but I prefer to watch things streaming and they upload it almost live.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Spite said:


> If you're keen to make ridiculous comparisons between copyright infringement and ****, then why not try Sherdog, Reddit or TorrentFreak... I'm sure the users there will be more than happy to challenge sensationalist theories.


I am curious as to which of his assertions you found so outlandish.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I hate people trying to draw this massive line between copyright infringement and stealing. It's basically like grammar nazi.

"Someone stole my stuff"
"Actually, they copyrighted your stuff"
"Actually, fuk off"


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Term said:


> I am curious as to which of his assertions you found so outlandish.


_"I bet you blame the girl who got raped for being too sexy too dont you?"_

If he can't keep his emotions in check, and resorts to insulting people, then I don't have time for him.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

The only opinion that truly matters is that of the courts. And they say it's Copyright Infringement, not Stealing/Theft. One's personal opinion doesn't mean jack squat.

_IMO, my car is blue. I don't care if everyone else on the planet calls it red - it's really blue and everyone else is wrong._

If there was no possible way to view UFC events for free, I simply wouldn't watch them. Either way, no money leaves my possession.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Woodenhead said:


> The only opinion that truly matters is that of the courts. And they say it's Copyright Infringement, not Stealing/Theft. One's personal opinion doesn't mean jack squat.


Truest words written in this thread.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Spite said:


> 1). You have your own company and are too emotionally invested in the debate for me to be bothered with it, lifes to short. I come here for bit of craic and fun and sometimes semi-serious discussion


I am highly emotional about this, and it SHOULD NEVER BE A DEBATE. I have had to let employees go in the past because of piracy (they were recording engineers, that work is now dried up). Nobody EVER debates if stealing cars should be allowed, so I just don't understand how people could debate that stealing intellectual property is OKAY? I DONT GET IT!



> 2). You're full of shit and you claim to have your own entertainments/production company to add weight to your discussion. In which case, I simply do not want to engage with you.


I have been posting on this forum for many years and my position has been consistent. I am not full of crap, I own a production company (its not giant, which means we are hit even harder by piracy).



> If you're keen to make ridiculous comparisons between copyright infringement and ****, then why not try Sherdog, Reddit or TorrentFreak... I'm sure the users there will be more than happy to challenge sensationalist theories.


My comparison was blaming the victim and pointing out how RIDICULOUS that is. 



Woodenhead said:


> The only opinion that truly matters is that of the courts. And they say it's Copyright Infringement, not Stealing/Theft. One's personal opinion doesn't mean jack squat.


Here is the deal... Copyright Infringement is the theft of intellectual property. Music, Film and Video are all intellectual property, not physical property. So a court cant call it theft in the same way as they would a stick of gum or a car (a physical property). They are LEGALLY different. But, none-the-less copyright infringement by piracy is THEFT of intellectual property



> If there was no possible way to view UFC events for free, I simply wouldn't watch them. Either way, no money leaves my possession.


Good to hear that you are proud of your criminal behavior! The stance of the Entertainment industry will NEVER be "Well, if they wouldn't ever pay for it, we should just give it to them free". If you are not willing to buy the product, you should not have access to it. Plain and simple! The crew guys don't put in HOURS upon HOURS of work to entertain you for NOTHING!


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

And what about the people who download pirated UFC events, enjoy them so much they go to live event, buy merchandise etc. The UFC is then generating income from someone who they wouldnt have if piracy wasnt around.

DantheJU - just because you don't agree with it, doesnt mean it shouldnt be up for debate. Hell, just because its illegal doesnt mean it shouldnt be up for debate either. And just because someone wouldnt buy a ppv doesnt mean theyre proud to watch pirated copies, no more so than being proud for taking a sh!t, its just something that happens.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> And what about the people who download pirated UFC events, enjoy them so much they go to live event, buy merchandise etc. The UFC is then generating income from someone who they wouldnt have if piracy wasnt around.


The argument that piracy leads to free marketing is a false argument. While it may happen from time to time, the numbers are insignificant compared to the money lost due to the piracy.

Again, I refer you to the music industry (I use the music industry because it is the most GLARING example of how piracy can affect intellectual property, and all entertainment IP is going the way of the music industry slowly as technology allows it). Many argued that the stolen downloads would lead to new fans and more purchased albums and higher concert attendance. The HARD facts are that industry wide album sales are down over 60% in the last decade (why buy it if you can get it free right?) and concert ticket sales are also slightly down (but not significantly).



> DantheJU - just because you don't agree with it, doesnt mean it shouldnt be up for debate. Hell, just because its illegal doesnt mean it shouldnt be up for debate either. And just because someone wouldnt buy a ppv doesnt mean theyre proud to watch pirated copies, no more so than being proud for taking a sh!t, its just something that happens.


STEALING and costing people jobs because of that theft (and yes copyright infringement is theft) should be up for debate? I dont see how there could be a counter argument other than "I just don't give a f***" which frankly, is not an argument!

Going to the bathroom is a natural, legal and necessary thing. Theft of intellectual property is neither natural, legal nor necessary in any way. It is not something that just happens. You don't walk down the street, trip and fall into a pirated stream. You sit down at your computer and deliberately search out the illegal content and then view it illegally. Its no different than walking into a store and putting a DVD in your pocket and NOT paying for it other than you dont have the physical dvd afterward (unless you burn it, another copyright infringement)!


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DanTheJu said:


> The argument that piracy leads to free marketing is a false argument. While it may happen from time to time, the numbers are insignificant compared to the money lost due to the piracy.
> 
> Again, I refer you to the music industry (I use the music industry because it is the most GLARING example of how piracy can affect intellectual property, and all entertainment IP is going the way of the music industry slowly as technology allows it). Many argued that the stolen downloads would lead to new fans and more purchased albums and higher concert attendance. The HARD facts are that industry wide album sales are down over 60% in the last decade (why buy it if you can get it free right?) and concert ticket sales are also slightly down (but not significantly).
> 
> ...


I choose when to take a dump, just like I choose what to download and when to download it. Would I walk into a store and steal a dvd? No, i'd just download it. 

Laws should always be open to debate, else we'd live in a tyrannical state.

Is it really so wrong and immoral to watch something for free? :confused02:


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Spite said:


> _"I bet you blame the girl who got raped for being too sexy too dont you?"_
> 
> If he can't keep his emotions in check, and resorts to insulting people, then I don't have time for him.


Well I was more curious about this statement.



Spite said:


> If you're keen to make ridiculous comparisons between copyright infringement and ******, then why not try Sherdog, Reddit or TorrentFreak... I'm sure the users there will be more than happy to challenge *sensationalist theories*.


What are these sensationalist theories. Also what is being censored, I can't figure out what that is, theft, if so why was it censored??



The Lone Wolf said:


> I choose when to take a dump, just like I choose what to download and when to download it. Would I walk into a store and steal a dvd? No, i'd just download it.
> 
> Laws should always be open to debate, else we'd live in a tyrannical state.
> 
> Is it really so wrong and immoral to watch something for free? :confused02:


Laws are always open for debate, what is right and wrong is not.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Term said:


> Also what is being censored, I can't figure out what that is, theft, if so why was it censored??


sh!t, perhaps?


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I choose when to take a dump, just like I choose what to download and when to download it. Would I walk into a store and steal a dvd? No, i'd just download it.


You may choose when to take a dump, but you do not choose if it is natural, necessary and legal. Choosing to steal content is neither natural, necessary nor legal. It is THEFT.



> Laws should always be open to debate, else we'd live in a tyrannical state.


 Immoral laws should ALWAYS be up for debate, but laws that protect property from theft should not!


> Is it really so wrong and immoral to watch something for free? :confused02:


 If doing so costs others financially and even leads to the loss of their job, then YES it is immoral! You are taking food from the table of the crew that works on the shows you are stealing (and YES I understand that YOU alone are a drop in a giant bucket, but you are one OF MANY)


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DanTheJu said:


> You may choose when to take a dump, but you do not choose if it is natural, necessary and legal. Choosing to steal content is neither natural, necessary nor legal. It is THEFT.


To some it is necessary as it is not available in any other format.

I'm not taking food away from anyone by watching a pirated event. Well, except the top dogs who can afford all the food they need. Bob the sound guy wont get more money if I bought a ppv. Dave the camera guy wouldnt. So who would, exactly?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> To some it is necessary as it is not available in any other format.
> 
> I'm not taking food away from anyone by watching a pirated event. Well, except the top dogs who can afford all the food they need. Bob the sound guy wont get more money if I bought a ppv. Dave the camera guy wouldnt. So who would, exactly?


I hate when people do this. That minimalistic attitude of "I'm one person. I'm not taking food from people's mouths".

There are sooooooo many people streaming and downloading events illegal that ONE person isn't the issue, ALL of the people are. 

DanTheJu is telling you straight up. He deals with this, and he's had to see Bob The Sound Guy get laid off because they are taking such a hit from copyright. He's had to tell Dave the camera guy that he has to take a pay cut. He's been there and done it, so us sitting at home can't pretend it makes no difference.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Term said:


> Well I was more curious about this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> What are these sensationalist theories. Also what is being censored, I can't figure out what that is, theft, if so why was it censored??


For some reason the site does not block raped but it blocks rapé.

Saying that I (or others) would blame a woman for being raped because she looked hot due to the fact we believe copyright infringement is not actual theft, is sensationalising the issue.

Plus given the fact I have a daughter, I frankly found it offensive. That, and the fact is, that kind of talk has no place on these boards.

Hope that cleared it up for you :thumbsup:


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I hate when people do this. That minimalistic attitude of "I'm one person. I'm not taking food from people's mouths".
> 
> There are sooooooo many people streaming and downloading events illegal that ONE person isn't the issue, ALL of the people are.
> 
> DanTheJu is telling you straight up. He deals with this, and he's had to see Bob The Sound Guy get laid off because they are taking such a hit from copyright. He's had to tell Dave the camera guy that he has to take a pay cut. He's been there and done it, so us sitting at home can't pretend it makes no difference.


I highly doubt the UFC has let people go or given pay cuts die to pirating. And even if they have it doesnt bother me in the slightest. That might make me a cnut, but that doesnt bother me either.

By the way, DanTheJu - have you ever borrowed a book off a friend? a cd? a video game?


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> To some it is necessary as it is not available in any other format.


It IS NOT necessary. There is a GREAT difference between wanting to watch an entertainment program and a physical need to defecate. If you dont defecate, you die. If you dont watch an entertainment program, you are harmed in no way.


> I'm not taking food away from anyone by watching a pirated event. Well, except the top dogs who can afford all the food they need. Bob the sound guy wont get more money if I bought a ppv. Dave the camera guy wouldnt. So who would, exactly?


This is where you are VERY VERY VERY WRONG! The top dogs WILL not take the hit first. When profits begin to drop, they do not take the hit, they reduce costs. The costs that are reduced include the crew. So yes, the sound department and camera department ARE affected! It is just simply the FACTS.

I have had to let sound guys go because of lack of work in the recording industry. IT DOES HAPPEN!



The Lone Wolf said:


> I highly doubt the UFC has let people go or given pay cuts die to pirating.


I also doubt the UFC has had to tighten the belt YET because of piracy. But they are still a growing industry. If they do NOT combat it, it will reach a point where many will lose jobs because of it (all the proof we need is in the music industry, they refused to combat it).


> And even if they have it doesnt bother me in the slightest. That might make me a cnut, but that doesnt bother me either.


"F*** it, I dont care about anybody but myself" argument! Good stuff! Selfish much?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I highly doubt the UFC has let people go or given pay cuts die to pirating. And even if they have it doesnt bother me in the slightest. That might make me a cnut, but that doesnt bother me either.
> 
> By the way, DanTheJu - have you ever borrowed a book off a friend? a cd? a video game?


As I said man, don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit about other people's jobs. I wanted to watch the first two fights tonight so I streamed them illegally. Couldn't give two shites about it. I'm cool with it.

I'm just saying let's not pretend it should be legal.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DanTheJu said:


> "F*** it, I dont care about anybody but myself" argument! Good stuff! Selfish much?


I care about people I know. I don't care about Gary in Texas who just had a stroke and cant work again who i don't know and never will know. I dont care about 80 year old Daisy who's just fallen down the stairs in Detroit somewhere on her own. That doesnt make me selfish, it just makes me not much of a hippy I guess? :confused02:



ClydebankBlitz said:


> As I said man, don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit about other people's jobs. I wanted to watch the first two fights tonight so I streamed them illegally. Couldn't give two shites about it. I'm cool with it.
> 
> I'm just saying let's not pretend it should be legal.


I'm not saying it should or shouldnt - I couldnt care less. And the reason for that is its always gonna be available. Its never going to be stopped. Just like drugs are illegal, but people still take them, and that will never stop. Its too easy and too widespread.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

The Lone Wolf said:


> To some it is necessary as it is not available in any other format.
> 
> I'm not taking food away from anyone by watching a pirated event. Well, except the top dogs who can afford all the food they need. *Bob the sound guy wont get more money if I bought a ppv. Dave the camera guy wouldnt.* So who would, exactly?


They might not make more money, but if profit went down they would be the first to either take a paycut or lose their job entirely. It would certainly affect their ability to earn a living before it affected the top dogs.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Rygu said:


> They might not make more money, but if profit went down they would be the first to either take a paycut or lose their job entirely. It would certainly affect their ability to earn a living before it affected the top dogs.


Exactly!


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Rygu said:


> They might not make more money, but if profit went down they would be the first to either take a paycut or lose their job entirely. It would certainly affect their ability to earn a living before it affected the top dogs.


But me watching a pirated event doesnt result in the UFC losing money/profit, therefore Bob and Dave will be just fine :thumbsup:

And since we've all borrowed a book, a cd, a dvd, a video game, a movie off a friend at some point in time, we're all guilty of it. How do you justify that? Is it ok to borrow stuff like that from your friends?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> First of all, let me start this by saying that I own a Television and Live Music production company. So my point of view will be QUITE biased, and rightfully so!
> ........
> I don't care if millionaires make more millions either. But guess who suffers first when revenue drops? Its not the millionaires, its *ALL the crew that depend on the product to make money to feed their families*. So stealing from the millionaires, they dont really feel it to much. BUT I DO!!!


As I said before, the whole system is flawed and fucused in money gain.

You are a business man. Good. Stick to it. You want profit. That's what you live for. So don't come with this "poor sound guys will lose their jobs" line when you know you gonna pay your employes the very minimum you can in order to maximize your own profits. 

I am sure the thoughts of these guys losing their jobs won't prevent you from investing in technology that could lead you to spare a few man (or several) for the same work output and again, increasing your profits by doing so.

Sure thing, if a management meeting conclude it would be cheaper to hire a third party company to make part of your company work, you again gonna fire sound men to accommodate the new profitable business plan.

Conquering more and more market share? Great thing for a businessman. Everything goes if you can expand your business, even though that could mean other companies even going out of business and all of their employes becoming jobless. But all right. Competition is legal and that is all that matter, isn't it? So just no need to bring up those families misfortune while your company holds a huge party in celebration. 

It is a modern day slavery, where backlashes are replaced by the threat of unemployment. 

As I said. It's the business game. I get it, but a business man trying to pass the idea what they really care about is people? Sorry, no.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

The Lone Wolf said:


> But me watching a pirated event doesnt result in the UFC losing money/profit, therefore Bob and Dave will be just fine :thumbsup:
> 
> And since we've all borrowed a book, a cd, a dvd, a video game, a movie off a friend at some point in time, we're all guilty of it. How do you justify that? Is it ok to borrow stuff like that from your friends?



Im with this. If I couldn't stream ufc ppvs, i wouldn't watch them. Either way they do not get my money. They lose literally not one cent by me watching their events on stream.




Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> But me watching a pirated event doesnt result in the UFC losing money/profit, therefore Bob and Dave will be just fine :thumbsup:


 It is AMAZING how self centered you are! The world DOES NOT revolve around you!



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> As I said before, the whole system is flawed and fucused in money gain.


If there is no money to be made there is no reason to be in business! Sure you could say to better the lives of others, but that costs money to do!



> You are a business man. Good. Stick to it. You want profit. That's what you live for. So don't come with this "poor sound guys will lose their jobs" line when you know you gonna pay your employes the very minimum you can in order to maximize your own profits.


This is HIGHLY offensive. You know LITERALLY nothing about my business, how I run it, and how I pay my guys. In an industry of artists (camera operators and sound engineers are artists) if you pay them the least possible you get a HORRIBLE product. I pay my guys 20% higher than the closest guys in my market. I profit less per job than the other guys because of it, but we get more jobs! I want to get rich (which I am no where near it yet) by make others rich. I worked as a Camera Operator for many years, I know what motivated me to be as creative and work as hard as possible, it was money and respect. So I provide that for all my workers. To say I would treat my guys poorly to make extra money is to spit in my face! 



> I am sure the thoughts of these guys losing their jobs won't prevent you from investing in technology that could lead you to spare a few man (or several) for the same work output and again, increasing your profits by doing so.


Wrong again. I work with artists. I dont work with people who are replaceable by a robot. 



> Sure thing, if a management meeting conclude it would be cheaper to hire a third party company to make part of your company work, you again gonna fire sound men to accommodate the new profitable business plan.


Will NEVER happen. That is not how I operate. I started working as a production assistant and worked my way up to earn enough money to start my own company. I appreciate what my guys go through and I appreciate their talents. I would never outsource to a cheaper company, because frankly they are cheaper for a reason, and the results would be subpar!

I have never had a single employee leave my company for financial reasons. The two that quit did so to advance their career beyond what I could offer (I am small comparatively) and the sound guys I HAVE had to let go where because they were strictly recording engineers and that is a DEAD industry!



> Conquering more and more market share? Great thing for a businessman. Everything goes if you can expand your business, even though that could mean other companies even going out of business and all of their employes becoming jobless. But all right. Competition is legal and that is all that matter, isn't it? So just no need to bring up those families misfortune while your company holds a huge party in celebration.
> 
> It is a modern day slavery, where backlashes are replaced by the threat of unemployment.
> 
> As I said. It's the business game. I get it, but a business man trying to pass the idea what they really care about is people? Sorry, no.


You are bitter. You have not a single clue who I am or how I treat my guys. I take personal offense to EVERYTHING you have said. Your ignorance is far stronger than your intelligence and far stronger than your business knowledge. Just because there are corporations who do act as you have explained does not mean that all of them do! Get a GRIP you bitter little man!

I learned how to treat employees and people in general from my father. He owned a car dealership. He paid his guys more than fair, and treated them like family. He cried when they cried, he hurt when they hurt. 

Sure he made more money than they did, but he is the one who built the business. They all made great money for what they did, and they loved my father for it.

Now to say I would act the way you claim is to say that I would step on a friends face to pick up a dollar, that is SIMPLY not the case. I invest in my guys, I want them to grow to be as great as they can be. We will ALL benefit from that.

I know, based on your comments, that you are going to think I am full of crap, but I do hope someday that you will find a job where people care. But I think you will probably self destruct that anyway, saying the kind of crap you are spewing here!



M.C said:


> Im with this. If I couldn't stream ufc ppvs, i wouldn't watch them. Either way they do not get my money. They lose literally not one cent by me watching their events on stream.


 Still doesn't matter, you are stealing the product. Its the same as saying Ford wouldn't get a penny from me if I didnt steal that car, cause I would NEVER buy it. You are stealing it! Its theft! Doesn't matter if you would buy it for any other reason!

Sportsman here is a quick example of how I do business:

About 2 months ago I got a call from a client wanting to do some simple sit down interviews in front of a green screen. The client told me their budget and said in the other cities they have already worked the production company sent a 1-man-band (a cameraman who also did the audio for the shoot). 

Well, I agreed to the producers budget but I sent a full crew. The director of photography was able to concentrate on lighting and operating the camera while the sound guy concentrated on making sure the highest quality audio was captured.

Paying the full crew cost me about 75% of my profit on that job, in fact, I made FAR less than the two guys I sent on the job. 

BUT what it did do was IMPRESS the client because my guys did such a good job. That client has booked my guys to travel with him to his next locations. So now they will make far more money and I will make far more money.

We all profited because we all cared! We cared about our product and I cared about my people.

(Now I know this wouldnt work in a place like mcdonalds. a crappy burger is always a crappy burger, but I will never go into business to sell a crappy product)


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Fortunately, the courts disagree with DanTheJu's terminology.

Don't take it personally when I consider the court's take on the matter over some random on the internet.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> Fortunately, the courts disagree with DanTheJu's terminology.
> 
> Don't take it personally when I consider the court's take on the matter over some random on the internet.


I have explained this already. The court calls it Copyright infringement. And that is what it is legally called. What is copyright infringement? The theft of intellectual property.

Why does it have different terminology? Because IP is not something you can touch, it is not a physical product. So it is treated VASTLY different. As it should be.

Just because it has a different legal term doest mean its not theft! IT IS. IT JUST SIMPLY IS, the theft is just called copyright infringement! And if that term makes you feel better about stealing, then you are only fooling yourself!

I have defended a copyright in court before, I am intimately familiar with copyrights!


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

If you have a legit point that comes remotely close to trumping mine, I'll post something different.

_In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization._ ~ Dowling v. United States | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...acy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml



I'll also add that I live in a country where what I do isn't illegal.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> If you have a legit point that comes remotely close to trumping mine, I'll post something different.
> 
> 
> I'll also add that I live in a country where what I do isn't illegal.


But you havent made a point other than the crime is known as Copyright Infringement. That is true, I dont debate that or try to trump it. Just define it. And it is defined as the theft, or unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material. Pretty simple. Its a broad term!


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

If you have a legit point that comes remotely close to trumping mine, I'll post something different.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> Sportsman here is a quick example of how I do business:
> 
> About 2 months ago I got a call from a client wanting to do some simple sit down interviews in front of a green screen. The client told me their budget and said in the other cities they have already worked the production company sent a 1-man-band (a cameraman who also did the audio for the shoot).
> 
> ...


Hey man, I will completely disregard all the rough things you wrote to me and not addressing any of them because I get you took it personally, so I clearly understand your frustration.

Actually, if you have in mind my main issue is with the *monetary system itself* we are all imersed into, as I addressed a few times already, you wouldn't feel so offended. It wasn't my intention to offend you in a personal level anyway.

I understand we have no choice in this material world but to make and use money, which is really intoxicating. And I know there are more and less ethical ways of running a company, so I will understand you can feel offended if you are one of the guys standing out, but, yeah, taking your word about the way you say you do things makes you an exception and you know it, so don't come to defend the "category of buseness men" if you know yourself you are far better than the rest when dealing with people.

You know how people are generally treated in this capitalist world.



DanTheJu said:


> I know, based on your comments, that you are going to think *I am full of crap*...


Only if you tell this board you paid for every single mp3 you listen in your phone. :thumb02:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I'm not saying it should or shouldnt - I couldnt care less. And the reason for that is its always gonna be available. Its never going to be stopped. Just like drugs are illegal, but people still take them, and that will never stop. Its too easy and too widespread.


Streaming can be a problem to stop but Torrenting isn't. There are like 5 big uploaders of UFC events, 4 now. I can't find torrent links to like 5 UFC events from December cause the site was down then. No one has uploaded them since. It's not THAT popular.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Hey man, I will completely disregard all the rough things you wrote to me and not addressing any of them because I get you took it personally, so I clearly understand your frustration.
> 
> Actually, if you have in mind my main issue is with the *monetary system itself* we are all imersed into, as I addressed a few times already, you wouldn't feel so offended. It wasn't my intention to offend you in a personal level anyway.
> 
> ...




Why are you sitting there saying "the majority of businessmen are corrupt"? What is your image of a businessman Dana White? Donald Trump? You know Steve that runs the corner shop is a businessman? John who does car valeting is a businessmen?

This is why you can't have proper discussions online about this stuff. People are such armchair revolutonists, acting like the word "business" comes hard in hard with with some bullshit illuminati youtube videos or something.

Being a businessman and paying your employees fairly isn't rare. Why does the owner of a business make more? Because they are the OWNER of the business. Why the hell would someone start a business if they would make more being an employee?

There are only really like three reasons why someone makes a business:- Freedom and creativity, promotion of equality or monetary gain.

You are against the whole monetary system? You're aware humans have NEVER survived without it right? Before we were exchanging paper and metal, we were trading rocks and animal skins. Being against the monetary system is like being against oxygen. Humans have never even been close to existing without it. Money fuels a lot of bad things but no one ever looks at a place like India where they treat their daughters as currency.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

I won't contribute to the discussion, since at this point pretty much everything has been said and I would only be taking sides and agreeing, but I have to say that this has been a very entertaining read and there are a bunch of new things I have learned as well, I'll rep the most loudest posters here. 

Btw, Clyde, I haven't had any problems downloading any of the UFC events so far.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Why are you sitting there saying "the majority of businessmen are corrupt"? What is your image of a businessman Dana White? Donald Trump? You know Steve that runs the corner shop is a businessman? John who does car valeting is a businessmen?
> 
> This is why you can't have proper discussions online about this stuff. People are such armchair revolutonists, acting like the word "business" comes hard in hard with with some bullshit illuminati youtube videos or something.
> 
> ...


I am certainly not referring to a business man who runs a family baker store. My original statement pointed direct to the millionaires.
The concentration of money in the hands of few is the proof the human (as a whole, not individually) did not evolve to take care of each other, actually, the situation worsened, as everybody needs to accumulate money for secure their daily lives and future. Lack of money kill people. Lack of money make honest buseness men to let good people go and cheaper options for companies lead managers to release people too and that' has nothing to do with corruption.

It is difficult indeed to discuss these things because before asking wht someone means, people elect their assumptions as the ultimate truth in their minds and then it's too late to even listen to you again.

Yes, the whole monetary system is flawed and made the whole population of this world dependant of it, not even imagining how they could live without money. Actually, it is becoming even harder by the day if someone radically decides to live in the woods, living just with what nature could supply, because almost every piece of this planet has a owner, being govern or private and then you would be trespassing, even though the land is there, unoccupied, belonging to someone else.

I know most techniques used to extract from the population every bit of sweat in order to make other people rich. I mean, some can say I am just bitter and know nothing, but I can't stop people from assuming what they want, but I am quite a specialist in this matter, as I have worked in quite a few companies, close enough to management, employees associations and unions to know what people are capable of to maximize their profits, legally, no corruption involved.


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I highly doubt the UFC has let people go or given pay cuts die to pirating. And even if they have it doesnt bother me in the slightest. That might make me a cnut, but that doesnt bother me either.
> 
> By the way, DanTheJu - have you ever borrowed a book off a friend? a cd? a video game?


I don't want to argue this thread is insane but just fyi when you borrow a book movie cd video game you are not making a copy of it. Thus why people were arguing stealing vs piracy borrowing is not the same as piracy making copies to millions. FYI there are benifits to both UFC is anti piracy like a mutha****a. While a show like Game of thrones was joyful that they were the most pirated torrent online at one point because piracy does create interest in the product and if there is interest people will buy it they will go see it in theaters you will get money from piracy in some instances. UFC however is not one of them because you only watch it once.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman, you directly talked about how Dan deals with his business, and he himself says he's far from some huge corporation owner. He has never implied anything other than he's a standard business owner.



Leed said:


> Btw, Clyde, I haven't had any problems downloading any of the UFC events so far.


On PB I can't find anything from TUF 20 to whatever was before Silva/Diaz. You got torrent links to any of em?


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

JASONJRF said:


> I don't want to argue this thread is insane but just fyi when you borrow a book movie cd video game you are not making a copy of it. Thus why people were arguing stealing vs piracy borrowing is not the same as piracy making copies to millions. FYI there are benifits to both UFC is anti piracy like a mutha****a. While a show like Game of thrones was joyful that they were the most pirated torrent online at one point because piracy does create interest in the product and if there is interest people will buy it they will go see it in theaters you will get money from piracy in some instances. UFC however is not one of them because you only watch it once.


But the end result is the same. You have read/watched/played a title without contributing to the company who produced it. You have used that product for free, when others have had to pay for it. It is no different.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> On PB I can't find anything from TUF 20 to whatever was before Silva/Diaz. You got torrent links to any of em?


https://kickass.to/

just checked for a couple random events between TUF 20 and Silva/Diaz, seems that everything is available here.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Leed said:


> https://kickass.to/
> 
> just checked for a couple random events between TUF 20 and Silva/Diaz, seems that everything is available here.


See if you can find TUF 20 Finale on there. I just tried and can't find anything.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> See if you can find TUF 20 Finale on there. I just tried and can't find anything.


You should practice your piracy skills! :thumb02:

https://kickass.to/the-ultimate-fighter-s20-finale-hdtv-x264-kyr-rarbg-t9961907.html


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

S20, should have though of that haha. Other ones are there. I was only using TPB before, might switch over since kickass seems more solid.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> S20, should have though of that haha. Other ones are there. I was only using TPB before, might switch over since kickass seems more solid.


After TBP went down I somehow stumbled upon kickass, I actually like it a lot more, and I like it how on the start page it shows the newest movie/tv show/game/etc uploads.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

kickass is usually where i source mine from. can sometimes be a little slow on getting the events on there but not very often


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Leed said:


> After TBP went down I somehow stumbled upon kickass, I actually like it a lot more, and I like it how on the start page it shows the newest movie/tv show/game/etc uploads.


I've known of kickass for a while but couldnt find something a few times and never went back. I was actually downloading from it before you posted cause I wanted brain games and they had more seeds on kickass. Never thought of UFC.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DantheJu must be pulling his hair out reading these last few posts!


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I've known of kickass for a while but couldnt find something a few times and never went back. I was actually downloading from it before you posted cause I wanted brain games and they had more seeds on kickass. Never thought of UFC.


There are websites that provide links to 20 odd sites for your chosen torrent. Still not found it on these?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The Lone Wolf said:


> DantheJu must be pulling his hair out reading these last few posts!


Dan wasn't commending people who download, he was just showing how it's not a victimless crime.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Sportsman, you directly talked about how Dan deals with his business, and he himself says he's far from some huge corporation owner. He has never implied anything other than he's a standard business owner.


Again stirring the pot in a conversation I'm having with another poster, Clyde? At least keep yourself updated, as I have already responded to the man with the necessary clarification of what I meant.

And I'll take this opportunity to ask how can you make things out of your own mind the way you do? Looks like you don't even read through the posts, as I never said what you accused me in this post:



> Why are you sitting there saying *"the majority of businessmen are corrupt"?*


Where did you get this from? Unless your reading of what "corruption" means you found in the same dictionary you've learned the meaning of "elite". :laugh:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Didn't you already bitch up when Killz warned you about this?

I swear you'll be saying 2+2=5 and when I say you're wrong you'll reply "Wrong in an _elite_ kind of way?".


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Didn't you already bitch up when Killz warned you about this?
> 
> I swear you'll be saying 2+2=5 and when I say you're wrong you'll reply "Wrong in an _elite_ kind of way?".


I assumed we were in good terms for an innocent joke. If you are not in the mood, never mind then.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Whatever.


.....


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

But you still did not say where you read I was *"sitting there saying "the majority of businessmen are corrupt""*?

Well, I never said that.


----------



## Swp (Jan 2, 2010)

not sir paul


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Here is a quote of you saying simply because I am a businessman I will act ruthlessly and with out regard for my employees (assuming that ALL businessmen do this... So you DID make a statement that clearly lumps all businessmen into one category)



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You are a business man. Good. Stick to it. You want profit. That's what you live for. So don't come with this "poor sound guys will lose their jobs" line when you know you gonna pay your employes the very minimum you can in order to maximize your own profits.
> 
> I am sure the thoughts of these guys losing their jobs won't prevent you from investing in technology that could lead you to spare a few man (or several) for the same work output and again, increasing your profits by doing so.
> 
> ...


Here is a quote of you saying you didnt say that...



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> But you still did not say where you read I was *"sitting there saying "the majority of businessmen are corrupt""*?
> 
> Well, I never said that.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> Here is a quote of you saying simply because I am a businessman I will act ruthlessly and with out regard for my employees (assuming that ALL businessmen do this... So you DID make a statement that clearly lumps all businessmen into one category)
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a quote of you saying you didnt say that...


"Ruthless" and "corrupt" are entirely different things. Bringing those posts together just makes that comparison even more disconnected. :confused02:

Beside, I think I have cleared what I said in the post that followed your reply to this one you brought now, so that is an out dated post to bring.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> "Ruthless" and "corrupt" are entirely different things. Bringing those posts together just makes that comparison even more disconnected. :confused02:
> 
> Beside, I think I have cleared what I said in the post that followed your reply to this one you brought now, so that is an out dated post to bring.


I'm not trying to be rude but just about everything you said in the post he quoted implied that most businessmen are interested in nothing but profit.



> Originally Posted by Sportsman 2.0 View Post
> *You are a business man. Good. Stick to it. You want profit. That's what you live for. So don't come with this "poor sound guys will lose their jobs" line when you know you gonna pay your employes the very minimum you can in order to maximize your own profits. *
> 
> *I am sure the thoughts of these guys losing their jobs won't prevent you from investing in technology that could lead you to spare a few man (or several) for the same work output and again, increasing your profits by doing so.
> ...


Not even sure why I bothered to bold the worst parts as almost the entire thing is a blanket statement calling businessmen greedy and without empathy for their employees. I'm not a businessman but I can't help but point this out.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Kinda funny this argument has been the main focus of the forum for the past 3 days. Is there really nothing else going on?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Ape City said:


> I'm not trying to be rude but just about everything you said in the post he quoted implied that most businessmen are interested in nothing but profit.
> ..................
> Not even sure why I bothered to bold the worst parts as almost the entire thing is a blanket statement calling businessmen greedy and without empathy for their employees. I'm not a businessman but I can't help but point this out.


The only problem with the things I've said in that post you bring again is that it really gave the idea every business man would be greedy and featured with a stone heart, so that was bad and any business man that is not like that would be offended, no doubt.
However, I realized that right after Dan replied to me the way he did and here it goes that post once again. Maybe the whole thing in bold will help to fix it better:



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> *Hey man, I will completely disregard all the rough things you wrote to me and not addressing any of them because I get you took it personally, so I clearly understand your frustration.
> 
> Actually, if you have in mind my main issue is with the monetary system itself we are all imersed into, as I addressed a few times already, you wouldn't feel so offended. It wasn't my intention to offend you in a personal level anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> The only problem with the things I've said in that post you bring again is that it really gave the idea every business man would be greedy and featured with a stone heart, so that was bad and any business man that is not like that would be offended, no doubt.


So you didn't ever say that, except for that one time you did?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

How come you got an MMAFGP sig and I didn't?


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> How come you got an MMAFGP sig and I didn't?


I am just linked to the pic, as instructed by Killz. I suppose you could too. I figured if they ever have another I will remove the image, assuming I don't win again.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Term said:


> So you didn't ever say that, except for that one time you did?


Probably did, but I had a special group of people in my mind when I posted that, so that's one of those cases of typically generalizing things everybody normally does but eventually blows back on our faces. 

But again, my very first post referred exactly to the greed millionaires and the absurd accumulation of money in their hands, not the grocery store owner.


----------

