Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: UFC shuts down illegal PPV stream, seizes website records and threatens to prosecute

Your Message

Click here to log in

What Is The Last Name Of UFC's Iceman?

 
 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 03-13-2014, 03:44 PM
    XxChAoS32xX
    Microsoft can't stop us from pirating and the majority of the users doing the pirating are using Microsoft Windows to do it. Hell, my computer is running on a pirated copy of Windows, and I use my pirated version of Windows to pirate even more software, media, and video games.

    Both the MPAA and the FCC have been fighting piracy for years, and being that I have pirating stuff since 2003, they certainly have not made it any harder. If anything it is easier now than it was just 5 years ago thanks the increase in internet speeds.

    So for the above reasons, I think it is either ignorant or arrogant of the UFC to think that they will stop the pirating of their product. Probably a little of both.
  • 03-13-2014, 08:29 AM
    Tongan.Death.Grip
    It may be covered by the specific wording.

    I'll try and pay attention next time.
  • 03-12-2014, 12:43 PM
    dan the man 67
    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    well what if you started the stream 2 minutes after the warning came on? haha
    Shouldn't matter when you started watching a stream. I maintain you are NOT uploading or distributing the event, per the UFC's very own warning that they post at the beginning of the PPV event. The warning says nothing about an individual just watching the event through streaming or downloading. That individual is not uploading or distributing.

    I wonder if any lawyer defending an individual watching from his/her own house ever just took a screenshot of said warning, put it up on a big screen in the courtroom, and just ask the UFC's lawyer to specify how the individual is not adhering to the UFC's own warning.........?

    Why does it not state in their warning that individuals watching the event, specifically via streaming or by download, can be prosecuted as well??? I believe it is because they CAN'T!

    Any lawyers on this board? Would love to know the answer to that.

    If the UFC really wants to win the battle against piracy, they should have all of their events broadcasted on network TV, and look to get revenue from sponsors, such as what they have started with the FOX deal. They should stop trying to fucking rape their fans who have been loyal to them by having purchased countless PPV events by raising their prices (which they said they never would do), and coming out with this Fight Pass.
  • 03-12-2014, 10:32 AM
    Rise
    Quote Originally Posted by nbm02ss View Post
    I imagine a lot defendants didn't show up in court to fight it.
    Oh I know just thought it was weird that in the one case he didn't even if he had to hire a lawyer it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to do that then risk the summary judgement.
  • 03-12-2014, 09:32 AM
    nbm02ss
    Quote Originally Posted by Rise View Post
    It's interesting that a lot of those went to default judgements especially this one. I can see the restaurants/bars or other commercial ventures not having much of a defense.

    As an individual using the internet in your home you have a few different defenses available to you that have worked in court.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/ip-address-...t-judge-rules/
    I imagine a lot defendants didn't show up in court to fight it.
  • 03-12-2014, 02:45 AM
    Rise
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat--Smasher View Post
    Not all of em... the second one on the list, Zuffa vs. Pryce:

    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_cas...en&as_sdt=2006

    It's interesting that a lot of those went to default judgements especially this one. I can see the restaurants/bars or other commercial ventures not having much of a defense.

    As an individual using the internet in your home you have a few different defenses available to you that have worked in court.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/ip-address-...t-judge-rules/
  • 03-12-2014, 02:29 AM
    RearNakedStroke
    If the UFC wants to continue selling ppvs they seriously need to step their game up.
  • 03-11-2014, 01:25 PM
    KevoOnTheRadio
  • 03-11-2014, 12:04 PM
    IceCold48
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat--Smasher View Post
    Not all of em... the second one on the list, Zuffa vs. Pryce:

    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_cas...en&as_sdt=2006
    Oh wow. I didn't check them all only 3.
  • 03-11-2014, 11:53 AM
    Cat--Smasher
    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    Holy Shit, they are tracking back to UFC 104 and 114? Or are these older prosecutitons? I am assuming that due to the insanely large fines that these are the people uploading the streams and not those viewing it.

    EDIT: Did some research it seems like these are bars and resturaunts that were sued for streaming not just your average Joe.
    Not all of em... the second one on the list, Zuffa vs. Pryce:
    In this case, unlike those cited by plaintiff, there is no evidence that defendant is a commercial entity who accessed the subject copyrighted broadcasts for proprietary or financial gain. Indeed, plaintiff concedes that defendant viewed the subject broadcasts over the internet on his computer in his residence. The Court thus concludes that the appropriate award of statutory damages in this case is the minimum amount, that is, $1,000.00 for each violation or a total of $2,000.00.
    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_cas...en&as_sdt=2006
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •