Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: UFC shuts down illegal PPV stream, seizes website records and threatens to prosecute

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    16,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dan the man 67 View Post
    Heavily regulated? By whom exactly? Do you have any idea of what it would take to regulate the internet?

    Businesses adapt. They have in the past, and will continue to find ways to adapt, or they die. The internet has been around for about 3 decades now, and economies are still flourishing. It's just part of reality.
    The US government with the puppet hole in its ass being invaded by corporations who want to defend every cent of their "intellectual property". SOPA and it's other incarnations are only the beginning.

    Be it from within the US or unraveled into trade agreements. Internet regulation is an eventuality. It's just a matter of the most streamlined way to curtail net neutrality in order to provide definite ways to monetize content and legal methods of prosecution/fining. It may not happen in this decade, but the next will prove to have some radical changes to the internet, particularly in regards to freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some world event that led to a crackdown on internet security.

  2. Default

    Have they? I haven't heard of such a case, and that applies to any company that produces content.
    Cat just posted the article a page back.
    There are many paths to freedom, not all are peaceful



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement View Post
    Cat just posted the article a page back.
    I interpreted that article as saying that they were successful in being able to sue, not winning.
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,730

    Default UFC's Claims of Internet Streams Being Illegal under Title 47 Were Dismissed by Court

    UFC's Claims of Internet Streams Being Illegal under Title 47 Were Dismissed by Court



    In 2011, Zuffa tried to sue Justin.TV using title 47 of the U.S.C. The same law they used to sue a stream viewer for $12k in 2013. The court ruled that title 47 did not apply to internet streams, and dismissed the claim.

    If you haven't read this piece about the UFC successfully getting a $12k default judgement against a stream viewer for watching two UFC PPVs, you should do so for background information before starting.

    To break it down, title 47 is about "stealing cable". It's a law designed to allow for civil remedy against people who get cable or satellite transmissions through modified boxes and other such means. In the case of Zuffa vs. Pryce, Zuffa claimed that as their PPV was an encoded broadcast, viewing it without authorization was in violation of title 47.

    That raised some questions. From a layman's reading of the law, the liability would rest with the person who intercepted the signal; the person providing the broadcast for the stream. By the time the viewer watches the stream, they're no longer intercepting or receiving a satellite or cable transmission, instead they are receiving packets of data over the internet.

    Bloody Elbow commenter Jonathan. provided some information about related cases, in which title 47 was ruled to be inapplicable to internet streams. My attention was particularly grabbed by the case of Zuffa v. Justin.TV. Justin.TV is/was one of the largest "legit" streaming sites.

    There was a very interesting comment from the court in this case:

    838 F.Supp.2d 1102 (D.Nev. 2012), the court noted the peculiar attempt by the plaintiff to bring Communications Act claims based upon internet video streaming: "neither can the Court or the parties find an instance where a plaintiff has asserted Communications Act claims under facts similar to these. Rather, again, Communications Act claims are generally colloquially referred to as claims for ‘stealing cable.' In cases such as these for illegally streaming copyright protected video, such as against YouTube, plaintiffs simply assert copyright (and maybe trademark) claims, not cable theft."
    In a related case, Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc., YouTube, LLC and YouTube, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-131-RJC-DCK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149283 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2012). The court noted:

    "because Defendants did not intercept or receive a direct cable or satellite communication, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as a matter of law under § 553 or § 605. Plaintiff has not identified any authority supporting a finding that receipt of a retransmission of a communication by computer or the internet creates liability under the Communications Act."
    Indeed, the Zuffa v. Justin.TV ruling was used as case law precedent in Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc.
    You can read more detail on these, and related, cases here on mvlaw.com

    What does this mean for Zuffa suing stream viewers? Well, it means if one should choose to defend the allegations with a competent attorney, there is case law supporting that defence already in the books. That's not to say streaming is necessarily legal, or that Zuffa won't find some statute to use against you in court should you do it.

    Bear in mind that while some courts in some jurisdictions rules that title 47 section 553 and 604 doesn't apply to streaming, that doesn't mean courts in other jurisdictions wouldn't rule otherwise. Rulings in one jurisdiction are not necessarily binding in others.

    It should be noted that I have in my possession information from a similar case, filed in September 2013 in Georgia, this time relating to users of bestfreeufc.info, which the UFC apparently seized the records of in August 2013. In this case, the UFC is suing under both title 47 (cable/satellite theft) and title 17 (copyright infringement). Title 17 is the statute under which similar cases tend to be prosecuted, however there are potentially some issues with using it to apply to streams, due to their ephemeral nature and the fact it can be argued the viewer never actually had possession of them.

    In this case, the defendant has actually retained an attorney and appears to be planning to fight the case. I will post more on it as documents become available. Thanks to Tanya Liu for sending the relevant documents.

    Disclaimer: None of the above should be interpreted or used as legal advice.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sniggles View Post
    The US government with the puppet hole in its ass being invaded by corporations who want to defend every cent of their "intellectual property". SOPA and it's other incarnations are only the beginning.

    Be it from within the US or unraveled into trade agreements. Internet regulation is an eventuality. It's just a matter of the most streamlined way to curtail net neutrality in order to provide definite ways to monetize content and legal methods of prosecution/fining. It may not happen in this decade, but the next will prove to have some radical changes to the internet, particularly in regards to freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some world event that led to a crackdown on internet security.
    I seriously have my doubts. I cannot imagine the public outcry that would occur if anyone tried to limit the internet in any way. It will be an endless battle of security engineers vs. hackers.

    Joe Rogan got it right when he said you can't stop the internet.........

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Know your role BLVD and Jabroni Dr
    Posts
    729

    Default

    This is the reason the WWE has started their network and I imagine once Zuffa gets tired of trying to fight the masses, they will follow suite. In this economy you cant expect people to pay 60$ once and sometimes even twice a month for a PPV that may or may not deliver the goods. As far as I can see, they can't do much against the viewers only the people who are putting the feed online. Eventually the money they spend trying to fight it will not be worth the squeeze and they will go to a subscription base like WWE has done and like they have started with fight pass...that is until people start streaming those
    Believe in Chimichanga's


  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dan the man 67 View Post
    I seriously have my doubts. I cannot imagine the public outcry that would occur if anyone tried to limit the internet in any way.
    I'd like to believe your statement. But the vast majority of people are sheep and have no clue as to what the fuck is going on until it's too late.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    19,461

    Default

    Despite efforts, UFC loses 'millions and millions' of dollars annually to piracy
    More than 50 percent of individuals targeted by UFC anti-piracy lawsuits settle out of court, according to a lawyer representing the fight promotion.

    “The proactive steps that the UFC has taken have, we believe, made a deterrent effect on online piracy,” Julie Cohen Lonstein told MMAjunkie, adding the “education” of offenders has increased since the UFC began suing individuals several years ago.

    “From my discussions with some of the identified pirates, their education (is) that the activity is an infringement of the UFC’s copyright and other rights,” she said.

    The promotion is now in its fourth year of a push to punish individuals and commercial entities who, respectively, watch events without paying for them and profit from customers watching pirated content.

    Individuals who settle sign a confidentiality agreement, said Lonstein, who declined to disclose figures on the typical dollar amount paid to the UFC. A recent report cited one unanswered lawsuit from a previous website target, Greenfeedz.com, that netted the promotion $11,948.70 in damages and legal fees.

    Lonstein said pirates are sued on the basis of copyright law and the Communications Act of 1934, which regulates communications commerce domestically and abroad, but declined to go into further specifics about the UFC’s legal approach to curbing piracy.

    She would not say how much money had been recovered as the result of the legal actions, but said the figure over the past year is “a fraction compared to what the UFC has lost with piracy.” UFC chief legal officer Kirk Hendrick said the promotion’s losses are “millions and millions” of dollars yearly.

    “There’s no shortage, unfortunately, of people who will try to take a shortcut,” Hendrick said. “We have an obligation to our customers and those athletes to continue to pursue the people who don’t want to pay for the goods and services they receive.”

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,283

    Default

    I don't think they are losing as much as they think because I think a lot of the people who are steaming would not be buying the fight even if they couldn't stream thus they really aren't losing money.
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Very far
    Posts
    9,571

    Default

    Exactly, it is not that people are going to start paying if UFC stops piracy. They will simply lose interest in the sport and find something new to watch.
    Not only brazilians can do this stuff


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •