+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,395

    Default

    Just seen this on another site:

    Zuffa v. Piracy – Expensive Lessons in Default Judgement
    http://canadianmmalawblog.com/2014/0...lt-judgements/
    Further to the recent discussion of Zuffa’s ‘successful prosecutions‘ regarding piracy of their Pay Per View product I’ve taken some time to dig deeper into the issue. There are far more reported cases than have made headlines in the MMA media and the lesson is stark; Zuffa has a strong track record attracting high damages in cases of default judgement for unlawful interception of their PPV events. For those interested here are some highlights of recent Zuffa intellectual property litigation:

    Zuffa v. Bidwell – Zuffa succeeds in securing default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 114 with damages to be assessed

    Zuffa v. Pryce – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unauthorized viewing of UFC 130 and 131 and damages and costs of almost $12,000 being assessed

    Zuffa v. Al-Shaikh – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 104 with over $10,000 in damages in costs assessed

    Zuffa v. Black Diamond – Default judgement obtained with damages and costs of over $10,000 assessed

    Zuffa v. Miller – Zuffa obtained default judgement for ‘satellite piracy’ with respect to UFC 121 – Damages and Costs of over $24,000 were assessed

    Zuffa v. Holtsberry – Zuffa obtains default judgement for illegal interception of UFC 129 – Damages and Costs of $5,633 were assessed

    Zuffa v. Parker – Zuffa obtains default judgement interception of UFC 130 – Damages and Costs of over $32,000 were assessed

    Zuffa v. Patel - Zuffa obtains summary judgement with damages to be assessed

    Zuffa v. Pohl - Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of a PPV event with Damages and Costs of over $42,000 assessed

    Zuffa v. Hassan – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 113 – Damages and Costs of over $17,000 assessed

    Zuffa v. Carranza – Zuffa obtains judgement and damages against Defendant for selling “infringing merchandise”

    Zuffa v. Kamranian – Zuffa obtains summary judgement for broadcasting UFC 123 without authorization with damages being assessed at $4,200. This case was of particular interest as the infringing activity was simply viewing the event from an on-line stream (however this did occur in a commercial establishment which was important in the finding of liability).

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by IceCold48; 03-11-2014 at 11:50 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,395

    Default

    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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sick_Lunatic View Post
    I've always liked strudel.



  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,553

    Default

    If the UFC wants to continue selling ppvs they seriously need to step their game up.
    "He's got big balls. I like that." -Josh Koschek on Frank Trigg's balls.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,422

    Default

    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/

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    507

    Default

    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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,422

    Default

    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.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,113

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by dan the man 67; 03-12-2014 at 12:49 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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