- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,224
- Reaction score
- 3,332
I had less trouble watching the Conor fight via stream, than I did watching the TJ fight via my paid fightpass subscription.
News UFC’s New Strategy to go after Online Pirate Streams
- Thread starter Mesos
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,675
- Reaction score
- 4,422
I agree with you but that's not what I'm talking about.
Let's put this argument to rest lol
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,727
- Reaction score
- 187
Not true. Some countries do not have PPV and people there stream them.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 6,886
- Reaction score
- 11,120
The first page restored my faith in sherdog, good work bro’s
Do you work for a pharmaceutical company by any chance?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,155
- Reaction score
- 8,478
Mma is so much better now
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 2,219
- Reaction score
- 3,231
It's a nice thought when you're going after the little guys but you should realize that the heavy hitters like Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook absolutely don't want to take responsibility for what users are posting on their platform.
If the UFC wants the truly combat piracy it needs to look at how the music industry did it. They tried attacking individuals and shakedowns and it only made the practice skyrocket and sympathy for them dissapear. Now artists make their money from touring and cross-marketing instead of pure album sales and streaming services like Spotify are cheap enough that millions of people rely on it daily.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,302
- Reaction score
- 6,549
Wasn't WWE move from PPV model to network a total success and they made even more money from subscriptions? I believe it was 10$ a month. After they moved to peacock it's only 5$ a month now.
Make UFC network for 10$ you red goof.
Make UFC network for 10$ you red goof.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,065
- Reaction score
- 368
How exactly did they do that? People don't really pirate music anymore. They go to steaming. Yes, the performers get screwed but the music companies don't and that is all they care about. Napstar and all the others are gone or went legit.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,065
- Reaction score
- 368
Thriller tried to do a mass lawsuit and that isn't allowed. They have to sue each of them individually.
No, you are completely wrong. Music industry has sued and won many many times. They destroyed lives to make an example out of people.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 15,407
- Reaction score
- 26,662
I'm talking about streaming a ppv. Not someone downloading or torrenting said content. They view that as content providers because those people usually p2p share games, music, files, etc.
------------------------------
Any discussion of the legality of streaming in the U.S. begins with the Copyright Act of 1976. This grants copyright holders “exclusive rights” to make copies of their work, distribute it and perform it publicly.
And watching a stream — even if it’s unauthorized by the copyright holder — doesn’t technically violate these rights. There have been numerous challenges and interpretations as copyright law has adapted to the internet, but this reading has essentially held true.
Watching a stream doesn’t constitute public performance
“Copyright attaches liability only to public performances, and streams aren’t public performances,” Gibson said. “Streams are performances, but they’re not public if it’s just you in the privacy of your own home and you’re not making a permanent copy — you start it and you stop it and that’s your only interaction with it.”
Nicole Haff, partner and head of litigation at Romano Law PLLC, a firm focused on business, media, sports and entertainment law, agreed with this interpretation. “I think it would be a hard argument to say that somebody watching a streamed video is publicly performing the video,” she said. “They’re not the one putting it out there, they’re actually receiving it.”
Peer-to-peer streaming
There is one type of unauthorized streaming that could get you into trouble: Peer-to-peer streaming services like BitTorrent Live. Like torrents, these services rely on users to share the content. If you’re a viewer, you’re also a broadcaster, which does violate copyright law.
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/is-streaming-illegal
-----------------------------
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 26,654
- Reaction score
- 8,413
that's all the UFC should do, make it hard, not impossible.
the movie industry has been dealing with this for ages, and they couldnt solve it, just let it be, shut down the streams as you find them, and if not, pay someone to attack the stream so it goes down <Lmaoo>
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,065
- Reaction score
- 368
Last year there was a bill in congress to make watching an illegal stream a felony. Before that it was a misdemeanor. I don't see if that passed or not, but if the law is being changed from misdemeanor to felony it was already illegal.
Also the streams that are half way decent are the peer to peer ones. The others either are very laggy or get shut down, especially around the time the main event starts.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,410
- Reaction score
- 335
In a nutshell they won’t stop piracy, it’s because it’s uploaded in countries where there are no piracy laws and people aren’t held legally accountableIts a long read so I cropped out/highlighted key stuff:
According to a person familiar with UFC takedown notices, UFC 264 generated among the top three or four highest notices for a UFC event held over the last year.
Piracy is an ongoing problem for the UFC and other content creators whose ability to curtail the illegal practice is limited under federal law. As Lawrence Epstein, the UFC’s chief operating officer, explained to Sportico in a phone interview, the UFC (like other creators of copyright content) rely largely on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to curtail piracy.
The DMCA is a “very reactive type of protocol,” Epstein notes, since the law places the onus on the copyright holder to act. This presents a timing problem for a live sports broadcast. The highest value for that broadcast—especially one distributed through a PPV arrangement—is when the event happens. A notice and takedown can take several minutes, even a half hour. By the time an illegal stream is removed, it could be too late. The Poirier-McGregor match lasted only about five minutes before McGregor suffered a leg injury and Poirier was credited with a TKO victory.
“It’s not an appropriate remedy,” Epstein charges, adding that the “vast majority” of the piracy is taking place on “big platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.” Epstein also stresses that “we see the same people doing it. There are repeat offenders who aren’t deterred by the process.”
The UFC would like to see the DMCA amended to include a “stay down system” whereby the copyright holder need only notify the service provider of infringing material. It would then become the obligation of the provider to monitor repeat infringers and prevent them from engaging in illegal streaming and other piracy on the provider’s platform. “These big platforms have to take responsibility for what happens on their platforms,” Epstein asserts. “It can’t be reactive.”
Reliance on the DMCA is part of a multi-pronged strategy for the UFC in combatting piracy. As an overarching principle, the UFC is mindful of the critical role video content plays for the fan experience. “We love our fans and want more fans,” Epstein stresses. “We’re not trying to stop them from showing video of Conor or other fighters.” Instead, Epstein underscores, “We are going after the pirates . . . we are trying to stop illegal profiting and reselling of copyright material.”
Education plays a key role. Epstein emphasizes that the fighters are financial partners in PPV events. “Every buy that’s stolen is hurting [McGregor] and other fighters. This is not a victimless crime or one that just hurts the big corporation—it hurts the individual athletes . . . remember they have as short window [of life] to monetize” their athletic abilities and skills.
Epstein adds that those who engage in piracy are often involved in other illegal or even criminal practices, including stealing identities of those who share personal data and selling fake products. “There’s a lot of bad stuff when you enter this ecosystem.” Vacca concurs. “Many online pirates tend to be unscrupulous individuals—there’s a risk of viruses and stealing users’ personal or financial information. “
The UFC also works closely with service providers to identify and take down illegal streams of events, and, along with UFC vendors, attempts to take advantage of the latest anti-piracy technologies. Similarly, the UFC works with colleagues at ESPN and Disney to strategize ways for updating the legal landscape and making criminal prosecution more effective. To that end, the UFC pushed for the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020, a law that makes it felony to stream copyright material (previously it was only a misdemeanor to stream and typically not prosecuted). The UFC also sometimes turns to litigation, but Epstein concedes that online piracy “is a problem that you don’t sue your way out of.”
————————
https://sports.yahoo.com/ufc-aims-slam-online-pirates-040100235.html
You Goofs are on Red Alert, Uncle Dana is coming for ya. Just buy the ppv ya cheap bastards lol
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 1,406
So basically, UFC brass is saying "Waaa'aaaa, waaa'aaaa. ISP's need to help us. Waaa'aaaa. Conor McGregor. Waaa'aaaa."Its a long read so I cropped out/highlighted key stuff:
According to a person familiar with UFC takedown notices, UFC 264 generated among the top three or four highest notices for a UFC event held over the last year.
Piracy is an ongoing problem for the UFC and other content creators whose ability to curtail the illegal practice is limited under federal law. As Lawrence Epstein, the UFC’s chief operating officer, explained to Sportico in a phone interview, the UFC (like other creators of copyright content) rely largely on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to curtail piracy.
The DMCA is a “very reactive type of protocol,” Epstein notes, since the law places the onus on the copyright holder to act. This presents a timing problem for a live sports broadcast. The highest value for that broadcast—especially one distributed through a PPV arrangement—is when the event happens. A notice and takedown can take several minutes, even a half hour. By the time an illegal stream is removed, it could be too late. The Poirier-McGregor match lasted only about five minutes before McGregor suffered a leg injury and Poirier was credited with a TKO victory.
“It’s not an appropriate remedy,” Epstein charges, adding that the “vast majority” of the piracy is taking place on “big platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.” Epstein also stresses that “we see the same people doing it. There are repeat offenders who aren’t deterred by the process.”
The UFC would like to see the DMCA amended to include a “stay down system” whereby the copyright holder need only notify the service provider of infringing material. It would then become the obligation of the provider to monitor repeat infringers and prevent them from engaging in illegal streaming and other piracy on the provider’s platform. “These big platforms have to take responsibility for what happens on their platforms,” Epstein asserts. “It can’t be reactive.”
Reliance on the DMCA is part of a multi-pronged strategy for the UFC in combatting piracy. As an overarching principle, the UFC is mindful of the critical role video content plays for the fan experience. “We love our fans and want more fans,” Epstein stresses. “We’re not trying to stop them from showing video of Conor or other fighters.” Instead, Epstein underscores, “We are going after the pirates . . . we are trying to stop illegal profiting and reselling of copyright material.”
Education plays a key role. Epstein emphasizes that the fighters are financial partners in PPV events. “Every buy that’s stolen is hurting [McGregor] and other fighters. This is not a victimless crime or one that just hurts the big corporation—it hurts the individual athletes . . . remember they have as short window [of life] to monetize” their athletic abilities and skills.
Epstein adds that those who engage in piracy are often involved in other illegal or even criminal practices, including stealing identities of those who share personal data and selling fake products. “There’s a lot of bad stuff when you enter this ecosystem.” Vacca concurs. “Many online pirates tend to be unscrupulous individuals—there’s a risk of viruses and stealing users’ personal or financial information. “
The UFC also works closely with service providers to identify and take down illegal streams of events, and, along with UFC vendors, attempts to take advantage of the latest anti-piracy technologies. Similarly, the UFC works with colleagues at ESPN and Disney to strategize ways for updating the legal landscape and making criminal prosecution more effective. To that end, the UFC pushed for the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020, a law that makes it felony to stream copyright material (previously it was only a misdemeanor to stream and typically not prosecuted). The UFC also sometimes turns to litigation, but Epstein concedes that online piracy “is a problem that you don’t sue your way out of.”
————————
https://sports.yahoo.com/ufc-aims-slam-online-pirates-040100235.html
You Goofs are on Red Alert, Uncle Dana is coming for ya. Just buy the ppv ya cheap bastards lol
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 41,897
- Reaction score
- 22,234
Yeah a reasonably priced TV deal is the only way theyre getting me. I ain't paying $70 bucks for 3 hours of TV. Especially not when the cards are as watered down as they are these days.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 2,345
