UFC Urges the US Congress to Incentivize Proactive Piracy Blocking

Being a MMA fan is hard legally or illegally. Just finding a legal way to watch fights can be a chore at times. Why would a sport so small charge so much to watch a big fight? Wouldn't you want more eyeballs to help you grow? I wouldn't pay $80 to watch the biggest sport event of the year. Do you think people in Brasil or other poor countries are gonna pay this? Piracy is a problem for the UFC because the entertainment isn't worth the money for most average working people. Just do it like everyone else and cover your shit with ads to comp the event.
 
loisestrad said:
So are we supposed to steal the stuff that UFC makes, or are we supposed to simply not buy it?

I get it: Stealing/streaming is the more direct way of saying you want the product, but you're not paying for it. As opposed to simply not streaming. The latter wouldn't make a statement.
Click to expand...

Streaming and not watching both successfully achieve the main goal of not rewarding scummy people with disgusting business practices.

Streaming has the added benefit of indicating that there is interest in the product and the inflated price is the problem, whereas not watching may suggest there is simply no interest in the product.

Streaming has the benefit of consuming and enjoying the product to the individual and of growing the sport, which not watching doesn't.

The one drawback to streaming is that it can develop a general mindset of "It's ok to just take things you want" in other, different situations where that attitude is inappropriate/harmful.
 
IGotAHugePeckah said:
Look, I love streaming as much as the next guy, but can we really blame the UFC for going after piracy? It costs them untold millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Easiest thing for them is reduce the number of paywalls and lower the price for all the content. Make it all available in one place for a reasonable price. Instead of lobbying Congress for protections from a free market.
 
micahl said:
Going after the streamers

  • UFC lobbies for new laws that would incentivize proactive pirating stream link blocking.
  • Their representative claims that Facebook and other social media platforms are currently not doing enough.
  • The industry is allegedly under threat, as pirate IPTV services are nibbling on its market share.
https://www.technadu.com/ufc-us-congress-incentivize-proactive-piracy-blocking/71330/
Click to expand...
I've never relied on Facebook to find or use streams. That they continue to target them specifically shows how little they understand how streaming works.

What they need to ask is how come every major multi-national company has paid ads running on illegal streaming sites? If those ads are running, then the source of the stream is well known, which means it could be stopped by simply refusing to pay online marketing companies who run ads for their products on streaming sites. Except that, those companies don't want it stopped, so it continues. I've seen ads for everything from betting sites to cleaning products and mortgage deals and porn.
 
Show good cards...less often if you have to, and lower the prices. I'll be damned if I'm going to dish out 50 bucks for a half-assed card stacked with WMMA fights.

This type of shit didn't work out too well for the music industry and won't do anything here. Only people with half a brain can figure out how streaming and iptv work in the first place. If you keep making this a big deal another SPOTIFY type thing will arise and you'll make even less because then NOBODY would pay for it.

Also, you're assuming people that stream would pay for it if it suddenly disappeared, which is nonsense.
 
POWER2 said:
I've never relied on Facebook to find or use streams. That they continue to target them specifically shows how little they understand how streaming works.

What they need to ask is how come every major multi-national company has paid ads running on illegal streaming sites? If those ads are running, then the source of the stream is well known, which means it could be stopped by simply refusing to pay online marketing companies who run ads for their products on streaming sites. Except that, those companies don't want it stopped, so it continues. I've seen ads for everything from betting sites to cleaning products and mortgage deals and porn.
Click to expand...


The companies don't really decide to run their ads on illegal streams

They pay people for directing traffic to their sites and couldn't care less where it came from, and probably don't even know most of the time
 
Stopping people from streaming is only going to cause people to completely lose interest in UFC/MMA all together. I have ESPN+ because it was like $50/yr and i only bought it for UFC fights, but i am never going to pay $60+ for a ppv. So the way i see it, if there was literally no way for me to see these ppv fights i am not going to know who is who and i am going to lose interest in the sport (i already have been for years now) and i am not going to waste my money on things like ESPN+ that are at least afordable, but again, a waste of money for something you dont care to watch anymore.
 
TheJohnnyWalkerEra said:
The companies don't really decide to run their ads on illegal streams

They pay people for directing traffic to their sites and couldn't care less where it came from, and probably don't even know most of the time
Click to expand...
When you run ads on the internet, you see how many impressions, how many clicks, where the ads were placed, what country the viewer is in, along with a variety of other details information. You're not in the dark at all. I've ran ads online off and on since 1995. I was never at a loss for information.

But, you're correct. They don't care. The UFC should be targeting those companies exposing their role in piracy over the last 15 years or so. It's companies that sell products and services that can't be pirated that generate profits for pirating sites.
 
Piracy is theft and I don't condone it. But the UFC's pricing scheme is ludicrous and I really think they could kill illegal streaming if they offered a high quality streaming platform comparable to Netflix or Spotify.
It costs 1000s of dollars per year to watch every UFC fight. What other sport has a barrier to entry like that?

If they had an all access streaming platform for like 20 bucks a month or something what fan wouldn't just sign up for that to watch fights?
Like when is the last time anyone illegally downloaded an mp3 or a show that is available on Netflix?

But I don't know the UFC's financials. Maybe the PPV model works similar to Free To Play games, where the small number of whales who do pay the overpriced fees make up for the rest of the base who doesn't pay. Maybe all this money spent fighting streams and lobbying congress is worth it. I still feel they underestimate how big the fan-base is who doesn't currently pay the UFC any money, and who would likely hand over 20 bucks a month without question.
 
Here's what these media companies are missing when they go after streaming or downloading.

Most of the people who do that would never pay for their events.

By streaming or downloading the most interesting events, they remain fans and therefore they are customers of the brand that they otherwise wouldn't be.

They'll buy some merch, participate in some related events, etc.

By alienating everyone who isn't a direct consumer of the broadcasts, they lose a big chunk of their secondary market.
 
TerrorTimmy said:
Er, no

The vast majority don't make PPV points, they're paid a flat amount, with a possible win bonus depending on their contract. Whether the PPV sells 2 million buys or 200 buys, those fighters don't see an extra penny.
Click to expand...
And they're certainly not getting paid less just because the UFC is making less. They're getting paid less because they're not allowed to unionize and not everyone can be Conor McGregor.
 
loisestrad said:
Give out stuff for free if you don't want people stealing.

It's not my fault I couldn't afford to pay for my car. I had to steal it.
Click to expand...
That's not a fair comparison.

More like, if I buy a car, I can lend it to as many people as I want.

Companies have been trying to use the fact that these days most sharing is done digitally to take away freedoms.

I can lend something I own to anyone I want, and if I pay for a broadcast I can have as many people watch it with me as I want, in this case even if they aren't physically in the room with me.
 
momchamp said:
I do realize that but I'm not only talking about the fighters who get the ppv money, on a second thought I would never put money in Danas pockets.
Click to expand...

It has to go through him to get to the fighters. Are you sending personalized checks to the fighters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,694
Messages
55,435,346
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top