UFC Serves Subpoenas to JustinTV and UStream

The UFC is back on the anti-piracy kick. Today Zuffa announced it served subpoenas to Justin.TV and Ustream.TV seeking disclosure of users who streamed UFC pay per view events. The events in the subpoena were not revealed, but the press release mentions UFC 108 and 110, both occured over the winter. The company claims that 114,000 users watched the events from a single IP source. The subpoenas were issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), which is the same piece of legislation that allowed record labels and clear channel to hate rape the music industry. According to §512(h) of the DCMA, service providers like JustinTV and Ustream can be forced to release subscriber information. Dana White is quoted in the press release saying, “I can’t wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content. This is a fight we will not lose.”

I have a friend that wanted me to ask if it is the person providing the PPV to Justin TV or all the 114k that watched it? However I don't see how any said person would be guilty of anything by logging onto a site and watching something that is provided by that site? Seems like whoever is providing would get in trouble. My friend says he will take legal action towards Zuffa if any threats, or action are taken against him.

Not sure. It may fall under the same type of thing like the record company's did. They went after the people the downloaded the songs and not the one's providing the service.

They can't go after anyone who is watching a stream. It'd be like if the Cable company screwed up and gave you a free pay per view and then tried to charge you for it later. Were it not for someone providing the stream nobody would be watching it. Downloading was different because that was an aggressive action whereas happening upon a stream you didn't know was being broadcast illegally is a passive action.

The difference here is the fact that eople simply watched. They didn't come to own a copyrighted material they were not legally authorized to own.

The problem I have with organizations cracking down on internet streams is they provide broadcasts to people in different countries where that show might not be available on tv, it's unfair to discriminate on fans who don't have the luxury of owning Spike.

Ali_1748 wrote:

The problem I have with organizations cracking down on internet streams is they provide broadcasts to people in different countries where that show might not be available on tv, it's unfair to discriminate on fans who don't have the luxury of owning Spike.

Absolutely. Christ the UFC PPV's are shown for free on ESPNUK I believe.

Primetyme199 wrote:

Ali_1748 wrote:

The problem I have with organizations cracking down on internet streams is they provide broadcasts to people in different countries where that show might not be available on tv, it's unfair to discriminate on fans who don't have the luxury of owning Spike.

Absolutely. Christ the UFC PPV's are shown for free on ESPNUK I believe.

You're correct they're free in Britain, well you do have to pay for a subscription to ESPN but it's like £5 a month.

LudoCain wrote:

They can't go after anyone who is watching a stream. It'd be like if the Cable company screwed up and gave you a free pay per view and then tried to charge you for it later. Were it not for someone providing the stream nobody would be watching it. Downloading was different because that was an aggressive action whereas happening upon a stream you didn't know was being broadcast illegally is a passive action.

The difference here is the fact that eople simply watched. They didn't come to own a copyrighted material they were not legally authorized to own.

My frind says he will use this in his case. +1

UFC will win every battle with any MMA org, but they will never ever beat the internet. Ask the RIAA what that battle is like.

"This is a fight we will not lose". You're going to lose. You might clean out a few bars, people, etc. along the way but at the end of the day it will be Mike Goldberg saying "IT IS ALLLL OVER. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT...FIGHT. IS. OVER." and Joe Rogan will follow with "THAT INTERNET IS FOR RRREEALL". Internet via TKO midway through 2012

At the end of the day, Dana White is a UFC fanboy who happened to know the right people who gave him a lot of power. He doesn't know what he's talking about in cases like these.

beast is cracking me up with this friend shit lmao!

josh200612 wrote:

beast is cracking me up with this friend shit lmao!

Whatever do you mean?

josh200612 wrote:

beast is cracking me up with this friend shit lmao!

ya see doc, I have this friend, and....... well it burns when he pee's, what should I tell him to do????

Primetyme199 wrote:

The UFC is back on the anti-piracy kick. Today Zuffa announced it served subpoenas to Justin.TV and Ustream.TV seeking disclosure of users who streamed UFC pay per view events. The events in the subpoena were not revealed, but the press release mentions UFC 108 and 110, both occured over the winter. The company claims that 114,000 users watched the events from a single IP source. The subpoenas were issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), which is the same piece of legislation that allowed record labels and clear channel to hate rape the music industry. According to §512(h) of the DCMA, service providers like JustinTV and Ustream can be forced to release subscriber information. Dana White is quoted in the press release saying, “I can’t wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content. This is a fight we will not lose.”

This is wrong Prime. I just saw it on UFC.COM and it says they are wanting the folks who uploaded the fights, and not the audience. It also said one person who uploaded a card had an audience of 78,000 people. Damn!

LudoCain wrote:

They can't go after anyone who is watching a stream. It'd be like if the Cable company screwed up and gave you a free pay per view and then tried to charge you for it later. Were it not for someone providing the stream nobody would be watching it. Downloading was different because that was an aggressive action whereas happening upon a stream you didn't know was being broadcast illegally is a passive action.

The difference here is the fact that eople simply watched. They didn't come to own a copyrighted material they were not legally authorized to own.

I'm not going to say you're absolutely wrong LC but I would disagree.

Unless you click on "Wild African Safari" and a ninja window with a UFC PPV appears, opening a UFC PPV stream is just as deliberate of an action as downloading a song is. Feigning ignorance isn't going to work. "Oh I didn't know that watching this stream was illegal" is no more of a valid defense than "oh I didn't know that downloading this song was illegal". You don't 'not know' that a stream is being broadcast illegally any more than anyone did or didn't 'not know' that a song was being shared illegally. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" - Ignorance of the law does not excuse.

That said, I also have a friend that may or may not watch events which shall remained nameless online in a manner that may or may not be legal.

It isn't illegal to watch a stream, it is only illegal to provide one when not authorized. The fault lies with the suppliers because without them those 78,000 wouldn't have been watching an illegal stream. It's like watching someone buy bootleg CD's in Times Square and busting them but not the guy selling the shit. Without suppliers it wouldn't be possible.

LudoCain wrote:

It isn't illegal to watch a stream, it is only illegal to provide one when not authorized. The fault lies with the suppliers because without them those 78,000 wouldn't have been watching an illegal stream. It's like watching someone buy bootleg CD's in Times Square and busting them but not the guy selling the shit. Without suppliers it wouldn't be possible.

Of course it wouldn't be possible without the suppliers and absolutely that is who the UFC should target (from a UFC standpoint at least. Personally I'd rather they leave everyone alone), but it sounds like you're implying that someone who gets it from the source is not guilty of any wrongdoing, and and has no chance at being punished, and that is false.

The reason why that is false is that the lawsuits brought upon by the UFC are not criminal charges. They are seeking the names of users so they can sue them in civil court. Civil court is nothing like criminal court as far as it being on the plaintiff to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant is guilty. All the UFC has to do is prove that it was likely (as in greater than a 50% chance, as retarded as that sounds) that the defendant did something that 'could' have cost Zuffa something that could have monetary value.

OJ is a good example of criminal vs civil court for anyone not aware of how that works. He was of course found not guilty on the murder charges in criminal court and didn't have to do any additional jail time, but he was found guilty in civil court because they felt there was a chance (seriously, >50% is pretty much how it works) that he was involved in the deaths and was ordered to pay $33.5M to the families of the people that he was found not-guilty of killing.

I guess you can call this related news.

UFC owns the word "submission". So be careful where you say and type it, they may put a hit out on you.

http://middleeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2621:wow-ufc-claims-ownership-to-the-word-submission&catid=34:organizations

honestly the cards i can't afford i skip and watch within the next few days online.

It is all scare tactics.. People don't catch minnows when there is big fish in the water...

and on top of everything.. the people that run JustinTV, if they get the right lawyers, can just walk away from this. JustinTV is a website that provides links to other peoples channels that upload a stream to view.. and JustinTV can't give out any personal information, names or IP address according to their privacy section in their "Terms and Agreements".

I wonder if Dana is going to sue Google next.

and JustinTV has never worked anyway.

GolbeZ wrote:

and JustinTV has never worked anyway.

Good call!

GolbeZ wrote:

It is all scare tactics.. People don't catch minnows when there is big fish in the water...

and on top of everything.. the people that run JustinTV, if they get the right lawyers, can just walk away from this. JustinTV is a website that provides links to other peoples channels that upload a stream to view.. and JustinTV can't give out any personal information, names or IP address according to their privacy section in their "Terms and Agreements".

I hate arguing this issue because I am on your side, but with all due respect you are wrong (though I agree the purpose of this is probably scare tactics).

You are especially wrong on the point that JustinTV not being able to give out personal information based on their Privacy Policy. If they give it out without being subpoenaed they're going to face suits from the users, but if they get subpoenaed for the information they are legally required to comply and give out the information. Personal agreements (such as a privacy policy promising not to give out personal info) do not supersede actual law.

thessy11 wrote:

GolbeZ wrote:

It is all scare tactics.. People don't catch minnows when there is big fish in the water...

and on top of everything.. the people that run JustinTV, if they get the right lawyers, can just walk away from this. JustinTV is a website that provides links to other peoples channels that upload a stream to view.. and JustinTV can't give out any personal information, names or IP address according to their privacy section in their "Terms and Agreements".

I hate arguing this issue because I am on your side, but with all due respect you are wrong (though I agree the purpose of this is probably scare tactics).

You are especially wrong on the point that JustinTV not being able to give out personal information based on their Privacy Policy. If they give it out without being subpoenaed they're going to face suits from the users, but if they get subpoenaed for the information they are legally required to comply and give out the information. Personal agreements (such as a privacy policy promising not to give out personal info) do not supersede actual law.

ZUFFA WOULD BE BETTER OFF SHELLING THAT MONEY OUT TO FEDOR AND USE HIM TO THREATEN PEOPLE IF THEY UPLOAD FIGHTS! YES I YELLED THIS IF YOU WERE WONDERING?