ZUFFA(ufc) haalt stream website uit de lucht!!

[mmaikel]

Zuffa llc haalt stream website uit de lucht.

Dit is op zich niet zo bijzonder omdat ze al langer tegen illegale sites vechten, maar nu hebben ze ook user gegevens en ip adressen van gebruikers in beslag genomen. Zou Zuffa ook gaan proberen om gebruikers aan te pakken, en niet alleen de websites zelf?

http://bjpenn.com/mmanews/2012/03/13/zuffa-llc-takes-down-illegal-stream-website-and-seizes-user-records-16835.html

[Kemal]

Nou ben benieuwd, er zijn maar genoeg van dit soort sites...

[blackadder]

Fuck Dana.

[sjaakie'tje]

fuck UFC anyways

[Leventdepevent]

wat een klere bende

[mmaikel]

Is suing fans the best way to combat internet piracy?
By: Ben Fowlkes
Source: mmafighting.com
Mar 19, 2012 11:57 PM EST
What such a strategy might ultimately cost the UFC and its parent company Zuffa, however, seems to be a question that the MMA giant hasn’t fully considered.
To hear the UFC’s Epstein tell it, suits against those who illegally streamed UFC events wouldn’t technically be suits against the organization’s own fans because "people that steal our stuff – they're not our fans." Except that they are, or else they probably wouldn’t be sitting in front of a laptop on a Saturday night watching a UFC event, whether they paid for it or not.
When Epstein says that those people aren’t the UFC’s fans, what he really means is, they aren’t the fans the UFC wants. That’s why the UFC feels just fine about threatening to sue those particular fans (though it’s arguable whether that threat is a legitimate one), and also why it seems to think this would ultimately be good for the organization. It wouldn’t, and there are a few different reasons why.
For starters, the UFC seems to believe that there are two types of MMA fans: the type who buys the pay-per-views, and the type who watches them illegally. In reality, the line between those two groups is probably a lot blurrier than Zuffa realizes. Chances are very good that some of the people who have streamed events in the past have also bought them, and probably will buy them again at some point in the future. Maybe they only pony up the $55 for the pay-per-view when the card is good enough, or when they can get friends to split the cost with them. Maybe they stream it when they only care about one or two fights, or when they’re simply too strapped for cash to afford it.
My point is, not all piracy is created equal, at least on the receiving end, and attacking viewers as if they are distributors could do much more harm than good.

[blackadder]

Verder is het bekijken van illegale streams zelfs in Amerika niet strafbaar.

[Pr00f]

Verder is het bekijken van illegale streams zelfs in Amerika niet strafbaar.

Dat. En het is onbegonnen werk. Een beetje een faal statement.

[Lionheart]

Pffff,

Gaat nooit lukken dit, is dweilen met een open kraan!

Gooi 1 stream dicht en er komen 100 voor terug!

[K-1sunstarr]

Ik snap het niet, gewoon alles open gooien zodat iedereen kan streamen.
Er komen genoeg inkomsten binnen bij de UFC, dus daar zal het niet liggen.
Hij heeft wel een punt, maar wij leven in het jaar 20(12), waar bijna alles kan.

[Shikoku]

Ik weet niet echt wat ze er aan willen doen. De UFC doet net alsof andere sporten niet gestreamd worden. Dat het onhandiger is bij een PPV systeem is natuurlijk logisch dan bijvoorbeeld bij de NFL, maar dat gebeurde al met bv boxen nog voordat Zuffa de UFC kocht. Dus het is niets nieuws, en je zou toch ook zeggen dat ze er nu wel achter zijn dat ze er niks aan kunnen doen. Er zijn letterlijk misschien wel honderden stream sites en als je ze op .com naar beneden haalt gaan ze op .eu vrolijk verder. Als ze het gewoon met rust zouden laten zou ze dat juist kosten sparen. Want je verdient niks aan het naar beneden halen van streams of zelfs het bestraffen van fans als dat al mogelijk was. Mensen die de streams kijken zouden immers niet direct PPVs kopen als ze niet meer konden streamen. Maar de meeste fans kopen allemaal wel t-shirtjes, boeken, apparel en wat niet. Als ze al een manier vinden om mensen individueel te straffen, dan is eigenlijk iedereen verliezer.

[YoMarK]

Er komen genoeg inkomsten binnen bij de UFC, dus daar zal het niet liggen.

Niet dus, PPV's zijn de grootste inkomstenbron voor de UFC.

Het standpunt van de UFC is dat iedereen die een gratis stream kijkt, verloren inkomsten zijn voor de UFC. Dit is hetzelfde standpunt als de grote filmstudio's erop nahouden. Natuurlijk klopt dit totaal niet.
Ik denk wel dat het voor hun business slim is als ze de stream-sites zo moeilijk mogelijk maken, zodat niet iedere redneck zomaar gratis streams kan vinden in overvloed.

[Kemal]

Justin.tv Wins Partial Dismissal of UFC Lawsuit, Case Still Ongoing

Justin.tv, the online live video streaming service, won a partial dismissal of a lawsuit Zuffa, LLC (the parent company of the UFC) brought against them for what Zuffa claimed were illegal broadcasts of UFC 121.

Justin.tv filed a motion to dismiss Zuffa's trademark claims because they argue they 'improperly duplicate their copyright claims.' While Justin.tv was able to win on some counts, the court found Zuffa can't use trademark law to go after copyright violations, except what is 'inherent to the broadcast'. The court acknowledged the Octagon is inherent to the broadcast and thus not in play for the trademark claims, but ruled that something like the graphic overlay of the UFC logo could be inherent to the broadcast. That is an issue for the court to address as the case proceeds, which means it could not be dismissed at the outset.

Zuffa argued Justin.tv was liable for trademark violations because items like UFC logos were featured on the broadcasts without express contest of Zuffa. The court disagreed with part of Zuffa's claims. They noted were Zuffa granted the claims they were arguing for related to those matters inherent to the broadcast, "Zuffa would possess a mutant-copyright or perpetual copyright because nobody would ever be able to copy the video and display it regardless of whether the copyright had entered the public domain."

In addition to stopping trademark claims related to matters inherent to the broadcast, Justin.tv was also successful in getting portions of the lawsuit tossed out related to what is commonly known as 'stealing cable'.

Justin.tv's motion to dismiss succeeded on these counts because the court underscored it was not Justin.tv itself that was receiving the broadcast (Zuffa actually does not disagree). Under the Communications Act which Zuffa used to bring the lawsuit on these specific claims, the court noted the law does not apply (only copyright law does). While it is true Justin.tv has a legal responsibility to police what third-party users feed in, the specific argument Zuffa used to bring the charges was found to be inapplicable.

In it's statement regarding the dismissal of these claims, the court also noted third party sites that allow for users to upload content are not liable in this regard across a host of platforms.

"If the Court were to allow claims such as these," the court's decision stated, "it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of "cloud computing" service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s [sic] particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, Windows Phone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such as Apple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under the Communications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act."

"Yet, Zuffa argues for exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effect of the statute in this manner."

Those trademark claims dealing with matters not inherent to the broadcast as well as copyright claims still have to be addressed by the court. There is no time frame regarding when they will be adjudicated.

Read the court's decision related to these matters below.

84542938-Zuffa-v-Justin-Motion-to-Dismiss-Order