MIXFIGHT.COM
NOG GEEN LID?
MELD JE HIER GRATIS AAN!
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    360
    vCash
    126000

    Default UFC successfully sued at least one man for $12,000 last year for watching two pay-per

    UFC has successfully sued at least one person for watching streams

    UFC successfully sued at least one man for $12,000 last year for watching two pay-per-view streams.


    light of the UFC's announcement that they had shut down another streaming service and would be prosecuting infringers, I decided to look into what happened after the last such announcement they made back in 2012.
    I initially felt they would have difficulty suing people under traditional copyright infringement statutes used by people like the MPAA (Title 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) because of the difficulty proving the viewer actually possessed the object or engaged in one of the other acts rendering them liable. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been sued for copyright infringement because they viewed a stream. If Zuffa was to be the first to sue someone for this, they run the risk of setting unfavourable precedents.

    It turns out that instead of risking setting unfavourable case law, the UFC lawyers appear to have decided to take a slightly different route, instead suing under Title 47 of the United States Code, §§ 553 and 605.

    Section 553 prohibits persons from intercepting or receiving "any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so..." Section 605 proscribes the unauthorized interception and publication of any "radio communication."

    What this essentially means is instead of suing for copyright infringement, they sued the streamer for intercepting or receiving their Pay-Per-View signal without having the authorization to do so.

    They successfully sued at least one person under this act, and I have no reason to doubt the claims from their press release that the actual number was hundreds. In this case, the plaintiff chose not to defend the allegation, and as a result a default judgement was awarded against him.

    He was ordered to pay $2,000 in statutory damages ($1,000 per event streamed, the minimum damages allowed by law), $4,000 in enhanced damages and $5,948.70 in attorney's fees and costs. All in all streaming two Pay-Per-View events cost him $11,948.70.
    Advertentie door Mixfight.nl
    Advertentie van Mixfight


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3.490
    vCash
    126000

    Default

    Bullshit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Breda
    Posts
    12.801
    vCash
    82310

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1.743
    vCash
    124769

    Default

    Ik weet wel dat ze actief achter mensen aan gaan die er geld aan verdienen.
    De thuiskijker lijkt me onwaarschijnlijk en totaal kansloos.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    453
    vCash
    123292

    Default

    Als je bij zo'n streamsite geregistreerd staat ben je wel fucked.
    Alistair Overeem is de goat.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •