MMA  > General MMA  > UFC Takes Action Against Pay-Per-View Pirating
July 26, 2010, 02:06 PM
Seeking to put an end to the widespread online theft of their pay-per-view events, the UFC has served subpoenas on websites Justin.tv and Ustream.tv, demanding that they reveal the names of users who illegally provided streams of UFC broadcasts on the sites.

The UFC press release notes that while the sites were originally developed to bring user-generated content to live audiences, many users have instead chosen to use the site to illegally broadcast or upload copyrighted material, including UFC events.



"I can't wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content," said UFC President Dana White. "This is a fight we will not lose."

The UFC sold over 7 million pay-per-views in 2009, making them the largest pay-per-view provider in the world. That figures translates to around $350 million in gross revenue.

Still, the company believes it's lost countless millions more due to piracy from the streaming sites. In the release announcing the subpoenas, the UFC cites examples, saying that over 36,000 people watched a live feed of UFC 108 from a single IP address. Less than two months later, the same IP address supplied a feed of UFC 110 that was watched by nearly 80,000 people.

The company notes that "Zuffa encourages the development of new technology to deliver UFC content to licensed online platforms, mobile devices, and gaming systems. However, Zuffa does not condone the use of streaming video or other new technologies to violate intellectual property laws, and it will vigorously protect its copyrighted content against piracy in any medium."

Justin.tv and Ustream.tv did not immediately respond to request for comment, though both sites feature copyright policies that offer protection against intellectual property rights infringements
Comment #1 has been removed
July 26, 2010  02:47 PM ET

i know there are guys here that stream the fights. and bottom line is that its wrong. I know shelling out 44.95 a month for a ppv adds up, but there are ways to chepen it. Split it with friends, go to a bar, whatever. i HATE the whole pirating thing. DVD's, online, fake bags, fake watches. I own a rolex and to see some kid working at mcdonalds with a HORRIBLE knockoff makes me sick. its all the same thing. now everyone wants a piece of that. it used to be if i cant afford it i wont buy it, now its if i cant afford it ill get the knockoff...its the same for streaming. Why are there dvd's of movies not even released in the movies yet? and all of the knockoffs are coming from 3rd world countries. Im glad UFC wants to do sumthin, but in all honesty i dont think they will be able to.

Comment #3 has been removed
Comment #4 has been removed
July 26, 2010  04:32 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

i know there are guys here that stream the fights. and bottom line is that its wrong. I know shelling out 44.95 a month for a ppv adds up, but there are ways to chepen it. Split it with friends, go to a bar, whatever. i HATE the whole pirating thing. DVD's, online, fake bags, fake watches. I own a rolex and to see some kid working at mcdonalds with a HORRIBLE knockoff makes me sick. its all the same thing. now everyone wants a piece of that. it used to be if i cant afford it i wont buy it, now its if i cant afford it ill get the knockoff...its the same for streaming. Why are there dvd's of movies not even released in the movies yet? and all of the knockoffs are coming from 3rd world countries. Im glad UFC wants to do sumthin, but in all honesty i dont think they will be able to.

this remarks are as dumb as they are stereotyped which reeks of your ignorance.
So only rich people should have Rolex and "the rest" should **** up? Why? you probably think poor people should die and spare you of their dirt-ridden filthy existence...

Dana should listen to his own employees (like Rogan) who always says "You can't stop the internet".

how does he think UFC got popular? free streaming. Watching old fights on the web, watching shows for free, etc.

July 26, 2010  04:45 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

this remarks are as dumb as they are stereotyped which reeks of your ignorance.So only rich people should have Rolex and "the rest" should **** up? Why? you probably think poor people should die and spare you of their dirt-ridden filthy existence...Dana should listen to his own employees (like Rogan) who always says "You can't stop the internet".how does he think UFC got popular? free streaming. Watching old fights on the web, watching shows for free, etc.

should i respond to this? or am i seeing the reason that i left for a while.
Absoulutley you should not have things that you can not afford. Thats what got this economy in the whole in the first place is people spending money they do not have. Credit is credit, not CASH!
and im closer to poor than rich, so no, i think i should struggle, try and make the best for my family and not expect hand outs.
and was there internet when UFC 1 started? i dont think so. But i have seen your track record and you are def ree-tart-ED!

Comment #7 has been removed
July 26, 2010  06:44 PM ET

No comment

July 26, 2010  06:44 PM ET

But they are going after the broadcasters.

But there are other sites you could go to.

July 26, 2010  08:20 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

should i respond to this? or am i seeing the reason that i left for a while.Absoulutley you should not have things that you can not afford. Thats what got this economy in the whole in the first place is people spending money they do not have. Credit is credit, not CASH! and im closer to poor than rich, so no, i think i should struggle, try and make the best for my family and not expect hand outs. and was there internet when UFC 1 started? i dont think so. But i have seen your track record and you are def ree-tart-ED!

apparently you are the dumb one.
I never said the poor should get Rolex. but that is why there are cheap alternatives that looks like you Rolex. And if someone poor wants to have a shinny piece that resembles your golden piece then why not?
If you wish to have something only rich people can have, maybe you should go to those imperial countries where the casts are set in stone.
And please, don't make me laugh. Internet was here in 1993. Sure wasn't popular.
Neither was the UFC.

Just so you learn, UFC was bought by Zuffa in 2001 and the turnaround came after 2004. And yes, unless you were living under a rock, Internet was already popular by 2004.

We can see who is ree-tart-ED!

Comment #11 has been removed
July 26, 2010  08:21 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Poor people should not buy a Rolex, unless they pool their money together to do so. They could then work out a wearing schedule whereby each person got to have a turn with the watch whenever they wanted to impress others with their overpriced timepiece. They could all get together and just stare at the Rolex from time-to-time, which brings us to one of mlanzo's points... Split the PPV with a buddy or two (or more), or show up and pay the cover at a local bar. This gives you access to the "Rolex of MMA" at a fraction of the price.

funny!

Comment #13 has been removed
July 26, 2010  08:49 PM ET

Is Dana going to act tough or something?

Comment #15 has been removed
Comment #16 has been removed
July 26, 2010  09:44 PM ET

Jim, do you know the word symbiosis ?
This is what it is.
Internet is progress. Companies should adapt. Same as the music world did, same as anything else did.
If they stop the Internet, more than some washed-out PPV's that most people wouldn't buy, most followers would stop watching most events and pick a few to watch lessening their interest in the product as a whole. Streaming helps UFC keep those fans hooked. They might not buy the PPV, but they help UFC's bargaining point for sponsorship.
Sponsors don't care how many people bought PPV. They care about the exposure they get.
So a popular product will get the return not only directly from their customers. This is capitalism 101.

They get short on PPV money, but sure get it back form their sponsors because they have a popular product.

It is funny that it's known UFC pays it's fighters the least possible, less than 20% of their money goes to the fighters and yet you blame the PPV streams as the reason for it? You know better.

July 26, 2010  10:00 PM ET

I think UFC should make PPVs availiable online, where you still have to pay.

I personally know a few people that have a crappy local cable company that doesn't have a PPV serive, and it's in their subdivion's contract that every home will use that cable service, which means no going dish.

I'm glad I live in the woods with no rules, and I'm glad I have my dish to order my PPVs, but these people I know couldn't order it if they wanted to.

An online PPV where you can pay via paypal/debit/credit would help UFC in sells.

I am guilty of watching the stream when not enough people show up or some of the Strikeforce/Dream events, but I am all for getting rid of the free feeds.

Comment #19 has been removed
 
Comment #20 has been removed

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1041
    Comments
    992
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    4119
    Comments
    930
  3. 3
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5891
    Comments
    336
  4. 4
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    692
    Comments
    166
  5. 5
    Lightning may be swept aside
    Views
    1317
    Comments
    100

SI.com

SI Photos