PDA

View Full Version : Zuffa Kills Gracie YouTube Page


VCURamFan
03-28-2011, 07:06 PM
From MiddleEasy.com:

http://middleeasy.com/images/stories/Author_Zeus/2011/03/gracieacademy.jpg


First Lookoutawhale (http://www.youtube.com/lookoutawhale), and now Ryron and Rener Gracie. Damn.
It appears that ZUFFA (along with Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation) has reported GracieAcademy's YouTube account for multiple cases of copyright infringement, forcing the company to terminate their YouTube account. I'm sure all of you woke up today with the expectation that the Gracie brothers would have an hour-long breakdown of Chan Sung Jung's twister victory over Leonard Garcia this past week, but alas not even two black-belts can defend ZUFFA attorneys' submission.
Here's what one is presented with if they try to visit Gracie Academy's YouTube page (http://www.youtube.com/gracieacademy). Props to Evan C (http://twitter.com/Evan_C)for the find.

YouTube account GracieAcademy has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
ZUFFA, LLC

http://middleeasy.com/images/stories/Author_Zeus/2011/03/youtubeban.jpg

JavierDLC
03-28-2011, 07:24 PM
And so it begins :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
03-28-2011, 07:25 PM
are they showing footages of the fights?

VCURamFan
03-28-2011, 07:26 PM
are they showing footages of the fights?
yeah. They'd show the HL of the sub used to finish the fight.

rearnakedchoke
03-28-2011, 07:29 PM
yeah. They'd show the HL of the sub used to finish the fight.

yeah, then of course they would get pulled ... i am sure they could do it without the highlight ...

flo
03-28-2011, 07:35 PM
yeah, then of course they would get pulled ... i am sure they could do it without the highlight ...

It's really no different than pirating music, movies, etc. Yes, they should do it without the video of the fight. It's only fair, Zuffa has paid to copyright everything.

rockdawg21
03-28-2011, 07:44 PM
Too bad, they make good videos.

rearnakedchoke
03-28-2011, 07:44 PM
It's really no different than pirating music, movies, etc. Yes, they should do it without the video of the fight. It's only fair, Zuffa has paid to copyright everything.

did you get permission to write that? better watch out ...

rockdawg21
03-28-2011, 07:46 PM
My first YouTube account had Zuffa report me twice. I had one of the most popular Brock Lesnar videos on YT, I even gave full credit by linking to where I found the video (somewhere on www.ufc.com), but still got cut. I was surprised about that. TMZ was another one although I gave them credit.

flo
03-28-2011, 07:49 PM
did you get permission to write that? better watch out ...

:laugh:


My brain. That's one intellectual property that hasn't yet been copyrighted, rearnaked choke.

logrus
03-28-2011, 09:45 PM
My first YouTube account had Zuffa report me twice. I had one of the most popular Brock Lesnar videos on YT, I even gave full credit by linking to where I found the video (somewhere on www.ufc.com), but still got cut. I was surprised about that. TMZ was another one although I gave them credit.

My account was banned to, sad thing was I was never even warned, or had my content removed. All I did was use a clip of a song, gave full credit in my link and in my closing credits.

Sad things have turned out the way they have, honestly this is one of those reasons why users have turned their backs on all forms of the industries.

VCURamFan
03-29-2011, 01:40 AM
The story develops:

@danawhite the Gracie Breakdowns were intended to educate #UFC fans. What can we do to make it work?
@RenerGracie just landed in chicago. I just followed u. Dm me with ur number and let's talk.

TENNESSEAN
03-29-2011, 01:58 AM
I'm sure dana wouldn't mind giving the gracies a pass and let them use the footage. Problem is he can't, no one gets a pass on copyrighted material. If they did then if the ufc ever has to go to court to defend a copyright that pass can be used against them. Its understandable that they pulled the video.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 02:29 AM
I'm sure dana wouldn't mind giving the gracies a pass and let them use the footage. Problem is he can't, no one gets a pass on copyrighted material. If they did then if the ufc ever has to go to court to defend a copyright that pass can be used against them. Its understandable that they pulled the video.

Zuffa can grant permission to anybody they want to use their copyrighted material and it would have no bearing on a case against somebody else who doesn't have their permission. Still, if the UFC doesn't even let ESPN show the finishes of fights, I doubt they would just let it slide, even if it is for the Gracies.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 02:36 AM
It's really no different than pirating music

It's a bit different. The Gracies are using clips that the UFC doesn't even let big time sports networks use in reporting on the sport. Also, it could be argued that in doing so it is helping to promote the Gracie academy, something Zuffa has no vested interest in.

I shed no tears for the music industry when it comes to "pirated" music.

TENNESSEAN
03-29-2011, 03:14 AM
Zuffa can grant permission to anybody they want to use their copyrighted material and it would have no bearing on a case against somebody else who doesn't have their permission. Still, if the UFC doesn't even let ESPN show the finishes of fights, I doubt they would just let it slide, even if it is for the Gracies.

Maybe so, but that's not what the zuffa attorney told me. He was very polite and made sure I understood they have to protect their copyrights or it weakens their legal position in cases that would really matter to them. It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe permission is the key word here. I'm not sure I'm not a attorney.

flo
03-29-2011, 03:28 AM
It's a bit different. The Gracies are using clips that the UFC doesn't even let big time sports networks use in reporting on the sport. Also, it could be argued that in doing so it is helping to promote the Gracie academy, something Zuffa has no vested interest in.

I shed no tears for the music industry when it comes to "pirated" music.
Well, maybe if they were your royalties, you'd feel differently, JB.

A patent or a copyright, sports or whatever, it's still protected property. I agree that the Gracies would be profiting from usage of Zuffa's copyrighted property (also with what you said about Zuffa allowing them to use a specific clip).

flo
03-29-2011, 03:29 AM
Maybe so, but that's not what the zuffa attorney told me. He was very polite and made sure I understood they have to protect their copyrights or it weakens their legal position in cases that would really matter to them. It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe permission is the key word here. I'm not sure I'm not a attorney.

That's very interesting, Tennessean. You got it right from the horse's mouth, so to speak, thanks.

logrus
03-29-2011, 04:07 AM
Maybe so, but that's not what the zuffa attorney told me. He was very polite and made sure I understood they have to protect their copyrights or it weakens their legal position in cases that would really matter to them. It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe permission is the key word here. I'm not sure I'm not a attorney.

Sounds like he was referring more to illegal use of material instead of legally allowing a company the use of such footage. In your argument, any song I hear in a couple ads on different products could very well be mine for use how I see fit, which is not the case.

logrus
03-29-2011, 04:13 AM
Well, maybe if they were your royalties, you'd feel differently, JB.

A patent or a copyright, sports or whatever, it's still protected property. I agree that the Gracies would be profiting from usage of Zuffa's copyrighted property (also with what you said about Zuffa allowing them to use a specific clip).

So your telling me you think Sony vs Holtz is perfectly fine huh.

flo
03-29-2011, 05:05 AM
So your telling me you think Sony vs Holtz is perfectly fine huh.
I never heard of that case before, logrus. I googled it and did read a little about Sony vs Hotz; I'm not a gamer so I'm still not real clear what the issue was. I take it Hotz is a hacker? If that's the case, yeah, I think it's perfectly fine that Sony sued him.

What I'm talking about in my comments is copyrighted and patented property.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 07:31 AM
Well, maybe if they were your royalties, you'd feel differently, JB.


Artists gain more positive exposure through people actually having their music than they do by attacking the small number of fans who actually copy their music. Not to mention the industry is huge joke anyway. The artists aren't the ones who are really "losing" money from piracy, it's more of a concern for the publishers and fat-cat record label execs than anything. They can't fathom why people wouldn't want to buy another Elvis Greatest Hits CD every year on his birthday. The RIAA goes out and sues 12 year old girls, soccer mom's, and grandmothers for hundreds of thousands of dollars over some MP3's, but try finding an artist who has really been compensated by the RIAA or the labels for those settlements (short of a lawsuit), or find an artist who has been compensated by the percentage of the profits the RIAA takes off blank CD sales. It's a short list.

The industry wants to tell everybody that sales are declining solely because of "illegal" downloads, but there are a lot of contributing factors they leave out. Soaring production costs over the years have driven up the price of albums even through rough economic times. Online sales have allowed consumers to purchase single songs rather than entire albums, and the medium for music has begun to shift away from CD's and into the realm of MP3 players. The internet has also made it possible for fans to listen to millions of independent artists for FREE and thus not being forced only take in what is spoon-fed over the radio.

flo
03-29-2011, 08:21 AM
Artists gain more positive exposure through people actually having their music than they do by attacking the small number of fans who actually copy their music. Not to mention the industry is huge joke anyway. The artists aren't the ones who are really "losing" money from piracy, it's more of a concern for the publishers and fat-cat record label execs than anything. They can't fathom why people wouldn't want to buy another Elvis Greatest Hits CD every year on his birthday. The RIAA goes out and sues 12 year old girls, soccer mom's, and grandmothers for hundreds of thousands of dollars over some MP3's, but try finding an artist who has really been compensated by the RIAA or the labels for those settlements (short of a lawsuit), or find an artist who has been compensated by the percentage of the profits the RIAA takes off blank CD sales. It's a short list.

The industry wants to tell everybody that sales are declining solely because of "illegal" downloads, but there are a lot of contributing factors they leave out. Soaring production costs over the years have driven up the price of albums even through rough economic times.

That may all be true but the law is the law, isn't it? We can't pick and choose. If enough people feel strongly about it, and a majority of artists feel intellectual property laws don't matter - or that the RIAA is obsolete - there shouldn't be a problem changing those laws.

Online sales have allowed consumers to purchase single songs rather than entire albums, and the medium for music has begun to shift away from CD's and into the realm of MP3 players. The internet has also made it possible for fans to listen to millions of independent artists for FREE and thus not being forced only take in what is spoon-fed over the radio

I'm not sure what this has to do with copyright infringement.

County Mike
03-29-2011, 11:05 AM
If it ain't yours then it ain't yours.

TENNESSEAN
03-29-2011, 01:20 PM
Sounds like he was referring more to illegal use of material instead of legally allowing a company the use of such footage. In your argument, any song I hear in a couple ads on different products could very well be mine for use how I see fit, which is not the case.

no, he was telling me exactly what i said. they don't make a habit of letting anyone use anything. the tougher they are on this the better their copyrights hold up. its really not that hard to understand.

Spiritwalker
03-29-2011, 01:34 PM
no, he was telling me exactly what i said. they don't make a habit of letting anyone use anything. the tougher they are on this the better their copyrights hold up. its really not that hard to understand.

Bingo...

If you let no one use anything.. when someone else wants to.. or does so without premission.. it's VERY easy to smack them down..

think about a parent with two kids.. If you let one slide on something.. the other will do the same thing and a little bit more.. when the parent says..."Whoa their little Johnny.." and what's the first thing Little Johnny will say.... "You let Timmy do it...."...

logrus
03-29-2011, 03:13 PM
I never heard of that case before, logrus. I googled it and did read a little about Sony vs Hotz; I'm not a gamer so I'm still not real clear what the issue was. I take it Hotz is a hacker? If that's the case, yeah, I think it's perfectly fine that Sony sued him.

What I'm talking about in my comments is copyrighted and patented property.

Basically the PS3 come with a linux based OS which gave little permissions to the owner, what he did was gave himself full read write permissions, -7-7-7-, superuser etc. His hack was not to allow piracy or emulation but to allow users to run their own apps and scripts on their own machine.

Holtz did nothing more then take a machine claimed to be uncrackable and cracked it. whats funny about the case is Sony claims since they designed the machine and own the patent on it, that him buying it with his own money does not give him the right to do with it as he saw fit.

Like Holtz said "Hey if its ok with locked down Mobile devices, why not with such locked down things like gaming consoles. "An that this is more a case of "If we buy it, do we still really, and legally own it."

logrus
03-29-2011, 03:53 PM
no, he was telling me exactly what i said. they don't make a habit of letting anyone use anything. the tougher they are on this the better their copyrights hold up. its really not that hard to understand.

Its easy to understand, the logic is wrong though.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 05:16 PM
That may all be true but the law is the law, isn't it? We can't pick and choose. If enough people feel strongly about it, and a majority of artists feel intellectual property laws don't matter - or that the RIAA is obsolete - there shouldn't be a problem changing those laws.


You are looking at this as black and white, when there is actually a lot of gray area in the matter. Even if we take the approach of "the law is the law", the industry is still misleading people into thinking that copying music is illegal, when that isn't always the case. People are legally entitled to backup copies of all their forms of media, so if I bought an album 20 years ago there is nothing that says I can't have a copy on my MP3 player or computer.

Of course people can use technology to infringe on other people's copyrights, but are we truly to believe that the music industry should be entitled to such ridiculous amounts in compensation to the tune of thousands of dollars PER song? Are they really losing a couple grand for every 13 year old girl with a Lady Gaga Mp3? The answer is no.

While it's easy to say, "change the law", it's not that easily done. The current set of laws that govern all of this is called the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and it was written by everybody's favorite VP, Joe Biden.


I'm not sure what this has to do with copyright infringement.

I am talking about how the industry misleads consumers into thinking that sales are declining based on "illegal" piracy.

TENNESSEAN
03-29-2011, 05:26 PM
Its easy to understand, the logic is wrong though.

you should send them a resume:)

Llamafighter
03-29-2011, 05:59 PM
I used to know a heck of a lot more about Pride fighters because their fights were easily found on youtube. I could watch decent quality, full versions of most of the fights. I used to get irritated because I wanted to research fighters in the UFC and all their content was blocked on youtube. I would think "man Pride is so much better for allowing the fans to have this kind of access. that's the way to run an entertainment business". Then Zuffa bought Pride...

I respect the idea of "you can't use any of our stuff without paying for it". it's the way businesses have run and continued to run since the beginning.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 06:11 PM
Its easy to understand, the logic is wrong though.

It's basically Zuffa's way of saying, "we don't want to see fan created content spread across the web". The idea that their copyright would have any less merit is nonsense. They either grant permission to use their material or they don't. The whole "go after fans on YouTube" approach just seems counter-productive to the idea of helping the sport grow and reach people who might not have access to it as readily as Zuffa would like. From a business standpoint, sure it makes sense to only want consumers to get your content by paying an over-inflated price on your official website, but in the bigger picture they just look like cry-babies with gold plated tissue to wipe their tears.

flo
03-29-2011, 06:47 PM
You are looking at this as black and white, when there is actually a lot of gray area in the matter. Even if we take the approach of "the law is the law", the industry is still misleading people into thinking that copying music is illegal, when that isn't always the case. People are legally entitled to backup copies of all their forms of media, so if I bought an album 20 years ago there is nothing that says I can't have a copy on my MP3 player or computer.

Of course people can use technology to infringe on other people's copyrights, but are we truly to believe that the music industry should be entitled to such ridiculous amounts in compensation to the tune of thousands of dollars PER song? Are they really losing a couple grand for every 13 year old girl with a Lady Gaga Mp3? The answer is no.

While it's easy to say, "change the law", it's not that easily done. The current set of laws that govern all of this is called the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and it was written by everybody's favorite VP, Joe Biden.




I respect your opinion, JB, you have experience in this area; that's why my comments were more "black and white". I'm still on the fence about setting limits for any kind of compensation. And, after thinking about it, yes, I realize it's difficult to change a system that has long been in place. It still might be worth it for someone with the $$ to try to challenge aspects of the DMCopyright Act.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

flo
03-29-2011, 06:48 PM
It still might be worth it for someone with the $$ to try to challenge aspects of the DMCopyright Act.



Especially if Joe Bite-Me wrote it. :)

Neezar
03-29-2011, 06:57 PM
you should send them a resume:)

:laugh: I almost snotted.

Neezar
03-29-2011, 07:03 PM
I love it that they go after the little guy, the internet warriors. lol. I don't like some of the restrictions that they put on the fighters though. But I love that Zuffa is that uncle who is a badass that you can't get nothing passed. He is the one that is mean to kids when the other grown ups aren't looking. :laugh:

And the internet warriors love the one-on-one time.

J.B.
03-29-2011, 10:11 PM
I respect your opinion, JB, you have experience in this area; that's why my comments were more "black and white". I'm still on the fence about setting limits for any kind of compensation. And, after thinking about it, yes, I realize it's difficult to change a system that has long been in place. It still might be worth it for someone with the $$ to try to challenge aspects of the DMCopyright Act.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

My biggest gripe has always just been that the music industry tries to paint themselves as victims, while ripping off both artists and consumers in the process. I can understand some of the industry's gripes, such as going after people who try to freely distribute copyrighted music illegally for commercial gain or those who release albums to the public before their scheduled release date. However going after the lowest common denominator and attacking random end-users for ridiculous amounts of money, who a lot of times don't even know any better, is just frivolous and petty.

There are people who have fought to challenge aspects of the DMCA, but when there are big-time businessmen who have politicians in their pockets, it tends to be an uphill battle.

VCURamFan
03-29-2011, 11:14 PM
From the Gracie Insider:

G.A. YouTube Channel is Down for the Count

Two days ago, we uploaded a Gracie Breakdown of UFC FN 24 to the longstanding Gracie Academy YouTube channel: http://www.Youtube.com/GracieAcademy, and within 2 hours, we received the following notice:

"YouTube account GracieAcademy has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:

* Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
* ZUFFA, LLC"

We were shocked to say the least. Although we've had a couple of past copyright infringements (one for using some music that wasn't ours, and another for showing some footage from a TV show which featured the Gracie Academy), we have released dozens of other Gracie Breakdown videos, all of which featured short snippets of actual UFC fights which was thought to be in adherence to fair use laws as outlined in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. But, for some reason this video, which featured far less actual footage than most of our other breakdowns, caused our whole channel to get terminated. We have spoken to the UFC office and are hoping to get the issue resolved, but the channel (and all 100+ Gracie videos from over 10 years) is still down and there is no telling when it will get back up.

How can you help?
The bottom line is that the Gracie Breakdowns are designed to educate UFC fans so they don't boo the fighters after 15 seconds of ground grappling, and hopefully to turn some casual MMA fans into students of the gentle art. In order to post Gracie Breakdowns with snippets of actual fights going forward, we would need permission from Dana. If you have a Twitter account, and you want to help, feel free to tweet a message to @danawhite telling him why you like the breakdowns and why he should work with us, @graciebrothers, to keep the Gracie Breakdowns going.

TENNESSEAN
03-30-2011, 01:48 AM
It's basically Zuffa's way of saying, "we don't want to see fan created content spread across the web". The idea that their copyright would have any less merit is nonsense. They either grant permission to use their material or they don't. The whole "go after fans on YouTube" approach just seems counter-productive to the idea of helping the sport grow and reach people who might not have access to it as readily as Zuffa would like. From a business standpoint, sure it makes sense to only want consumers to get your content by paying an over-inflated price on your official website, but in the bigger picture they just look like cry-babies with gold plated tissue to wipe their tears.

I think it makes them look like awesome business men that have a company to run and are doing a REALLY good job.

What does the ufc sale? FIGHTS! what is this really about people showing the most exciting parts of their product for free.
I don't buy into, it helps get the sport known. Anything you want to know about mma and the ufc is out there for free.

They have fight nights for free to bring in new viewers. the only thing that you won't find for free are fights that they put on to make money.

That's just good business and that's why they are the most dominant player and will remain the most dominate player.

J.B.
03-30-2011, 05:17 AM
I think it makes them look like awesome business men that have a company to run and are doing a REALLY good job.

How does attacking fans who make 3 minute HL clips that promote an industry they basically monopolize make them look like awesome business men? I think it makes them look petty.


What does the ufc sale? FIGHTS! what is this really about people showing the most exciting parts of their product for free.
I don't buy into, it helps get the sport known. Anything you want to know about mma and the ufc is out there for free.

You contradict your own argument when you say that it doesn't help get the sport get known by showing clips of awesome finishes, which obviously attracts tons of casual fans, and then saying that anything you want to know about MMA and the UFC is out there for free.

Again, does it make sense from a business standpoint? Sure, but it's still lame of them to attack something from their fans that isn't really hurting them in their wallets as much as they would have you believe.


They have fight nights for free to bring in new viewers. the only thing that you won't find for free are fights that they put on to make money.

Which fights do they put on to not make money? :laugh:

Being on a cable network doesn't mean it's "free" just because it's not a PPV.


That's just good business and that's why they are the most dominant player and will remain the most dominate player.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that it makes them look petty over something really doesn't hurt them at all.

logrus
03-30-2011, 05:44 AM
you should send them a resume:)

I never really cared for the the law, and I really hate the lingo associated with it. Go read a ToS agreement and get back to me on just how fun it is.

Besides its much more interesting to spend 10 seconds and inform people that the UFC runs a Linux OS on an Akamai server based out of Europe which was last updated as of Jan 16,2011.

J.B.
03-30-2011, 06:01 AM
I never really cared for the the law.

This one's for you buddy! :laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BhISMFnMb0

I know I haven't logged in much lately, but we gotta throw down on Xbox sometime soon! :)

logrus
03-31-2011, 03:27 AM
This one's for you buddy! :laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BhISMFnMb0

I know I haven't logged in much lately, but we gotta throw down on Xbox sometime soon! :)

I think I scared them all off when I blinked a couple times and pulled all of the server information.

I know I havent seen u on much, I was on a lot a few weeks back playing that ••••ty ass game HomeFront. Its a little rough to play these days because my TV is going, so the game lust looks like crap.