Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 03-23-2012, 03:43 AM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is online now
MMA, VCU, & Doctor Who
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,322
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Just saw this on MiddleEasy.com:


Quote:
If people that illegally stream UFC events are considered pirates, then why hasn't the demand for eye patches skyrocketed in the past decade? That's my only argument against the emergence of internet pirates. The web is filled with lackluster pirates that don't even feel the need to get dressed in their classic regalia. Man, Somali pirates would own internet pirates. Those dudes have guns. They even have guns that look like giant NES adapters. If you consider yourself an internet pirate, then go all out. Get a scimitar and learn how write limericks on the fly while drowning your problems in rum.

TorrentFreak caught wind of UFC obtaining the names, emails and IPs of people that used GreenFeedz.com to illegally stream UFC PPV events, and the site decided to contact First Amendment attorney, Marc Randazza, to get his take on the ordeal. Here's what Randazza told TorrentFreak regarding the UFC going after illegal streamers.
Quote:
“I have a very hard time finding a theory of liability for someone who merely watched an illegal broadcast. That’s like saying if a bar was illegally publicly presenting a movie or an NFL game, that everyone in the bar would be liable,”

“My guess is that the UFC’s attorneys will not really go after people who merely watched the fights. They may, however, use the data they gather in order to find out if any of those people were re-distributing it.”

“If they’re really going after people for merely watching an illegal stream, I’d defend that case free of charge,” Randazza told TorrentFreak. “That’s not the right thing to do.”
Not a lot in this life comes free, but according to Marc Randazza, he will offer his legal services free of charge if the UFC comes after you because you couldn't shell out $54.99 for a legal UFC PPV. Hopefully that won't entice people out there to purposefully get in trouble with ZUFFA just so they can take him up on his offer. [Source]
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-23-2012, 03:58 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

I said like 3 times in this thread that they wouldn't do this....

It's already been established in a court of law that streaming video is not a violation of copyright law. They can try to sue all they want but until they take it to the supreme court or call Obama and manage to change the law, it ain't happening. Look at what happened with Cartoon Network's lawsuit.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon...Holdings,_Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-23-2012, 04:31 AM
Max's Avatar
Max Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
I said like 3 times in this thread that they wouldn't do this....

It's already been established in a court of law that streaming video is not a violation of copyright law. They can try to sue all they want but until they take it to the supreme court or call Obama and manage to change the law, it ain't happening. Look at what happened with Cartoon Network's lawsuit.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon...Holdings,_Inc.
I might be wrong but it seems like there is a difference between that and what people are doing with the UFC's. With that they were recording the content that person A payed for and then replaying that content for that person only. With the UFC's I am paying for the content then uploading to to a website for anyone to watch it. I could be wrong though.
__________________

^this is what perfection looks like
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-23-2012, 10:49 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max View Post
I might be wrong but it seems like there is a difference between that and what people are doing with the UFC's. With that they were recording the content that person A payed for and then replaying that content for that person only. With the UFC's I am paying for the content then uploading to to a website for anyone to watch it. I could be wrong though.
Yes, you are wrong.

You have no idea how many people the person with the DVR is playing it for. So to say it's only for ONE person is an assumption.

If you buy a UFC and upload it to a website or stream it to others, you are violating copyright law and could potentially eat a cock-meat sandwich like Harold and Kumar in Guantanamo Bay. However, if I WATCH your STREAM of the fights, I am not breaking the law, only you are.

I guess I should have said "if you are watching a stream" in my last post. Also, let's not throw the words "record" or "recording" around if we don't really know what they mean

Last edited by J.B.; 03-23-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.