UFC Is Going After GideonGallery
 

Just read this:

Last friday Zuffa, LLC, the parent company of the UFC, announced that it served subpoenas on two streaming video websites, commanding them to reveal the identities of users who have uploaded video of live Pay-Per-View UFC events.

The websites, Justin.tv and Ustream.tv, enable anyone with an Internet connection to broadcast live streaming video to an unlimited audience. Although originally developed to bring user-generated content to a large live audience, these sites have been exploited by some users to broadcast illegally uploaded content, including UFC events.

For example, on January 2, 2010, over 36,000 people watched a live streaming feed of the UFC 108 Pay-Per-View event that was uploaded from a single IP address. Less than two months later, on February 21, 2010, that same IP address was used to upload multiple live streaming feeds of the UFC 110 Pay-Per-View event, which was watched by over 78,000 non-paying users. This piracy represents a significant loss of revenue to UFC and their mobile, online, cable and satellite distribution partners each year.

"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."

Under §512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a copyright owner can obtain a subpoena from a federal court ordering a service provider to disclose the identity of a subscriber who is allegedly engaging in infringing activities. The subpoenas served by Zuffa require Justin.tv and Ustream.tv to disclose information in their possession that Zuffa can use to identify those who have been pirating and rebroadcasting recent UFC events online. With this information in hand, Zuffa will prosecute civil actions against the individuals who have infringed Zuffa's copyrights.

tick tock gideongallery, the clock is running out on stealing...

dana white is going to get a quick lesson about going after people offshore... :2 cents:




.

Sounds like he's not bothering to go that route at all. He's going after the uploaders themselves. And from the sounds of it...they are right here in the good ol' USA

Dana sounds pretty ruthless on the issue. I recall him suing a bar owner a while back because someone in the bar hooked a laptop up and started watching the PPV over the Internet. At least that was the story at the time.

The people who absolutely have to see the fights live (as opposed to downloading them the next day via torrents) are likely the ones most apt to have bought the event via PPV too. Then again: I'll admit that I once tried to use one of these streams a few years ago. It kept cutting out all the time and the quality was horrible to the point where you could barely discern what was going on. At least for me it wasn't even worth watching via the stream for free. :2 cents:

they are clueless about the power of branding bugs it seems.

There's no way of knowing how many of the free watchers would have even wanted to watch it if they had to pay though.

I don't buy that "they never would have bought it anyway" argument.

If that were true then we could all just steal anything we want and just claim "I never would have bought it anyway"

Fact is that every one of those people were interested enough in that product to actively seek it out for free. It stands to reason that a percentage of those folks would have paid to see it.

If you don't believe that, then every bit of marketing that has ever been taught is false.

You develop a market for people, you advertise it, you get them interested and you sell to them.

When some dipshit comes along and steals your product and gives it away for free...then you are fucked.

The root of the problem is the ridiculous price they charge for these. $59.99 in HD up here.

I would buy every one if they were $19.99. If they were $29.99 I would buy just the really good ones. $60 is a rip off.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Yep, if only dana white had listened to gideongallery they would have given the whole thing away for free and made twice the amount of money! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's nice to hear news like this as it gives hope to those of us that create and or make a living from intellectual property :thumbsup

I just want to see Gideon in a court trying his double talk mumbo jumbo on some judge.

I like this story because I have a mental image of a UFC fighter choking gideongallery out. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

"Don't you know what timeshifting is your honor? Don't you still have a VCR?"

yes, there are some in the US, but there are many more outside..

someone told me that a couple guys in europe are making a few grand per fight charging small fees/donations...

this one will be interesting to watch... dana is definitely ruthless when it comes to the UFC and money...



.

cool...be better if they just sent about five ufc fighters to visit all the offending sites

hmm..maybe they could police our stuff as well

things would be a lot different if you knew that sometime..probably around 5am one night...thugs with baseball bats were coming to visit you

Might achieve something small, but it won't achieve much realistically. Unlikely to ever see a return on the $ they spend on court cases, or prevent future infringement from occurring. But it is there money.

I wonder why they don't set up their own stream at $5 - $10 a pop at comparable (to these pirate streams) or slightly better quality? If you've ever used one of these streams you'd know that usually they aren't very reliable and the quality is pretty bad. I would have gladly paid $5 for something more reliable and slightly better quality. Turn a percentage of the pirates into paying customers. You can still try to upsell them the better quality PPV or HD streams and your PPV customers aren't going to want to go from 1080p to some crappy pixellated stream unless they are truly broke so you shouldn't lose money there.

They have an advantage over us in that their content has a sort of time factor involved in that most people prefer to see it live. It's a bit different than selling porn.

this is actually one of the things many of my friends say to me all the time


what the fuck? you guys just let people steal from you?
and they got rich from it? show up and take their shit!!!!

of course these guys are not concerned with things like breaking the law...lol but that is another story

i should try to stream it for them...hmmmmm

I'm thinking it will give them a feeling of satisfaction for getting people that stole from them (and that's priceless), plus your observation of it being a deterrent for the future can definitely mean more money.

I would look at it like an investment in my company for the future. He's going after it right out of the gate. If he let it go too far like we did in the Porn biz, he'd be hurting as bad as we are. He's smart to nip it in the bud.

And I still want to see gideongallery in jail where he belongs. :winkwink:

I think they offer streams now. Not sure what the price is. edit: actually I think it is $45, still too much, especially for a stream.

Looks like you're right. http://www.ufclive.com/

Yes, to have an impact on the pirates they'd need to reduce the price point. And to not have it affect sales from regular PPV they'd need to do this with a lower quality stream which is comparable to what the pirates typically offer.

Just got this message from gideongallery:
<gideongallery>
"Robbie you dumbass! What happened is that the uploader had "fair use" to "time shift" into a "cloud". He already had rights to it since he paid for it. And when he streamed it to those tens of thousands of ex-potential-customers of UFC he was doing so as a "parody". "Sony Beta" and "VCR" are proof that my "infinite hard drive" is valid as a "backup" via the Supreme Court ruling from back in 1886 that clearly states that when I (a Canadian) have the legal rights to "timeshift" the "parody" of a streaming UFC event LIVE as it happens and also to put up a dating or cam site ad on the page as well. And yes, it was a parody. How? Because as each viewer watched the live stream, they would discuss it with their buddies who were watching it with them. Thus, they were giving new dialogue to the stream. And in my magic world, that makes it a 'parody' "
</gideongallery>

I didn't say none of them would have bought it. But in every court case it is implied that of the 78,000 non-paying users 78,000 of them would have paid to watch it which isn't the reality.

No, but if I set up a shop giving away free cell phones right in front of your store selling cell phones...what would be your stance then?

I could just say: "You can't prove that ALL these people weren't coming here to buy one of your phones"

And you would probably reply by shooting me. lol

Indeed it does:thumbsup:thumbsup

What does this have to do with GideonGallery? Cliff Notes for us that don't live on GFY..

I wasn't sure either. I considered that perhaps he owns the sites in question or sites like them?

He's a troll/schill for the bit torrent sites and content theft. He makes a lot of doubletalk arguments that sound "smart" but don't really make any sense. He isn't in the porn biz at all. But he enjoys coming to GFY everytime there is a "pro-content theft" legal ruling and rubbing it in everyone's face while he gloats.

So I enjoy dishing it back to him whenever I can.

In other words, it has nothing to do with gideongallery. I just enjoy fucking with him. :1orglaugh

Gideongallery is involved with justin.tv and ustream?

Edit: nevermind lol

Lmfao
 

A free store right in front of a paid store is twisting it a bit.

But -

If there was a paid store on the main street and a free store down the other end of an alleyway would probably be a closer situation. Lots of people would go to the paid store as normal. Some would hunt for the free one, some would find the free one by accident. The main thing really is that once someone had found the free store they wouldn't be returning to the paid one so free user numbers is always more likely to increase.

Oh, and I wouldn't be able to shoot you because gun ownership is far more restricted here than America :disgust

So pricing is justification for stealing?
If I want a Ferrari, can I tell the salesman that I only want to pay $20k for it and if I can't get it at that price, then I'll just come and take the car and share it with all of my friends and everyone on the street I can find?

I agree that $60 PPVs are overpriced, especially these days, but that's their call on what they feel they can charge and I respond by not ordering the PPV at all...

If I could download a Ferrari I would.

~~~ Timeshifting out of this thread ~~~
~~ good luck ~~

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No, of course not. But I am a UFC fan, I've bought two PPV's already this year. After seeing those charges on my bill, I won't be buying any more at home. Just saying if they dropped the price a bit it wouldn't scare so many people away. Obviously a lot of the people they scare away are going to pirate it.

One of our attorneys came from mainstream film biz, experts at shells, offshore, etc. and going after offshore companies is not so difficult. All those places people think are safe harbors like Curacao, Macau etc., guess again.

Dana White will have an army of attorneys to chase those dollars down... and he will strike with great and furious vengeance on those who come against him.

I think Gideon is still busy looking for that email he supposedly send Doc, but it appears to have gotten lost in the "swarm" and he is having trouble "access shifting" it back to his computer.

i guess we will see how far he is willing to go...

i seriously doubt these are corporations streaming these fights..

I have watched those streams for a few minutes or so just to see the main event but would NEVER spend $60 to watch that roid rage

Nope, but the people who enjoy MMA fighting would. And those are the ones watching the free streams that the UFC is losing potential sales to. Not people like you who don't even like it.

I believe he sued the bar owner that let someone hook a laptop up to his bar TV for $640,000 plus legal fees. Ouch.

The UFC's product went through the rod and cone receptors in their eyeballs and went into their stupid brains, which caused them to enjoy the UFC's product, gay as it is. Does it matter if they "would have" or "wouldn't have"?

Let's say that hypothetically, you don't like Urban Outfitters clothes. You're hanging with a friend and they go to Urban Outfitters, so you tag along and and steal a shirt while one of the skinny hipster employees isn't looking. You wear the shirt, even though would have never bought it. Is it stealing?

So lets apply that thinking to the paysite market.

People are unwilling to pay $30 a month for a membership and if we bought it down to $15 approx we would all be making a lot more money.

Great thinking.

Downside. There's little space to cut on hosting, programs, content, admin, etc. So the cut will have to be be on the traffic side of the business. Affiliates will get $1-$5 a join. :1orglaugh

Back in the real world where most of us live...................... :1orglaugh

You said a mouthful just in that statement. :thumbsup

I never said to apply it to the paysite market. Obviously that doesn't work. I am applying it to the situation of the UFC only, and other LIVE PPV events. I have stopped buying fights because they are too expensive. I'll just read the play by play on sherdog.com from now on. Like I said, I would buy most of them if they were $30 cheaper. Every person I know that is a fan would too.

Now compare this with porn. UFC PPVs are live events, not something you just access every time you want to rub one out. I don't care what you charge for a porn paysite membership, because I would never pay for one. Why would you when everything is available free on the tubes? Totally different scenario. Their PPVs are too expensive, that is my only point.

Porn is a totally different ballgame, because everyone wants to give it all away for free. You don't need to pirate porn.(at least the end users don't)

The difference here is that we're talking about intangible goods, so the cost to copy them is very small. Using your car analogy, another shop would have found some way of making a slightly inferior Ferrari clone at near zero cost (and would price them accordingly)

Theft of a physical item results in an absolute measurable loss - the value of the item.

Theft (by copying to multiple receivers) of a digital stream will result in a loss, but it is not simply the value of original_stream_cost X pirate_viewers.

Just look at the comments on the torrent related articles that gideongallery posts, those guys have zero intention of ever paying, and even think it's their right to stick it to the man... :2 cents: