Mixed Martial Arts Forum banner

Justin.tv Not Guilty Of 'Stealing Cable' When Users Stream UFC Matches

5K views 75 replies 34 participants last post by  HexRei 
#1 ·
In essence, Zuffa alleges that Justin.tv’s users copied Zuffa’s UFC event and then rebroadcast the UFC event over the internet. This is not the type of conduct properly addressed by the Communications Act, but by copyright law (and, potentially, trademark law) because Justin.tv had no relationship with the original cable or satellite signal: by the allegations, Justin.tv did not receive or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast. The Court finds no evidence in the statutory language, other cases, or legislative history that the Communications Act addresses this type of conduct or was meant to bolster or act as a separate type of copyright claim.


if the Court were to allow claims such as these, it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of “cloud computing” service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s [sic] particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, Windows Phone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such as Apple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under the Communications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act. Yet, Zuffa arguesfor exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effect of the statute in this manner
yay for the bolded part.

techdirt article with downloadable full ruling

The "hook a brother up" thread lives
 
#2 ·
I agree with the technicality of the ruling, but I still think it's wrong just like I think movie bootleggers are in the wrong.
 
#5 ·
Seems a silly line to pursue for UFC lawyers. That target they are aiming for is an impossible goal and almighty to implement across all those providers and content/social media sites and blogs. Should have used their common sense and went after them in a different way
 
#6 ·
The UFC, Video game Publishers, Movie and Music producers all share a similar delusion. They all believe a pirated copy is a sale they are not getting. Suggesting, if a person was not able to get it for free they would automatically buy it, resulting in a sale. This mentality is beyond ignorant. It's just another corporation playing the victim.

The UFC would have not sustained it's popularity if not for the Internet. In many cases those who pirate an Event from time to time are customers as well.

They should leave it alone and spend the money they are wasting on it on something that can actually help improve the industry.
 
#10 ·
Oh, I see- it's the corporations that are the problem.

You're taking something without paying for it. I mean, I totally get it; there are lots of reasons for not being happy about having to pay (what the cards cost, you would never buy 'em anyway, etc).

But when you boil it all the way down, you're a thief.

And I don't give a sh!t, really; I just wish people wouldn't rationalize it.

.
 
#7 ·
Like with any piracy, offer a better service. Do they expect their target audience (young males) to fork out 50 bucks every couple weeks, when it's online for free? Just look how rich FPSrussia is from youtube, all from ad money. The ufc needs to get on board with the internet, it's going to destroy cable soon enough.
 
#14 ·
Hopefully they shut down all of these sites, it's not the UFC's fault people can't go out and get jobs or don't have enough friends to chip in.
 
#19 · (Edited)
I’m actually a bit shocked at my own ignorance… I genuinely didn’t expect there to be such support for this ruling on this forum… My surprise based on the fact that anyone who spends time on this forum would be a fan of the sport and would appreciate what the UFC has done for the sport… but apparently not.

I regularly fork over $55 ($45 when the misses relegates me to the basement) to watch from the comfort of my home – last year I paid for at least six events (might have been as many as ten?) and I don’t enjoy opening my Direct TV statement. So I can see why people prefer not to pay and watch for free… But people, let’s be honest here – regardless of the Court’s judgment – watching a pirated live feed is for all intense and purposes stealing – oh you can justify it to yourself and your friends however you like – but its still stealing.

Example – I like to eat apples but refuse to pay for them when they cost $1.00 each. So when apples are $1.00 each, the store won’t be selling any to me. So it’s ok to just to take them right? Err No – that’s called stealing. In the same way that the people on this forum claiming that they if they have to pay $50 to watch a ppv event they won’t buy it – so when they watch a pirate feed the UFC isn’t losing anything – yeah, that argument is silly and frankly not worthy of my seven-year old…

I’m betting that most of the pro pirating comments come from people living at home, who’s parents aren’t fans of MMA and who don’t allow their kids to watch the ppv fights – those same people are under 21 so can’t get into a sports bar either – well yay! This judgment is for you!

But it’s still stealing!

Be careful though, because like other “gateway” recreations internet piracy is just the satrt. First it's ripping off the UFC. Before you know it you’re staring in your very own version of grand theft auto – (internet piracy = gateway crime) then you get caught, put away for a few years. While playing hide the sausage in D block, you pick up some prison ink, train a bit and all of a sudden you’re on the Belator undercard bitching that you can’t make a living from fighting because too many people watch on the internet for free…

I don’t care how many apples you steal – stop pissing on yourself and telling everyone it’s raining outside.
 
#21 ·
And here is the danger (IMO) of these types of exchanges - instead of arguing/discussing the issue (and my point was that Internet piracy is wrong) we end up discussing the meaning/use of "stealing". However, I respect your opinion and would even agree with it, if it were correct :wink03:. But I've had my say, vented my spleen and moved on...

Thanks
 
#22 · (Edited)
Since you've "moved on" I guess I'm posting this for everyone else, as you won't reply. But anyway, the law* agrees with me, not you. (RE: stealing vs. infringement)

And internet piracy isn't a black and white issue, but unfortunately most try to make it out to be exactly that. It is not a binary issue.

The way I use "piracy" in regards to the UFC is not wrong at all. And that's a fact.

[Edit] semi-related funny: link Nice one, Sony. haha


*In my home country, Canada, at least. It's pretty much the same everywhere else though, if not more lenient.
 
#32 ·
And internet piracy isn't a black and white issue, but unfortunately most try to make it out to be exactly that. It is not a binary issue.
Pretty black and white to me, you watch somethign you didn't pay for it's stealing. Let some lawyers argue the nuisances, but it is stealing.

If you go back to the apple analogy. If a guy leaves a basket of apples out with a sign that says $1.00 for an apple and you take one without leaving a $1.00, we all agree you stole. You could argue since no one was watching the basket, if I had not taken it someone else would have. You could also argue no one around here likes apples and they would have all gone bad and would have had to be thrown out anyway. One or both of those things could have very well been true and you actually caused the apple seller no harm as he would not have gotten any money from them anyway.

You stole the apple though.
 
#23 ·
Set aside 1200 bucks and you can watch all UFC events in a year. A bit skewed from $180 for all NBA games. UFC still has a long ways to go before they hit the mainstream.
 
#25 ·
The NBA doesn't need to charge 1200 bucks, they have 30 teams that each play an 82 game season(most of the time atleast) so one franchise alone holds more home games(41) than the UFC holds events altogether.

Not to mention they're also making a killing off their players, just think of how much money they make off LeBron James' jersey alone.

The UFC has the opportunity to eliminate the majority of their PPV's but they need a drastic increase of ratings on FOX first.

Then again, does anyone really expect a sport like MMA to be on the same level as the NFL or NBA? Not everyone finds the idea of two people in a cage fight that appealing. I think the UFC should be compared to more like the MLS.
 
#24 ·
Funny - I've spent time in Winnipeg and Toronto (family in both) and in towns they refuse to let me into their cinemas without paying – even though I wasn’t going to physically take anything, they still considered watching the movies they were showing without paying “stealing”

But wait, I hear you say (or is that just the usual voices I hear?) in hockey if you steal the puck there is physical removal – so you’re correct (definitely you I’m hearing ay)

But no! In baseball players are always stealing bases – and there’s no physical property actually removed!!! So I’m right – yay me!

But what about basketball I hear you shout – they steal the (actual physical) ball – Canada wins! Canada Wins!

But just yesterday, as I passed my wife at home, and I stole a kiss (not physical property) so I’m right – I’m bloody right! OMG I am right – in your face Woodenhead!!!!

Woody – you see what I mean, it’s all semantics – instead of having a genuine discussion about the relative rights and wrongs of streaming live feed without the originators approval; we end up discussing my use of the word stealing…

Like I previously said mate, it makes no difference to me (unless the UFC increases their prices as a result… oh bugger) who steals what. But hypocrisy irks me, and felt compelled to express my opinion.

Now I would be interested if you can quote some reliable Canadian law that supports your position – actually, what is your position other than I am wrong?. I assume it’s that all Canadians are allowed and encouraged to pirate whatever they want from the internet – but I’m not sure.

Have a good one mate – I’m glad at least that you enjoyed my Gateway Crime analogy – which actually happened to someone I know from the internet (so it must be true!).
 
#29 · (Edited)
you see what I mean, it’s all semantics – instead of having a genuine discussion about the relative rights and wrongs of streaming live feed without the originators approval; we end up discussing my use of the word stealing…
Actually, you're the one trying to trivialize/divert by going on about semantics. I merely pointed out a blatant misuse of a word - which is an important distinction.

But hypocrisy irks me, and felt compelled to express my opinion.
There is no hypocrisy on my part whatsoever. But posting one's opinion is fine. :) I'm only interested in debating things being passed off as fact.

My only point is that this whole streaming thing isn't inherently causing harm to anyone. Laws are created to prevent people from being hurt, physically and/or financially. Neither is happening here. At least, not in the way I utilize it, and not in every case.

I can actually see both sides. It boils down to 2 kinds of people that are watching streams:
1. People that watch the stream but would never buy a PPV. This has no revenue lost whatsoever for the UFC.
2. People that would buy the PPV's but don't because they get it for free online. There is revenue lost here. UFC.

But the bottom line is, the UFC owns the content and service and so it's their decision as to how they want people to view it.
Exactly. But I don't entirely agree with that last sentence. (I'd say I agree with it like 90%) There's always allowances to do with personal sharing & format shifting etc. Also, like I already said, if I'm not doing any harm, then I should not be punished. I'm a very firm believer in the basic concept of the Harm Principle.
 
#26 ·
I can actually see both sides. It boils down to 2 kinds of people that are watching streams:
1. People that watch the stream but would never buy a PPV. This has no revenue lost whatsoever for the UFC.
2. People that would buy the PPV's but don't because they get it for free online. There is revenue lost here.

However it's very hard to measure how many people are on either side. One can also argue that there are a lot of people streaming instead of pooling money together to watch it at your buddy's place, which also incurs loss for the UFC.

That said, the bottom line is that the UFC provides a service that they would like to get paid for (setting up a PPV) and their claim that if you don't pay, you can't watch it. That's what is important. I'm all for as many freedoms as possible, but when you own something, you have the final say in what you want to do with it. It's not about whether you can or should or shouldn't do something. People keep bringing up analogies and they all make sense in the posters' context. But the bottom line is, the UFC owns the content and service and so it's their decision as to how they want people to view it.

Let me use an analogy of my own:
If I decide to open an air castle for $1000 dollars per hour, would it be okay for you to sneak in and get a free hour in my castle under the claim that if you would have to pay, you would never have done it? The result is the same, you got a free experience instead of dishing out $1000 dollars and I'll feel screwed over because you took advantage of a service I provided under certain conditions without compensation.

If you made it this far reading my crap, I'm just expressing my opinion. Internet, keep on internetting ;)
 
#34 ·
What has the world come to when logic and a rational understanding of how something works have sway in a courtroom?

Finding these companies at fault for this is equivalent to allowing the new york times to sue something like walmart because someone read their paper aloud inside of it. The courts shouldn't be shutting down one legitimate business in favor of another. There is no such thing as protection against technological advancement for a business. This is how the world works now and media companies need to either die out or evolve just like every other industry always has because of technological advancement.
 
#39 ·
I stream almost every MMA event, i watch so many different events ufc and other orgs, i seriously would be more then broke if i payed for every ppv i watch

I also download tons of movies ect.

---

In the same instance i pay for super good fight cards (sometimes) and also pay to go to events when they are even remotely near me

Same goes for movies if they are really good i will go to the theater

Am i morally wrong yeppers.. are the greedy corporations wrong for making me pay as much as they do if i want to watch a ppv or go to the theater or a event...yeppers

Basically i am saying that what i do is wrong but do i lose sleep over it ...not in the least and i am not about to stop any time soon.

-------

Sidenote i have spent more money on the ufc then i ever would have if i did not stream all the events i have, would not of been addicted to it so much to buy tickets to events buy the ppv's i do buy, also would of never been into it enough to join a forum and in turn get more people into it which gained them more money and fans ect..

All honesty i have gottin so many people into mma and the ufc that never would of givin it the time of day that the ufc should pay me lol
 
#41 ·
I stream almost every MMA event, i watch so many different events ufc and other orgs, i seriously would be more then broke if i payed for every ppv i watch

I also download tons of movies ect.

---

in the same instance i pay for super good fight cards (sometimes) and also pay to go to events when they are even remotely near me

same goes for movies if they are really good i will go to the theater

Am i morally wrong yeppers.. are the greedy corporations wrong for making pay as much as they do if i want to watch a ppv or go to the theater or a event...yeppers

basically i am saying that what i do is wrong but do i lose sleep over it ...not in the least and i am not about to stop any time soon.

-------

sidenote i have spent more money on the ufc then i ever would have if i did not stream all the events i have, would not of been addicted to it so much to buy tickets to events buy the ppv's i do buy, also would of never been into it enough to join a forum and in turn get more people into it which gained them more money and fans ect..

all honesty i have gottin so many people into mma and the ufc that never would of givin it the time of day that the ufc should pay me lol
This is all I am saying. I have done it. I don't think anyone who does it is a bad person. I am just saying it is what it is.
 
#42 ·
Zuffa need to lighten up with the crusade against filesharing/streaming UFC events. They are losing PPV money without a doubt but just look at the profit they do make from PPV's. I can understand similiar companies who are in financial turmoil putting illegal streams at the top of their agenda.

Zuffa should recognise the money they make and see the positives from streaming. Zuffa has a fundamental aim of exposing UFC to potential fans and growing that the fanbase.
Im sure very casual fans who come across advertising for a card being interested but dont recognise any names apart from the main event fighters. Now these fans are very unlikely to purchase a PPV to only watch the main event so therefore many must look to illegal streams. This should actually help Zuffa in drawing more casual fans that could become serious in the future and start purchasing PPV.

I have seen this from local casual fans in my area who started on streams then moved to purchasing the premium ESPN channel(not exactly PPV) where UFC is shown in the United Kingdom.
 
#45 ·
This subject is not as easy as some make it.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong but:
If i had an apple-cloning/copying machine and took an apple out of a box with 10 apples, scanned it, made an exact duplicate and then put the apple back in the box, there would still be 10 apples in the box? Correct? I also have created a new apple which i am going to eat. Would i have stolen the apple?

So now people buy my machine and stop buying apples, they just copy them with my machine. After a few years the technology has become easy and everyone can build their own apple-copying machines. They are also small and easy to carry consealed and i am working on a machine that clones other foods.

1. Let's forbid the copying of apples. Let's fight the people who build and/or sell these machines. Let's sue people who sell cloned apples.
2. Let's reduce the stack of apples we hold. We take a small fee from people who prefer copying their apples.
3. ..

Is copying a page out of a book stealing? Have you ever watched a fight on a video platform? Is recording TV-program stealing?

The media industry, especially the music industry has completely missed the right time and taken the wrong approach to "minimize" filesharing when it became big (back in the day). They wanted to fight "the internet" and forbid everything instead of using the internet. All the money they could have made by launching their own platforms..

I'm not saying streaming an event or downloading media is right!
 
#46 ·
While I have no sympathy at all for the parasites in the music industry I have to say that made no sense to me. it did make me go to the kitchen and get an apple.

I'll burn one and try to read it again.

GJJ.... is that you bobby?:hug:
 
#47 ·
My point was: taking in apple out of a box is stealing. Making a copy of something (with a new technology) without removing the original object is something different than stealing.

Second point: Don't fight technology, use it. I was saying that the industry is simply approaching filesharing/the internet the wrong way.

I'm not Bobby.

I also like apples a lot. :thumb02: I like'em sweet and juicy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top