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.

“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]

Comments   

 

+4 # Guest 2012-03-18 23:27

It seems likely that this is all posturing on UFC's part. Even if they successfully sued at a high rate, they would have to be awarded exponentially more than each PPV is worth in damages. Frankly, that seems improbable.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

+3 # gomer316 2012-03-19 00:31

It will end up like the music industry, a few people will end up getting shafted and everybody else gets away with it.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

+7 # Guest 2012-03-19 00:51

ufc needs to pay its fighters more and not concentrate on bullshit like this.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

+15 # Guest 2012-03-19 01:21

Just to let you know, I will be streaming practically every UFC from today's date onward. I'm going to save my moneys and buy weed and potato chips.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

0 # boloblack 2012-03-19 07:32

Pretty sure the 99% already expects to receive free legal services.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

+1 # Guest 2012-03-19 08:34

The music industry gets to stack statutory damages for every single track someone downloaded, so downloading one album could add up to like 4 grand in damages.

Meanwhile, a UFC broadcast is one track. The statutory damages are so small it's not even worth suing people.

And that's aside from the lawyers concerns, which are valid.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

 

-1 # Guest 2012-03-19 10:22

Gee dana, learn product and demand. You don't hear apple suing everybody left and right even though they do but not to the extent of Zuffa. Why people really want their overpriced gadgets for some reason, can't say the same for the UFC.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

 

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

Add comment

Name (required)

Refresh

Send

Cancel

JComments