Print 65 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jul 29 at 2:48 PM

The UFC thinks prison time for pirates would KO piracy.  (Source:
"When people start going to jail, people will stop doing it." -- UFC President Dana White on piracy

Zuffa LLC, owned by brothers Lorenzo Fertitta and Frank Fertitta III, is the world's largest provider of pay-per-view content today.  The company owns and operates the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the world's top professional mixed martial arts organization.

The UFC has been among several pay-per-view providers to crack down hard on internet video uploads in recent years.  With fights finding their way onto YouTube and other video sharing sites, the UFC has tried a variety of approaches to cut off the flow of its performances onto the internet.

On Monday, the UFC announced that it has subpoenaed and -- two major live video stream sites.  The UFC's owners claim that the sites' users purchased pay-per-view buys and then rebroadcast them on the web for all to see.

According the UFC a single IP address uploaded streams from UFC 108 and UFC 110, held this year.  These streams respectively drew 36,000 and 78,000 non-paying viewers.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, content owners can use subpoenas to force service providers to reveal the identities of individuals who upload infringed content.  The UFC already announced reaching "confidential settlements" with 500 people and businesses for illegal broadcasts and viewing.

UFC President Dana White states, "I can't wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content.  This is a fight we will not lose."

He hopes that the U.S. Congress adopts the most sweeping provisions of upcoming ACTA pact, which could send those uploading copyrighted materials to prison.  He states, "When people start going to jail, people will stop doing it."

The UFC is a popular piracy target due to the high cost of its PPV buys.  The company airs approximately twelve PPV events annually and sells them for $44.95 each, or $55.95 for an HD version.  In 2009 the UFC is estimated to have sucked in $350M USD in PPV revenue.  However, at January's UFC 106, alone, it estimates that there were 140,000 non-paying viewers of 271 illegal streams, amounting to approximately $6.3M USD in lost revenue.

One driving force behind the UFC's piracy crackdown is also growing competition from smaller competitive leagues like Strikeforce.  Strikeforce has put on a number of recent highly successful events including a recent shocking upset of Russian MMA legend Fedor Emelianenko by Brazil's Fabricio Werdum and a massive knockout by female bantamweight champ, Canada's Sarah Kauffman, over Roxanne Modafferi.  Unlike the UFC, Strikeforce generally televises its main card on cable television thanks to deals with CBS, Showtime, and others.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lost Revenue?
By transamdude95 on 7/27/2010 12:04:47 PM , Rating: 5
I still don't understand how people can assert that a person who views/listens to 'x' for free would have bought 'x' had it not been available free. There is no sense behind such a statement. And in this case, most people can watch the UFC PPVs for free just by going to a local bdubs, Hooters, or bar that orders them.

RE: Lost Revenue?
By chmilz on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost Revenue?
By neihrick1 on 7/27/2010 1:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
they may be able to stop the american streamers, but p2p streams originating in other countries where live ufcs air on cable channels is gonna be a little harder. for ex. when the stream has the espn logo its from the uk and its not ppv

RE: Lost Revenue?
By headbox on 7/27/2010 12:19:01 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Lost Revenue?
By Mitch101 on 7/27/2010 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
$44.95 covers a couple pitchers and wings.

$44.95 is a bit hard to swallow every month. Maybe quarterly or drop the price.

RE: Lost Revenue?
By OUits on 7/27/2010 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
As someone pointed out above, you'll usually pay $5-15 cover at a bdubs/bar to watch a UFC event.

RE: Lost Revenue?
By transamdude95 on 7/27/2010 1:59:44 PM , Rating: 5
Not in my area. I would estimate I have at least 15-20 different places to see a UFC event within 20 miles. All free. No cover and you don't even have to order anything. Some friends that live in other parts of the US tell me the same thing, no cover and no minimum order. I suppose it's bad luck if you're stuck somewhere that has a cover. It'd be smart for one of those business to drop the cover, as they'd likely be packed.

As a side note, if you're paying a $15 cover, you might as well round up some friends and all pitch in to watch it on ppv.

RE: Lost Revenue?
By bhieb on 7/27/2010 1:20:17 PM , Rating: 1
I still don't understand how people can assert that a person who views/listens to 'x' for free would have bought 'x' had it not been available free.

I still don't understand how people assert that when a person can't afford 'x', they have some sort of right to steal it.

While I agree with your premise that this is not 100% "lost" revenue, it does not justify the act of piracy either.

And in this case, most people can watch the UFC PPVs for free just by going to a local bdubs, Hooters, or bar that orders them.

Most of the bars I know charge a cover (along with a drink minimum) so is is not "free" either. But I do agree there are legitimate ways to watch it.

RE: Lost Revenue?
By Motoman on 7/27/2010 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 2

As I have stated many times before, any and all claims about "losing $X due to piracy" are lies.

The VAST majority of people using a pirated copy of something, or in this case, an illicitly free broadcast of something, would never pay for it anyway. If it wasn't available free, they'd happily go without. NO LOST REVENUE.

There are some who would pay. But not many. Not enough to make a rounding error.

...I can't ever see paying anything to watch UFC or whatever else anyway. In fact, in a pinch, I might pay you for the privelege of not having to watch it...

RE: Lost Revenue?
By limitedaccess on 7/27/2010 4:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
While obviously not all the piracy falls under this case, but for UFC PPVs a significant amount of the pirated broadcasts are being done for profit. Some streaming sites actually charge viewers and can undercut the UFCs own streaming services due to the specifics involving PPV contracts. Even bars have previously streamed the events to attract patrons. They recently took a bar in Boston I believe to court as they were showing the event via a free stream while charging cover for it.

Dana White was obviously never a Metallica fan.
By ebaycj on 7/27/2010 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
He should have learned his lesson by observing Lars Ulrich.

By Orpheus333 on 7/27/2010 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm two things in life its a nerd and a jock. I love the UFC but anyone having watched it for years know Dana White runs his mouth. He is not your average CEO and once offered to box and athlete over a contract dispute.

Frankly I have used these streams, when I couldn't see fights in a way that supports the UFC org. Many times we get a group of people together to pitch in a buy the ppvs or go to a bar. Either way, its really expensive on a college budget. Obviously there is a demand for online viewing why not charge for single streams and host on the UFC site? Maybe then I dont have to be sitting drunk at my computer on a Saturday night hitting "f5" on sites writing a play-by-play.

There is an opportunity here that's being missed. People should not be going to jail for non-violent crimes.

By JasonMick on 7/27/2010 12:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
He is not your average CEO and once offered to box and athlete over a contract dispute.

Ha, that was a classic moment. And of course Ortiz pussied out.

Many times we get a group of people together to pitch in a buy the ppvs or go to a bar.

Exactly... there's plenty of sports bars that carry the PPVs. They're a bit classier than say Buffalo Wild Wings and offer a good time to get some of your friends together, without paying the ridiculous $45 rate.

I'm not saying it's horrible to actually buy the PPV, its just that I've seen people on Sherdog and other sites talking about having spent $10,000+ on PPVs, live tickets, etc. And that's something I can't fathom, particularly because most of those who claimed such expenditures also claimed to *not* be particularly rich and claimed to regret them.

There is an opportunity here that's being missed. People should not be going to jail for non-violent crimes.

And if anything laws should be consistent. You wouldn't go to jail for merely stealing a DVD or television box set (more comparable in price).


I know *some* people on here hate MMA, but anyone who even marginally likes it should watch this if you missed it:

It made Sportscenter's Top 10 for the week (#4). War Kaufman!

Strikeforce is doing awesome things these days... I'll watch the UFC, but I also try to watch Strikeforce/MMA Fight Night whenever possible, because often times they're equally entertaining.

By OUits on 7/27/2010 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 4
They're a bit classier than say Buffalo Wild Wings

Ha, BW3's is the classiest bar in my college town.

... :(

By rcc on 7/27/2010 1:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
There is an opportunity here that's being missed. People should not be going to jail for non-violent crimes.

A burglary when you are not a home is a non-violent crime. So, what was your address?

By ValorMorghulis on 7/28/2010 12:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
People should not be going to jail for non-violent crimes.

I have to disagree with you here. There are plenty of non violent crimes which do and SHOULD have jail time. For example Bernie Madoff. If he doesn't face jail time what deterrent do we have to him? Take all the money? Sure we'll take the money and he find another way to get rich quick illegally. Or the CEOs who commit insider trading? There are non violent crimes that need to have jail time because it is a deterrent. We can hope that lesser crimes (ie shoplifting a $50 item) can have fines that are 5 to 10x greater as a deterrent. But when you reach the point where you are stealing $100M how do you fine that person $1B? They don't have that much money so they won't have to pay it so its not a deterrent, thus we have jail time.

By stm1185 on 7/27/2010 12:40:43 PM , Rating: 3
At $45 a PPV, the UFC is probably pricing out many fans or potential fans. Who is going to spend $45 to see a UFC fight for the first time? The free streams are creating more UFC fans, the UFC just needs to find a way to monetize them properly.

If I was in charge I would not be engaging in expensive anti file sharing lawsuits that could be a PR nightmare. I would be competing with the free streams for those viewers. I would create a free low quality ad-supported stream online. With the option to increase the stream quality for a fee and remove the ads. Then have also a monthly payment system to the site which would remove ads, increase quality on live events, but also give access to hd quality on demand streams of the previous fights, with highlights and commentary.

The UFC can effectively fight streaming by streaming, and making money off advertising on the site and low monthly payments, instead of spending money on lawyers and publicists to deal with extorting their lower middle class fans who watch it online.

By limitedaccess on 7/27/2010 4:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
They can't do this due to how they are tied in with PPV. Because PPV is still the main form of distribution for this type of service, they have to comply with certain concessions to the PPV providers. The PPV do not want them to undercut their own buys, so while the UFC offers streaming they have to offer it at the same price. The PPV provider also generally takes a large cut of each buy as well (50%), so the UFC themselves do not make the full amount of each buy.

By jthistle on 7/27/2010 5:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what the UFC specials on Spike are for. If you don't want to pay for PPV just watch Spike.

This needs to change
By dgingeri on 7/27/2010 12:21:19 PM , Rating: 5
I say that the law should be this:

Once it has been broadcast through TV, radio, or internet streaming, however it is broadcast, it is now available for all to see or hear however they please. This includes songs playing on the radio and TV broadcasts, no matter the source. Movie theaters and sports arenas, with limited admission regulated by a paid entrance, are not included. If they are pay per view, then it can't be regulated on how many people see it on that TV. Once the pay per view TV broadcast is done, it can be recorded and rebroadcast however the public deems necessary. Also, second hand accounts of arena/theater performances cannot be restricted. (The NFL is really bad about this.)

If they want to make money on this, it can be done at the arenas. If they want to restrict who sees it, that can be done at the arenas.

TV, radio, and internet are public broadcast forums. they cannot be restricted. Trying to restrict something like that is like trying to regulate who gets to breathe what air. It is just an exercise in futility, and is costing this country far too much in court costs. This garbage has to stop.

What a joke
By Denigrate on 7/27/2010 11:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
However, at January's UFC 106, alone, it estimates that there were 140,000 non-paying viewers of 271 illegal streams, amounting to approximately $6.3M USD in lost revenue.

These types of assumptions always crack me up. They assume that the non-paying viewers would actually pay to watch. I'd guess the VAST majority of these non-paying viewers wouldn't pony up a dime to watch these fights. It's easier to head down to a bar and have a couple of brews.

RE: What a joke
By HrilL on 7/27/2010 7:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention a lot of those people are not in the US and can't even get the PPV fights. A lot of these people don't have TVs or cable and thus can't watch the fights. I also agree. I've stream a few of these and that is because I didn't want to go to the bar. Last time I did this was because I wanted to watch the Lakers play off game and UFC at the same time. Most bars will only show UFC on all their TV because they are paying outrageous prices to show it at their bar. Luckily the bars that have the fights around here don't charge a cover so its not a bad deal to go and drop $30 on alc while you have a good time with some friends.

Silly Dana
By zero2dash on 7/27/2010 12:12:44 PM , Rating: 4
Learn from the stupid RIAA's mistakes - don't spend $64M to get $1.4M back.

You won't be putting people in jail for pirating a PPV, courts have bigger fish to fry (ie murderers, rapists, child molestors) than putting someone behind bars for illegally watching Roy Nelson lay n pray on somebody.

Secondly shutting down 2 websites or getting those websits to shut down user accounts won't cause the slightest ripple in the pond of the internet when P2P these days has largely gone decentralized. You make tons of money, you have practically no competition - enough already. I love your product, I buy your PPVs from time to time and watch all the shows on Spike. But enough already.

Just Funny.
By DoeBoy on 7/27/2010 11:48:28 AM , Rating: 3
and when people start using drugs and go to jail they will all just suddenly stop.. O wait that hasn't happened nor will it ever. This guy is clearly an idiot and should be using technologies to prevent this not sending even more people to jail. The US has more people in prison than any other country.. how in the world does that make us democratic. I say simple fine just like a traffic ticket and that would be plenty without destroying somebody's future job outlook and ultimately the amount of taxes they put into the system which is wayyy more important right now.

UFC Getting Started
By BSMonitor on 7/28/2010 9:44:02 AM , Rating: 3
What percent of the people who do pay for the PPV's now were brought into it because someone recorded a UFC PPV early in UFC's history and showed it to some buddies. Now those buddies buy the PPV and show it to there buddies.
This is probably how the UFC gained MOST of its following.. Now that the UFC is mainstream, Mr. White wants to piss all over the very means by which he gained his cult following..

Sure go ahead dousche, dump those 80,000 possible new fans in favor of the fans you are raping now.. Just don't go crying like Vince McMahon when that current fan base gets tired of your one trick pony.

By Devil07 on 7/27/2010 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
<insert witty UFC comment here>

Best of luck to you Dana and Co.

backlash can be a son of a bitch

By DukeN on 7/27/2010 12:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just stop watching whether its PPV or in bars.

Seriously - how hard is it? Or are the teenage hormones too strong for someone's willpower, where they have to give in to peer pressure and go with the crowd.

Didn't he learn?
By jonmcc33 on 7/28/2010 12:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
UFC President Dana White states, "I can't wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content. This is a fight we will not lose."

I think the RIAA and MPAA said that too. What happened? They are losing more money now than they ever were before.

By DigitalFreak on 7/27/2010 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't this the same douche that threatened to fire any UFC fighter who appeared in EA's MMA game? Fuck him.

By Homerboy on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
By chmilz on 7/27/2010 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 5
No kidding. That $350M in revenue sure sucks for them, doesn't it.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/10, Rating: 0
By msheredy on 7/27/10, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2010 12:23:06 PM , Rating: 3
Hey calm down buddy. I wouldn't want you to drool all over your new TapouT shirt.

By boochi on 7/27/2010 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 3
Actually in the early days of the UFC there was no rule against groin strikes. Joe Son lost a fight to Keith Hackney at UFC 4 after submitting to repeated strikes to the cock and balls. You might remember Joe Son as the guy who played Random Task in the first Austin Powers movie. Yes he fought in MMA but he retired without ever winning a fight.

By JasonMick on 7/27/2010 12:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually in the early days of the UFC there was no rule against groin strikes. Joe Son lost a fight to Keith Hackney at UFC 4 after submitting to repeated strikes to the cock and balls

The worst example of that, though was Gary Goodridge versus Pedro Otavio in the Vale Tudo tournament in Brazil.

It's kinda long, but kinda hilariously horrible. Goodridge not only uses the ball grab as an offensive attack, but he also puts his feet down the guy's shorts while wrestling for position on the ground... not cool.

I think they nicknamed the first round of no-groin strike rules the "Gary Goodridge rule" because of this.

By Desslok on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
By Desslok on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
By conorvansmack on 7/27/2010 1:55:55 PM , Rating: 1
Read carefully. Vale Tudo Brazil is a completely different promotion with a completely different set of rules.

By Desslok on 7/27/2010 3:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
I suggest you take your own advice.

In the early days of the UFC there were NO rules against blows to the groin.

By HoosierEngineer5 on 7/27/2010 3:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Personal opinion only, but I believe the people who downloaded this for free barely got their money's worth.

By derricker on 7/27/2010 4:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Which would make perfect sense in that, it is only those companies putting out subpar products who are trying to go after people's money in courts. What a jewel, they don't rightfully earn it so they'd rather steal it from people in courts.

Dana "drama queen" White is just a bunch of yip yap, this whole thing is what he does best, screaming pathetic drama scenarios right and left

At best they will be "settling" with 500 John Does, that is, using scare tactics.

By bysmitty on 7/27/2010 12:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
And no wonder! I had no clue these events cost $45-$55 ea! That is absurd. I would think they would get a ton more viewers if prices were a little more reasonable ($5-$10).

By tng on 7/27/2010 1:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
However, at January's UFC 106, alone, it estimates that there were 140,000 non-paying viewers of 271 illegal streams, amounting to approximately $6.3M USD in lost revenue.

This assumes that all 140K that did not pay would have paid the $45 fee if it were not available online for free. Not a good assumption on the UFC's part. Probaby more like about 10% of that would have coughed up the fee if it were not available for free......

I think that these people use these numbers which, IMO are non realistic, to try to drum up support for their cause.

By gamerk2 on 7/27/2010 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevent argument on your part; the fact is, whether or not the viewers would have paid to see the PPV if the stream were not avaliable, they still broke the law, and should be punished. Discussion of PPV prices is another issue altogether.

By derricker on 7/27/2010 4:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
You try to point an irrelevant argument bring another irrelevant argument??

Of course the availability is relevant to this discussion, of course PPV prices are relevant and directly related to this discussion, oh and you conveniently left out the point of the declining quality of UFC cards.

I wonder why is that?

By msheredy on 7/27/2010 12:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
For movies. There aren't any outlets for fights other than actually being there so PPV will most likely stay.

Fake show
By zibby on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fake show
By msheredy on 7/27/2010 12:20:10 PM , Rating: 3
Judging by your title I can tell that you haven't seen one. These are far from fake bro.

RE: Fake show
By eskimospy on 7/27/2010 8:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
But I've always been disappointed. Then again I hear they changed the rules so maybe it got better.

I remember when I first heard about it I was so psyched. The matches would be something like:

'FIGHTER 1 has spent the last decade earning 45 black belts from space marines in the bottom of an ACTIVE VOLCANO!!!!'

'Fighter 2 got here by head-butting his way out of a Mongolian insane asylum after strangling all the guards with his penis!!!!!'

By that point I was so stoked to see the fight I was about to vibrate through my chair, and then the fight would start.... and the two guys would fall down on the ground and start 69ing for 10 minutes until someone got punched and gave up. So... I gave up.

RE: Fake show
By jamesjwb on 7/27/2010 10:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
lol, that was hilarious.

F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By chmilz on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
By acer905 on 7/27/2010 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 5
To play devils advocate... If a person listens to the radio, not satellite, just broadcast, they have access to countless new and old songs for free.

Additionally, if a person watches broadcast television, they have access to various television shows for free. If a person wishes to listen to a specific song, they can actually request it from many stations. For TV shows, networks release their weekly schedule, so a person simply needs to look to find what they want to watch. All for free. There is no theft in finding and watching what you want if it is broadcast and received for free.

Therefore, there is no stealing involved in getting something that was recorded off of a free broadcast. This does not include DVD rips or PPV content, where there is no free broadcast. However, a recording from TV networks or radio stations is not stealing anything.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By neogrin on 7/27/2010 12:25:27 PM , Rating: 4
Anything less than paying for content you enjoy is theft,

Pronunciation: \'theft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thiefth; akin to Old English theof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it .

Note: No one is being deprived of their property.
Just saying

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By rcc on 7/27/2010 1:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for meeting my expectations. I knew this was coming.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/28/2010 7:23:43 AM , Rating: 3
Given that posters here continue to make up their own definitions for words, theft being one such, it clearly needs to be posted a few more times until it sinks in.

By rcc on 7/29/2010 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
And others holler about the word used as a cover up to the actual issue.

I don't care if it's called theft, piracy, copyright infringement, or just being a low-life scum, IMNSHO it's wrong.

: )

Have a pleasant day!

By ZachDontScare on 7/27/2010 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
You are completely right. Copyright is not about theft. Copyright is just that... the right to control how your work is copied. If a copy is made without permission, the copier is violating the rights of the work's creator to control who copies it. That is not 'theft'. Anyone who calls copyright violations 'theft' is simply ignorant.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By chmilz on 7/27/2010 3:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies, I should have clarified. I'll revise my own quote:

Anything less than paying for content that is offered exclusively in a paid-for manner (ie, never free), is theft.

As I originally stated, I don't side with the RIAA because they've basically shoveled their own hole by finding ways to offer us free music forever and now that we're taking it carte blanche, they realize they made a fatal error and are desperately trying to regain some kind of control.

Same goes for TV. I pay my cable bill, and if I choose to not watch a TV series (on that cable or offered free over-the-air) and instead download all the episodes, I feel I have that right, since it was either paid for or freely distributed to begin with.

But PPV isn't the same. It was solely offered as a paid program. Never free. So to view it without paying for it isn't the same as viewing an episode of Futurama online that you missed on TV.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By mindless1 on 7/27/2010 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
You might "feel" you have that right but you don't, the content property owner retains rights to how it is distributed.

I do agree however that in a fair world you would have that right.

As for "theft" I can't agree, once again it is making a copy that does not deprive the owner because these downloaders were a textbook example of people NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR IT - which means zero revenue loss. If they could not download it what would they do instead? Download something else to watch because the whole point of being on the sharing site was *free* shows.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By KCjoker on 7/27/2010 7:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
If they're not willing to pay the price to watch it then why is it they like it enough to watch it for free? Obviously it has value because those people seek it out to watch on those sites for FREE. If it didn't have any value to them they wouldn't waste their time to find it.

By LRonaldHubbs on 7/28/2010 7:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really not see the answer to your own question? The obvious answer is that the value is less than the asking price. The people who are viewing the content for free do value it, but they don't value it by same amount that the content owner claims it is worth. Since the perceived value is less than the charged value they don't buy it.

By KCjoker on 7/27/2010 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
The broadcast is their property and by watching it without paying that is theft. You are depriving them of the money for watching it. It's not free for the UFC to broadcast the event you know.

RE: F--king Pirates ruining it for everyone
By Bateluer on 7/28/2010 7:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
Except, Webster won't hold up in any court. You need to use a legal dictionary, such as Black's Law or some such.

I agree though, while it may be infringement, it is definitely not theft. Still, with PPV essentially going the way of the dodo, these idiots would be well served to offer an online streaming version for a cheaper price, or giving more options with the 45/55 dollar versions, commentaries etc. As the RIAA and MPAA are still struggling to learn, trying to preserve the old order makes it fall faster.

By MrRuckus on 7/28/2010 6:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
As the RIAA and MPAA are still struggling to learn, trying to preserve the old order makes it fall faster.

QFT. That last sentence sums it all up. The UFC needs to change their ways to satisfy all or fail at trying to put out this forever burning torch.

How do you stop distributors who are in different countries where the copyright laws of the US dont apply??

P2P FTL. Newsgroups FTW. Just remember, they dont want the downloaders, they want the DISTRIBUTORS. In P2P & Torrents, you become a distributor. You dont have that problem with Newsgroups.

I lol'd at the RIAA suing what was it Hahaha. They really need to try harder...

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki