UFC Vows To Crackdown On PPV Piracy
Posted by Larry Csonka on 01.05.2010
Dana is not amused…
- UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta recently testified for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and mentioned that the UFC anti-piracy team discovered 271 illegal streams of UFC 106 with over 140,000 viewers.
Dana On Punishment: "When people start going to jail, people will stop doing it. It's going to be a battle, man," White said. "It's going to be a battle, but I'm ready to [expletive] fight. We're gonna go after them, we're gonna go after them hard, and we're gonna hurt them."
Lorenzo Fertitta On The Issue: "The piracy of live sporting events is illegal, it kills jobs, and it threatens the expansion of U.S. based companies," Fertitta told lawmakers. "The UFC is potentially losing millions of dollars a year from piracy."
Dana On What It Will Cost The Company: "[Piracy] hasn't cost us anything compared to what it's going to cost us to go after these guys," White said. "It's gonna cost us a lot of money, but guess what — it's gonna cost them a lot of money. It's gonna get to the point where it's like, you know what, [expletive] it, maybe we shouldn't pirate MMA any more. You got these websites like Justin.tv, and they pirate all kinds of things. They play all kinds of [expletive] on there. Well, we're gonna make it where it's not worth it to put UFC events up on the website."
Joe Rogan Thinks The Crackdown Is Not Needed: "I think that kind of stifles innovation," Rogan said. "It stifles the direction the Internet is going. I like things being out there. I think people are always going to buy UFC pay-per-views. You're going to get a much better experience watching it on your television than all stretched out looking fuzzy and pixilated. They're trying to protect their money, but the Internet is a strange animal."
Posted By: Joe Rogan (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 10:43 AM
- if they didn't charge 50 bucks + tax for horrible pay per views this wouldn't be such a problem.
Joe Rogan is right, who cares. UFC are just a bunch of greedy assholes who underpay their fighters.
Posted By: Cj (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 10:49 AM
We're not all rich like you DANA! We can't afford to pay 50 plus a month!
Posted By: Flex (Registered) on January 05, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Sorry, but is there a better way of advertising the UFC than by letting people see the proper events? Hiding the UFC from the internet is only going to hurt the marketplace. Stop thinking of viewers as wallets, and start thinking about a lot of them as people who will decide which shows they want to see in top quality HD on PPV and which one's they simply want to follow.
Posted By: Jon (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 11:12 AM
I think piracy is not as bad as people say. For example, when i first started watching UFC i streamed ppv's for a few month and when i really fell in love with MMA i started buying all the PPV's. Me pirating UFC made me a fan of UFC enough to be a regular PPV buyer. More people may follow suite.
Posted By: Spooney (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Every day, I find it harder and harder to dislike Joe Rogan.
Posted By: jim (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 11:28 AM
It kills jobs? WHAT? If anything it CREATES jobs. All those nerds trying to come up with some new software that will fight it have jobs because of piracy. Or is he speaking of all the poor athletes who can only afford to buy 3 mansions and 12 super cars. Boo fucking hoo.
People who pirate music/movies/UFC are not lost customers. If they didnt pirate them they just wouldnt watch. And you would lose fans who potentially will still attend live events, purchase merchandise, tell others about UFC and maybe they will purchase the PPVs. Some people just dont get it.
Posted By: Guest#6258 (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I have to agree with Joe, if I really want to see a ufc fight Ill want to see it in hd, not a pixelated mess.
Posted By: kevin (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Someone should point Dana and Lorenzo to the RIAA and just how well their "sue em" approach is going.
Although if they limit it to live streams, and not torrents, they might have better luck.
Posted By: Alexander (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Piracy sucks for the companies, but the bottom line is that people watching a crappy stream will probably not buy it anyway if the illegal stream was not there. What UFC should do is charge $29.99 instead of like $50-60 because when i am bored on a Sat night I would drop $30 but no way in hell I am spending $60 unless I have 4 or more buddies.
Posted By: ikeman (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 12:17 PM
God bless Joe Rogan, champion of the people.
Posted By: Guest#7093 (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 12:18 PM
I'm actually middle of the road on this. I've never watched an event online. If I want to watch it, friends and I split the cost and get together and do it. Which should piss them off just as much as internet piracy. There are 10-15 people watching their show, and we only paid one time. What's the difference between that and internet piracy?
They should just innovate and offer discounted PPVs online. If you could watch a high quality steam for $20, you would get a shitload of buys.
Posted By: Guest#1857 (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 12:50 PM
The recession must be really hitting home for Dana. After all the UFC has had a really barren year.
They never seem to take into account how things like youtube and etc have contributed to the expanded fanbase, nor do they seem to realise that a streamed fight or torrented fight does not correspond to a lost sale.
Why don't they continue to grow things such as merchandising and capitalise on the increased exposure rather than engaging in a futile internetz war.
Posted By: Jason Thacker (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 01:34 PM
sopcast and tvu are the ones u gotta put a stop to dana
justin.tv is bullshit their streams go off in 2 seconds
Posted By: Ian (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 01:35 PM
"[Piracy] hasn't cost us anything compared to what it's going to cost us to go after these guys,"
...So you're going to PAY to make sure people can't watch the UFC for free... nice...
Contrary to what most people think, piracy is not wrong, but our copyright laws enforced to ensure the prosper of the rich will have you believe so...
Posted By: Matthew Mcgaughnehayaehyre (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 03:13 PM
They can shut down streaming *sites* like Justin.tv and USTREAM, but they'll never shut down sopcast (since it's P2P).
I admit, some PPV's I stream, others I gladly pay for - depends on the card. I would have never paid to see the final 108 card.
If Microsoft can't shut down the internet, no one can.
Posted By: Nick (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 04:44 PM
Good luck with that Dana! Its a waste of time & money going after the people who watch streams/download ppv's. They wouldn't pay for the show's even if that was the only way to see them, they'd just find something else to watch.
Like Rogan said, u cant stop the internet
Posted By: Guest#3038 (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 05:03 PM
Gotta love the entitlement generation! Most of them don't even have the character to at least admit they're thieves. I wonder how many of them then have the nerve to come onto boards like these and complain about fighter pay. Pathetic. Now if you want to argue whether or not its worth the UFC's resources to go after these deadbeats, that's an entirely different story. But kudos to Dana for at least giving it a shot.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Well in the UK, UFC is on ESPN which I'm definitely not paying extra for given my current digi-TV bills, so I think I'll continue P2Ping thanks all the same Dana.
Posted By: Jon (Guest) on January 05, 2010 at 05:40 PM
Yeah being able to watch it free is really hurting Football!
Posted By: Top (Guest) on January 06, 2010 at 06:00 AM
Yeah being able to watch it free is really hurting Football!
Posted By: Top (Guest) on January 06, 2010 at 06:00 AM
lol, yeah, how can the NFL survive by giving away big games on free TV? What morons!
On a more serious note, I'd worry more about the judging and putting on good cards. I haven't watched a UFC event since Machida-Shogun. And I have no plans on seeing another one. I trained and had a pro fight in the past, so I was into it a bit more than most people. Now I don't want to watch it, and I don't train either (although Shogun-Machida had nothing to do with me stopping that, I make more money in my current career and I'm older so I stopped).
Once the NFL season is over I'd consider watching again but I'm not going to pay full price. Most places still don't air it even where I live, even though we had a guy that lives here and was born here fight for the title on an event...that event wasn't on. Lesnar was though, $10 cover charge. I guess the UFC gets paid by places that air it though.
Posted By: Guest#0221 (Guest) on January 06, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
