5 ms·

UFC Pirate Ordered to Pay $32m in Damages Says He Was Bullied and Paid Nothing

58 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

luma 6y ago
This brings up an interesting angle on the sorts of eye-watering settlement amounts levied against teenagers we read about so often. Are they all setup this way? Do the rights holders expect to be paid or are they happy to announce an insane sum + gag order and call the issue settled?
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  Seems like a nice way of teaching them a lesson without being completely harsh. The thing the kid here doesn't understand, they get caught for pirating again by another organization, that set of lawyers now have documentation that they didn't learn their lesson from their last tango. They will pursue full damages and collect since any public apology will be meaningless. And yea, there are settlements like this. For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. Because if you dont, someone else can use that as a case you're not protecting your IP, thus party 2 can go around and sell it without legal recourse. This was a slap on the wrist that actually makes me like the UFC even more now.
  - luma 6y ago
    I think you're confusing copyright for trademark. At least in the US, trademarks require defense but copyright does not.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. That has been a myth around Trademark for a long time, and it is a false hood [1], I am saddened that this myth is now spreading to Copyright law as well. There is no provision of copyright that would mandate a copyright holder to relentlessly police the internet finding all infringement less they loose their copyright. That simply does not exist at all so I would recommend not representing this fake information [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
    - hedora 6y ago
      You do have to defend Trademarks, but only in egregious cases. According to the article you linked, you can lose a trademark if it becomes a generic term (zipper, xerox a document, etc), or you completely stop using it for multiple years. So, there are some nuances. However, courts have repeatedly ruled you do not need to levy lawsuits at everyone that uses your trademark. In fact, if your defense is so egregiously over-aggressive, you may be liable due to misuse of trademark. Unfortunately, while they could do so in theory, the US has never revoked a trademark in such cases. If they started doing that, it would put an end to SLAPP trademark suits, and a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
      - laumars 6y ago
        It’s worse than that, because overly aggressive defence of trademarks isn’t punished yet not defending it could theoretically cost a business their trademark, it skews the system so, for businesses, it’s more beneficial to be aggressive. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person that said “their fine to use our trademark. We have nothing to worry about” only to unexpectedly end up losing the trademark)
- grawprog 6y ago
  >settlement amounts levied against teenagers From the article: >and not be as cocky like I did back when I was 27 I'm not sure if 27 qualifies as a teenager. He was 27 when he was pirating UFC. He's slightly older than me if he was 27 in 2014.
Causality1 6y ago
You have to be at least a little tech-savvy to capture content and upload it, so why don't pirates take basic precautions like driving to a public access point before uploading?
- tyingq 6y ago
  I always assumed they would have a VPN or VPS in a country that doesn't have to listen to the UFC.
hirundo 6y ago
“I did what I believed was right for the many who couldn’t see these events, and I take pride in that fact.” This guy sees himself as Robin Hood, but he's just a thief. Nobody is oppressed by not being able to see a UFC event. Messina just opened the back door at the cinema to thousands of freeloaders who would be no worse off if he didn't. I hope the consequences were at least enough to stop him from doing it again.
- syshum 6y ago
  Under US law copyright infringement is not theft, it is not considered theft, and in many courts the plaintiff is barred from calling it theft.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Dana is crying into his $100 bills before using them to wipe his ass. My sympathy for copyright owners is very pragmatic, and is inversely proportional to the amount of fame and fortune they have at the time. I am stunned to see on HN someone so gleeful at a pirate streamer getting their comeuppance. Insert philosophical debate on piracy, victimless crime (sometimes?), whether the people who watched it would have if they had to pay, and so on.
mwill 6y ago
It's funny how the world changes, they went to such great lengths to target one pirate, but nowdays you can pirate UFC streams by literally googling it while the event is on, or just hanging out on twitter or reddit catching links before they're deleted. (I know this because I buy every PPV via Fightpass, and probably 10-25% of the time the official app fails at least once, and won't log back in for 10-30 minutes, usually leading up to hyped up fights.)
- sbolt 6y ago
  Are PPV fights discounted if you have Fightpass?
techntoke 6y ago
So they want people to pay for the crap that is UFC? You couldn't pay me to watch it. Watching people bleed all over each other and getting hit in the head until they lose consciousness is sick and takes some sickos to enjoy watching it.
moneywoes 6y ago
Anyone know how he got caught
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tyingq 6y ago
  I don't know how he was caught, but he did do an interview that explained the tools and methods he was using: https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-debut-super-smooth-video-torrents-130428/ https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-debut-super-smooth-video-to... (His online name is "Secludedly").
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> “Are you trying to tell me that people who can barely pay their bills should not be able to show support for your product if they so choose?” This is laughable. I’m an avid torrentor, but I don’t delude myself into thinking what I’m doing is good for the copyright holder.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  I mean HN probably skews towards people who could easily afford the subscription, but it could be a legitimate benefit to the UFC brand to maintain the engagement of fans who can't afford to pay. Those people may lose interest if they can't watch at all, but they might be able to afford the subscription in a few years. High school/college students are one demographic that comes to mind, but this could easily apply to adults trying to escape poverty as well. I don't know which way the balance swings in terms of people who can afford to pay and choose not to vs. people who can't afford to pay, but I think with something like the UFC that relies to some degree on fan culture for its appeal there's a clear benefit from having more people watch it even if those additional viewers don't pay.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    Aren’t there pubs or restaurants that air these for non-subscribers, like they do for soccer/football?
    - tyingq 6y ago
      There are, but it's pretty expensive for the bar. $1200 for a single event, 8 years ago: https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed-on-closed-circuit-ufc-broadcasts-at-bars https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed...
- kyboren 6y ago
  It very well might be good for the copyright holder. There is obviously a benefit to buzz around your content, and piracy helps generate that buzz all the same. It's not cut and dry. What's more, brands like UFC have other ways of generating revenue than just licensing fees. A person may not be able to afford a subscription, but they might still be eager to buy an official UFC T-shirt. "We find movies with prerelease piracy are associated with lower revenues despite the [Word of Mouth] effect. Critically, however, we show a positive correlation between postrelease piracy and WOM volume, and we extend the field by finding that the presence of postrelease piracy is associated with an approximately 3.0% increase in box office revenue. We also note the impact of a raid by the Swedish Police that temporarily took down The Pirate Bay website in December 2014. The period when the site was down experienced a decline in WOM volume and revenues, consistent with the effect of lower postrelease piracy predicted by our models." Does Piracy Create Online Word of Mouth? An Empirical Analysis in the Movie Industry Shijie Lu, Xin (Shane) Wang, Neil Bendle DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3298
mtVessel 6y ago
I never apologized...I only signed a legal agreement that allowed an apology to be issued in my name. Christ, what an asshole.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Wow, I'm shocked by your anger. His disowning the petty concept of a legal apology written in his name seems totally reasonable, mostly because the recipient is the UFC, and not an individual who suffered any kind of legitimate harm.
  - mtVessel 6y ago
    OK, maybe I was a little harsh. But it doesn't matter who the aggrieved party is. He took an action, and now he's trying to weasel out of it by saying, in effect, "yeah, but I had my fingers crossed behind my back, so it doesn't count." I am reacting to his utter inability to take responsibility for his actions.

58 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

luma 6y ago

This brings up an interesting angle on the sorts of eye-watering settlement amounts levied against teenagers we read about so often. Are they all setup this way? Do the rights holders expect to be paid or are they happy to announce an insane sum + gag order and call the issue settled?

NoOneNew 6y ago
Seems like a nice way of teaching them a lesson without being completely harsh. The thing the kid here doesn't understand, they get caught for pirating again by another organization, that set of lawyers now have documentation that they didn't learn their lesson from their last tango. They will pursue full damages and collect since any public apology will be meaningless. And yea, there are settlements like this. For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. Because if you dont, someone else can use that as a case you're not protecting your IP, thus party 2 can go around and sell it without legal recourse. This was a slap on the wrist that actually makes me like the UFC even more now.
- luma 6y ago
  I think you're confusing copyright for trademark. At least in the US, trademarks require defense but copyright does not.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>For one, to hold certain IP rights, you have to defend them, even if you dont want to. That has been a myth around Trademark for a long time, and it is a false hood [1], I am saddened that this myth is now spreading to Copyright law as well. There is no provision of copyright that would mandate a copyright holder to relentlessly police the internet finding all infringement less they loose their copyright. That simply does not exist at all so I would recommend not representing this fake information [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
  - hedora 6y ago
    You do have to defend Trademarks, but only in egregious cases. According to the article you linked, you can lose a trademark if it becomes a generic term (zipper, xerox a document, etc), or you completely stop using it for multiple years. So, there are some nuances. However, courts have repeatedly ruled you do not need to levy lawsuits at everyone that uses your trademark. In fact, if your defense is so egregiously over-aggressive, you may be liable due to misuse of trademark. Unfortunately, while they could do so in theory, the US has never revoked a trademark in such cases. If they started doing that, it would put an end to SLAPP trademark suits, and a lot of lawyers would be out of work.
    - laumars 6y ago
      It’s worse than that, because overly aggressive defence of trademarks isn’t punished yet not defending it could theoretically cost a business their trademark, it skews the system so, for businesses, it’s more beneficial to be aggressive. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person that said “their fine to use our trademark. We have nothing to worry about” only to unexpectedly end up losing the trademark)
grawprog 6y ago
>settlement amounts levied against teenagers From the article: >and not be as cocky like I did back when I was 27 I'm not sure if 27 qualifies as a teenager. He was 27 when he was pirating UFC. He's slightly older than me if he was 27 in 2014.

Causality1 6y ago

You have to be at least a little tech-savvy to capture content and upload it, so why don't pirates take basic precautions like driving to a public access point before uploading?

tyingq 6y ago
I always assumed they would have a VPN or VPS in a country that doesn't have to listen to the UFC.

hirundo 6y ago

“I did what I believed was right for the many who couldn’t see these events, and I take pride in that fact.” This guy sees himself as Robin Hood, but he's just a thief. Nobody is oppressed by not being able to see a UFC event. Messina just opened the back door at the cinema to thousands of freeloaders who would be no worse off if he didn't. I hope the consequences were at least enough to stop him from doing it again.

syshum 6y ago
Under US law copyright infringement is not theft, it is not considered theft, and in many courts the plaintiff is barred from calling it theft.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Dana is crying into his $100 bills before using them to wipe his ass. My sympathy for copyright owners is very pragmatic, and is inversely proportional to the amount of fame and fortune they have at the time. I am stunned to see on HN someone so gleeful at a pirate streamer getting their comeuppance. Insert philosophical debate on piracy, victimless crime (sometimes?), whether the people who watched it would have if they had to pay, and so on.

mwill 6y ago

It's funny how the world changes, they went to such great lengths to target one pirate, but nowdays you can pirate UFC streams by literally googling it while the event is on, or just hanging out on twitter or reddit catching links before they're deleted. (I know this because I buy every PPV via Fightpass, and probably 10-25% of the time the official app fails at least once, and won't log back in for 10-30 minutes, usually leading up to hyped up fights.)

sbolt 6y ago
Are PPV fights discounted if you have Fightpass?

techntoke 6y ago

So they want people to pay for the crap that is UFC? You couldn't pay me to watch it. Watching people bleed all over each other and getting hit in the head until they lose consciousness is sick and takes some sickos to enjoy watching it.

moneywoes 6y ago

Anyone know how he got caught

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 6y ago
I don't know how he was caught, but he did do an interview that explained the tools and methods he was using: https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-debut-super-smooth-video-torrents-130428/ https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-debut-super-smooth-video-to... (His online name is "Secludedly").

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

> “Are you trying to tell me that people who can barely pay their bills should not be able to show support for your product if they so choose?” This is laughable. I’m an avid torrentor, but I don’t delude myself into thinking what I’m doing is good for the copyright holder.

thomaslord 6y ago
I mean HN probably skews towards people who could easily afford the subscription, but it could be a legitimate benefit to the UFC brand to maintain the engagement of fans who can't afford to pay. Those people may lose interest if they can't watch at all, but they might be able to afford the subscription in a few years. High school/college students are one demographic that comes to mind, but this could easily apply to adults trying to escape poverty as well. I don't know which way the balance swings in terms of people who can afford to pay and choose not to vs. people who can't afford to pay, but I think with something like the UFC that relies to some degree on fan culture for its appeal there's a clear benefit from having more people watch it even if those additional viewers don't pay.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  Aren’t there pubs or restaurants that air these for non-subscribers, like they do for soccer/football?
  - tyingq 6y ago
    There are, but it's pretty expensive for the bar. $1200 for a single event, 8 years ago: https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed-on-closed-circuit-ufc-broadcasts-at-bars https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/10/3233243/new-light-shed...
kyboren 6y ago
It very well might be good for the copyright holder. There is obviously a benefit to buzz around your content, and piracy helps generate that buzz all the same. It's not cut and dry. What's more, brands like UFC have other ways of generating revenue than just licensing fees. A person may not be able to afford a subscription, but they might still be eager to buy an official UFC T-shirt. "We find movies with prerelease piracy are associated with lower revenues despite the [Word of Mouth] effect. Critically, however, we show a positive correlation between postrelease piracy and WOM volume, and we extend the field by finding that the presence of postrelease piracy is associated with an approximately 3.0% increase in box office revenue. We also note the impact of a raid by the Swedish Police that temporarily took down The Pirate Bay website in December 2014. The period when the site was down experienced a decline in WOM volume and revenues, consistent with the effect of lower postrelease piracy predicted by our models." Does Piracy Create Online Word of Mouth? An Empirical Analysis in the Movie Industry Shijie Lu, Xin (Shane) Wang, Neil Bendle DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3298

mtVessel 6y ago

I never apologized...I only signed a legal agreement that allowed an apology to be issued in my name. Christ, what an asshole.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Wow, I'm shocked by your anger. His disowning the petty concept of a legal apology written in his name seems totally reasonable, mostly because the recipient is the UFC, and not an individual who suffered any kind of legitimate harm.
- mtVessel 6y ago
  OK, maybe I was a little harsh. But it doesn't matter who the aggrieved party is. He took an action, and now he's trying to weasel out of it by saying, in effect, "yeah, but I had my fingers crossed behind my back, so it doesn't count." I am reacting to his utter inability to take responsibility for his actions.