The UFC has recently been telling viewers during live PPV broadcasts that illegally streaming or downloading their events is a crime that can be punishable by large fines and even prison time--something Major League Baseball and other sports have been doing since the invention of home video recording. Did you know that the music industry thought radio would kill record sales? This is in response to what the UFC claims is an epidemic of internet piracy which is negatively affecting their business and MMA in general. Though the UFC sets and breaks its own annual PPV records, this year turning in the highest grossing PPV numbers of all time (at roughly $350m gross just from buys), they claim to be losing up to 150,000 buys per event or more due to illegal streams. Whether or not those who would watch the event illegally would otherwise pay for it is up for debate. The UFC has attempted to take a hard stance on pirates, like many retail outlets have with shoplifters. However the internet is not a simple place where wrongdoers can be easily identified, rounded up, and punished legally. For a decade copyright laws have been debated and rewritten with the advent of the internet, especially with regards to file sharing. Millions of files are transferred daily through peer-to-peer programs such as Bittorrent while virtually all television and pay-per-view channels are available for illegal viewing on sites such as Justin.tv and MyP2P.eu (to name a few). Recent history shows that the UFC faces an uphill battle. The music, film, pornography and gaming industries have all theoretically suffered due to the internet, though it is difficult to demonstrate that the internet has hurt more than it has helped. For example, James Cameron's new film Avatar has made a $1-billion worldwide in just over three weeks while Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 made over $300-million on its first day of release. From a business standpoint obviously the UFC is right to try and go after file sharing and streaming. It is revenue lost. Whether it has held them back is another story. MMA has a massive online community which has supported the sport for years. (quotes from http://mmajunkie.com/news/17426/ufc...-per-view-piracy-in-forthcoming-crackdown.mma)
Re: The UFC's war on the internet has only begun Surprisingly one of the UFC's employees is actually standing up to them a bit on this issue. For anyone who says that the UFC puts words in Joe Rogan's mouth (and if you watched him hype the shit out of Gilbert Yvel over the weekend you might wonder yourself), keep in mind that he's twice contradicted Mike Goldberg after the "may be punishable..." speech by saying "you can't stop the internet, baby." The UFC should also look at bands like Metallica who tried to fight Napster and became some of the most hated people online as a result, turning many of their longtime fans against them. Tape sharing originally helped Metallica grow popular to the point where they could make a record like The Black Album... the harder the UFC fights the internet the harder the internet will fight back.
Re: The UFC's war on the internet has only begun It's tough, PPVs happen every month and cost like 70 dollars to order. I want to keep up with the UFC but being in university I can't really justify 70 dollars a month for PPVs. so the strategy is really order the really good ones and try to watch the mediocre ones through other means. Just wanted to add though, if I were in the UFCs position I'd do the same thing they're doing. Although, Rogan is right, you can't stop the internet. It's like the war on drugs, you can't win that shit. I mean the UFC can cut out most of the streams but if people want to watch the event free bad enough they can just wait till the torrent it up.
Re: The UFC's war on the internet has only begun This just put watching UFC 109 on the internet as my #1 priority.
Re: The UFC's war on the internet has only begun The UFC is reportedly suing a bar for showing the event without paying the event premium... http://news.bostonherald.com/busine...in_fight_with_hub_pub/srvc=home&position=also I guess this is a symbolic lawsuit...
