I agree with your last point to some extent, but you're arguing against the reality of what technology allows in your other points. Just like the RIAA supporters keep saying that their .mp3's are priced appropriatly, yet keep being pirated, if UFC won't change their price point on PPV's (to the marginal cost of zero) the technology exists to stream it live on the internet, and no amount of lawsuits will change that fact.
You mention how it's about supply and demand and you're right, but when supply is infinite, price tends to zero. And with free live streaming off Justin.tv or other sites, there always will be an infinite supply.
If people want to meet together at a buddy's house or a bar to watch the fights, great, but those who don't want to, or can't, have a free alternative. The sooner the UFC stops fighting that and learns to embrace it, the better off they'll be.
This is the NFL's standard head-in-the-sand approach. It's the same mentality they take about helmets. Even though there are a few helmets that are clinically proven to be better at reducing the risk of concussions, the NFL won't endorse or encourage their players to wear these safer helmets for fear that they'll be sued if/when a player wearing one sustains a concussion.
The UFC is foolishly following down the path of the RIAA and MPAA. The only move that could be worse for them is if they start suing their fans. Who knows, maybe that's where they're headed next?
White and the Fratata [sic] brothers should realize that there are, at least, a couple of reasons why these unauthorized streams are so popular. First, they've set the price point for their PPVs too high. Second, there are millions of people who don't have access to legal methods to watch these PPVs live. The UFC's own website has every fight since the very first UFC, but doesn't show the PPVs live.
If the UFC wanted to cut down on unauthorized streaming, the first step is to offer an authorized version. The next step would be to set their price point for both the PPV and internet stream to maximize their revenue. Once that's done, if there's still unauthorized streams on the internet, so what? Those people are helping build your brand and the money they've saved could be spent on UFC merchandise. Just like Mike shows examples of in the music industry all the time, you can make money even if people are taking your main "product" for free.
Hopefully they can't visit techdirt, otherwise the [sic] get indoctrinated in the other direction.
And what direction is that exactly? When has Techdirt ever expressed a political leaning? I guess you think anyone who respects the Bill of Rights is out of line. What do you have against freedom exactly?
It would be great if there were some Mike Masnicks in Russia and China too, or some European countries for that matter.
While I agree with your comment, to be fair to those living in Russia or China, the reprocussions for Mike speaking out against abuses of power in the US are much less severe than those for speaking out in those two other countries. Those who do tend to have short careers.
Why don't **you** explain to me why there are more murders per capita in Arizona that in over-crowded, financially depressed, polluted New Jersey.
I'll answer your question with a question. Why do you think Arizona is passing laws to curtail illegal immigrants? Mexican immigrants in particular. Mexico having a small problem with drugs and violence of their own right now.
I'm not sure. Is your point that some hypothetical catastrophic event that didn't materialize is grounds for gun control? If that is your point, again, you're an idiot.
I didn't RTFA Mike linked to, but Mike says that it's a recent sculpture, so it would be interesting to find out if maybe the bookends were designed before Koons' statue. Then the bookend creator could sue Koons' for copyright infringement.
Either way, I figure with the added publicity, both parties stand to make more money.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Nothing will change that, so this article is, as usual, nothing but FUD.
Gee, who am I going to believe: Mike who actually provides links and evidence to back up his assertions, or some AC who just says "The Supreme Court said so"?
no its slander. its not libel. get over what you percieve to be the definitions and accept that forum posts are not publications they are akin to casual conversation.
as such, it is slander and not libel. I'm not explaining this again.
Hmm. Lack of capitalization and intelligence. Hey TAM, welcome back to Techdirt!
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re:
You mention how it's about supply and demand and you're right, but when supply is infinite, price tends to zero. And with free live streaming off Justin.tv or other sites, there always will be an infinite supply.
If people want to meet together at a buddy's house or a bar to watch the fights, great, but those who don't want to, or can't, have a free alternative. The sooner the UFC stops fighting that and learns to embrace it, the better off they'll be.
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
No, there's not. What's needed is for you to get off your lazy, pompous, snarky ass and look some things up your damn self.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Chi town
On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?
Typical NFL response
On the post: UFC Sues Justin.tv, Claiming It Induced Infringement
White and the Fratata [sic] brothers should realize that there are, at least, a couple of reasons why these unauthorized streams are so popular. First, they've set the price point for their PPVs too high. Second, there are millions of people who don't have access to legal methods to watch these PPVs live. The UFC's own website has every fight since the very first UFC, but doesn't show the PPVs live.
If the UFC wanted to cut down on unauthorized streaming, the first step is to offer an authorized version. The next step would be to set their price point for both the PPV and internet stream to maximize their revenue. Once that's done, if there's still unauthorized streams on the internet, so what? Those people are helping build your brand and the money they've saved could be spent on UFC merchandise. Just like Mike shows examples of in the music industry all the time, you can make money even if people are taking your main "product" for free.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Re: Re: TD censoring the Internet
IMHO all Darryl's comments should be caught in the spam filter, but instead of releasing them, they should be flushed.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re:
And what direction is that exactly? When has Techdirt ever expressed a political leaning? I guess you think anyone who respects the Bill of Rights is out of line. What do you have against freedom exactly?
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re:
While I agree with your comment, to be fair to those living in Russia or China, the reprocussions for Mike speaking out against abuses of power in the US are much less severe than those for speaking out in those two other countries. Those who do tend to have short careers.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Camden - we're #2
I'll answer your question with a question. Why do you think Arizona is passing laws to curtail illegal immigrants? Mexican immigrants in particular. Mexico having a small problem with drugs and violence of their own right now.
Get the point?
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Left wing hate speech
I'm not sure. Is your point that some hypothetical catastrophic event that didn't materialize is grounds for gun control? If that is your point, again, you're an idiot.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Not you, tool
I'm suggesting it.
Then you're an idiot.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: only in America...
On the post: Intel Claims DRM'd Chip Is Not DRM, It's Just Copy Protection
Force Fail
On the post: Appropriation Artist Jeff Koons Threatens Company & Retailers For Selling Classic Balloon Dog Bookends
Potential to be hoist by his own pitard?
Either way, I figure with the added publicity, both parties stand to make more money.
On the post: Report Claims Discredited Study That Linked Vaccines To Autism Wasn't Just A Mistake, But An Outright Fraud
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #1 AC
Says the delusional person who keeps thinking that piracy is able to be stopped.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re:
Gee, who am I going to believe: Mike who actually provides links and evidence to back up his assertions, or some AC who just says "The Supreme Court said so"?
On the post: Company That Makes Wristbands With Holograms Forced To Admit That Their Scientific Claims Are Bunk
Re: Re: Don't you just know...
That's why some of my acid trips are my fondest memories...
On the post: Greek Apple Support Company Sues Customer For Complaining About Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmmm
as such, it is slander and not libel. I'm not explaining this again.
Hmm. Lack of capitalization and intelligence. Hey TAM, welcome back to Techdirt!
Next >>