earlier this week the UFC released a press release addressing legal steps they are taking to crack down on illegal streaming of their pay per view product.
The UFC specifies that “Lonstein law office has effectively prosecuted numerous declares for the UFC organization for sites illegally streaming content and individual individuals since 2007.“. It is uncertain from the press release whether any of these successful prosecutions involve contested situations or whether these all associate to default judgments where the Defendants failed to respond Camiseta TSG 1899 Hoffenheim to the charges against them.
Following one case which got press this week (Zuffa v. Pryce) it’s been reported that “All in all streaming two Pay-Per-View events cost (Mr. Pryce) $11,948.70.”. Mr. Pryce was sued for illegally intercepting or getting cable pursuant to the communications Act. He failed to respond to the charges which resulted in default judgement. In law this “constitutes an admission of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint.” The Court went on to award damages of $1,000 per pay per view plus improved damages, attorney’s charges and costs. This all results in a frightening noise bite that illegal streaming can cost you over $11,000.
Iain Kidd of BloodyElbow conducted some commendable reporting digging into the issue further. He highlights a 2012 Nevada Judgement (Zuffa v. Justin.TV) where Zuffa sued under the exact same statue. The defendant disputed the charges and effectively struck many of the allegations with district judge Robert search noting that
In essence, Zuffa alleges that Justin.tv’s individuals copied Zuffa’s UFC event and then rebroadcast the UFC event over the internet.[5] This is not the type of conduct properly addressed by the communications Act, but by copyright law (and, potentially, trademark law) because Justin.tv had no connection with the original cable or satellite signal: by the allegations, Justin.tv did not get or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast. The Court discovers no evidence in the statutory language, other cases, or legislative history that the communications Act addresses this type of conduct or was meant to bolster or act as a separate type of copyright claim.[6] The Court refuses to extend the law in this manner. Thus, the Court dismisses Zuffa’s eleventh and twelfth claims.
Although this case dealt with an intermediary and not an end individual individual the Court’s findings throw some cold water on the headlines which only complied with the Pryce case.
It is uncertain if any of the “successfully prosecuted numerous declares for the UFC ” involve contested situations or if all of them are mere admissions acquired with default judgement. To clarify I reached out to the Lonstein law office requesting further insight into this. Below is an excerpt of my request:
As you are likely aware Zuffa has just recently issued a press release specifying “Lonstein law office has effectively prosecuted numerous declares for the UFC organization for sites illegally streaming content and individual individuals since 2007. “
I compose to inquire if there are any publicly available reasons for judgment documenting these successful prosecutions. I would like to highlight a few of the jurisprudence on my blog and would appreciate if you can share any Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Alemania judgements for this purpose. Also, have all these successful prosecutions involved default judgements or are there any contested situations that have gone to trial that can be highlighted?
At this stage the Lonstein law office has not responded but if / when they do I will be happy to shed further light on the issue of end individual Camiseta Brighton & Hove Albion FC liability for illegal streaming of Zuffa’s Pay Per view products.
Advertisement
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Zuffa v. Piracy – expensive lessons in Default JudgementMarch 10, 2014In “piracy”
Court discovers federal Piracy Statutes Can Be utilized to Prosecute Internet StreamingNovember 15, 2016In “piracy”
UFC Piracy investigator Accused of “Entrapping” defendant in Piracy ProsecutionAugust 15, 2015In “piracy”