In its active fight against piracy, Zuffa has taken a number of approaches to address the problem. I addressed many of these approaches in an earlier article, “Zuffa’s Piracy Fight– Winning The Battle, But Can It Win The War?” In that article, I noted many of Zuffa’s short-term successes but asked whether Zuffa is simply engaged in a frustrating game of “whac-a-mole” with no real probability of long-term success.
Today, there were a number of reports concerning a Digital Millennium Copyright notification that Zuffa sent to Google back in September. The text of the takedown notice was provided courtesy of Google at a website, www.chillingeffects.org. The takedown notice provided in relevant part as follows:
On behalf of Zuffa, LLC and/or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, I am writing to notify you of the infringement of Zuffa, LLC’s intellectual property rights in the titles identified in this email in Google search results. Demand is hereby made that Google take immediate action to stop such infringements. The search results and links identified in this email are specific examples of Google search results linking to images, artwork, video files, video streams and websites that infringe upon Zuffa, LLC’s intellectual property rights. Zuffa, LLC hereby demands that Google promptly remove and disable the links to all unauthorized copies of works whose copyrights are owned by Zuffa, LLC of which it is aware, including the infringing files identified in this email.
Payout Perspective:
The e-mail takedown notice concludes with a list of specific URLs that Zuffa alleges lead to works that infringe on its intellectual property. Notably, the infringing URLs appear to be specific to the events, i.e. the links are not to the homepage of the allegedly infringing websites.
As S.C. Michaelson correctly notes in an article, “The UFC Wants You to Know Where to Find Illegal Streams,” the obvious downside of such a takedown notice setting forth the specific websites where alleged infringement is occurring is that a list like that could become public providing a roadmap to those seeking illegal streams. That is precisely what occurred today at the MMA specific websites that posted the e-mail.
If you check some of these links, admittedly I only checked a few, it appears, at first blush at least, that Zuffa was successful. For example, I plugged one allegedly infringing site into Google and here was what came up:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
However, it appears, at least for some of the links I tried, that the website search results still come up in Google albeit for different URLs, i.e. events. Thus, Google did not shut down the website where the alleged piracy is occurring, but instead simply disabled the specific link referenced in the takedown notice.
Given that the websites are still active in some instances and the fact that the e-mail has now been made public with an apparent roadmap to allegedly infringing sites, you may be wondering if Zuffa made the right move here.
In making that determination, it is worth checking out the Google DMCA instructions. Google requires very specific information, including “FOR WEB SEARCH, YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH SEARCH RESULT THAT DIRECTLY LINKS TO A WEB PAGE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS INFRINGING MATERIAL. This requires you to provide (a) the search query that you used, and (b) the URL for each allegedly infringing search result.” Accordingly, Zuffa had no choice but to provide the specific URLs at issue.
Moreover, and importantly, Google’s DMCA instructions provide as follows:
Please note that in addition to being forwarded to the person who provided the allegedly infringing content, a copy of this legal notice will be sent to a third-party which may publish and/or annotate it. As such, your letter (with your personal information removed) will be forwarded to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org). You can see an example of such a publication at http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861. A link to your published letter will be displayed in Google’s search results in place of the removed content.
Given this language, Zuffa knew, or should have known, that the list provided in its email to removals@google.com would end up on the Internet.
Whether Zuffa could have predicted that the list would end up on the radar of the MMA media websites is another question.
I will let you be the judge.
Fight Lawyer
Justin Klein is an attorney at Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
So, in Zuffa’s war on piracy, is this action the “next step”? Doesn’t really seem different than what they were doing before, other than getting Google involved (I really doubt Google will make it a high priority to serve Zuffa’s copyright interests). Interesting point about the way this regulation may provide an easier route for people seeking illegal streams, I had not thought of that.
Not exactly Zuffa’s swiftest move. Zuffa has become one of the loudest media outlets about piracy. So I expect to see them keep digging the hole deeper. I expect to see one of those only in America style mad ass sue 14,000 unknown people in different jurisdictions in one filing suites pop up soon. ala
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/the-riaa-amateurs-heres-how-you-sue-p2p-users.ars
Sure Dana has said that he would never sue end users but Dana is a habitual lier.
As some one who works in the field and understands the technology I can tell you, that you will never stop this stuff. Most companies that have tried have only made things worse.
jv,
The UFC is not pursuing P2P file-shares or torrents, but rather URLs that are set up to illegally stream UFC events LIVE. A P@P copy of a UFC event can only be obtained AFTER the broadcast has ended. Given the nature of UFC PPV events (a big part of the allure is to see the fights LIVE), I’m not sure that Zuffa is even concerned with P2P filesharing, which is much, much more difficult to go after than the rogue websites that illegally stream the PPVs. I think the reason that Dana has said they will not pursue “end users” is because that would be essentially going after their own fans, fans who are not actively attempting to distribute Zuffa’s copyrighted material, but are instead merely taking advantage of wares offered by others. I doubt Dana would go after someone who bought a “scalped” UFC ticket, he would go after the scalpers themselves. A fan who watches an illegal stream or downloads a torrent is still likely to purchase an event in the future, lend their eyes to television ratings, or buy UFC merchandise. Not so if they are sued by the company.
I’ve wondered about this though, it doesn’t seem like Zuffa has issued any statements regarding p2p file sharing, perhaps due to some of the reasons I named above. However, a person wishing to view a UFC PPV through this medium could just as easily find youtube/rutube/jwplayer/etc. links for the individual fights. If you download a torrent, chances are you won’t be watching it until the next day, when the results are out and therefore the product has already lost fundamental value. It might be just as good for some if they’ve kept themselves from knowing the results, but I doubt they’ll have that group of friends over for pizza and beer like Lorenzo and Dana are always talking about, which means fewer eyes watching a pirated product. With an illegal stream you could have the same party-style viewing experience with friends, minus a little video quality and the cost of the PPV. I believe that’s why Zuffa’s vision for fighting piracy is narrow, and I also believe that this is probably the best strategy they could use.
As you say, they will never be able to completely eradicate piracy, but at least they now have some concrete, quantifiable results (“we have taken down x number of illegal streaming sites, and now we know that those sites will not be streaming our event on x date”). It also allows them to focus on one event at a time, whereas in the p2p world their entire backlog library is available from thousands of sources. This is a good move bu Zuffa and in my opinion the only practical and effective means they have.
I think going through these motions and gathering information allows them to build a case to take to the government. Trying all these different avenues to try and dent piracy of their product will be used to show they need more protections and tools at their use to be able to combat piracy.
To get new laws passed like the one talked about here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372997,00.asp
They have to try all this stuff to prove the options the laws provide them isn’t adequately protecting their product from being stolen. Then they can argue for newer laws giving them more powerful options like the one I linked to above.
Machiel Van
I agree they currently aren’t going after the P2P people. But if you shut down the streams that is where the bulk of the action will be. Currently streams are better because they are in real time so probably get heavier use.
By the time the UFC can identify streams, get a lawyer to bang up a letter, get it off to Google, get some one there to review it, make a decision on whether to take action and then cut a ticket to get a tech to do some thing with it. The first running of the PPV is over. And in this case would be replaced with all the sites where you could download it.
Where I live the last PPV is available for sale until the next one runs and I think that along with DVD sales and TV reruns are what they are really trying to protect. Especially if they start their own channel. If you have followed Zuffas testimony and other statements to the government they are just foaming at the mouth. They make the MPAA & RIAA look like wimps. That is why I believe escalation is going to continue.
Too they have to contend with the fact that most of the streaming websites are located over seas and not based in the U.S.
During the Dish Network Problems most of the sites offering all these hacks or cracks for Dish were based over seas, even China & Russia were found to be hosting locations from what i read.
Is this the same here ? Its it being Purchaced and rebroadcast out of the country, or is this a local thing?
Streamers now are getting out of the reach of the Feds for fear of long federal prison sentences like those Dish hackers got before Dish tightened up its code.
Theres an idea, could Zuffa Code the sat feed so that it can’t be rebroadcast ?