TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream?

Every single day millions of people watch video streams on the Internet, but while some streaming services provide authorized material, it’s inevitable that others will offer illegal content too. So, when people click then watch a stream of unauthorized material online, are they committing an offense? According to an intriguing announcement this week, some illicit stream viewers may be about to find out.

While the Ultimate Fighting Championship is the absolutely pinnacle of excitement for some, to others its merely two almost-naked men rolling round the floor in a pool of sweat and blood trying to snap each others arms off. But whatever your take, read on, because something the UFC announced this week has the potential to touch everyone who consumes video online.

The UFC has a track record of aggressive anti-piracy action. They’ve threatened countless bars for showing both illicit streams and under-licensed deliveries of their events, and gone after numerous sites, their operators, and uploaders.

But for quite some time the MMA organization has threatened to expand its reach by going beyond suing those actually providing illegal streams to suing those who simply watch them. To be fair most observers thought this was just another of UFC president Dana White’s famous rants, but this week an interesting picture began to emerge.

UFC announced on Tuesday that parent company Zuffa LLC had successfully taken down a site called Greenfeedz which had illegally streamed a dozen UFC events. While there’s nothing particularly unusual about that, the UFC casually noted that they had also obtained the email addresses, user names and IP addresses of people who allegedly watched unauthorized streams.

So maybe the UFC are just throwing that out there to scare people a little? Apparently not. In an interview with MMA Junkie, UFC chief legal counsel Lawrence Epstein confirmed that the fight organization will be going after individuals who watched events dating back to May 2011, a number said to be potentially “voluminous.”

Who gets sued and who doesn’t is yet to be decided, with Epstein noting that the the UFC needs to “have the requisite proof” that individuals actually watched shows without paying. Nevertheless, the lawyer predicts that the Greenfeedz databases will provide lots of information including “names, emails, telephone numbers and sometimes even addresses to identify those people that are watching illegally.”

But according to First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza, it is not at all clear how the UFC will take action against those who simply watched illicit streams.

“I have a very hard time finding a theory of liability for someone who merely watched an illegal broadcast. That’s like saying if a bar was illegally publicly presenting a movie or an NFL game, that everyone in the bar would be liable,” Randazza told TorrentFreak.

“My guess is that the UFC’s attorneys will not really go after people who merely watched the fights. They may, however, use the data they gather in order to find out if any of those people were re-distributing it,” Randazza adds.

Although it seems unlikely that the UFC will carry through with their threat to sue stream viewers, if they do they can expect opposition.

“If they’re really going after people for merely watching an illegal stream, I’d defend that case free of charge,” Randazza told TorrentFreak. “That’s not the right thing to do.”

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • AgainstCensorship

    Sounds to me like the copyright hounds are, once again, abusing power. What a shocker!

    • Pirate Comic

      .love culture

    • Guest

      Thumbs up if you are watching an “illegal” stream right now.

      • monkeyslap

        This isn’t Youtube dumass.

        • Anony

          wrong spelling, idiot.

        • Rfgvfhg@fgjhdgy.org

          What a dick. I hope you get hit by a fucking car.

      • yello

        i cant personally pinpoint a time when im not watching an illegal stream…

      • U Fucking Cunt (UFC)

        I walk pass my neighbor’s window and took a glance of a show on his TV. I wonder if that is legal

      • MadAsASnake

        Dunno, has the veiw out of my window been copyrighted by anyone yet?

    • Guest

      UFC president Dana White born July 28 1969 dead November 13 2012.

      We already bough the trash can for the funeral.

    • Ftfy

      abusing power

    • Karate Kid64

      whata a rubbish ….. from the UFC …the people who they make money from are fans like me who pay big money on pay per view or expensive flights to go watch them live all over the world and sometimes i love to illegal download them for reason…

      • Guest

        You like to see gay men fondling each other?

        • http://twitter.com/erikqj Erik Q.J.

          Trust me, if you get “fondled” like that, the last thing on your mind will be sex. In fact, it might just end up being literally the last thing on your mind, and it’s likely to be to the tune of “How did my neck get into this weird angle?”

        • SuqeeTendula

          You have to admit that it is all slightly homoerotic…

          Not saying that’s a bad thing – I love watching two hard men making each other bleed.

        • http://twitter.com/erikqj Erik Q.J.

          Actually, I don’t. MMA is a reasonable approximation of a real fight, with only a few rules to prevent excessive damage to life and health. It’s less dangerous, but hurts just about the same. I have no idea whether you’ve ever been in a real fight, as in a sustained and intense effort to cause each other as much injury as possible, but I have. Having been in a few of those, I can assure you that there’s nothing erotic about it, be that homo or not. I guarantee you that none of the role playing you may have done is even faintly related to this type of injurious pain. If you’ve been in a fight and failed to realize this, it either wasn’t a real fight, or you’re in serious need of a padded cell and straightjacket.

          What you seem to be suffering from is the ever increasing obsession with sex in our culture. There’s hardly a word, an object, or an activity that can’t be construed as sexual in some way. The idea that no shirt and physical contact is implicitly sexual would’ve been ridiculous to all but the last few generations; in some places it still is. Before that, violence was a more than equally obvious implication, and most men had been in at least one sufficiently realistic fight to know how utterly non-erotic violence is.

          MMA is a remaining scrap from a time when body didn’t necessarily equal sex, and when pain was as realistic as pleasure. You know, way back when getting into a fight in a street was more likely than having public sex in that street. Back when people knew the difference between violence and sex.

          No amount of words will ever tell you what continuing to fight with a broken cheek bone, blood clogged nasal cavity, and sunken knuckles feels like, so I’ll stop. Anyway, lecturing people on such “ancient” times, I’m starting to feel uncomfortably old…

    • Free

      as long as low-court judges go along with it they will continue, that’s the way of a law-state sadly

  • Lethn

    That’s like saying that looking at an artists painting through the window of a gallery is illegal and people actually wonder why I download off bittorrent?

    • Pirate Comic

      U do much peeping tom-erish ?

      : )

      • Wanker

        I am a certified peeping Tom :)

        • http://www.facebook.com/Powerstar98 Franklin Jawara Lee

          With a name like Wanker I’m not surprised

      • Nadel

        Yeah, it’s porno legal but U must pay or else We tell… you must comply. Resistance is irrelevant, WE ARE RIAA… f#¤%& off You Little Spacehamsters.

        I

    • http://twitter.com/erikqj Erik Q.J.

      Or if you look at an illegally posted notice on some wall. Not to mention if the content of the poster is illegally copied. Soon they’ll be setting up sting operations around such posters…

      Without using any analogy: Essentially, this would make it illegal to click on the wrong link: If it opens a page with an illegal stream, you’re screwed…

    • Stanly

      I am an artist, and have used a similar argument. But people take the idea very literally and retaliate hostilely. People need to understand, that we can’t package our art and charge people 99cents to own the right to look at it. In fact I need people to look at my work for free, so that they can hire me for jobs. So the industry was commission-based from the beginning. I suppose it is complicated.

  • Gg

    Sounds like UFC wants a boycott against themselves

    • repressed

      agree on the boycott….but

      first GayTorrent Shuts Down , now UFC boycott !!!!

      What will i fap 2 now ?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      The UFC is run by a meathead who has no business sense. But let him go and do his thing. He’ll run everyone to the competition faster than you can knock out Kimbo Slice.

      • Sketch

        actually dana white has much business sense, he took the ufc that was almost finished in every state, and made it a viable entity, almost single handedly, but he is a total asshat, and i always wished tito ortiz would have mashed his face up some…….i made the bad mistake of actually purchasing a PPV of the ufc once. that was 35 dollars i want back……..and to hell with live streams, get a vpn and torrent that shit. lmao

        • Irishman

          what happens when they go to your isp asking for your ip and street address to send you a nice cosy court summons.  recent case Ben Dover Productions AKA Goldeneyeinc sending court letters to any o2 customer to have accessed their content and not paid for it.

    • Craftycorner

      Let us oblige them!

  • TheS4ndm4n

    Like some have started to realise, Pirates are potential customers.
    Does the UFC think they can scare ppl into buying their products?

    You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
    Then again, aggression may be the only thing they know…

    • Anyone

      dey dook r durr

  • Urtimehascome

    Marc Randazza is a copyright troll himself!

  • Guest

    I can understand the take on going after re-distributors but just attacking people for watching an event makes about as much sense as attacking signal pirates. its really the same regurgitated argument. unless they transmit the fights themselves over the net, Openly and give everyone an opportunity to purchase the license then they really have no ethical reason to complain.

  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Although lawyer Randazzwipe is usually hired by the CopyWrong Cartel to bully people accused of d/l-ing gay porn (he’s on-record saying he doesn’t care if outing someone causes them to commit suicide), it’s noteworthy Randazzwipe was also listed as a 1st Amendment lawyer by our friends at the EFF (ie Electronic Frontier Foundation) until complaints were made (but see also Nevada & Wisconsin here https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense ).

    Anyway, it’s (slightly) heartening to hear he’s offering his professional services for no cash, no profit, and no tangible gain – just as if he were a filesharing Pirate ffs!!!

    I just wonder what his “angle is” coz he’s a particularly nasty piece of work, and I’ve yet to see a leopard change its spots. Show us what you’re really made of Marc – or are you so sure the MMA and UFC are just full of the same bullshit you are too?

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

      One thing I’m happy about is that Randazza cannot sue me for watching his Twitter feed without his Royal authorization because this arch-hypocrite blocks me from following him.

      • Camilo

        Did Santorum block you from watching him too? Or Lamar Smith?

        • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

          Don’t know what “lamarsmith” is, but I read the definition of “santorum”, and I have no desire to watch it.

    • Test

      I am guessing he will just go where the money is like any other scumbag lawyer.

    • Urtimehascome

      He is most certainly without a doubt in my mind a fuckin copyright troll playing both sides of the fence. He is lower than an eighty year old womans tits hang.

  • Irish

    Q: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream?

    A: Only if you are Irish.

  • Anonymous

    This is just one step too far. We need to start boycotting their crap.

  • Anonymous

    Wouldn’t be surprised if they just sent out pay-up-or-else letters if they already have names and addresses. Proving that they actually watched the stream as opposed to just being registered might be difficult.

    • Pornopirate

      The only way to get your name and address is from your ISP. The only way an ISP will give up your personal information is with a subpoena unless the ISPs start doing something new. If they do this they really are low life scum.

  • Clark12

    the next thing theyll try to do is go after the ppl that recieved tickets as a gift instead of paying for one themselves.

    • Desu75

      No kidding. When it was in Vegas recently (143 I think) I doubt anybody there paid for a ticket. Mr. Wynn has a lot of VIPs. Even if you’re holding a private party or convention at one of his casinos you can bet they’ll take it over.

  • Desu75

    The UFC needs to fix the bad judging problem. Several big recent fights lately ruined by bad decisions.

    • Anyone

      lol
      as if the outcome is not decided well before the actual event

      • Brian

        Pretty stupid comment. This is NOT the WWE.

        • Anyone

          you are right, I confused them

        • GhestWho

          ITS STILL REAL TO ME DAMMIT!

  • Guest

    Nice Catch 22; you can’t know what something is until you watch it… and as soon as you do that, it’s illegal; ergo, we can’t watch anything anymore.

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream? | We R Pirates

  • georgeclooney

    ufc is gay anyway , who watches men rolling around on the ground ?

    • Guest

      +1

      I only watched ufc once, in my tv i didnt download it or saw it in stream, and I just decided once was enough I will never watch, download or buy ufc related stuff. That fighting in the ground thingy doesn’t give me any adrenaline at all. I’ll stick to k1 where the real man fight. Its a shame that last event was cancelled though.

      • Brian

        Not much to say about you. Stupid people are stupid, I guess. You realize many K-1 fighters (Alistair Overeem, anyone?) fight in MMA, don’t you?

        • Guest

          what does that have to do with anything? I expressed my opinion and you comment to say I’m stupid because I have an opinion? Grow up. I said I liked k1 fights better, I don’t care about what fighters do in other competitions, I watch the ones I like, its called freedom of choice

    • Anonymous

      From south park:

      “THIS is real wrestling!”
      “You better take yer gay porn out outta here sir.”

    • don’t you like the cock?

      ummm… gay people?

      • iii

        That’s right, gay homosexuals.

    • Pornotubebandit

      Funny I wont watch it for the same reason. Too gay for me, but those dudes are bad ass and I wouldnt say it to their faces.

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream? | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream? | Best Seedbox

  • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

    Because they know exactly how those watching arrived there and it’s obvious that all who were watching it illegally knew they were doing so. Just like it’s obvious that an IP address in a bittorrent swarm means the account owner obviously know about the activity going on. And if the account owner actually knows he’s on the swarm there’s no way he’s downloading a copy of something he owns legally (like me when my original Windows 7 DVD died so I got a copy in TPB and used my legally purchased key).

    Cole Sear: I see dumb ppl.
    Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?
    Cole Sear: All the time. They’re everywhere.

    • Nina Stapleton

      There’s no provision in law to allow you to download something you already own from an unauthorized source.

      • Hmm234

        in most european union countries it is. tough it naturally doesnot apply for software. but for music and movies yes

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_67OTRR6SBZ64O3KS33NLFVPUEQ Eric S

        Bullshit, it is called “fair use” they just decided to be unfair about it ;)

  • Anonymous

    Personally, I don’t believe a viewer of said stream should be held accountable. Website, redistributer, up-loaders (if applicable) yes, viewers no.

  • Big Kahoona

    I was at a bar that was accused of illegal streaming. Do I have to pay? Where would I send the $? Oh God….I can’t sleep now.

  • Anonymous

    From all I know that answer is maybe. A person cannot be found guilty of infringement if they were not aware they were infringing at the time.

    For example we all have seen hundreds of YouTube videos including embedded in other websites. Now imagine one was infringing and the owner wanted to sue the viewers and your online discussion is proof you viewed it. This would only be infringement if they can also prove you were aware it was infringing like through good discussion of stolen unauthorised video.

    There is also a second aspect to this highlighted by anyone who has ever been “rick rolled” in that you do not know that you get from clicking a link. So if anyone is tricked into viewing an infringing video then that is not infringement.

    So in conclusion people can be sued for watching an infringing video only if it can be proved they were aware it was infringing. Keep your mouth shut and innocent verdict but blab to the world and guilty you would be.

    It also would take an extra nasty person to actually sue people for the act of ticket dodging.

    • Anon

      “A person cannot be found guilty of infringement if they were not aware they were infringing at the time.”

      Utterly false, and historically demonstrably so. I love this kind of pirate logic as if ignorance of a law were some excuse. Like shooting fish in a network sponsored barrel.

      • Trollsreverywhere

        They can always threaten to file suit like the “pay up or else” scam that is already common place these days. It can still cost several thousand dollars to defend a civil lawsuit and ultimately its up to a judge or a jury as to who is guilty of what. In a civil lawsuit belief of guilt does not have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” like in a criminal trial. Just has to be 49% to 51% one way or the other.

      • Ohshit

        From: http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html

        Anyone who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, exercises any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, as granted and limited by the Copyright Act, is an infringer of copyright. [1] Thus, any activity that falls within the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringement and the infringer is liable, unless it is authorized by the copyright owner or is excused by a defense (such as fair use) or an exemption.[2] For purposes of this discussion of infringement, the lack of such authorization, defense or exemption is generally presumed.

        Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer; “innocent” infringement is infringement nonetheless.[3] Moreover, although the exclusive rights refer to such rights with respect to “copies” (plural) of the work,[4] there is no question that under the Act the making of even a single unauthorized copy may constitute an infringement.[5]

        Courts generally use the term “copying” as shorthand for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (not just the reproduction right). Courts usually require a copyright owner to prove ownership of the copyrighted work and “copying” by the defendant to prevail in an infringement action.

      • Anonymous

        “A person cannot be found guilty of infringement if they were not aware they were infringing at the time.”

        Utterly false, and historically demonstrably so.

        Name examples then. If your claim is true then it would be easy for anyone to set up a honey pot trap and go finishing for victims.

        A* makes a cool fun video.
        A* negotiates honey pot trap video with B*
        B* uploads cool fun video to his honey pot server.
        B* posts links to cool fun video into various forums.
        C* view the cool fun video.
        A* pretends legal action against B*
        A* obtains C* IP data from the honey pot server of B*.
        A* then sues C* in court for infringement.

        Without cool fun video marked in any way to show infringement then how can someone know this is not a public domain or creative commons video? Why would the law support suing people who were not aware they infringed?

        I stand by my claim.

        Only if the links were marked like “Look what I found here. This is a stolen copyrighted cool fun video. Fuck that guy I hate him” when only then it is fair to claim people were aware that they were infringing.

        The remaining point is that clicking a link is not proof of infringement so a log showing viewing time would be needed. Otherwise you could have “I clicked by accident” and “I only saw it for a second and shut it down”

        • MadAsASnake

          How does that differ from the current crop of “pay up or else” schemes?

    • Copywrongdog

      Willful infringement carries much stiffer penalties than the other where unknowing infringement occurs. Copyright trolls are trying to claim in civil cases
      that if you have an unsecured wireless network you are still guilty of infringement but not willful. I have yet to see a case where they have actually went to trial yet on their flimsy evidence. Fuck the trolls anyway

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

        In the Jammie Thomas case, they presented evidence at trial that the files that she had made available contained ripping-crew credits in the metadata, indicating they were obtained from unauthorized sources and that she hadn’t ripped them herself, thus she must’ve downloaded them without license (this was before MP3s were available for legal sale). The jury instructions were such that they were to find that infringement had occurred if they believed she had uploaded or downloaded, doesn’t matter which. The jury didn’t specify when they found her liable.

        The same kind of thing could easily happen with the unauthorized video. If they have evidence that someone “downloaded” the video, that can be enough to get a finding of infringement since an unauthorized copy was made.

        • Spok

          “since an unauthorized copy was made” …by the server.

        • MadAsASnake

          They may be able to prove an infringement ocurred but they very often cannot prove by whom. As in most cases, an IP identifies an account holder, and there is no necessary reason to beleive that the accountholder and the infringer are the same person. That means there needs to be evidence beyond the IP. The argument that that is impossible is a problem for the prosecution – they cannot pin it to the accountholder simply because they can’t find anyone else.

    • Guest

      ‘A person cannot be found guilty of infringement if they were not aware they were infringing at the time.”

      That’s true (at least, it is in the U.S.), but you have to remember that that doesn’t apply if the court determines that the person could reasonably have known that the content was infringing. As an example, if you happened to find a popular Hollywood movie on TPB, a reasonable person could figure out that it was infringing.

    • Guest

      Exactly. This is one of the reasons why our lawmakers in The Netherlands, in a stroke of brilliance, stated that you are always allowed to copy a work for personal use regardless the source of the work. This is why downloading music and movies from the internet is legal there, even when it is is a pirate copy originating from usenet and you don’t own the original. Unfortunately there are now people lobbying to restrict that to disallow works from an obviously/knowingly illegal source. But even then you would only be infringing when you are, or reasonably could be, aware of it.

      People sometimes forget that copyright does not only work for hollywood movies and large music labels; it is also in effect for images, photos and fonts. Therefore, if you were liable for infringement just watching something, it would be impossible to visit any website. How can you be sure that, say, the font used on torrentfreak is not a copyrighted font used without permission? You can not (always) know in advance whether you are infringing. They’d have to prove you were aware of it.

      • MadAsASnake

        You cannot alway know. In the cases of browser fonts, you may not even know what font is shown as this is actually up to the local browser (unless it’s in an image).

  • Ladouceur2

    ufc has become nothing a cooperate greedy corporation..and those who watch and support that organization buy buying products and watching ppv are helping the greed get greedier. when is enough ,enough all ican say is f.u. ufc its not about the art but yhe old mighty dollar and buy the way i’ve seen better fights at a corner pub

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream? | VideoStreamTV.com

  • SharePatriot

    Porn tubes and paysite accessed with hacked passwords are the latest targets for copyright trolls so beware and use vpn or other anonymous browser type precautions. I dont think its safe anymore to even browse the internet without some sort of protection.

    The internet ocean is full of sharks (copyright trolls) sniffing for IPs of victims. One wiff of blood (easy $$) and you are involved in a lawsuit.

  • Jamesd

    Copyright infringement means they have to prove a copy took place. It’s a video stream. Prove to me there was or is a copy of your copyrighted crap on my computer. Think about it.

    • Anyone

      a videostream gets copied temporarily into your RAM
      that could be counted as making a copy

      • O’lay Pirate

        Temp? I’m not sure if it’s always a temp… for example people can use no-cache – YouTube doesn’t cache it’s videos on your end…

        • Anyone

          it is technically not possible to play videos without them landing in the RAM, that’s simply how a computer works.

      • Jamesd

        Prove it!

      • Jamesd

        Even if so, how much would be copied? Is it copyright infringement? There has to be a certain amount copied before it’s classed as an actual infringement, is that small amount in ram actually enough. Are they willing to bet that in court?

      • Jamesd

        Oh.. and also, for all the layers out there. Every copyrighted image you see on the internet web pages is then copyright infringment, as it was temporarily in ram! OMG! Sue everyone on the planet!

      • Ez

        The server makes the copy.

    • SharePatriot

      Copyright violations are not limited to copying. All they need is an IP address. This is shitty evidence, but it does not stop them from filing a lawsuit and trying to extort $$ from someone. Fucked up isnt it?

      • MadAsASnake

        Nope. IP person.

    • Dontclickthatlink

      The way civil suits work it seems all they have to do is say that your IP address streamed any amount of data but if it ever gets to court they have shit for evidence. The idea is to frighten someone by threats and lies using the court system. They could demand you pay up or threaten a civil suit. Extortion. Its a business to the copyright trolls and the video producers and business has been very good to them.

  • Anon

    If you know it’s intended for sale, buy it or do without. Watch an unlawful stream or pirate it and face the consequences. Duh.

    As if this were so complicated.

    • Anyone

      so if I watch PPV with 5 friends at home I have to pay it 6 times?
      otherwise only I have paid and I share my screen with 5 friends that watch it illegaly! where can I turn them in as a good citizen?

    • Jamesd

      There will be no consequences. They cannot prove copyright infringement took place. They would like jail sentences for everyone I bet, although, little do they know, in an indictable offense, in any common law country, the accused has the right of trial by jury. Demand it! See them bring out the proof to a jury of your peers, then fail and pay the costs and damages.

      • Pornopirate

        They can still sue you in civil case which is not cheap and very inconvenient to say the least. You dont have to be found guilty. Its not a trivial matter to be drug into court. These are consequences which I certainly do not want any part of but have been forced upon me as I am involved with a copyright infringement case as we speak. Protect yourself. Don browse the internet with your own IP. Anonymise with a vpn or similar.

    • Pornopirate

      How do you determine what is legal and what is not?

      • stopping by

        Same way you determine if it’s legal to steal a car.

        • MadAsASnake

          Really? So you click on a link that opens a stream how do you know what sort of licence that has? Same for any image font ar most things you look at on the Internet. Most of it’s copyright, and most of it is legal to look at.

    • Content Creator

      You are committing copyright infringement by reading this because I DID NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO READ THIS. IT’S MY WORK, YOU THIEF.

      • Urtimehascome

        Well fuck, shit, godamned, mutafuckin dickballs how much do I owe you?

        • MadAsASnake

          Anon is going to spend $100000 sueing you for copyright infringement. His losses are a proveable $0

    • Anon who Pays Attention

      Look a few posts above, my fellow Anon.

      http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html

      “If you know it’s intend for sale” is irrelevant. Innocent infringement is still infringement. You and every “pirate” on here are equally at risk for being sued under the law. Just because you think you haven’t infringed doesn’t mean you haven’t somewhere, somehow, and the law (according to these lawyers) states that you can be found to owe damages regardless. You can buy it and still be liable. You can do without and still be liable.

      So be prepared to face the consequences of being a pirate YOURSELF. The law is the law.

      • inyourmind

        The law is laughable, as anyone with an ounce of common sense can see.

      • NotMyIP

        Very true. All who are dragged into a civil lawsuit are not guilty. How much evidence is needed to have a civil lawsuit filed against a person in the US? Answer: Next to none, just an accusation with minimal shitty evidence like an IP address.

        This does not mean you will be found guilty. It means you can be threatened to be sued and they can use the court system to create FUD ( fear uncertainty and doubt) to try to extort money from their victims.

        The trolls and the video producers are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they are a greedy lot.

    • Jojo

      or boycott it and kill it off completely (preferred option)

  • Guest

    yeah if you think more people will buy these kind of event when you start suing people around like that you must have your head really far up your ass

    • Guest

      #boycott the industry !

  • Jamesd

    Remember folks. If you are accused of anything, don’t deny or accept liability. Ask them for proof. Remember also it’s a Civil case, there are rules on how Civil proceedings are handled, check it out. They cannot prove anything and once that is established, you can sue them right back. America though might be different as it’s no longer a true Common Law country, but more a Corporate Law country. ie: By-Laws, Statutes etc.

    • Byreasonofinsanity

      I am not an attorney but I do have experience in a civil case. Do not talk to any one except your own attorney. Deny everything. Never ever talk to a copyright troll. Let your attorney do your talking.

      • Guest

        “Deny everything. ”

        Bad advice. If you deny something that they can actually prove, then you can go to jail for perjuring yourself. Just refuse to talk without a lawyer. If you deny something wrongly, you could be in much worse trouble.

        • Shomeyourharddrive

          Makes sense. Plead not guilty and tell them you did it. That will work in court.

  • DougPattb

    Well if the god damned UFC’s own streaming service wasn’t so crappy, and didn’t cost AS MUCH AS THE PAY PER VIEW FOR SECOND RATE QUALITY AND JERKY FEEDS, then maybe people would pay for that instead.

  • r2d2

    maybe in Japan and other places where downloading is illegal

  • gee

    It might not be illegal now, but lets not hold our breath in the future.

  • Sdfgas

    Well just because they have ip and address and credit information doesnt mean they watched it.

  • Estavanmendez

    let them do this an see how much money they make after

  • Numbnuts

    Rules are only meaningfull if people agree to follow them.
    Otherwise they are just words.Censorship reflects society’s
    lack of confidence in itself.It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
    Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.
    Man was meant to be free and master of his own destiny, not some monitored cog in
    a dystopian machine.

    • AnonymousSlave

      Those are words of truth. US citizens have become slaves to their government who are supposed to be controlled by citizens and now government and corporations are our masters and we are their bitches.

      • trapped

        Not the government, as such, but slaves to the governing system.

  • Mwhahaha

    Can you be sued for remembering a previous program you saw legally?

    • MentalMovies

      Giving away the details will get a man thrown in solitary for 90 days with only water & bread.

  • Mwhahaha

    It’s surely utterly impossible to prove this on the basis of a single IP address. Especially if they can’t tell how much you watched of it. Soon “law” firms might be spamming your inbox to illegal footage they can sue you for watching. Click a link and they can sue you. It’s utterly, utterly insane.

    As it’s the ultimate fighting championships the lawyers should have to fight the people they accuse, good old trial by combat.

  • DasRing

    You will not be sued.

    YOU WILL DIE!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qllBex2K1yg

  • UFC sucks

    I’m starting to think that The UFC money grubbing asshole,The reason know one wants to pay for your shit is it sucks.

    • Shcool

      In the old times people watch gladiators fighting , now UFC.
      History repeat itself.

    • Anonymous

      Now if UFC were wise they would offer a free stream on their website that other sites could embed in to their own site. Or better than that to allow mobile device support for viewing on the move. Then they can just pack this stream full of adverts and charge their advertisers a nice rate.

      Instead here they are not meeting public demand, not embracing new technology and simply suing everyone instead. Then while they do that the pirate streaming sites get the extra advertising income by meeting the public demand and not UFC.

      • Anyone

        it cannot be said often enough: piracy is a service issue

  • ufc

    i dont like your face. i can sue you just for that.

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream?

  • Wck2011

    I got a letter from UFC, and a phone call, and domain/servers calling me about 2 years ago. I hope we win the war. I stopped showing thier content however and ICE wasnt fucking up people at the time. I respect Wrestle-Zone for what they did to Dana, and I hope the viewers do the same..

    ~WCK

  • Anonymous

    How are they proving this again?

    • Anyone

      by bribing the judge as usual

  • Impeachhobama

    The sick part of this is that there are already many in the US congress ready to pile on and send the FBI into your homes to oversee what you watch, The eternal police state is here, we have lost all rights to privacy and are rapidly losing the God given rights to man. It is up to us in the civilized world, with the education and ability to end this government assault on our senses, They will not stop until they control what you see, hear, smell, and taste. The Government controls your Doctors, electric power, your telephone and internet, your food, water, your cars, gasoline, oil, minerals, your travel, and will soon be directly paying for the air you breathe. This website and all who write to it and log in here are being watched by the government minders. And we believe we are free people. Politicians are the dregs of the swamp that seek total control over you.

  • Swiss

    ..if you are in Switzerland,like me.. it`s not illegal..!

  • Any

    The problem is that the whole copyright issue has become just another revenue generator for Big Business and have told the government to allow it to happen. So long as Big Business controls our governments, this will get worse for the average citizen not better. Sadly, I can’t see this changing anytime soon

  • http://www.facebook.com/developer.aslam Aslam Ali

    They think that we will start buying,

    No it will not happen isteade we will stop watching / listning and all the fame and name that they have will be GONE.

  • Pingback: Can You Be Sued For Simply Watching An Illegal Video Stream? | Emmashare

  • http://twitter.com/TPBGirl TPBGirl

    I just showed my Mom 2 streaming websites and asked her if he could tell which one is LEGAL and ILLEGAL. She couldnt. She searched all over and could not find evidence of which one was legit Now she is 76 yrs old but a very smart woman and can rebuild a laptop faster and better than me. lol

    So… how is anyone else supposed to tell which sites are legal and not illegal?
    99% of the people dont know they are watching illegal content. You cant go suing people for this for watching, reading, or listening to something on the internet!
    /bangs head on table (ouch!)

    I just want to bitchslap the hell out of all these whiney babies (mpaa, riaa, ufc, mma)

  • http://twitter.com/TPBGirl TPBGirl

    PS… The Bad Girls Club can whip them UFC whiney baby’s ass anyday! :P

  • Desu75

    I should trademark my IP. When MAFIAA uses it in an email they are DONE.

  • Jojo

    It will be easy for me to boycott UFC since I do not care for it- now lets see if everyone else will follow suit

    • UFC sucks~

      hell ya!

  • Pingback: Randazza Legal Group : About the Firm

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003667440681 Emily Tylor

    An online dating website called “www.bbwmatch.org” Where provides BBWs and BHMs with a pure land to develop friendship, romance, marriage in your area or worldwide.Wish more BBW fall in love with truly admirers.God bless u.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t be sued thanks to time shifting laws in Australia:

    http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/02/optus-web-copyright-victory-explained/

  • Setting

    Guess I won’t watch another UFC fight again legally. Fuckin fags. Btw, Dana is a chick name. Bitch

    • Chilly8

      Use a VPN to hide your IP address, so you cannot be traced.

  • Chilly8

    Of course, there is the saying “you can’t prosecute ‘em all”. The next time a PPV boxing match comes of (I believe the next one is May 5), go onto any stream on either Ustream or Justin and note the number of users. It might be as many as 400 thousand. Do you think they are going to go after all 400 thousand users? The was one PPV fight with Klitscko a couple of years ago where the peak number of viewers one one Ustream feed hit something like 420 thousand.

    That is one reason Amy Klobuchar specifically drafted the Commercial Felony Streaming Act to not to apply to consumers. For the feds to prosecute millions of viewers over many streaming, would be impossible. The courts would not have the capacity to handle it.

  • http://truth-and-opinion.dyndns.org/ mavigozler

    Why don’t we escalate all this to a higher level? Many people think that the contact “sport” like boxing and the like that UFC and other organizations purvey in are barbarities that should be made illegal.

    Let’s demand that our legislatures criminalize these “sports” and see what that does to the revenue stream of UFC.

  • http://twitter.com/TimLoyal Tim Loyal

    why cant they just make commercials through it like the old days. remember television. no payper view crap just tv full of commercials and companies free trading buying up slots so the tv would play wizard of oz for free to the public and the companies advertised and sold products. Wow what a free capitalism market we had there. If you taped the tv you got the commercials and they played over and over again and you finally bought the product. what free advertising the had. What kind of crap has this generation dreamed up where you pay for pay for pay for pay. Lets just all pay for our own money oh wait we do its the federal reserve. What idiots have we become. allowing this to happen. oh and UFC was built by fans so just stop watching the payper views and eventually they will have to show on regular tv.

  • Stiltonc

    yes watching streams is illegal but think about it what if the  person watching the stream of a fight or tv show has like fios or some service its sort of not illegal then because its kinda like there watching it on there tv but its a pc

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.