After shutting down Rage-Streams.net earlier this year, the UFC implied they would start going after those that consume streams too, an unlikely scenario and one that has failed to bear fruit thus far. But there are still plenty of providers – uploaders – and on them, UFC President Dana White made his position clear.

“We are committed to standing toe-to-toe with anyone trying to illegally broadcast or stream UFC events,” said the UFC mouthpiece earlier this month when noting that the company had reached 500 settlements with infringers in 2 years.

Earlier, UFC general legal counsel Lawrence Epstein warned that the mixed-martial arts outfit might even subpoena sites in order to gain the IP-addresses of people who were illegally uploading UFC events. The company has now made good on its threats.

UFC parent company Zuffa, which claims to be the largest provider of Pay-Per-View content in the world, just announced that it has subpoenaed two hugely popular streaming video sites, Justin.tv and Ustream.tv. With this legal action they hope to force the companies to reveal the identity of a user who uploaded two UFC events earlier this year.

The UFC say that on January 2, 2010, more than 36,000 people watched an illegal streaming video feed of UFC 108 which was being uploaded from a single IP address. On February 21, 2010, the very same IP address uploaded UFC 110 which was viewed by a claimed 78,000 individuals.

“I can’t wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content,” said White. “This is a fight we will not lose.”

Zuffa say that once Justin.tv and Ustream.tv hand over the identity of the uploader, they will take civil copyright action against them.

MMA fans gave the news a mixed reception, with some noting that being a fan isn’t a right and ‘stealing’ events is simply wrong. Others felt that accepting a level of piracy is a good way to get more exposure.

“The UFC has had 15 pay-per-view event in the past year. Zuffa LLC is making a killing on PPVs and frustrating fans who simply cannot afford them. Hence, the piracy problem,” wrote a contributor to MMA blog, MMAJunkie.

“MMA is approaching a saturation point and won’t be able reach the next plateau of popularity until live UFC shows are easily accessible to the average viewer. You can’t fight the Internet – even if you are in the right. The UFC needs to adapt and evolve in the way it delivers content to the consumer and take a short-term loss for a long-term gain.”

In 2009, the UFC banked $350 million in PPV revenue.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Lawrence Epstein, general legal counsel for the UFC, said the mixed-martial arts outfit might even subpoena sites in order to gain the IP-addresses of people who were illegally downloading and sharing UFC events.

“When people start going to jail,” said UFC President Dana White, “people will stop doing it.”

But of course, it wouldn’t be easy, something acknowledged by White.

“It’s going to be a battle, man,” he said. “It’s going to be a battle, but I’m ready to (expletive) fight,” he said. “We’re gonna go after them, we’re gonna go after them hard, and we’re gonna hurt em.”

Aside from illegal streams, plenty of infringers can also be found on BitTorrent. Last Saturday’s big event, UFC 116, where UFC heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar faced off with interim champion Shane Carwin was a huge success, pulling in more than 250,000 views on BitTorrent alone.

Now, in a new announcement from the UFC, the company says that as part of its ongoing effort to combat piracy, it has reached “confidential settlements with over 500 businesses and individuals” in connection with unauthorized “broadcasts and views” of UFC events.

While it seems reasonable to expect that the UFC has managed to shut down some streams of its live events (it hit Rage-Streams.net earlier this year), the suggestion that it would go after end users seems unlikely. Due to their private nature the settlements – which were reached over the last 2 years – are impossible to investigate, but the subtle implication with its chosen wording that somehow the UFC is being successful against those merely viewing illicit streams doesn’t hold much water.

“We are committed to standing toe-to-toe with anyone trying to illegally broadcast or stream UFC events,” announced White yesterday. “Today’s announcement further drives home the fact that we are fully prepared to pursue any business or individual that steals our programming.”

The UFC’s attack on piracy, which thus far hasn’t received the support of commentator Joe Rogan who said that it “kind of stifles innovation”, is costing the UFC more money than the piracy itself.

“(Piracy) hasn’t cost us anything compared to what it’s going to cost us to go after these guys,” said White earlier.

Nevertheless, when the UFC gets tough, it really does ask for big money. Earlier this year a lawsuit filed in the District Court in Boston revealed that the UFC was suing a bar owner for showing one of their events without an appropriate license. A license costs between $500 and $1,500 depending on the size of the location showing it but apparently the bar didn’t have one. The UFC demanded $640,000 plus legal costs.

The UFC has also been spending not insignificant money lobbying the US Government. In 2008, the first year it filed lobbying reports, the UFC spent $280,000 – an amount reportedly more than double the industry average for that year. In 2009 it spent $320,000 and to end April 2010, another $80,000.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

UFC 1, as it was later numbered, was a 86,500 buy pay-per-view hit, ensuring the originally intended one-off was repeated over and over. By UFC 12, however, the controversy generated by the events was reaching fever pitch. They were banned in dozens of US states and dropped by the country’s major pay-per-view distributor.

Many, especially the millions in the largely untapped international audience, turned to piracy to stay in touch, with VHS videos of the events passed around among the passionate and growing fanbase.

After introducing more rules banning the most frowned upon fighting techniques and mandating the use of gloves, the UFC was back on course to bring in the money, but by late 2000 it was all going wrong.

Then in 2001, casino moguls Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta stepped in and saved the UFC from bankruptcy with a $2m buyout. It was to be a golden investment.

Mainstream success for the UFC came on the back of the TV series ‘The Ultimate Fighter’ and the huge following it created. UFC 52 in 2005 generated more than 300,000 pay-per-view buys, doubling the previous best audience, with UFC 57 climbing to more than 400,000.

In 2006, things exploded. UFC 60 pulled in 620,000, UFC 61 clocked up 775,000, with UFC 66 generating a massive 1 million buys on pay-per-view.

Labeled by Time Magazine as “the fastest growing sports brand in the United States,” in 2007 it was reported by Forbes that the UFC was now worth a staggering $1 billion.

Despite this incredible success story and the huge wealth that accompanied it, in December 2009 UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta testified at a hearing of the US House Judiciary Committee on how piracy on the Internet affects live broadcasting. He claimed that his company is losing millions of dollars to the phenomenon.

“Just last month, the broadcast of UFC 106 from the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada, had over 271 unauthorized streams with over 140,000 views, and those are the ones that our anti-piracy team and consultants identified,” Fertitta reported. “There were likely more streams that we simply couldn’t find.”

Fertitta criticized sites like Justin.tv for carrying the streams, with ESPN Executive Vice President Ed Durso going on to name others involved including UstreamTV, LiveStream, TVU, channelsurfing.net, adthe.net, Sopcast, TVAnts, and myp2p.eu.

While UFC 104 pulled in a very respectable 450,000 buys, at just 350,000 the figures for UFC 106 had proven a disappointment, which is probably why the company singled out that event as a victim of piracy. Fertitta didn’t mention them, but other factors had affected the sales.

Ex-WWE star Brock Lesnar was due to fight at the event and had to pull out with illness and the replacement fight clearly didn’t mean enough for people to hand over around $50 to see it. With UFC 105 having aired free on TV the week before, casual fans had perhaps seen enough fighting for one month.

With a great fight card at UFC 107, however, it was good times revisited with pay-per-view buys rocketing to 620,000. Good product, good sales.

But according to the company, these pay-per-view buys aren’t generating enough money for the UFC. In a new interview, UFC President Dana White has confirmed that his company is readying a legal assault on sites offering unauthorized streams of their content.

For a company of their size, no-one should be surprised at this development. However, the next revelation will have eyebrows raising all over. The UFC will now, RIAA-style, go after individuals who pirate their content online.

“When people start going to jail,” says White, “people will stop doing it.”

After trying the cease and desist route in dealing with illicit content, White, who is famous for not being able to speak a sentence without cursing, says UFC are ready for the next level.

“It’s going to be a battle, man,” he said. “It’s going to be a battle, but I’m ready to (expletive) fight,” he said. “We’re gonna go after them, we’re gonna go after them hard, and we’re gonna hurt em.”

Lawrence Epstein, general legal counsel for the UFC, said the UFC could subpoena sites in order to gain the IP address of people who are illegally downloading and sharing UFC events.

Bizarrely, Dana White acknowledges that suing sites and individuals will cost a hell of a lot of money, more in fact than the UFC claim to lose from piracy.

“(Piracy) hasn’t cost us anything compared to what it’s going to cost us to go after these guys. It’s gonna cost us a lot of money, but guess what – it’s gonna cost them a lot of money. It’s gonna get to the point where it’s like, you know what, (expletive) it, maybe we shouldn’t pirate MMA any more,” he explains.

Interestingly, UFC commentator Joe Rogan, a long-time fan-favorite who is about to become even more popular with many viewers, doesn’t agree with proposed crackdown.

“I think that kind of stifles innovation. It stifles the direction the internet is going. I like things being out there,” he said.

“They’re trying to protect their money,” he concludes, adding, “but the internet is a strange animal.”

Having watched hundreds of hours of Jiu-Jitsu, what Dana White and the Fertitta brothers should realize by now is that for every move, there is a counter move, for every counter there is yet another counter. UFC will soon discover that it’s not possible to knock out, choke out or otherwise submit piracy on the Internet. Their opponents know all the moves – and then some.

But beyond that, forcing everyday UFC fans to tap out in court under a barrage of legal strikes is plain lunacy. This is a fight that cannot be won by force.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.