In addition to events broadcast on regular TV, each month the UFC puts on special PPV cards. These cards attract a lot of attention and are a major money spinner for the martial arts organization. However, there are thousands of fans out there who prefer not to pay to view. For them, torrent sites are the answer.

Until the first few months of this year one of the most prolific releasers of UFC content was an individual known online as Secludedly. However, during April his activities came to an abrupt halt after he was targeted in a $32 million lawsuit filed by UFC parent company, Zuffa.

Secludedly was soon revealed to be Steven A. Messina, a 27-year-old from Staten Island, New York.

“I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the laws and all that around this type of thing, so I’m a little lost here and overwhelmed,” Messina told TorrentFreak at the time. “I don’t even know what is going on. I think people on the Internet know more than me.”

With a default judgment looming TorrentFreak further interviewed Messina who told us that he’d decided to launch a funding campaign to defend himself against Zuffa. He raised a few hundred dollars, nowhere near enough to take on the multi-billion valued company.

Then the inevitable happened. On June 4, 2014, a default judgment was entered against Messina and his fight with the UFC was over. The question now was how badly they’d choose to beat him up financially after the final bell.

All went quiet until early September when Zuffa filed for a permanent injunction to stop Messina pirating UFC content in the future. Behind the scenes the UFC and their arch-enemy had settled their case, with the only public record being the injunction jointly signed by the martial arts organization and Messina.

As can be seen from the excerpt from the injunction below, the UFC are keen to learn from Messina’s operation, and that means collecting all data they can from the New Yorker.

“This Court hereby enters an injunction requiring Defendant, Steven A Messina, to turn over to the plaintiff, Zuffa..[..].. any readily available information, processes, records accounts, bills received for the purchase of any UFC event, user profile names and identifications, domains utilized by Defendant and any user information for any website or computer used by, owned or controlled by Defendant that was used or assisted in the unauthorized access, streaming, copyright, uploading, downloading, distributing or public performance of any UFC event, including, but not limited to, the events that are the subject of the instant litigation,” the injunction reads.

Also of interest to Zuffa is the equipment used by Messina to pirate their content. The injunction cites a 2013 TorrentFreak article in which Messina explained how he captured super-smooth video. All equipment related to that must be surrendered to Zuffa including various pieces of software, scripts and storage devices.

In addition to restraining Messina from future piracy acts, the UFC are also allowed to check up on him to ensure compliance.

“Plaintiff shall be entitled to conduct all discovery permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the period of six (6) months from the date of the filing of this stipulation for the purpose of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the terms of this permanent injunction,” the injunction reads.

There is no mention of a cash settlement and even if there was one it wouldn’t amount to much, certainly not $32 million. However, to act as a deterrent, the UFC has had Messina come out in public to both apologize and warn others away from the perils of piracy.

“I apologize to the UFC for any damages incurred as a result of my actions in illegally distributing copyrighted UFC broadcasts. As a result of my confession for piracy of UFC’s protected content, I fully accept the terms of the settlement with the UFC,” Messina said.

“I now realize the harm caused by my actions. It is my hope that I can use this difficult period as a learning experience as I move on with my life. I would also like to tell anyone pirating UFC broadcasts, either through illegal downloading or non-authorized streaming, that it is illegal and not worth the risk.”

Kirk Hendrick, UFC’s Chief Legal Officer, said the MMA organization was satisfied with the result.

“The UFC organization is pleased with the outcome of this case and Messina’s willingness to assist the UFC’s efforts in protecting our intellectual property and broadcasts. With Messina’s apology and understanding, the UFC organization will learn more to help us continue uncovering illegal distribution of our content.”

But while Messina may have been brought under control, the lawsuit against him has done nothing to stop content appearing online. Following last weekend’s Jacare vs Mousasi card, no less than five separate release groups uploaded the event online.

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

Late last month UFC parent company Zuffa filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York targeting Steven A. Messina from New York, someone they believe to be the combat sports releaser ‘Secludedly’. The news was broken by the New York Post who reported that the 27-year-old lives in his parent’s basement, but on the day of the news they knew an awful lot more than Messina did.

Last to know

“I didn’t know any of this was even happening,” Messina told TorrentFreak in an interview conducted on restricted terms for legal reasons.

“A relative recognized my name in the New York Post and word got to me through phone, and people were wondering if it was me. Now, I’m rarely out of my house, ever. I’m sick. So I am like, ‘How the hell can I be in the Post?’ I decided to look it up, and hello, there I am. Then the Internet started going crazy about it, and everyone is getting all this information that I have no clue how they are getting, most of it totally wrong!”

It took two full days for the UFC to send the papers to Messina after he learned about them in the media but once he read them the seriousness of the situation began to sink in. The claims from the UFC are for just over $32 million but Messina’s estimations vary from $35m to as much as $40m.

“There were no police involved, no criminal actions taken. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the laws and all that around this type of thing, so I’m a little lost here and overwhelmed. I don’t even know what is going on. I think people on the Internet know more than me.”

Five months ago, there were signs

As our discussions progressed it became clear that while last week’s legal sledgehammer from Zuffa came as a surprise, this was not the first time that the company had shown an interest in Messina. Several months ago Messina was informed by PayPal that his account had been frozen after he had accepted donations from people who were helping him buy UFC PPV events. Messina said any surplus was spent on medication.

“PayPal told me that the UFC filed a claim of some sort on my account and limited it, so I could never use it again. I am assuming UFC subpoenaed PayPal or something for my information and then just caved without even defending me or my rights. That was five months ago. Then last week is when I suddenly saw the news, got the letter, etc etc. I never even had an opportunity to tell them I didn’t do whatever it was they claimed I did.”

Poor health

Messina, who says he suffers from a range of psychiatric conditions including agoraphobia, panic, anxiety and bipolar disorders, claims to rarely go outside and spent an entire four-year unbroken stretch in his New York bedroom. Add to that an arthritic spine and a herniated stomach, he hasn’t been able to work for three years. When PayPal froze his account he was cut off from his medication.

“When PayPal closed my account, I was low on money and needed medication that week, and I still had $50 or so in my account, but I wasn’t allowed to use it, making my life that much more difficult.”

Making bank?

Zuffa claim that Messina was making a small fortune from donations, even adding “XYZ Corp” as a defendant (along with a John and Jane Doe) in their lawsuit against Messina.

“I do not know myself what this XYZ Corp or John and Jane Doe is. I think they are assuming ‘Secludedly’ was a group, rather than just a person, but at the same time, ‘Secludedly’ is mentioned as a single person as well. None of it makes sense.”

But was Messina making anything from people donating to his event-viewing fund?

“Most of the time I barely had enough to cover an event’s cost after donations and would use my own money saved for medication and doctors. In total, I’ve probably made no more in a year than $450-$550 in donations. But just that helped me pay for a few months of medical expenses, as well as maybe four or five fight cards. I always ended up paying out of my own pocket though, as I’ve had money from my previous job saved in my checking account.”

Big UFC fan

While Zuffa are portraying Messina as their nemesis, the 27-year-old says he has spent years supporting the company as a dedicated fan.

“It’s always the one you love the most that can hurt you the most. I love the UFC. I love MMA. I want the world to know of it and acknowledge it as a legitimate sport and I want it to be famous. I don’t want myself to be famous. That’s an oxymoron for me, don’t you think? An agoraphobe seeking attention? I want to be left alone and continue living my horrible life with what little I have, and that’s my family and MMA.”

David v Goliath

So where now? Messina, who says he’s worth just about nothing, informs TorrentFreak he has a little under three weeks to respond to the $3.5 billion-valued Zuffa or suffer a default judgment. He’s found a lawyer prepared to take on the case pre-trial and pending settlement but needs $5,000 to get things going, an amount he doesn’t have. To that end Messina has set up a GoFundMe campaign in the hope that those sympathetic to his situation might donate a few dollars. Those who prefer anonymity can make the same gesture via Bitcoin.

“I did not, will not, never did, never will, ever make money off of another’s work, and that’s that,” Messina says. “Also, [to the New York Post] I do not live in a god damn basement. Leave my basement out of this! It’s done nothing to you!”

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

After interviewing Secludedly in April 2013 and subsequently hearing he was in considerable trouble, earlier this year TorrentFreak tried to reach the ripper/uploader through previously-established channels. All attempts failed and now it’s clear why.

UFC parent company Zuffa have caught up with Secludedly in a very big way indeed. In a lawsuit filed at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Secludedly is revealed as Steven A. Messina, a 27-year-old from Staten Island, New York.

The lawsuit, which includes two other doe defendants and an unknown company Zuffa refers to as XYZ Corp (“a business entity, the exact nature of which is unknown”), centers around the unlawful recording (“capping”), uploading and distribution of more than 120 UFC events via two of the world’s biggest torrent sites.

“Defendants have, on over 124 occasions, used the torrent websites known as http://kickass.to and http://thepiratebay.se to upload, distribute and publicly display the Broadcasts to the users of said websites,” the lawsuit reads.

Also receiving a prominent mention from Zuffa is the fact that Secludedly allowed people to donate via a PayPal in order to help with the financing of future ripping and uploading activities.

Secludedly, who TF understood to be just one person, is repeatedly referred to as a group in the lawsuit, such as when it’s claimed that “their” aim was to become “the most well-known pirates and infringers on the internet” who were “content to profit handsomely from user payments and donations to fund their rampant piracy and copyright infringement.”

While it’s no surprise that Zuffa is claiming statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the alleged 124 infringements (a cool $18.6m), the MMA organization is definitely not stopping there. In a second count, Zuffa goes on to claim that Secludedly violated the Federal Communications Act.

“Defendants, wishing to use Plaintiff’s Broadcasts for their own commercial gain, surreptitiously gained access to Plaintiff’s Broadcasts by purchasing the programming through their satellite TV provider, without proper authorization, at residential rates, and subsequently copying the Broadcasts and uploading them to the users of the websites known as http://kickass.to and http://thepiratebay.se,” the lawsuit reads.

For these “willful violations”, Zuffa is claiming up to the maximum of $110,000 for each of the alleged 124 offenses, potentially another $13.64m in damages. In a third count, Zuffa seeks up to $60,000 after Secludedly “willfully and unlawfully accessed, received and subsequently re-transmitted the Broadcasts over a cableTV or internet system.”

Not content with the millions already on offer, Zuffa throw in an additional claim for breach of contact after Secludedly legally purchased PPV events but went on to step over the terms and conditions.

“Upon information and belief, Defendants purchased the Broadcasts through Plaintiff’s
authorized websites or via Pay-Per-View purchase for private, residential viewing…[but then]…willfully and unlawfully copied, uploaded and distributed the Broadcasts..”

Zuffa further alleges a “civil conspiracy” in which “members” of Secludedly supposedly worked together to infringe the company’s rights and went on to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“[Defendants], without authorization or by exceeding such authorization as was granted, accessed a protected computer containing Plaintiff’s live internet streams of the Broadcasts knowingly and with intent to defraud, and unlawfully copied, distributed and publicly displayed said Broadcasts,” the lawsuit reads.

It seems that Zuffa has left no stone unturned in its attempts to make life as difficult as possible for Secludedly. The company is seeking statutory damages of $18.6m for copyright infringement, up to $13.64m plus $60,000 for breaches of the Federal Communications Act, plus sundry damages on the remaining counts.

That all adds up to at least $32.2m and it could get much worse, but there’s not a chance in the world that Zuffa will see that kind of money from a 27-year-old reportedly living with parents. The company will settle for big anti-piracy headlines instead, in the hope of deterring others.

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

Whatever your stance, the UFC and its aggressive approach to copyright enforcement matters to you, because where they tread today, others may tread tomorrow. And it’s a scary path indeed, one that would tick all the boxes of “overly-paranoid file-sharer”, if such a meme existed.

The file-sharing site honeytrap is a much-feared beast, set up to ensnare unsuspecting users in order to subject them to an awful but largely undocumented fate. But while in 2005 the MPAA were believed to have obtained the database of then-famous torrent site LokiTorrent, nothing has been publicly done with that data. Almost certainly, no one has been sued.

Since then dozens of sites have come and gone, many along with whispers that some evil entity or other has secured access to thousands of user’s details. No proof has ever surfaced to show a grain of truth in that notion, but now – not for the first but for the second time – the UFC is claiming to have done just that.

In 2012, the UFC announced that it had obtained the user database of a site called Greenfeedz, along with a promise it would chase down its members for watching unauthorized UFC streams.

While the announcement caused concern at the time, little was known about the outcome. However this week the UFC were back again, categorically stating they were going to sue people who watched unauthorized streams on another site. But how were those people identified? By the UFC obtaining the site’s database, that’s how.

“As part of the on-going initiative against online piracy, Zuffa, LLC, owner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC®) organization, successfully took down and seized the records of www.cagewatcher.eu, a website that illegally streamed two UFC pay-per-view events,” the UFC announced.

“UFC has obtained details of the streaming site’s userbase, including email addresses, IP addresses, user names and information pertaining to individuals who watched pirated UFC events including UFC 169. Also recovered were chat transcripts from the website. Using this data, UFC will work with Lonstein Law Office to prosecute identified infringers.”

If the UFC is to be taken on face value, anyone watching an unauthorized video on YouTube or Vimeo for example, can be subjected to legal action by the UFC. However, rather than go through the messy process of subpoenas and the like, the UFC can turn up at any unauthorized site, threaten the owner, and walk away with the site’s entire database and use it for legal action.

The UFC says it’s carried through with its threats too, stating that Lonstein Law Office has “successfully prosecuted hundreds of claims for the UFC organization for sites illegally streaming content and individual users since 2007.”

In order to find out more, MMA site Bloody Elbow did some digging and found a case dating to just after the UFC made its Greenfeedz announcement. It turns out the UFC did indeed have some success against one individual. However, the case navigated an extremely unusual track.

Probably understanding they were on delicate ground in respect of a regular copyright infringement prosecution, the UFC took action under Title 47 of the United States Code, Section 553, which prohibits people from intercepting or receiving “any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so.” Basically the UFC claimed that the individual had received a PPV signal without paying for it.

Since the defendant didn’t show, the court noted this was an admission of guilt, even though it was established that “there is no evidence that defendant obtained any financial gain from his illegal receipt of the copyrighted broadcasts since he viewed them on his home computer.”

Case won by the UFC via default judgment, with the target landed with a bill for $11,948.70.

How the UFC is intimidating others into settling isn’t clear, but it seems very likely that this judgment will be waved in front of users from sites where the databases have been obtained, with the threat that they will suffer the same fate unless they pay a few thousand dollars.

And this is why the UFC’s actions are important to everyone.

If big companies like Zuffa can intimidate site owners into ratting out their users, those users can be bullied into paying settlements. Remember, there is no official discovery process here, no friendly ISP to contest the handing over of their subscribers’ details. Just an aggressive copyright holder bullying victims over the simple viewing – not distribution – of a video stream.

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

As the leading mixed martial arts promotion in the world the UFC is hugely protective of its content. In recent times it has spent considerable sums lobbying in an attempt to have U.S. copyright law changed in its favor. Owned by Zuffa, the UFC would like to see streaming turned into a felony, with the aim of protecting their lucrative PPV events.

But while the instant money comes from their live shows, the UFC also makes money from selling post event DVDs and in order to protect that market the company hires several anti-piracy outfits to take content down.

The most visible of these actions are the DMCA notices Zuffa has outside companies send to Google. According to the search engine’s Transparency Report, Zuffa has used three companies to have more than 535,000 infringing links removed from Google’s indexes. Most of the time these are pretty standard fare, as the notice below illustrates.

While the above is an example of a highly targeted takedown (very specific URLs containing torrents to the actual infringing content) there is a growing trend at anti-piracy companies to employ a carpet-bombing mentality, rather sending in the required precision strike.

The terrible results of this broad brush approach can be seen in this very embarrassing notice sent by Zuffa / IP Arrow to Google on August 14. As can be seen from the screenshot, Zuffa is claiming that some pretty awful content is their property, and (worst still) the original copies can be found at UFC.com, which they obviously can’t.

So how is this needless embarrassment being caused? No prizes if you guessed “automated crawlers.”

Instead of pinpointing specific pages carrying UFC torrents for example, the crawlers will target any other pages (even those created dynamically by search engines) that link to them, meaning that the generated DMCA notices deindex hundreds of other items that have nothing to do with the specific rightsholder. This, while often leaving the actual torrent page intact.

For example, this DMCA notice sent by Zuffa targets many URLs which initially appear to have nothing to do with UFC content. We’ve highlighted just one as an example.

On closer inspection the X Factor page has a section at the bottom titled “related torrents”. Sure enough, links to other pages that carry UFC content are listed. Instead of taking those down though, Zuffa’s anti-piracy company shot the messenger instead.

This carpet-bombing approach to takedowns is no doubt causing legitimate content to be censored too, so one might hope that embarrassing content in public DMCA takedowns will be enough for these companies to be a little more accurate in their work.

Anti-piracy companies working in this field have a difficult job, no one is doubting that. But wiping the freeway off the map when a mere side road has caused offense is hardly an acceptable strategy.

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

Certain acts of copyright infringement are criminal offenses, which opens up the possibility of jail time on top of already sizable fines, with the tax payer helping with the bill.

Current US law provides felony penalties for willful copyright infringement which apply to individuals who reproduce or distribute copyright works. However, companies distributing movies, TV shows and sports events say there is a loophole which allows streaming services to avoid the toughest of penalties.

The problem is that it remains unclear whether Internet streaming is considered distribution under current law and therefore any prosecution as a felony could prove problematic.

According to the MPAA, the lack of clarity means that prosecutors don’t want to pursue cases against streaming services so are instead using their limited resources to prosecute cases with a more certain outcome.

Since streaming video is currently only classed as a misdemeanor, outfits such as the MPAA and mixed martial arts company UFC desperately want to up the ante with a greater deterrent effect. Their efforts during 2011 and 2012 were concentrated on the streaming provisions in the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), but both collapsed under a wave of opposition.

During March this year there were fresh calls to update the law but according to UFC lawyer Lawrence Epstein, it’s proving a tough job.

“I think we’ve got a lot of work to do,” Epstein told MMAjunkie.

“There is a general sort of bias that has anything to do with intellectual property because of the fallout from [the Stop Online Piracy Act] and [Protect IP Act].”

According to OpenSecrets, the UFC spent $620,000 on lobbying in 2012, much of it aimed at toughening up the law, changes that could have consequences far beyond the UFC. With $110,00 spent in the first quarter of 2013 the organization is keeping up the pressure, with Epstein confirming that he will be meeting with U.S. lawmakers this week to speak on the issue.

“The only way this is really going to slow down is if, frankly, there is criminal prosecution,” he said. “This needs to be a felony, and you need to prosecute these people.”

That kind of development would be welcomed not only by the UFC, but organizations such as the MPAA, the RIAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO), all former supporters of the Commercial Felony Streaming Act.

If the six-strikes scheme really starts to bite in the U.S., streaming services will only gain in popularity, so deterring their operators now will be a useful tool.

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

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.

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

The target in the lawsuit is Without Limits MMA, a gym in Batesville, AR along with its owner Matt Sellers.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the complaint claims that Without Limits offered the UFC 126 “Silva v Belfort” event without the correct permission.

For “willful” infringement of its rights, UFC is claiming the maximum possible damages of $320,000.

If the event had been obtained legally, it would have cost Without Limits between $500-$1500, hundreds of times less than the damages being claimed by UFC.

Despite the efforts by the UFC to stamp out piracy of its events, both in commercial and private settings, the Zuffa-owned company is fighting a losing battle.

This past weekend TorrentFreak monitored the availability of free illicit streams for the UFC 132: Cruz vs. Faber event broadcast from the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Although Zuffa did take a few down during the evening, a couple of dozen remained up throughout the event.

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

UFC parent company Zuffa then subpoenaed two hugely popular streaming video sites, Justin.tv and Ustream.tv, to force them to hand over the identities of users who uploaded two UFC events earlier this year.

Continuing with its never-ending battle against piracy, this week another site felt the presence of UFC’s legal team, but saw it employing a slightly different strategy than it has used in the past.

Wrestle-Zone.net, which celebrated 3 years online on 21st October, is an indexing site which links to streams of UFC events and other MMA / wrestling related download links. Not to mention plenty of soccer.

On August 7th, UFC lawyers contacted Domains By Proxy, the shielding service used by the 25,000 member Wrestle Zone, demanding that they hand over the site owner’s details so that they could sue him.

“But to their disappointment me being a Pakistani made them cry,” Wrestle Zone admin EvilGenius told TorrentFreak. “I was given 5 days to comply but nothing happened.”

But the world’s biggest MMA outfit weren’t through. This week, UFC lawyers contacted NetDirekt, the German ISP of Wrestle Zone.

“Please see the attached letter that provides notice of copyright and trademark infringement at domain name http://www.wrestle-zone.net/,” NetDirekt told Wrestle Zone in an email.

“We request your assistance in protecting Zuffa, Inc and Ultimate Fighting Championship’s intellectual property rights by removing the protected content from your website and to cease and desist from ever streaming Zuffa’s pay-per-view events again.”

TorrentFreak has obtained a copy of the two page complaint (below the article).

EvilGenius responded by explaining that his site is only an indexing site, but NetDirekt weren’t sympathetic. They told him that “linking is illegal in Germany” and promptly null-routed the site. Eventually NetDirekt allowed Wrestle-Zone to put up a temporary page.

“We have been forced to pack our bags and depart from our current host. UFC launched some complaints and host took me down,” said the notice.

“Message to who it concerns – You think i’m scared?”

EvilGenius told us yesterday that he’d already paid for new servers in Sweden and would be back shortly. Indeed, the site is now back up and fully operational. Time will tell if UFC pursue the site’s new host.

This latest action comes after it was revealed last month that the UFC were pursuing a British man who ran the sites Livevss.tv and Livevss.net which carried a stream of September’s UFC 119 event. UFC also sought an injunction to stop him streaming UFC 120 last month.

UFC claimed that by having advertising on the site, owner Daniel Wallace was making money from the illicit streams and on this basis demanded $150,000 per infringement, the same amount being claimed from Wrestle-Zone.

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

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.