Righthaven's Biggest Fan Copies Content As Part Of His Argument Against Copying Content

Copyright

from the is-this-guy-clueless? dept

Last year, we wrote about how Sherman Frederick, the former publisher (since demoted to columnist) of the Las Vegas Review Journal was caught posting an infringing video on his blog. This was particularly funny, because Frederick was the key supporter of the LVRJ’s “deal” with Righthaven, and regularly mocked-by-bad-analogy anyone who disagreed with him.

A few folks had sent in Frederick’s latest column — which, of course, we won’t link to, since he’s made it clear he doesn’t want any traffic — in which he once again defends Righthaven, despite the fact that a court basically killed off most Righthaven lawsuits due to its sham copyright transfer from LVRJ parent Stephens Media. Frederick’s post is barely comprehensible, calling those who disagree with him “the unthinking blogger” and claiming that people who disagree with him “mischaracterize reality.” He also seems to ignore the fact that Righthaven lost massively, and claims instead that “they’re here to stay and they intend to win the battles they’ve started.” I hope I haven’t overstepped the legal boundaries of Frederick’s bizarre definition of “content theft” with those quotes.

In the same article, Frederick, hilariously, suggests that everyone should have to pay to link to one of his articles. He references a decision by Radley Balko a few months ago to remove a post that linked to an LVRJ article once someone pointed out LVRJ’s Righthaven association, and rather than realize how this makes Frederick and LVRJ look clueless, he claims that Balko did the right thing, and that every blogger can decide if such linking is “worth the price.”

But what makes all of this extra funny is that the meat of Frederick’s post is all copied content from another blog which is not properly attributed at all. Seriously. ken points us to his own analysis of Frederick’s hypocrisy:

Frederick’s article contains content from three paragraphs of posts from the blog GametimeIP.com. Frederick fails to even use basic netiquette for citing other sources. The parts taken are not attributed to the author except for a link and not even set in quotation marks which could leave the reader to assume those are Frederick’s words and not those of GametimeIP.

It’s hilarious. Yes, Frederick links to the articles, but frankly I had no idea he was actually quoting them. From the way he wrote it, it very much looks like they’re Frederick’s words, defending Righthaven. So, here we have Sherman Frederick, in an article decrying “copying” of content, in which he blatantly copies someone else’s content, and even worse, does not properly credit it, or quote it. I also do wonder, if he “paid the price” to GametimeIP for his use of their content. After all, it’s the proper way to do things, right?

Filed Under: business models, copyright, journalism, lawsuits, sherman frederick, strategy
Companies: las vegas review-journal, righthaven, stephens media

Why Chris Dodd Is Doing Everything Wrong With The MPAA

Movie Industry

from the you're-not-helping dept

We’ve certainly suggested that Chris Dodd was making a big mistake by focusing on the MPAA’s old talking points in his new role as chief of that lobbying organization. Rather than leading Hollywood to a future of new business models and smarter embrace of what consumers want, he’s kicked things off by being anti-consumer, anti-technology and a supporter of previous policies that have failed massively. It’s not exactly a recipe for success. Marty Kaplan, a professor at USC, is pointing all this out in a wonderful opinion piece, explaining to Chris Dodd why he’s focused on the wrong things. He uses the recent SSRC Report to explain why Dodd is barking up the wrong tree in claiming that the two things to focus on are “education” and “enforcement,” a two-pronged strategy that has failed to do anything useful for the industry for over a decade:

The problem with this is that there’s no evidence that education works. There have been hundreds of vigorous anti-piracy educational campaigns all over the world — more than 333 in developed countries alone as of 2009 — and they’ve failed. It’s not that consumers don’t get that media piracy is wrong. They know what they’re doing. They’re weighing moral considerations against price and availability, and they’re deciding to go with cheap (or free), and now.

[…] Not only is there no evidence that education has been building a stronger “culture of intellectual property.” There’s also little evidence that enforcement works. Splashy raids haven’t reduced piracy. Two weeks ago the judge in a lawsuit by 13 record companies against LimeWire called their demand for $75 trillion in damages “absurd,” and the infringement judgments that have actually been handed down also haven’t stemmed the tide of illicit file sharing. In the SSRC report’s words, “Strengthening police powers, streamlining judicial procedures, increasing criminal penalties, and extending surveillance and punitive measures to the Internet”: to date, none of them “have had any impact whatsoever on the overall supply of pirated goods.”

Of course, we’ve pointed this all out as well, and the response has been for people to yell about how we’re “defending piracy.” Yeah, or trying to prevent Hollywood from continuing down a strategy that has been proven not to work. Instead, we agree with Kaplan that this is a business model issue, and if Dodd were a real leader, he’d actually help move Hollywood into new territory of embracing new business models and new technology:

Sooner or later — and judging by Chairman Dodd’s speech, it’ll be later — the industry will have to move from moralism to pragmatism. Their business model has been digitally disrupted, irrevocably, and they are already vulnerable to the kind of game-changing innovation, and carnage, that Apple’s iTunes visited on the music industry. If the studios are lucky, before a Netflix or a Facebook does that to them they’ll figure out that neither education nor enforcement will rescue them from creative destruction. Pivoting from Moses to merchant will be an awkward adjustment, but they will eventually be forced to conclude that their other options just aren’t working. It won’t matter that they have righteousness on their side. If they have to spend less on producing and distributing content, distraught fans won’t repent of their downloading ways. If jobs are jeopardized, it will be just as wrenching, and just as stoppable, as the transformation that globalization and rising productivity are wreaking on the rest of the economy.

What will the new business model look like? It’s hard to imagine that the sequenced distribution of product over a controllable period of time through an orderly series of “windows” — venues and platforms and formats and pipes and territories, each with their own license deals and consumer prices — will survive unbroken. In that future, a practical agenda for handling piracy is suggested by this 2009 comment from Robert Bauer, then director of special projects for the MPAA, as quoted in the SSRC report: “to isolate the forms of piracy that compete with legitimate sales, treat those as a proxy for unmet consumer demand, and then find a way to meet that demand.”

Wow. Suggesting smarter business models that involve actually delivering customers what they want? Why that’s just someone who is a piracy apologist, I guess…

Filed Under: chris dodd, movie industry, strategy
Companies: mpaa

What Have We Learned: Greater IP Enforcement Doesn't Work… Yet That's What Governments Want To Give

Studies

from the hammers-and-nails dept

It’s been an interesting few weeks on the research side of things, and it seemed like a recap was in order. Kicking it off, we had two separate research reports from two highly regarded organizations, both of which came to the same basic conclusions concerning strategies for dealing with copyright infringement online. First was the, rather epic, research report from the Social Science Research Council, which concluded that greater enforcement wouldn’t work and wouldn’t stop infringement in various countries around the world. Instead, it argued that the solution was better business models by the entertainment industry. Just a few days later, some research from the London School of Economics concluded basically the same thing, specifically in looking at the Digital Economy Act in the UK. It came up with three basic conclusions: the decrease in sales is due to many factors; providing legal, innovative and consumer friendly services is a much better strategy than enforcement; and focusing on enforcement that suppresses new technologies will not do much good. And, then, finally, late last week, we came across a study that also highlighted that the supposed “damage” done by file sharing appears to be exaggerated.

So… what does this tell us? It seems to support what many people have been saying for over a decade. Fighting what technology allows and what consumers want is not an effective strategy. File sharing, if combined with smarter business models, can allow music to flourish just fine, and (most importantly) focusing on greater enforcement strategies won’t solve any of the industry’s problems, but could actually harm new businesses and new opportunities.

So, given all of that… shouldn’t we be rather alarmed that the key strategic effort by the entertainment industry these days, which is now the official policy of the White House is to focus almost entirely on “greater enforcement”? Of course, part of the problem is that the last time we ramped up our IP laws, with the ProIP Act (driven by the entertainment industry, of course), part of the law was to create an “IP Enforcement Coordinator.” Note how short-sighted this is. It wasn’t about creating an “IP Effective Coordinator.” It wasn’t about creating a role to determine the best or most appropriate levels of IP. It wasn’t even to help content creators understand the economics of the markets they dealt with or to suggest new and innovative business models.

The role was to focus solely on enforcement.

Yet now, as we learn that focusing on enforcement is a mistake, rather than backing off, it seems like those who created the role are simply doubling down. It’s as if they don’t realize how much harm they’re doing to their own markets. It’s really quite unfortunate. These are industries that should be thriving right now. After all, the expenses involved in almost everything they do has gone down. It’s become cheaper to create professional content. It’s become cheaper to package professional content. It’s become cheaper to distribute professional content. It’s become cheaper to promote professional content. It’s even become cheaper to sell the content and ancillary products around the content. Every aspect of the business has become cheaper, and a much more massive audience has been opened up to these content creators. And rather than embrace it, they’ve whined and complained… and the US government’s response is to support them in this? What a shame.

If the current content industries have been unable to take advantage of an amazing new world of content creation, promotion and distribution, it’s their own fault. Having governments get in the game of cracking down on new and innovative technologies, just to protect a few legacy companies too slow and too confused to adapt is not a solution. It’s the same story all over again. The political system is focused on bailing out the companies who failed to change with the market. We’ve seen it time and time again in other industries, and it always comes back to haunt us. We shouldn’t be bailing out the movie industry and the recording industry right now. Both have had plenty of opportunities to embrace new business models. Plenty of content creators outside of the traditional system have done so, successfully. Governments around the world should stop focusing on protecting these players who are too resistant to change.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, enforcement, ip, strategy

Stop Thinking That Tech & Content Are Fighting Each Other

Say That Again

from the forward-thinking dept

The following is a guest post from Martin Thornkvist, who both runs a Swedish indie record label, and works for Media Evolution — an organization designed to help its various members learn about and embrace new media innovation opportunities. This is cross-posted from his blog at Media Evolution, and raises a really good point. Too often people talk about technology and content as if the two are at war with each other, rather than recognizing how it’s a complementary relationship.

The first quarter 2011 Apple made a profit of $26.74 billion $6 billion. An impressive 17% of that is from their latest product, the iPad. Having followed Apple’s reports for some years it struck me just how unimportant content distribution is for them. In economic terms at least. 

The iTunes store counts for only 5% of Apple’s overall profit. In light of that fact, I have a hard time understanding why they are upsetting content providers by increasing the areas where they take a cut of the revenue.

It’s obvious that Apple, and other tech companies, are using content to sell hardware. And damn, they are good at making us buy new products each and every year.

Hook and bait

It’s obvious that the main objective of dealing with content for Apple, and tech companies in general, is to boost hardware sales. These days you can’t hear a mobile executive talk without mentioning the importance of building an ecosystem for content to sell handsets.

The fisherman needs both a hook and bait to catch a fish. The fish is too smart to go for a hook without bait, like customers with tech products. And the bait without a hook is a fiesta for the fish rather than the fisherman, kind of like being a fish in a bay of pirates.

When looking at the media landscape we can see that everybody wants to be the hook. The hooks are owning the customer and the ecosystem in which they interact. That means they can control price, pace of releases and the right to set the rules of the game. 

The media industries were used to being the hooks. That changed many years ago. Now, it’s just about creating those alternative hooks of income streams yourself.

To many the question of being a hook or a bait is emotional. Everybody sees their work as the center of the media landscape and wants the rest to obey to their wills.

Stop making life hard for each other

Even though content distribution represents a small percentage of Apple’s overall profit, they are making life hard for content producers by changing the rules of the game. Most recently they announced that for publishing companies to sell their subscriptions inside applications, they will take a 30% cut. It’s still uncertain whether that counts for music apps like Spotify as well.

The content side is making it equally hard for tech companies that want to develop new media platforms. Music labels, film studios and book publishers can arguably be said to make it a nightmare to license their products. This is instead of acknowledging developers and engineers to be their best buddies to create new ways of providing content to customers, and eventually help them make money they badly need.

Interdependent relationship

We need to understand that technology is nothing without content and content would be nothing without technology. Technology and content for sure has an interdependent relationship.

For a long time the content producers had the upper hand. Right now the technology providers act like they have it. But in the long run they both need to cooperate to keep prospering.

Filed Under: complements, content, strategy, tech
Companies: apple

US Gov't Strategy To Prevent Leaks Is Leaked

Overhype

from the not-quite-getting-it-yet dept

There’s something rather ironic that the US government’s document on how to get various US government agencies to prevent future leaks (a la Wikileaks) was quickly leaked to the press. But, it’s not really that surprising, is it?

Of course, the main thrust of the document isn’t to question whether or not so much secrecy is really necessary, but to send out a memo to various government agencies suggesting they use psychiatrists and sociologists to sniff out workers who might be disgruntled (full memo embedded below). Among a variety of (pretty unsurprising) suggestions for keeping confidential information confidential, the checklist of things that organizations are supposed to do includes:

I didn’t realize that you needed to use such professional help to figure out if you had a disgruntled worker on your hands. Isn’t it the role of managers themselves to have a sense as to whether or not their employees are disgruntled? Though, I’m somewhat amused by the idea that the US government thinks that a psychiatrist or sociologist can accurately pick out who’s likely to leak documents.

Not that it’s a bad thing to try to figure out if there are disgruntled workers or to make sure secure systems really are secure. I’m all for that. I just think it’s a bit naive to think any of this will actually prevent future leaks. You just need one person to get the info out, and there’s always someone and always a way to do so — as demonstrated by the fact that this document itself “leaked” so quickly. It seems a better situation would be to focus on making sure that any damage from such leaks is minimal.

Filed Under: disgruntled workers, leaks, strategy, us government

There's Always A Way To Compete: Competing With Google By Being Human

Business Models

from the you-can-compete dept

All too often, we hear people complain that it’s “impossible” to compete in some manner. “You can’t compete with free.” “Big companies will steal your ideas and you can’t compete with big companies.” And yet, time and time again, we’ve seen that this isn’t actually true. Every company has its weaknesses, and there are always ways to compete. This doesn’t mean, of course, that every competitor will succeed. It doesn’t mean that competition is easy. But there are always ways to compete, no matter how many advantages you believe another player has.

We’ve talked in the past, for example, how Google’s closed nature could be its Achilles heel. But another area in which Google has a clear weakness, as we’ve documented over and over and over and over again, is that it’s horrible at customer service. From the outside, to the average user, Google often appears as a big white monolith, with little hope of getting a human response to issues. This is not universally true, of course. I’ve seen many Google employees personally reach out and respond to problems, but it often feels sort of ad hoc, and the number of stories of problems falling through the cracks is certainly noticeable.

So it doesn’t surprise me that others are beginning to recognize this as well. JJ sent over a blog post by Jesse Noller, picking up on this point and suggesting that the way to compete with Google is by being more human, friendly and personable. That is, building up brand loyalty by actually being nice, rather than technically efficient but cold (as Google often appears). It’s a good read for anyone in a space where they may end up competing with Google (actually, it’s a good read for anyone who thinks that there’s any company that is competition proof). Here’s just a snippet, but I recommend reading the whole thing:

You can only do these things — building a brand — and building a “cult” by doing the things Google — given its robotic failings — cannot do. Love your users, infect them with your passion — not just your technical prowess or ability to scale or release new web codecs, or give them the right search results, or giving away source — infect them with your passion for what you do. Support them, respond to them — even if you’re giving it away for free — after all, nothing is free.

Passion, compassion — connecting with other humans, people are always looking for a place that accepts them and makes them feel welcome. They want to get real support instead of emails that get sent to unknown voids and are never answered. Making things warm, inviting both in language and in the feel.

Of course, there was a time that Google created such passion, but mainly from the quality of its products, not from its human touch. But that’s the point. Every company has its weaknesses, and no company is competition proof.

Filed Under: competition, strategy
Companies: google

LVRJ Defends Righthaven Suits; Mocks Competitor For Highlighting Problems With Them

Copyright

from the how-about-acting-smarter? dept

With the Las Vegas Review Journal continuing to massively abuse copyright law with its Righthaven lawsuits, the absolute best source for covering the story has been the competing Las Vegas Sun — leading some to claim that its coverage was to spite its local competitor. However, the Sun put together a good editorial explaining why the story is so newsworthy. Now, Sherman Frederick, the publisher of the LVRJ has hit back with an editorial slamming the Sun and insisting that the Righthaven strategy is the right one.

I’d link to the story, but since the LVRJ has made it clear it doesn’t like links, I figured it’s best not to do so.

Also, I would normally quote Frederick’s article to debunk it — a clear case of fair use — but since the LVRJ has made it clear it doesn’t want anyone quoting its articles (despite the fact it still has 19 separate “share” buttons on each article), I won’t bother. Instead, I’ll just make some general statements about Frederick’s column.

First, Frederick suggests that there are only two options for dealing with people copying your words online: you sue or you go out of business. He predicts that the competing paper, The Sun, is going to go out of business because it’s not suing others. I will note, of course, that he doesn’t point out the slight conflict of interest in the fact that he helped fund Righthaven, and thus has incentives to try to get other newspapers to make the same mistake he’s making. But, of course, there are plenty of other options, such as putting in place a smarter business model. The idea that the cat blogger in Boston is taking any revenue away from the LVRJ is beyond laughable. No one reads the story on the cat blog post and says “gee, now I don’t have to go to the LVRJ ever again.”

Frederick also claims that getting others to link to you and to promote your site doesn’t help you at all (which is partly why we’re not). However, this suggests he’s unfamiliar with the concept of “Google,” and the fact that it ranks your site’s relevance, in part, to how many others link to you and who those others are. But, his bigger problem is that he thinks people are saying that if you let others link to you the money will just roll in. But no one’s saying that. They’re saying that links in combination with a smarter business model help raise your profile and create lots of opportunities to make more money. Unfortunately, it looks like Frederick is taking the lazy short cut, which is pissing off all sorts of people, and serious hurting his brand.

While he claims that since the lawsuits began they haven’t seen any loss of traffic to their website, that’s a meaningless stat at this point. First off, it’s still quite early. Second, the idea isn’t just that the lawsuits directly would lead to a loss of traffic, but the inevitable chain of events following such lawsuits. It’s as if Frederick can only think a single step ahead. He must be a hell of a chess player.

From there, he claims that even if he was losing revenue from these lawsuits it would be worth it, because protecting the writing is more important than revenue. Really. That’s a paraphrase rather than an exact quote, because I don’t want Righthaven to sue me, but it’s basically what he says. The reason for that? He insists that it’s the writing in the newspaper that is the key value. That’s only partially true of course and sort of besides the point. These sites that he’s suing are not competing with the LVRJ, so pretending that a random site posting a single story somewhere (with credit and a link back) is somehow damaging the LVRJ is simply wrong.

But, more importantly, he’s overvaluing the content and undervaluing the community. He’s never been in the business of selling content. He’s always been in the business of selling the attention of his readers to advertisers. Forgetting that would be a big mistake. He claims that it’s the quality and (artificial) scarcity of the content that drives readership, and that’s partially true, but it only goes part of the way to explaining the business. It suggests that he’s done little, if anything, to make that content more valuable and useful for that community. In fact, he’s doing the opposite, by suing those who try to do something with the content. In the long run, that seems quite likely to backfire.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, journalism, lawsuits, sherman frederick, strategy
Companies: las vegas review-journal, righthaven, stephens media

Hulu CEO So Careful Not To Upset Cable Companies, He Might Just Destroy His Own Business

Business Models

from the nice-work! dept

A year and a half ago we questioned whether or not Hulu could really survive, given the rock and a hard place situation it had put itself in by being owned by the content rights holders, who wanted to limit what Hulu could do in competing against the rest of the online world. This limitation by its owners was quite obvious in the recently released subscription package that felt wanting.

Now, Hulu’s CEO, Jason Kilar — who, it should be noted, has always appeared to fight for consumer interests against the demands of Hulu’s owners — has come out and said, quite clearly, that Hulu is not trying to “kill” cable. In other words, he’s signaling to the world quite blatantly: Hulu is unable to do the one thing it needs to do to be a successful business.

If Hulu were a truly independent business, the main focus of that business would be to flat-out disrupt the monopoly cable TV business. That’s a huge opportunity. But, of course, Hulu’s owners don’t want that, because they’re in this neat symbiotic relationship with the cable companies, where those cable companies keep paying more and more money to the TV companies just to carry their shows. So they don’t want to upset that business model — even if it’s incredibly anti-consumer. So, because of that, Hulu can’t do the one thing it needs to do. It’s telling, by the way, that the only people in our comments, who thought that Hulu’s subscription offering was a good deal, were those who had or were planning to ditch cable. And here comes Hulu admitting that it’s not designed to help those people. Yikes.

Filed Under: cable, internet, jason kilar, strategy, tv
Companies: hulu

Warner Music Shoots Self In Head; Says No More Free Streaming

Failures

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

A few years back, it seemed like Warner Music actually had a better handle on where the music industry was heading than its 3 major label rivals. In the last two years, however, it seems like WMG has consistently gone further and further in the opposite direction. It may have hit a new low today with the announcement that it will pull out of all free streaming music licensing offers. Yes, Warner Music just told the one thing that was effectively competing with unauthorized downloads to shove off. Brilliant.

“Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.

“The ‘get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to a premium price’ strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.”

And thus, WMG will go out of business that much more quickly. That is the model that the market is moving to, and Bronfman and WMG appear to have decided to ignore what the market wants, to cover their eyes, stick fingers in their ears and go down with a ship that could easily be righted. Incredible.

Now, Warner may be a bit gun-shy after its investment in iMeem (a free online music streaming service) became a total disaster, but what Warner doesn’t seem to realize is that a big part of why it failed was the ridiculous demands Warner put on iMeem in terms of how much it demanded in payment per stream. The problem is that WMG has totally unrealistic expectations of how much money should be paid per stream, and that’s because the company’s top execs still don’t seem to handle basic economic modeling particularly well. And thus, the company will fail.

You don’t compete with “free” by taking your ball and going home. You don’t compete with “free” by pretending that old artificial scarcities are coming back after the wall has been broken down. You don’t compete with “free” by suing customers. You don’t compete with “free” by shunning those who have business models that work. You compete with free by offering a better product and a better business model. WMG is choosing to go in the other direction. Best of luck to them…

Filed Under: business models, edgar bronfman jr., free, licensing, music, strategy, streaming music
Companies: imeem, last.fm, spotify, warner music group, we7

UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

Say That Again

from the someone-want-to-give-them-a-recap-how-that-worked-for-the-RIAA dept

There’s something that just drives some executives nuts about the idea that someone might access their content “without paying” directly for it. We saw this last year when music industry execs kept saying they had to stop going to war against consumers, but immediately followed that up by saying that none of that mattered if they couldn’t stomp out “piracy.” It’s as if the second any sort of unauthorized use occurs, the entire “cost-benefit” analysis goes out the window. If it’s costing you more to try to stop unauthorized access, and it’s not working, and there are ways to embrace it that makes you more money, the solution should be simple: you stop worrying and start embracing.

Apparently that message hasn’t gotten through to the folks who own Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Perhaps it’s not too surprising that such a group’s only reaction is to fight, but when they even admit that fighting unauthorized access will cost more than any “losses,” you have to wonder how any executive at the company keeps his job. That’s a recipe for getting fired: “Hey, I’m going to undertake an action that will cost us more than not taking this action — oh, and it’s likely to piss off a bunch of our biggest fans as well.”

This isn’t a huge shock. Last month, a UFC exec was at that Judiciary Committee hearing about unauthorized access to live streaming sporting events, and played the role of the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists claiming “them stealers are destroying our business.” Given that, it’s no surprise that UFC is gearing up to go after both sites like Justin.tv and the individuals themselves. Apparently, UFC’s fight-first, think-later execs haven’t noticed how badly similar plans have backfired. Most of the streaming websites have pretty strong DMCA safe harbor protections, and suing users hasn’t worked out particularly well for the RIAA. Furthermore, pissing off your fans? Yeah, not such a hot move.

Meanwhile, the Torrentfreak article above does a really nice job breaking down just how many people willingly pay huge sums to watch UFC events on Pay-Per-View, and how that number keeps on growing. There was apparently a dip in a recent fight, but TF notes that it probably had more to do with one of the headlining fighters having to back out. What does become clear is that UFC has no problem convincing huge numbers of people to pay up huge amounts to watch its events. Pissing off a lot of fans with ridiculous lawsuits doesn’t make anyone more likely to buy.

Hell, even Joe Rogan, the comedian (and notorious hater of “joke stealers”) who also acts as commentator for UFC seems to think this is a bad idea, saying: “I think that kind of stifles innovation. It stifles the direction the internet is going. I like things being out there. I think people are always going to buy UFC pay-per-views. You’re going to get a much better experience watching it on your television than all stretched out looking fuzzy and pixilated. They’re trying to protect their money, but the internet is a strange animal.”

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, sporting events, strategy, streaming, ufc
Companies: ufc