UFC Puts a Choke Hold on Justin.tv

Consider the content spectrum on the Internet. On one side, you have purely original content, generated by the webmaster or by those who work for him/her. On the other, you have user-generated content. With this model, the Web site is really just a forum in which users can post their own content for the enjoyment of other users. Most Web sites fall somewhere between the two extremes. Justin.tv, a site that allows users to stream video over the Web, slants more toward the user-generated model than the other. That’s what has caused the UFC to take notice.

The UFC  is the Ultimate Fighting Championship. The organization has been around for a couple of decades and is one of the premiere mixed martial arts companies in the world. One of the ways the UFC generates revenue is through pay-per-view sales. From championship bouts to grudge matches between old enemies (or even good friends), the UFC banks on customers purchasing the pay-per-view to bring in the cash.

UFC’s beef with Justin.tv is that some users will stream the pay-per-view on their channels, undercutting UFC’s pay-per-view sales. According to a recent press release from UFC’s parent company Zuffa, during the recent UFC 121 event more than 200 illegal streams of the fight had to be shut down on Justin.tv. Zuffa attorney David Campbell said that the company has tried to work with Justin.tv in the past to eliminate the illegal broadcasting but met with little cooperation. Zuffa has filed a lawsuit against Justin.tv, saying the site has infringed upon its copyrights and trademarks.

If this sounds familiar, it might be because other sites that depend upon user-generated content have had legal battles with major content creators. YouTube faced up to $1 billion in damages when Viacom accused the company of violating Viacom material under copyright. YouTube and its parent company Google dodged a bullet in that case because the judge found that YouTube responded to notifications of copyright violation by removing the material quickly from the site. If the people at YouTube hadn’t responded to the charges and left the videos up, the story would likely be different.

If Campbell’s claims are true and Justin.tv has failed to respond to requests regarding copyright infringement, the streaming video site may face some stiff penalties. If, on the other hand, Justin.tv can prove that it responded as best it could to Zuffa’s requests it can point to the YouTube/Viacom case as a precedent. Either way, the outcome will add more complexity to the relationship between a Web site owner and its content. Could you be held responsible for content someone else made available on your site? We’ll have to wait and see.

Remember to follow TechStuff on Twitter and Facebook!

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.