One of the downsides of running the UFC’s current PPV model in the digital era is that fraud continues to be rampant. People pirating streams of the show for broadcast online without the consent or payment to the UFC has cut into the UFC’s business model. While the sport is growing, and the deal with Fox has signified a potential new era for MMA in general, 2011 was a significantly worse year for the UFC when it comes to pay per view buys. With the UFC not being the only content provider having problems with having content in essence stole from them and posted online, as Hollywood and the music industry have been hit hard by the problem as well, it’s not all that surprising that they would get behind two Congressional bills that triggered a massive response online last week: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act.
Referred to in shorthand as SOPA and PIPA, both bills were pushed hard and experienced significant blowback for the UFC as well as the Motion Picture Academy of America and the Recording Industry Association of America (the trade organizations that represent the motion picture and music industries respectively). It’s easy to see why Zuffa would back a bill like this; they’re losing money from people pirating streams and watching their product on pay per view without actually paying for it. In any other world that’s stealing but online there’s been a fairly substantial debate about it. I’ve written about this before for a film column I wrote so this isn’t new territory; I can respect Zuffa for taking an unpopular stance if only because they’re losing out on revenue.
They want people to watch their product en masse legally, either at a bar offering it or by watching it after paying for the PPV itself either directly or collaboratively. Dana White mentions everyone chipping in to order a big boxing fight in a similar context of people paying for a big UFC card. When people do things like torrent it online they are breaking the law and costing Zuffa cash that otherwise could go to the fighters, et al, and their point is an easy one to make. It’s their product and pirating a pay per view is theft any way you look at it. So of course they ought to stand behind something that allows the government to go after people thieving content en masse, if only because their source of revenue is dependent on it.
Zuffa has to support bills like this because if they don’t it’s almost a tacit approval for content thievery. For all the bluster and lawsuits aimed at stopping pirate websites they’ve had over the years, not standing behind this bill to further their own interests would be tantamount to them admitting that they’ll do what they can but it’s not as big a deal as they make it out to be. This is everything they want a government agency to be able to do to protect their content and as such standing behind it is something they have to do. There’s only one downside to all of this.
They’re looking to bring a broad sword to a situation that requires a scalpel.
It’s easy to dislike the UFC for their stance on SOPA & PIPA because both of those bills give radical powers to a government that likes using them. It’s not just the Obama administration, obviously, as government over the years has taken powers meant for one thing and used for another. RICO laws were designed to bring down the Mob and have been used in all types of situations not related to the Cosa Nostra. The Patriot Act was meant to give the tools to fight terrorism to government agencies and has been used against organized crime as well. One imagines that giving extraordinary powers to a governmental system renowned for abusing them over the centuries is never a good thing; give a government official an inch and they’ll take 10 miles.
It’s easy to see why Lorenzo Fertitta and his company would be for these types of bills. They have intellectual property, for lack of a better word, to protect and people pirating their products cost them money in the long run and in the short term. They’re not necessarily wrong in this regard; they have every right to support an unpopular bill and every right to want to protect themselves from digital thieves. It’s hard to begrudge them the ability to profit off their product. But their support of SOPA and PIPA is ill-advised and like using a machine gun to do brain surgery. The good intention of protecting their content from those who wish to steal it comes with a cost greater than they might even realize.
