{"id":5981,"date":"2017-08-23T19:17:48","date_gmt":"2017-08-23T19:17:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cpip.gmu.edu\/?p=5981"},"modified":"2026-02-03T20:53:54","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T20:53:54","slug":"mayweather-v-mcgregor-warrants-preemptive-anti-piracy-efforts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2017\/08\/23\/mayweather-v-mcgregor-warrants-preemptive-anti-piracy-efforts\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] Mayweather v. McGregor Warrants Preemptive Anti-Piracy Efforts"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"handThis Saturday, the world will be treated to one of the most hyped events in the history of sports when \u201cThe Notorious\u201d Conor McGregor and Floyd \u201cMoney\u201d Mayweather Jr. meet in Las Vegas to become (even more) rich while ostensibly also participating in a boxing match. The bout marks the first foray into boxing by a champion mixed martial artist\u2014McGregor\u2014at the height of his career, and is made even more compelling by the fact that he\u2019ll be facing one of the greatest boxers of all time in Mayweather Jr.\u2014albeit somewhat past his prime. The seemingly endless prefight activities have included an over-the-top press tour full of provocative trash talk, celebrity-attended training sessions, and a preventative effort by Showtime\u2014the network airing the fight\u2014to quash the inevitable flood of unauthorized streams that will pop up during what is predicted to be the most pirated event ever<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Last week, in response to concerns over lost revenue resulting from illegal feeds of a fight that is expected to take in close to a billion dollars, Showtime brought a preliminary injunction against over 40 websites affiliated with LiveStreamHDQ\u2014a recurrent bad actor in unauthorized streaming\u2014poised to broadcast illicit streams. In its complaint<\/a>, the premium network targeted sites with blatant domain names such as mayweathervmcgregor.livestreamhdq.com and floydmayweathervconormcgregorfight.us, which Showtime alleges are engaged in \u201ckeyword stuffing\u201d in an attempt to appear at the top of search engine results and draw as much traffic as possible to unauthorized streams. After review, District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. approved the injunction, prohibiting the websites from offering infringing content, and since then, it appears that at least some of the sites have backed away from their shameless promotion of free streams.<\/p>\n

Preemptive strikes against anticipated copyright infringement are somewhat of a rarity, but they can be imperative when dealing with a short-lived yet furious demand for a marquee, live sporting event<\/a>\u2014especially one with a pay-per-view (PPV) price tag of nearly $100. In 2015, Showtime and HBO launched a \u201cpre-piracy\u201d offensive against two websites that had announced plans to stream the much-anticipated Mayweather v. Pacquiao boxing match. And while the threat of a lawsuit was successful in deterring the targeted websites, the fight was still subject to massive piracy<\/a> through mobile live video streaming apps such as Periscope and Meerkat.<\/p>\n

Despite their limited success, these proactive attempts to curb expected infringement have led some critics to accuse networks of censoring<\/a> and site-blocking any website they choose for a theoretical crime that hasn\u2019t yet occurred. But, as many of the same critics acknowledge, a clear provision<\/a> in US copyright law allows for an infringement action before<\/em> fixation takes place \u201c[i]n the case of a work consisting of sounds, images, or both, the first fixation of which is made simultaneously with its transmission.\u201d It\u2019s an important distinction that represents lawmakers\u2019 understanding of the unique concerns surrounding a live broadcast that loses most of its value immediately after its initial airing.<\/p>\n

Section 411(c) of the Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner may bring an infringement action related to an unregistered work, and recover statutory damages for an unauthorized use, when the work is part of a live broadcast. Known as the \u201clive broadcast exemption,\u201d the Committee on the Judiciary explained<\/a> that it \u201cis intended to deal with the special situation presented by works that are being transmitted \u2018live\u2019 at the same time they are being fixed in tangible form for the first time,\u201d such as \u201csporting events, concerts, theatrical presentations and news and public affairs programs.\u201d The section goes on to list two requirements for obtaining statutory damages, including service of an \u201cAdvance Notice of Potential Infringement\u201d at least 48 hours before the work is transmitted, and registration of the work within three months after its first transmission.<\/p>\n

While it\u2019s encouraging that Showtime\u2019s injunction has already resulted in some of the targeted websites shutting down<\/a> or offering links to legal viewing options, it\u2019s likely that live-streaming apps will once again draw thousands of would-be paying customers towards unauthorized streams. Unfortunately, because of the massive paydays coming to McGregor and Mayweather, many who seek out illicit streams will justify the infringement by figuring it won\u2019t hurt to take a few dollars out of their deep pockets. But as a recent article<\/a> on MMA and boxing-related piracy points out, illegal feeds take money away from far less affluent athletes and from the organizations that make their careers possible.<\/p>\n

Identifying and shutting down live streams that will inevitably appear (and reappear) via the likes of Periscope and Facebook Live is an uphill battle. Whereas Showtime\u2019s injunction can address known infringing-enabling services and the websites they facilitate in the days and weeks leading up to the event, when the fight bell rings, it becomes impossible for the network and its affiliates to effectively play whack-a-mole with the surge of unauthorized streams.<\/p>\n

As Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) CEO Lorenzo J. Fertitta explained in his testimony<\/a> before the House Judiciary Committee nearly a decade ago, the content offered during PPV events is not only extremely valuable, but extremely perishable. Section 411(c) exists because once a popular event is over, the value is gone, and rights owners must have a way to combat potentially devastating infringement.<\/p>\n

But Section 411 was enacted at a time when the current landscape of live-streaming app piracy (and the internet for that matter), could not have been anticipated. It\u2019s a problem that requires attention not only from the rights holders and networks airing the events, but from the social media platforms that host the applications. Perhaps a Content ID system that would recognize and kill unauthorized streams of big ticket\/PPV events is in order. But don\u2019t expect the platforms to jump at the opportunity to implement such anti-piracy mechanisms, as they and their supporters are quick to label them ineffective and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, until a better system is put in place to supplement Section 411, every preeminent PPV fight will be predicted to be the most pirated event ever.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This Saturday, the world will be treated to one of the most hyped events in the history of sports when \u201cThe Notorious\u201d Conor McGregor and Floyd \u201cMoney\u201d Mayweather Jr. meet in Las Vegas to become (even more) rich while ostensibly also participating in a boxing match. The bout marks the first foray into boxing by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3627,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[337,345,795,894,895,940,941,1116,1326],"class_list":["post-5981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyright","tag-copyright-2","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-judge-birotte","tag-live-broadcast-exemption","tag-live-stream","tag-mayweather","tag-mcgregor","tag-pay-per-view","tag-section-411"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3627"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5981"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5981\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15778,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5981\/revisions\/15778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}