[SHORT_BUS]

^^^Agree, disagree?

[Amy Robinson]

More than likely the person who disclosed the information to Josh Gross works for the UFC. They would look like complete fools to instigate legal action over this just to find out that one of their own was the very source of the leaked info.

[dirtymartini]

Originally Posted by BuakawRules

hope sherdog doesn´t get fucked up other this...
this war btw the ufc and sherdog is ridiculous (on the part of the ufc i mean)

id say its pretty equal...yeah, UFC have been bitches about sherdog covering them...but when sherdog does stuff like this it doesnt exactly speak of professionalism. so if thats the case i can understand why UFC wouldnt want to deal with sherdog

[1 Tough Cookie]

Originally Posted by wbubbles

Nice "precedents." You do know that the offences in each of your examples are totally different than one another? Anyways CIA leaks and illegal drug distribution are a little different than giving away the ending of a reality show. I hope you can see that.

Yeah breaking laws (criminal offenses) vs civil offenses carries a big difference.

[SonicBlue03]

Originally Posted by SHORT_BUS

^^^Agree, disagree?

Agree. If anything, the releasing it only really hurt Sherdog/Gross because if they thought they had any chance of reconciling their differences w/ the UFC, they can pretty much blow that out their asses now.

[Lockdown]

Originally Posted by Amy Robinson

More than likely the person who disclosed the information to Josh Gross works for the UFC. They would look like complete fools to instigate legal action over this just to find out that one of their own was the very source of the leaked info.

There are more people who work in post production than work for UFC directly on a project like this, so I think the likelihood of a leak coming from outside the company is much more likely. I don't see why it would make a difference if that person did work for UFC, however, or why it would be foolish to pursue legal action against them. It's not like Dana revealed it. I don't think it really matters WHO leaked the information. Everyone involved signed some sort of contract stating they could be sued for leaking information (I think it's for about 5-6 million).

[MJKerrigan]

Nice "precedents." You do know that the offences in each of your examples are totally different than one another? Anyways CIA leaks and illegal drug distribution are a little different than giving away the ending of a reality show. I hope you can see that.

Exactly right. UFC have no pull to demand sources be revealed, since no crime has been comitted.

The only reason UFC would sue is if their ratings were noticably lower for this season, and they could claim that the ratings drop was a direct result of the finalists being revealed by Sherdog's Beatdown radio.

Nope, spoilers can't be used as a scapegoat for poor ratings. Otherwise every media journalist that reviews a movie due out in the cinema could get sued if the movie flops, or anyone who finds out spoilers for upcoming tv series could be sued for poor ratings. It will never happen since the parties that published the information never signed a confidentiality agreement.

You can file suit for almost anything. If the UFC legal team sat down and brain stormed this thing, i'm sure they could come up with a reason. First off the top of my head would be that Gross released the info to intentionally damage the UFC.

Sherdog could counter saying it was their right for free speech, and their right for freedom of the press. Sherdog have the Bill of Rights First Ammendmant on their side and could make UFC look an ass. Because the spoilers did not defame the character of UFC and its entities, UFC don't have a case.

All that's happened is Sherdog burning their bridges with UFC and wont get any exclusives. I can see UFC investing in an alternate source of journalism to try to put sherdog out of business, but apart from that, there is no law suit.

[Lockdown]

Originally Posted by MJKerrigan

Nope, spoilers can't be used as a scapegoat for poor ratings. Otherwise every media journalist that reviews a movie due out in the cinema could get sued if the movie flops, or anyone who finds out spoilers for upcoming tv series could be sued for poor ratings. It will never happen since the parties that published the information never signed a confidentiality agreement.

They could very well claim that because so many people knew the ending, they didn't bother watching the season. It's a stretch, but it is NOT out of the realm of possibility. Movie critics is a poor example. Most published critics don't give away the ending, and if they do, the film is already out. TUF 4 hasn't aired yet. There hasn't even been a legitimate preview out yet.

And they could be subpoenaed for the source because a crime had been committed - breach of contract by whoever told them. UFC could petition them to reveal the source, and the source could be sued for however much was specified in the contract. Sherdog wouldn't get sued because Josh Gross himself didn't break any law whatsoever, but the person who told him broke a legally binding contract, if in fact the spoilers are true. No one is saying they will sue anyone, because I doubt ratings will be affected. But it's not like it's completely impossible. They have grounds, if shaky, to take legal action.

[majorbuzzard]

There are still plenty of people that do not know about this. Hell the thread that was brought up by this thread starter was someone trying to pick who they think will win. The names gave were not the final four that was announced by Josh Gross. I personally think that the UFC will ignore this issue and let the show play out.

As for the people who do know like myself, lets try to be courtious to everyone who doesn't know and not blatently name all four guys.

[MJKerrigan]

Originally Posted by Lockdown

They could very well claim that because so many people knew the ending, they didn't bother watching the season. It's a stretch, but it is NOT out of the realm of possibility. Movie critics is a poor example. Most published critics don't give away the ending, and if they do, the film is already out. TUF 4 hasn't aired yet. There hasn't even been a legitimate preview out yet.

And they could be subpoenaed for the source because a crime had been committed - breach of contract by whoever told them. UFC could petition them to reveal the source, and the source could be sued for however much was specified in the contract. Sherdog wouldn't get sued because Josh Gross himself didn't break any law whatsoever, but the person who told him broke a legally binding contract, if in fact the spoilers are true. No one is saying they will sue anyone, because I doubt ratings will be affected. But it's not like it's completely impossible. They have grounds, if shaky, to take legal action.

Web based critics often have previews with spoilers in them. Perhaps not to the extent of telling the ending of the film, but spoilers none the less, and if people were bothered they could easily search out spoilers to virtually anything.

I agree that UFC could petition for the source to be revealed for their own internal investigation, but they've got to decide if it's economically worth it when Sherdog users are a niche in the Spike Tv audience. Is it worth it when only a fraction of your audience knows the outcome, and even then, what proportion of Sherdog users actually know?