By aggressively asserting copyright claims against fans online, is the UFC pursuing a counterproductive strategy? Retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss in this week’s Trading Shots.

* * * *

Fowlkes: So here’s something weird, Danny. Earlier this week I saw that a person I follow on Twitter – a Canadian woman by the name of Alex Scaffidi – had her Twitter account suspended and possibly permanently shutdown after a copyright violation claim filed on behalf of the UFC. Her sin? She posted various images that the UFC claimed ownership of.

Mind you, at least one of these images the UFC had no plausible claim to, since it was a picture of an amateur fighter who is not and never has been signed to the UFC. Other offending images, according to Scaffidi, were a screenshot of a fight card taken from the UFC website, as well as the header image of Scaffidi’s Twitter profile, which showed Nate Diaz choking Conor McGregor.

Scaffidi isn’t a journalist, though she has occasionally written about MMA as a hobby. She doesn’t own or run a website. She’s not profiting from any of this. As she explained to me, she’s a fan using Twitter to connect with other fans.

So why would the UFC go after a person like that? Similarly, why would the UFC go after MMA meme-makers on Instagram, resulting in the shutdown of multiple accounts over the last year or so (pour a little out for @As_Shopped_As_It_Gets)? What sense does it make?

If you’re wondering, yes, I contacted the UFC to ask these very questions. And no, UFC officials would not speak on the record about it.

But how is it possible that the UFC, which has been fairly savvy about using new media in other ways, can still be so blindly counterproductive on issues like this? Isn’t this just like when it went after YouTube analyst and highlight-makers a couple years ago? How does this do anything to help the UFC and its bottom line?

Downes: When you said you wanted to talk about Twitter drama, I thought we’d finally get to share those searing hot takes on Logan Paul vs. Sage Northcutt.

I will say that my favorite part of this intellectual property saga is the message Scaffidi received from this “legal intern” who is apparently a part of the UFC’s Twitter police.

First off, asking to remove all content connected to the UFC is quite the ask of a UFC fan. That’s like asking Bill Simmons to not talk about the Boston Red Sox. Secondly, “I will be checking in periodically to ensure you are in compliance,” is a seven layer dip of jerkish deliciousness.

It has everything. There’s a bit of “I’m disappointed in you, mister” condescension, mixed with a vague big brother threat. Not to mention the fact that his “job” apparently requires him to keep checking her profile to see what she’s up to. This could lead to the less charming “Sleepless in Seattle” remake we’ve all been waiting for.

I know you’re probably at a Red March or something this weekend, so there’s nothing you’d like more than to attack the bourgeoisie, but I have to ask, “Why should fans care?” For Scaffidi and individuals who have spent a lot of time and effort crafting their followers and social media accounts, it’s certainly a big deal. Does this affect the average person outside your Twitter bubble, though?

It definitely seems petty and not useful, but plenty of other sports leagues have struggled with this same problem. The only one who seems to do a good job is the NBA.

The UFC should follow that lead, but it’s taken the hardcore fan for granted for years now, and I bet every single one of them will cough up the extra $5 for ESPN+ anyway. Until the market dictates otherwise, why change course? Ethics? Bahahahahahaha!

Fowlkes: Here’s one reason: because it alienates people and accomplishes absolutely nothing useful.

Remember back when the UFC’s favorite pastime was suing random people who had watched pirated streams of pay-per-view events? The UFC’s argument back then was that it wasn’t suing its own fans, because “people that steal our stuff – they’re not our fans.” Years later, it used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to go after fan-made highlights on YouTube. Now it’s still images on Twitter and Instagram.

Meanwhile, has the UFC successfully stamped out digital piracy? Has it created for itself a world where there will be no way to watch UFC 228 on Saturday night without paying for it? If Darren Till knocks out Tyron Woodley to claim the welterweight title, are you telling me I won’t be able to find a GIF or a video of the ending of the fight that same night, or the following morning?

Hogwash, I say. Hogwash and poppycock. Piracy is still the same problem it always was, and buy rates are probably suffering as a result.

But attacking fans who screenshotted a fight card just so they could post it on social media with the purpose of telling other people what a good card it is, well, that’s the worst way I can think of to address it. You don’t accomplish what you set out to do, and you make your own fans hate you. You make them feel bad about giving you money. You fight a losing battle and alienate potential allies.

And you know what else? It could happen to any fight fan who uses the internet at all. Ever posted an image owned by the UFC to Twitter, Danny? How about Facebook? How about on a messageboard of one kind or another? I’ve done all that. Most MMA fans have. Are we next to feel the wrath on the social media platforms that, for the most part, we use in order to discuss the UFC?

Downes: You may call it hogwash and poppycock, but I think you’re full of gobbledygook.

You’re right that it accomplishes little and makes a tone deaf organization seem even worse. Yet, where is your proof that it alienates people? Are all these alienated people going to stop buying UFC pay-per-views if it’s a strong card? Are they going to stop searching “Fox Sports 2 channel number” so they can catch some prelim fights? No and no.

I don’t know what benefit the UFC derives from harassing fans who post a GIF online, but I do know the cost – nothing. It’s the same reason your cable company treats you like dirt, and Amazon will keep increasing the cost of Prime. Because they can, and consumers aren’t going to do anything about it.

As for the “are we next?” question, it’s already happened. Ben Fowlkes the message board troll may not have had his Twitter account suspended for using copyrighted material, but Ben Fowlkes the journalist has certainly been attacked. Perhaps not personally, but your profession and colleagues have had a number of run-ins with UFC brass. And what, pray tell, has been the consequence of these actions? Oh yeah, nothing.

I’m not condoning the UFC’s pettiness. I’m pointing out that as long as it gets away with this, it will keep doing it. It neglects the base and takes fans for granted. Until there’s a revolt, the status quo is here to stay.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.