Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[Joe O]

I wonder why Daniel places all of the burden to keep things quiet on these 7. They've made many of their complaints known to the WPT for well over a year. These complaints are reasonable, and yet the WPT refuses to budge on simple issues like the release form that they vow never to exploit, or the final table structure which saves them a little money. Why doesn't Daniel just ask his buddy Lyle Berman to settle out of court quietly?

The associations these players have with online sites will only come into play if the WPT tries to play dirty. So tell me again why these 7 should be so grateful to the WPT?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't anticipate the questions will be asked about you and Joe Hachem in relation to PokerStars. They will be asked of Andy Bloch, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon and Chris Ferguson as some of them (lederer and bloch definately) are not just sponsored by FullTilt but they actually own a stake in the company. So will they be comfortable answering questions about owning an offshore company that takes millions of dollars out of the US every year? This will be painted to the mainstream press by the WPT as a battle between greedy offshore companies taking money out of the US against the all american WPT. Daniel is right is worrying that this can seized upon by anti gambling jesus freaks who want to ban online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]



FullTilt is actually in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for long. They're moving to Ireland.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/...yid=single6830

I don't blame them. I would flee the country too if I was employed by or owned an online poker site.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
The associations these players have with online sites will only come into play if the WPT tries to play dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big corporations that are sued have a tendency to play extremely dirty. Lawsuits are very serious matters, especially those like this one that have the potential to adversely affect a company's bottom line. This one has the potential to get really, really ugly.

[wheatrich]

the WPT has shown it's got the biggest ego in poker and isn't afraid to show it off.

They won't EVER back down for anything unless forced to--they've made that ridiculously clear.

I am hoping they win but I'd be shocked if the decision wasn't just then don't play and that's it.

However, the WPT's response was ludricrous in their official response implying that because only a few people were named on the lawsuit that only a few disagreed with their position.

Oh and if you believe that the WPT won't actually use your image in that way because they said so I have some things I'd like to sell to you.

Simply put; if they didn't intend or intended on using your image/whatever for their own personal gain they'd simply remove or change those lines the registration form.

Anyway, gl with the lawsuit and I hope you at least get something accomplished.

[CaryDarling]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, the players are paying a fee to enter these tournaments and getting none of the upside from the images. They are only splitting the prize pool generated by entry fees. I understand the fee they pay does not pay for broadcating equipment, talent, etc.. but it would seem fair to me if you licesne the images obtained during the tournament for anything other than to sell the broadcast (say for a video game), you should at least consider kicking in some of the revenue into the prize pools at WPT events. Then at least the players are potentially earning something for their images.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something else I did forget to mention, another reason the WPT's form is unlikely to hold up...players are not getting compensated for their likeness being licensed, which could effectively be licensed OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

[wheatrich]

I also would like to see this done to the WSOP as well because they also have done this whole image without consent in that beer commercial...

[Tyler Durden]

Anyone else notice that this is totally out of character for Fossilman? Him calling a fellow poker pro "stupid" and a "sock puppet" is so strange b/c he's always a class act.

[sanmarcosrun1]

everyone has bad days and days where they have a short fuse when you feel someone is rubbing you wrong. Don't see the big deal as everyone is human and can lose their normal character from time to time.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people keep going back to denying rights to "make a living". The causes of action have nothing to do with the ability to make a living. Restraint of trade != not being able to make a living.

the answer to your hyptothetical question is an objection that it is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Relevance is a messy objection to make in deposition, but an easy objection to bluesbassman's question is that it assumes facts not in evidence, and it mischaracterizes the deponent's prior testimony. (It's prefaced by a statement that Greg alleges that his right to make a living is being denied. Greg has never alleged this.)

If bluebassman rephrased his question to ask simply whether Greg has ever received compensation for endorsing PokerStars (dot net or dot com), the answer -- notwithstanding any relevant objections -- will be yes. So what?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please specify the type of questions that you think the WPT should, or might, ask me or any of the plaintiffs that have anything to do with online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about these?

"Mr. Raymer, isn't it true that you are employed by an illegal online poker site?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Objection, calls for a legal opinion, and the deponent has not been designated as an expert. (Whether the poker site is illegal or not is not a matter of fact, but a matter of law. It is therefore an inappropriate topic about which to depose a fact witness.)

Notwithstanding this or any other relevant objection, I suspect the answer is no. I doubt Greg is employed by them. I suspect he's an independent contractor.

[ QUOTE ]
"Mr. Lederer, isn't it true that you own and profit from an illegal online poker site?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Same objection.

[ QUOTE ]
I know you weren't a litigator, Greg, but do you honestly think that the fact that someone is employed by and/or owns an operation that is viewed as illegal by the United States government wouldn't be admissibile as to that person's credibility as a witness?

[/ QUOTE ]
Has Greg ever been convicted of illegally profiting from an online poker site? If he's been convicted, that's one thing. But if he hasn't been convicted . . . it's been a while since I took evidence in law school, but I don't think that comes in as being relevant to his credibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this lawsuit is about nothing but greed, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Several people have said this, but I don't see why. The plaintiffs are very unlikely to recover any monetary damages, IMO. Why would they spend their own money to fund a lawsuit that is unlikely to win them any monetary damages if it were about greed?