DN loses respect for Raymer

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then dont sign and dont play the WPT events. No one is holding a gun to their head forcing them to.

[/ QUOTE ]

*this is just my rough understanding of the situation*

The WPT has deals with the most of the large casinos that have the customer base to support the high buy in poker tournaments. In these deals the casinos agree to not have a high buy in tourney unless the WPT films it. The players can either sign away their rights, or not play. There are no other high buy in tourneys available regularly besides WPT events. Thus the WPT has a monopoly and that is why they filed an anti-trust suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I read in Poker Player that someone wanted to set up a big tournament at one of the big L.A. card clubs, but could not because the card club was locked into "WPT only" tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exclusive contracts are done in business all the time. I predict this case will be laughed out of court.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the lawsuit is a good thing and the players are right for doing it. The only thing they are trying to do is protect player's rights.

If you ever play in a WPT event the waiver you have to sign says that the WPT has a right to use your image however they want forever. This means that that they can put your face on any WPT product they currently have, or any product they make in the future.

Lets's say you wake up one day and you are Greg Raymer. You have a million fans and where ever you go women throw their underwear at you. You hire people (at great expense)to come out with a poker video game where you can play heads up against a video game version of yourself.

Two weeks before your video game comes out, you go to the store and on the shelf is a WPT video game that has your picture on the front and says you can play heads up against Greg Raymer. Is that fair to you? Just because you put up your own money to enter a tourney that the WPT happened to be filming?

Also while you are at the store, you see a WPT brand anal lube with your face on it, WPT brand sex toy (with your face on it), a WPT brand flag burning kit (with your face on it), and a WPT brand "How to cheat at poker" book with your face on the cover.

Is that fair?

Right now, the WPT could legally do all of those things because of that release. The players did ask the WPT to change the release, but the WPT told them to buzz off.

These 7 players are using their own money to try and get this changed. They are doing this to protect the rights of all current and future poker players, Daniel Negreanu included. Daniel does not seem to grasp this point.

The largest point that no one seems to be making is that if the WPT would just agree to rewrite the waiver and spell out exactly what the WPT could use the they player's image for (commericals and full season DVDs) then this whole issue would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your understanding of the law is very poor. There is no way that WPT can market a videogame of 'HU against Raymer' without Raymer's explicit permission (and profit sharing). The agreement they signed merely allowed WPT to use snippets of these guys during the tournament to advertise their program, much as they do now.

I don't know too much about this lawsuit, but the release they're asked to sign is actually pretty standard in many areas. And in no way does such a release give carte-blank permission for the other party to exploit your image in some unrelated product.

I'm no lawyer but I think I know American law well enough to know the example you posed as being just silly.

[actionjackson9]

lawman, boy was i naive....lol

[fallen]

[ QUOTE ]

I think your understanding of the law is very poor. There is no way that WPT can market a videogame of 'HU against Raymer' without Raymer's explicit permission (and profit sharing). The agreement they signed merely allowed WPT to use snippets of these guys during the tournament to advertise their program, much as they do now.

I don't know too much about this lawsuit, but the release they're asked to sign is actually pretty standard in many areas. And in no way does such a release give carte-blank permission for the other party to exploit your image in some unrelated product.

I'm no lawyer but I think I know American law well enough to know the example you posed as being just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if you read the release it's seems to say exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
From what I can see (in bold text) they can put your picture on anything they like.


1) Grant of Rights. Player acknowledges that WPT Enterprises, Inc. and its successors, assigns and licensees (collectively, “WPT”) will be recording, filming, photographing and exploiting films and/or television specials or other audio visual works of and/or about the Tour Event (jointly and severally the “Programs”). Player consents to such filming and exploitation of the Programs, and hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions (including, without limitation, revealing Player's hole cards), conversations (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” footage and filmed interviews with Player) and/or voice (the “Recordings”) in, and in connection with, the Programs and/or the “World Poker Tour” and in connection with the distribution, advertising, publicizing, exhibition, and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your understanding of the law is very poor.........

I don't know too much about this lawsuit..........

I'm no lawyer............

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're really saying is that you have no idea what you're talking about. LOL

[gilbert]

[ QUOTE ]
What's up with the Hachem slam? I guess Daniel's saying he is naive. I bet Joe at least went to college.

[/ QUOTE ]

or finished high school.

[NicksDad1970]

So it may have been someone else but I thought I remember Hacem being a chiropractor. So I'll assume he graduated from college.

Don't go making bets on that because it could have been someone else.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't. The defendent pled something about it in its answer. That doesn't mean anything. You can plead anything you want in an answer. There's no penalty for saying stuff that's completely irrelevant or bogus, and most of the content of an answer typically bears little resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch ... I understand the point you are making ... parties do throw into their answers what would be deemed "argument" and not fact -- the WPTs response is a textbook example -- but the answer always "bears resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit." Much of it may be greek to the layperson, but it is the seminal document in the defense's response and one that they are bound by. If they make a mistake they can under certain circumstances move the court to amend it, but make no mistake that it is a very important document and has everything to do with the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer just denies everything in the complaint and then alledges every possible defense to the complaint's causes of action, even though most of the alledged defenses will be completely bogus. (Note: I'm talking about answers in general. I haven't read the WPT's answer in particular.)

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that WPTE paid at least $100,000 for the preparation of that answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The WPT will spend $100,000 in legal fees soon enough, but you're probably off by about $95,000 if we're just talking about drafting and filing the answer.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your understanding of the law is very poor. There is no way that WPT can market a videogame of 'HU against Raymer' without Raymer's explicit permission (and profit sharing).

[/ QUOTE ]
His express permission is given in the WPT release (and he agrees to zero profit sharing). That's why the WPT release is being challenged.

[ QUOTE ]
And in no way does such a release give carte-blank permission for the other party to exploit your image in some unrelated product.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what it does.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Brucey, I'm curious why you have such a huge interest in this case. While the number of posts somebody has doesn't directly indicate anything about the value of their contribution, you have a big old 72. Given how many times I've seen you post about this lawsuit, I would guess that this subject has been the majority of your involvement with 2+2, if not the entirety of it. Are you simply a shill for the WPT? Probably not, but you sure seem like one.

Here are some of the stupid and intentionally (IMO) misleading comments you have made just recently.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of Raymer's previous comments:
I do not see any legal basis by which the WPT can bring any online site into this lawsuit in any manner whatsoever. They will likely ask us during any depositions about the activity of our respective sites that we the Plaintiffs represent, and the answers will be that these sites have nothing to do with the lawsuit. With that being the case, I do not see any way that the judge would rule that the WPT could bring the online sites into the case as either parties or witnesses. You can't drag somebody into an existing lawsuit without some evidence that they are involved. You don't necessarily need a lot of evidence, but you must have something. In this case, there is nothing I know of that would give the WPT the standing to attack the online sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like Raymer was dead wrong about that as the WPT mentioned Full Tilt's illegal activities in their response to the 7's lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if this sounds nasty, but can you even read what you quoted and wrote? I never said that the WPT couldn't bring up the online sites in the lawsuit, I said that there was no legal basis for them to do so. What they have done is attempt to blackmail us by bringing up irrelevant issues that they hope will cause us concern and possibly scare us into giving up. This argument of theirs is on the same level as if I came up to you about money you owed me, and you said that if I made you pay it back, you'd tell everybody some shameful secret of mine. The secret has nothing to do with your debt, but you're hoping that I'll back off and forgive the debt so you keep your mouth shut. That is what the WPT is doing here.

Here is another bit of misleading facts you try to give.

[ QUOTE ]
You can read more about Full Tilt's televised poker events here:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/6...er-tonight.htm

I don't know, I think it will be tough for the players to prove that WPT has a monopoly on big buy-in televised tournaments when Jesus and Howard are sponsoring their own big buy-in televised tourneys through Full Tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the amount of time you've put into these threads, I would have thought you would know that we are alleging that the WPT has monopoly power in big buy-in televised events that are open to the public. Your link talks about an invitational event that Full Tilt is putting on TV that is limited to 7 players. I don't think the presence of this televised event is going to be of any use to me or anybody else who isn't one of those 7 players.

And here's a final example of your propaganda:

[ QUOTE ]
This lawsuit isn't going to help you average guys any. You are not famous now and you are never going to be famous if the WPT isn't allowed to put your image on TV. Get a grip on reality and realize that you are being manipulated by Raymer so that he can make more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You spout some half-truths, and try to make it look accurate. It is true that our lawsuit won't help the average guy much, if any. However, if that average guy goes out and does well on the tournament circuit, and becomes a well-known poker-player-celebrity, our lawsuit will help him a LOT. We will help insure that he can maximize his earning potential in endorsement and other after-the-fact deals that come his way from his success as a tournament pro.

And it is true that you can't become famous if the WPT (or the WSOP, the only significant alternative) isn't allowed to put your face on TV. Of course, this statement is meaningless. We're not trying to take away the ability of the WPT to put the players on TV. We're trying to take away their ability to force us to sign away the use of our name and image forever for no compensation, if we wish to play in these events. What good is it to become a "famous" poker player if you aren't able to fully capitalize on the money-making opportunities that come from fame? I promise you, being famous, if it doesn't help you make money, isn't worth it. While I am very happy with my new life and fame, I would much prefer to NOT be famous if it wasn't that very same fame that allows me to make money by endorsing PokerStars and other products and services, and to get paid to make appearances. Fame, in and of itself, is more of a curse than a blessing.

Finally, you state that I am manipulating the players so I can make more money. How am I manipulating anybody? I am providing them with information that I believe to be accurate. I am spending my own money, as are my co-plaintiffs, to help out my own situation, and contemporaneously helping out every other poker player who wants to play in big buy-in televised tournaments that are open to the public. Yes, this lawsuit will hopefully make me more money. But the primary way it will do so is to allow me to participate in the touranments that make up the present WPT schedule. It will not make me money any other way that I foresee, and most importantly, it will not take money out of the pockets of any other poker players (unless I win their entry fees in future tournaments that I otherwise would not have entered).

My agenda has been spelled out completely and often. What is your agenda?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)