Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the case for what it is, not what it might become if they win.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point - I don't think Negreanu indicated whether he believes they can win or cannot win, and I certainly don't claim to have any knowledge of it; if Greg believes they can win, his opinion is certainly much more relevant and likely to be correct than mine.

In this case, the point Negreanu is making (that I consider at least somewhat valid) is that yes - the WPT may be forcing players to accept some exploitation, but for the overall greater good. Think of it as getting a punch in the face so that your entire family can be well off. The punch in the face itself is very bad and unfair to you, but maybe you just "take one for the team" because the end result is so good (and I don't think anyone could claim the WPT has been anything but fantastically good for the "family" of the poker world).

I guess Greg's contention (based on subsequent posts) is that what the WPT is doing is much worse than a punch in the face - it's the right to injure you however they want in perpetuity. Fair enough point. Maybe in a year the WPT is busto and they decide it's time to cash in, and now FossilCondoms with Greg's face on each one come out.

Given the people behind the WPT, I would like to believe that won't happen. However, obviously management can change later and who knows what would happen. I'd hope this could have been resolved without litigation.

If we can assume a non ligitation settlement was tried, was the problem the players not being willing to grant some reasonable use of their images/likeness for WPT promotion or the WPT saying all your likeness are already belong to us, too bad? If the later, fine, I think the lawsuit is justified. If the players are willing to do nothing, then ok, I think the WPT should fight too. I'm curious to know which it was.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the plaintiffs win and are awarded these damages, I think the WPT would have a tough time surviving as a going concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step One: The players have to win. Its a fairly safe wager to assume that this will be settled before a judge ever gets the opportunity to rule on the case.

Step Two: Even if the plaintiffs take the case through to the end and they win, then the issue becomes if there is any damages. They could win the case and get no damages outside of legal fees (which are very hard to collect in many states), or possibly no financial compensation and still win the case.

Look at the case for what it is, not what it might become if they win.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
In this type of case, it wouldn't be unusual at all for the plaintiffs to win damages in the amount of $1 -- which, trebled, would be $3. (The main point is the injunctive relief, not damages.)

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

If the plaintiffs win and are awarded these damages, I think the WPT would have a tough time surviving as a going concern. It would actually be a form of ironic justice to see the plaintiffs win, only to have their main platform for exposure go out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their main platform for exposure is the WSOP through ESPN, with Fox probably a distant second. The WPT is going out of business due to it's own poor management decisions, you've noted how little they made despite being first to put together a poker series to cash in on the WSOP poker boom.

If the WPT can't afford to lose this lawsuit, then why won't they settle it in three seconds by making minor changes to the release and bring back some of the most popular players?

The truth is the WPT management doesn't know what they are doing, and they putting themselves out of business. They are already being replaced by better poker shows, the world (including poker pros) isn't going to miss them as the boom will continue without the WPT.

[alphatmw]

DN's response

Actually Raymer, your post shows how close minded you can be. You state that there are only two options, either A) I'm stupid, or cool.gif I'm a sock puppet for the WPT. You also state that I haven't studied the suit.

You are wrong on all three fronts. First of all, I am not a lawyer but I have spoken to several lawyers about this case. Lawyers that I trust. Now maybe I'm "stupid" for trusting some of these lawyers, but I don't think so.

Without the WPT you'd likely still be selling pieces of yourself to buy into events. That's not supposed to insult you, it's just the truth. The WPT is the key reason that poker has become such a big hit. We could argue that fact, but I just don't see how anyone could possibly argue that the WPT was the catalyst for the WSOP, online poker, and the huge fields we play in today.

Frankly, as I've stated before, I really don't even care who is right or wrong in this case. It is my opinion, that everyone will lose because of this lawsuit. While you think you are doing the poker world a favor, I strongly believe that all of the negative attention is the last thing we need right now.

Why do you care if the WPT made a deal with MGM/Mirage to hold only WPT events there? If you want to run a tournament, try the Wynn, Stratosphere, Luxor, Golden Nugget, Palms, Hard Rock Cafe, Barbary Coast, Gold Coast, Red Rock, Imperial Palace, Green Valley Ranch, the Orleans, or the hundreds of other casinos in Las Vegas that are available.

Lastly, you guys just don't seem to see the bigger picture. Sure, you say this has nothing to do with PokerStars or online poker in any way, but man, it would be totally naive to think that that won't come up. That you will be put under major scrutiny concerning the legality of your relationship with PokerStars. It's going to happen, and the seven of you could potentially make us all suffer.

With the legality of online poker making headlines today, the last think you should want is for some smug politician to find a "new cause."

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P: "Judge, the WPT forces the plaintiffs to sign an agreement wherein the WPT can use the likeness of the players."


[/ QUOTE ]

What you are failing to understand is that not only can the WPT use your likeness...they can use it "universally" "in perpituity." Read the terms you are agreeing to by signing their releases.

Anywhere, and everywhere throughout the universe forever, no end in sight.

No one, and I guarantee you that even the 7 on the lawsuit is saying that the WPT should not be able to use their likeness..they should only be able to do so in a limited fashion..in other words for use in promoting the tournament that is airing, and to help promote it the following year, and for use in promoting the tv show...not for use in whatever they decide to promote for the remainder of your life and beyond.

Where do you think the use of your likeness should end? Let's say you sign an endorsement for Coca Cola, and WPT signs a deal with Pepsi...do you thinkt hey should be able to put your face on a Pepsi can that says..."bruceypants when he plays in WPT tournamens enjoys a refreshing Pepsi"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like there might be good reason to be wary of signing WPT release. No problem. Now, back to something more pertinent ... how is the WPT violating anti-trust law? Don't like the release? Play elsewhere.

This suit is DOA.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
P: "No, your honor, the WPT made 189 thousand bucks over the last four quarters."
J: "If this were the Internet, I would be ROFLMAO. Are you seriously coming into my court room to tell me that 189 thousand dollars in annual income is a monopoly. I feel like I'm in an episode of Austin Powers."


[/ QUOTE ]

I checked with my attourny, A monopoly can be declared even if the company has never turned a profit. I think you can stop trolling that part of your argument now, feel free to commence finding some other reason to ridicule the case if you wish but the scope of WPT's profit has nothing to do with it. So let the court decide if the WPT is a monopoly, thats it's job.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[JJNJustin]

I heard that in times past Negreanu was a mean vindictive little guy. I find his comment about Greg breastfeeding to be a throwback to that part of his personality.

-J

[chicagoY]

"remove drDre"

See, that's why I love Fossilman so much. We both hate rap.

[redsoxsalty]

another negreanu post from his fcp forum:

"If they genuinely wanted to do "what's best" for the poker players out there, maybe THEY should have asked the poker players if this is a war they wanted to fight? Maybe they should have consulted with me and the others, asking if we'd either like to be a part of it, or even ask for our opinions on what this will do to poker.

They didn't. Instead, they appointed themselves "leaders of the players movement" without a vote, or without even listening to the public. "

[THAY3R]

Could a company theoretically :

Say they want to sponsor Greg for a product. Greg says "Give me 100k or no deal. " Could this company just go to the WPT and offer them say 25k for Greg's images and other stuff?

If so, that's pretty wrong.