7 Players Vs The Wpt

[dimseven 0]

Meh, I'll just cut and paste from 2+2 something from Raymer:A little while ago, when Coke Zero was new, they paid me a fee to use my name in a series of radio commercials. Because the commercials did not use my voice, I did not need to "do" anything, just sell them the right to use my name. If the WPT had my signature on one of their releases from this year, then Coke could have gone to them and gotten permission, and probably for less money. How could that possibly be fair? What if I were not a fan of Coke products? What if I even found them offensive? Yet I would not be able to stop the WPT from selling my name to that company for its advertising use.

[wontbez 0]

This was a post from Raymer back in FEB. "To anybody who says we are being ungrateful, and who points to all that the WPT has "done for us and the poker world", I say, [censored]. You might as well point to Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and the like, and say "You owe them; without these companies, you wouldn't be enjoying your personal computers, making your lives so much easier and fun. You should not just buy their products, you should give them stuff." The same is true about the WPT. Even if I have benefitted from their existence, I owe them nothing. Of course, they owe me nothing either. But I don't pretend to act in their best interest, while they do put out statements about how they're acting in my (the players in general) best interests. And those statements are total PR lies, and wholly untrue."

[dimseven 0]

How in the world should the players have the right to say, no, you can't put me in a commercial to promote next weeks show.

On the release contract, isn't the lawsuit only to reduce the power of the release form? So that the WPT can't sell Johnny Chan's likeness to Marlboro for a billboard ad, BUT still be able to do ridiculous karate dubbed voiceovers for their dumb tv promos since it's promoting the show?

[finztotheleft 0]

Their image is not being stolen. They are signing a contract that gives the WPT permission to use their image. They knew what they were doing back when they signed the release and cannot sue just because they don't want to honor their contract anymore.

You need to check all of your facts Sean. DN sued the WPT for that very thing and won.

[NoxKo 0]

As usual, the devil is in the details.For instance, if the WPT has a clause that says a player's likeness can be used to promote the WPT TV show, then I think most reasonable people would have no problem with that.However, if the WPT goes on to make non-TV show related products, such as video games, instructional videos, etc, and are saying they own the players' likeness for such products for ever and ever, then I think most reasonable people would say that's over the top and should not be allowed.So what are the details of that clause?People are arguing the merits of a case on here where probably only the principles involved have the required knowledge about the details. Without that knowledge, I won't consider any of the opinions on here "informed".

[Shizzmoney 0]

Forming a players union is definitely going to be the most successful route for poker players to take.

Wishful thinking.......but it will never happen. It's like when comedians (I do stand up comedy in Boston) often talk about that why we should form a union so that we could be guarunteed decent health benefits, a secure and safe work environment, and a buffer to keep preventing bookers/agents from screwing us over. I find one thing in common between comedians and poker players.....whether it's monetary resources, time spent towards the issue involving said craft, or just simple willingness to trust the guy you work next to.....is the fact that we're all selfish, in one form or the other. And it's not a bad trait, mind you; it's just one that is inherited when you do it for long enough because both are crafts where you have to rely on yourself and learn on your own for the most part to become respected and successful. The reason those who are highly successful in both is because of their inflated selfishness and boisterous egos. It's not a bad thing, it is what it is.That's why they'll never be a union. It's a philosophical issue, IMO.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

As llou described, it is absolutely not a fact here. The players allowed the WPT to use their images. However any law implies reasonability tests (i don't know the correct term). It is easy to say that we disagree on whether or not the WPT's usage of the player's images was reasonable, given what they signed.I disagree that it was reasonable, since the usage of their images was different than how images were used by other, similar companies, such as the WSOP. I believe it is more reasonable to expect that my image, if i were a player, would be used in the same fashion as we both know it had been used in the past, rather than as much as possible, to the very letter of a standard release form.You've made this point several times, and seem to base a lot off of it, even though it is far from proven. Most would argue that the WSOP exploded with the Moneymaker phenomenon. The growth of the WSOP during the time of the WPT cannot be denied, but it is clearly a symbiotic relationship. I think most people would consider that the WPT benefited more from the WSOP than vice versa, though it would be tough to definitively say one way or the other. To simply state that the WPT has been responsible for the WSOP's recent extreme growth seems ludicrous. Even more so, since the WPT has not been particularly profitable.

Actually it is a matter of fact. The WPT has not used the players likenesses in any way that is inappropriate. The players are just mad because they MIGHT do it in the future.As for the release. I have not read it, nor have I signed one, but from what I have read about it the release is very broad and gives the WPT pretty much unlimited use of the players name and likeness. You may, as I do, think that this is unneccessary and should not be in a release, but that does not make it illegal. Thw WPT made the release that why just so they could avoid lawsuits:-)The bottom line is the players SIGNED the release giving the WPT to use the players name and likeness. The players cannot sue just because they changed their mind about wanting the WPT to POSSIBLY use their name and likeness.The person/people who said that you do not need a legal basis to sue is mistaken (I am trying to be nice here). A lawyer could, and probably would, get disbarred if they brought a lawsuit that had no legal basis. If you want to make a point, then write a letter, picket outside a WPT event, write letters-to-the-editor of poker publications, start a petition, or do one of several other things to get your point across. A lawsuit is for when a law has broken. You may think that the WPT release is bad for poker players, but if a player signs it they have to abide by its terms.If the players are so unhappy with the WPT, then why don't they give back the prize money that they won. They do not like the release they signed, and they won their money because of the release, so if they feel so strongly about this issue why don't they just give up all the profits that they made by playing in WPT events?

[silkyjonson 1]

Meh, I'll just cut and paste from 2+2 something from Raymer:A little while ago, when Coke Zero was new, they paid me a fee to use my name in a series of radio commercials. Because the commercials did not use my voice, I did not need to "do" anything, just sell them the right to use my name. If the WPT had my signature on one of their releases from this year, then Coke could have gone to them and gotten permission, and probably for less money. How could that possibly be fair? What if I were not a fan of Coke products? What if I even found them offensive? Yet I would not be able to stop the WPT from selling my name to that company for its advertising use.

I think this point is very important. The WPT should not have the right to do this. they may not be doing this, but who's to say the company does'nt get sold and the new owner feels the need to cash in all over the place. If that were to happen then a lot of the players have lost their abillity to market themselves. The bottom line is that the release forms gives the WPT too much power.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Wishful thinking.......but it will never happen. It's like when comedians (I do stand up comedy in Boston) often talk about that why we should form a union so that we could be guarunteed decent health benefits, a secure and safe work environment, and a buffer to keep preventing bookers/agents from screwing us over. I find one thing in common between comedians and poker players.....whether it's monetary resources, time spent towards the issue involving said craft, or just simple willingness to trust the guy you work next to.....is the fact that we're all selfish, in one form or the other. And it's not a bad trait, mind you; it's just one that is inherited when you do it for long enough because both are crafts where you have to rely on yourself and learn on your own for the most part to become respected and successful. The reason those who are highly successful in both is because of their inflated selfishness and boisterous egos. It's not a bad thing, it is what it is.That's why they'll never be a union. It's a philosophical issue, IMO.

I understand your point, and agree that people are inherently selfish, but poker is different than comedy and imho a players union for poker players is doable. Comedy is more scattered than poker is, and in poker you have amateurs playing at home games. You have amateur comedians, but not in the mass number that you have in poker. Poker is just more centralized, which means it would be easier to unionize. I point to the PPA as an example of the poker players banning together for a cause. Also, most poker players are controlled within a finite geographic area. Comedy is spread out in every city across America. In poker, you have Las Vegas as the hub and very few casinos outside of Nevada. Also, a lot of poker players come to the same place for the WSOP and WPT events. Comedy, form what I know of it, does not have frequent (I actually cannot think of any) where most of the people in your craft come to one place to ply your craft.Poker is just set up in a way that makes it so a union is a real possibility if it is done right. Players will do what is in their own best interest. So, if you convince them that a union will make them more money by having better releases and better playing conditions and that it will not really cost them much to get a huge net gain in terms of results, I think poker players would jump at the chance.

[silkyjonson 1]

Actually it is a matter of fact. The WPT has not used the players likenesses in any way that is inappropriate. The players are just mad because they MIGHT do it in the future.As for the release. I have not read it, nor have I signed one, but from what I have read about it the release is very broad and gives the WPT pretty much unlimited use of the players name and likeness. You may, as I do, think that this is unneccessary and should not be in a release, but that does not make it illegal. Thw WPT made the release that why just so they could avoid lawsuits:-)The bottom line is the players SIGNED the release giving the WPT to use the players name and likeness. The players cannot sue just because they changed their mind about wanting the WPT to POSSIBLY use their name and likeness.The person/people who said that you do not need a legal basis to sue is mistaken (I am trying to be nice here). A lawyer could, and probably would, get disbarred if they brought a lawsuit that had no legal basis. If you want to make a point, then write a letter, picket outside a WPT event, write letters-to-the-editor of poker publications, start a petition, or do one of several other things to get your point across. A lawsuit is for when a law has broken. You may think that the WPT release is bad for poker players, but if a player signs it they have to abide by its terms.If the players are so unhappy with the WPT, then why don't they give back the prize money that they won. They do not like the release they signed, and they won their money because of the release, so if they feel so strongly about this issue why don't they just give up all the profits that they made by playing in WPT events?

Yes but read up on anti trust laws, this is where it gets a little tricky.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

I think this point is very important. The WPT should not have the right to do this. they may not be doing this, but who's to say the company does'nt get sold and the new owner feels the need to cash in all over the place. If that were to happen then a lot of the players have lost their abillity to market themselves. The bottom line is that the release forms gives the WPT too much power.

Your missing the point. The point is the players had a choice whether or not they signed the release. The made a choice and signed it. The WPT is not doing anything that the players had not given them permission, in writting, to do. It may not be fair, but it is not illegal. The players knew what they were getting themselves into back then. If the terms of the release are so bad then the players should not have signed it. No one held a gun to their head.

[rivergirl 2]

i personally think that regardless of who is right or wrong here, (i've done a little reading and although i'm not completely versed on the subject, i think i have a better understanding of it) this is completely ridiculous!!!! i do believe that the WPT is somewhat over the top in regards to their release clause however, i think the 7 involved having exclusivity contracts with other companies and limiting themselves is in fact THEIR OWN FAULT. I can see how the WPT needs to change their practices but slapping a frivolous lawsuit on them, especially at a time when the whole internet poker empire is in great jeopardy is completely insane.I am from Canada so i'm not familiar with US law. I do however notice that "lawsuits" are very common in the United States....i think this is one of THOSEi think this situation is better handled in an adult manner, you know alot of people sitting and talking and coming to an agreement.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Yes but read up on anti trust laws, this is where it gets a little tricky.

Names and likenesses have nothing to do with anti-trust law. That is contract law pure and simple, and btw I have receieved training in contract law.I also know something about anti--trust law too. Not that much, but I know enough to say that the players do not have a case. They have to prove that the WPT used monopolistic power in an anti-competitve way, and they have to prove damages were done because of said action of the WPT, but that has to do with the exclusive deals with the casinos and not the release.The player release does not fall under the umbrella of anti-trust law. It is a legally binding contract signed in good faith by both parties. It meets all the requirements to make a legally binding contract and the players agreed to the terms by signing the contract. That is the bottom line and it is very clear cut.

[silkyjonson 1]

Names and likenesses have nothing to do with anti-trust law. That is contract law pure and simple, and btw I have receieved training in contract law.I also know something about anti--trust law too. Not that much, but I know enough to say that the players do not have a case. They have to prove that the WPT used monopolistic power in an anti-competitve way, and they have to prove damages were done because of said action of the WPT, but that has to do with the exclusive deals with the casinos and not the release.The player release does not fall under the umbrella of anti-trust law. It is a legally binding contract signed in good faith by both parties. It meets all the requirements to make a legally binding contract and the players agreed to the terms by signing the contract. That is the bottom line and it is very clear cut.

Just because they signed it does not mean that they cannot bring a suit to have the contract altered. People sign contracts all the time and if they can proove in court that the contract was unfair and that the players did not have a reasonable alternative then they can win (summed up). This is the point that the players i'm sure will make and I believe it is a strong one. Some of these players were earning there living in tournament poker before the WPT came around. So there livelyhood was based on these big tourneys. The WPT came around and now they make these players sign this in order to compete in these tournies, i.e. to continue making a living. So what the players will argue is that now they had no choice and they needed to continue making there living, therefore they did not have a reasonable alternative and it can be viewed the WPT was monopolistic and that the contract was unreasonable. And the players did not have anyway to deny it or fight it. So what it will boil down to is that the players will argue that they had to feed children etc., although this may seem hard to believe (being that there all millionaires) it is a valid point. I am not saying that they will win but this does sound like a reasonable and competitive argument to me. What the players I'm sure will say is that now that they have become marketable they are still tied in with the WPT and whatever they want to do. what people do not realize is that just because you sign a contract and you can say you knew what you are getting yourself into, does not mean that there is no discourse.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Just because they signed it does not mean that they cannot bring a suit to have the contract altered. People sign contracts all the time and if they can proove in court that the contract was unfair and that the players did not have a reasonable alternative then they can win (summed up). This is the point that the players i'm sure will make and I believe it is a strong one. Some of these players were earning there living in tournament poker before the WPT came around. So there livelyhood was based on these big tourneys. The WPT came around and now they make these players sign this in order to compete in these tournies, i.e. to continue making a living. So what the players will argue is that now they had no choice and they needed to continue making there living, therefore they did not have a reasonable alternative and it can be viewed the WPT was monopolistic and that the contract was unreasonable. And the players did not have anyway to deny it or fight it. So what it will boil down to is that the players will argue that they had to feed children etc., although this may seem hard to believe (being that there all millionaires) it is a valid point. I am not saying that they will win but this does sound like a reasonable and competitive argument to me. What the players I'm sure will say is that now that they have become marketable they are still tied in with the WPT and whatever they want to do. what people do not realize is that just because you sign a contract and you can say you knew what you are getting yourself into, does not mean that there is no discourse.

"Just because they signed it does not mean that they cannot bring a suit to have the contract altered"Actually that is exactly what it means. If two parties sign a contract, and both parties do so in good faith and they both hold up their end of the bargain, then one party cannot sue the other. Other than breech of conbtract, the only reason a lawsuit can be brought is if something in the contract breaks the law. The WPT held up their end of the bargain and nothing in the contract breaks the law, so having a signed contract does mean that oen party cannot sue to get it altered unless they have a valid reason. Not liking the terms of the contract afetr you signed it is not a valid reason."This is the point that the players i'm sure will make and I believe it is a strong one. Some of these players were earning there living in tournament poker before the WPT came around. So there livelyhood was based on these big tourneys. The WPT came around and now they make these players sign this in order to compete in these tournies, i.e. to continue making a living. So what the players will argue is that now they had no choice and they needed to continue making there living, therefore they did not have a reasonable alternative and it can be viewed the WPT was monopolistic and that the contract was unreasonable. And the players did not have anyway to deny it or fight it. So what it will boil down to is that the players will argue that they had to feed children etc., although this may seem hard to believe (being that there all millionaires) it is a valid point. "The WPT is not a monopoly. A monopoly means that there are no other firms in the indusrty. The WSOP does exist the last time I checked. Even if the players could prove the WPT is a monopoly and that they used monopolistic power to curb competition, which they will not be able to do, the players still need to prove damages. The players cannot prove that they would have made money in WPT tournaments as most players do not make any money back. Also, they can still make money, and do, by many other methods. The WSOP, online poker tourneys, and cash games are available for all players. They can make the argument, but they have no shot at winning the argument."what people do not realize is that just because you sign a contract and you can say you knew what you are getting yourself into, does not mean that there is no discourse."There should be discourse. I am not saying there shouldn't and I think there should; however, discourse is a long way from a lawsuit. This lawsuit has no legal basis. The players are hoping that the lawsuit makes the WPT sit down with them and make some sort of settlement (not financial but with regards to the release). From what the WPT has said, they are going to take this to the end. They will win if they do so and they know that. The players are playing a dangerous game of chicken, and if the lose (which they will if they don't drop this) then all poker players lose. I just don't think the seven players realize how bad the downside of this is if they get creamed, which is the most probable outcome here.

[Shizzmoney 0]

Comedy, from what I know of it, does not have frequent (I actually cannot think of any) where most of the people in your craft come to one place to ply your craft.

Well, LA and NYC are considered the two hubs for stand up (for two different reasons). NYC comics tried to unionize last year after local headliners and features were fed up for not getting pay hikes when the clubs kept raising the cover charge and drink minimums and pocketing the extra profit. The issue was eventually resolved, and the comics didn't unionize.But at the time, however, someone made a great point that a comedians' union wouldn't work because they would never get any "heavy hitters" (Rock, Romano, Seinfeld) to join in their cause because they already had it made (therefore losing the PR profit in the big name, as well as the added monetary firepower to back a campaign via media and payouts for those who could strike). Why would they want to burn bridges now, even if they sided with the comedians on the issues? They were already rich and were on the clubs/bookers' good side (because they had made enough fame were their own clout was good). Do you think a guy like Doyle or Barry would take time out of their busy schedules to formulate meeting on creating a union? I don't think so, and that is part of the problem because in order for a union to work you need three things: money, leadership, and cooperation from EVERYONE. Another issue was that if a comedians' union was formed, and their demands would be too high or not satisfactory to what the clubs/bookers would agree to, then the bookers and clubs would get together and BAN all those comics from performing at their establishments all together, because they know they would find someone (*albeit not as famous/good) to take their place. Who is to say that if a poker players' union was formed, that the casinos/WPT/WSOP would not ahere to their demands and ban said players in the union. Who would stop them? Sure, the players could sue.....but you would need a ton of dough to take on those corporations in court.It can't just be from guys like Lederer and DN, long time players who actually care about the issue related to those in poker. It would have to be a big collected effort from a majority, so that way if the casinos would have to start thinking, "Wait, if we don't ahere to the players demands for a better work environent, then Phil Ivey, Doyle, and others won't play at our casino and we could lose business and attention". I'm not saying that would be the particular case, but you have to have the threat of the casinos losing something in order for a union to have an actually solid say in things. Just look at the NFL/MLB/NBA players' unions. They know the owners have alot to lose by standing on their own two feet, and use that against them. That's why their salaries are so outrageous......although a poker or sports "union" isn't actually a "labor issue". There is no "labor" in what both do. You "choose" to play poker, do comedy, athletics......it's not like a construction worker, a firefighter, or a police officer......where those jobs are needed in order for society to function.

Poker is just set up in a way that makes it so a union is a real possibility if it is done right. Players will do what is in their own best interest. So, if you convince them that a union will make them more money by having better releases and better playing conditions and that it will not really cost them much to get a huge net gain in terms of results, I think poker players would jump at the chance.

Those points about how poker players have a greater unity are valid. I am sure if a collected effort was tried, it would have a much better success that doing so, especially now during the poker boom. Comedy is a MUCH more cut throat business (I know, sounds wierd, doesn't it?), especially since poker is evoling into a "game sport". I have found my relationships with fellow poker players to be much more accomdating and trusting (although part of me is always suspect at first glance) rather than from comedians, who for the most part, don't simply give a sh*t about the next guy and even come close to stealing other's material (Berle, Leary, Cook) to further their own chance for fame. At least in this squabble between DN and Raymer, it shows that poker players are starting to take care of each other and trying to formulate discussions and action to resolve issues related to poker. It's a positive start (minus the name calling, which at least is good for a nice laugh).

[ColeSLaw 0]

"Just because they signed it does not mean that they cannot bring a suit to have the contract altered"Actually that is exactly what it means. If two parties sign a contract, and both parties do so in good faith and they both hold up their end of the bargain, then one party cannot sue the other. Other than breech of conbtract, the only reason a lawsuit can be brought is if something in the contract breaks the law. The WPT is not a monopoly. A monopoly means that there are no other firms in the indusrty. The WSOP does exist the last time I checked.

Unfortunately, you do not understanding the matter at hand. First, while a lawyer may face punishment from their state bar for a frivilous lawsuit, this case would not fall under that category as a good faith argument could be made on their claims.Second, your understanding of contract law is incorrect. Courts can and do examine the reasonableness of a contract and can void the agreement for a number of reasons regardless of breach in equity. Let say you and I create a good faith contract to sell your soul to me. There is offer, acceptance and consideration. If a person with standing brought the matter before the court, the contract would be voided as unconscionable. A closer example would be a restraint of trade contract. Courts will weigh the reasonableness of a restraint of trade clause and will void the provision based on factors such as its duration, scope, the effect it has on competition and on the individual's ability to make a living.As for the antitrust matter, it is not about having a monopoly, it is about merely limiting competition. That is a huge difference.With all due respect, your legal opinions are incorrect and serve to only confuse readers.

[finztotheleft 0]

Actually it is a matter of fact. The WPT has not used the players likenesses in any way that is inappropriate. The players are just mad because they MIGHT do it in the future.As for the release. I have not read it, nor have I signed one, but from what I have read about it the release is very broad and gives the WPT pretty much unlimited use of the players name and likeness. You may, as I do, think that this is unneccessary and should not be in a release, but that does not make it illegal. Thw WPT made the release that why just so they could avoid lawsuits:-)The bottom line is the players SIGNED the release giving the WPT to use the players name and likeness. The players cannot sue just because they changed their mind about wanting the WPT to POSSIBLY use their name and likeness.The person/people who said that you do not need a legal basis to sue is mistaken (I am trying to be nice here). A lawyer could, and probably would, get disbarred if they brought a lawsuit that had no legal basis. If you want to make a point, then write a letter, picket outside a WPT event, write letters-to-the-editor of poker publications, start a petition, or do one of several other things to get your point across. A lawsuit is for when a law has broken. You may think that the WPT release is bad for poker players, but if a player signs it they have to abide by its terms.If the players are so unhappy with the WPT, then why don't they give back the prize money that they won. They do not like the release they signed, and they won their money because of the release, so if they feel so strongly about this issue why don't they just give up all the profits that they made by playing in WPT events?

Sean....most of us here have read the release. It has been published here in several threads. You might want to educate yourself on that before continuing to comment on the release which you freely admit that you do not know the details of.You have also stated that you agree wholeheartedly with DN on this. You do not seem to be aware that he signed the WPT contract and then sued them for using his likeness in a video game.I happen to agree with what DN did. I give more kudos, though, to these 7 individuals who are fighting to have have the contract changed first, rather than sign it and then try to fight it later when their image/name is used in a way they do not want it to be.You are also changing the language here of your previous statements about a lawsuit only being legal if a law was broken. Is it against the law for coffee to be served hot ? McDonalds was sued for that after some idiot spilled the hot coffee all over themselves.

[silkyjonson 1]

"Just because they signed it does not mean that they cannot bring a suit to have the contract altered"Actually that is exactly what it means. If two parties sign a contract, and both parties do so in good faith and they both hold up their end of the bargain, then one party cannot sue the other. Other than breech of conbtract, the only reason a lawsuit can be brought is if something in the contract breaks the law. The WPT held up their end of the bargain and nothing in the contract breaks the law, so having a signed contract does mean that oen party cannot sue to get it altered unless they have a valid reason. Not liking the terms of the contract afetr you signed it is not a valid reason."This is the point that the players i'm sure will make and I believe it is a strong one. Some of these players were earning there living in tournament poker before the WPT came around. So there livelyhood was based on these big tourneys. The WPT came around and now they make these players sign this in order to compete in these tournies, i.e. to continue making a living. So what the players will argue is that now they had no choice and they needed to continue making there living, therefore they did not have a reasonable alternative and it can be viewed the WPT was monopolistic and that the contract was unreasonable. And the players did not have anyway to deny it or fight it. So what it will boil down to is that the players will argue that they had to feed children etc., although this may seem hard to believe (being that there all millionaires) it is a valid point. "The WPT is not a monopoly. A monopoly means that there are no other firms in the indusrty. The WSOP does exist the last time I checked. Even if the players could prove the WPT is a monopoly and that they used monopolistic power to curb competition, which they will not be able to do, the players still need to prove damages. The players cannot prove that they would have made money in WPT tournaments as most players do not make any money back. Also, they can still make money, and do, by many other methods. The WSOP, online poker tourneys, and cash games are available for all players. They can make the argument, but they have no shot at winning the argument."what people do not realize is that just because you sign a contract and you can say you knew what you are getting yourself into, does not mean that there is no discourse."There should be discourse. I am not saying there shouldn't and I think there should; however, discourse is a long way from a lawsuit. This lawsuit has no legal basis. The players are hoping that the lawsuit makes the WPT sit down with them and make some sort of settlement (not financial but with regards to the release). From what the WPT has said, they are going to take this to the end. They will win if they do so and they know that. The players are playing a dangerous game of chicken, and if the lose (which they will if they don't drop this) then all poker players lose. I just don't think the seven players realize how bad the downside of this is if they get creamed, which is the most probable outcome here.

I have'nt studied law other than in a limited scope for my profession, and the only contract law that I know is from what I've spoken with a friend who is a lawyer when I had to sign a contract which I thought was unfair. So Im not an expert but from what I know and from reasoning I assure you that they do have somewhat of an argument, how strong I do not know. the main point I want to make is that Sean you are looking at this in a black and white fashion, and in law as in life nothing is black and white there are always loopholes.

[FourFlusher 0]

In poker, the answer is always: It depends.

[DaveFoley 0]

I have to disagree. I think if take a hard look at poker over the last few years _ Celebrity Poker _ was the real turning point that spurred the boom. But I respect my fellow Canadians opinion. Thanks.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Well, LA and NYC are considered the two hubs for stand up (for two different reasons). NYC comics tried to unionize last year after local headliners and features were fed up for not getting pay hikes when the clubs kept raising the cover charge and drink minimums and pocketing the extra profit. The issue was eventually resolved, and the comics didn't unionize.But at the time, however, someone made a great point that a comedians' union wouldn't work because they would never get any "heavy hitters" (Rock, Romano, Seinfeld) to join in their cause because they already had it made (therefore losing the PR profit in the big name, as well as the added monetary firepower to back a campaign via media and payouts for those who could strike). Why would they want to burn bridges now, even if they sided with the comedians on the issues? They were already rich and were on the clubs/bookers' good side (because they had made enough fame were their own clout was good). Do you think a guy like Doyle or Barry would take time out of their busy schedules to formulate meeting on creating a union? I don't think so, and that is part of the problem because in order for a union to work you need three things: money, leadership, and cooperation from EVERYONE. Another issue was that if a comedians' union was formed, and their demands would be too high or not satisfactory to what the clubs/bookers would agree to, then the bookers and clubs would get together and BAN all those comics from performing at their establishments all together, because they know they would find someone (*albeit not as famous/good) to take their place. Who is to say that if a poker players' union was formed, that the casinos/WPT/WSOP would not ahere to their demands and ban said players in the union. Who would stop them? Sure, the players could sue.....but you would need a ton of dough to take on those corporations in court.It can't just be from guys like Lederer and DN, long time players who actually care about the issue related to those in poker. It would have to be a big collected effort from a majority, so that way if the casinos would have to start thinking, "Wait, if we don't ahere to the players demands for a better work environent, then Phil Ivey, Doyle, and others won't play at our casino and we could lose business and attention". I'm not saying that would be the particular case, but you have to have the threat of the casinos losing something in order for a union to have an actually solid say in things. Just look at the NFL/MLB/NBA players' unions. They know the owners have alot to lose by standing on their own two feet, and use that against them. That's why their salaries are so outrageous......although a poker or sports "union" isn't actually a "labor issue". There is no "labor" in what both do. You "choose" to play poker, do comedy, athletics......it's not like a construction worker, a firefighter, or a police officer......where those jobs are needed in order for society to function.Those points about how poker players have a greater unity are valid. I am sure if a collected effort was tried, it would have a much better success that doing so, especially now during the poker boom. Comedy is a MUCH more cut throat business (I know, sounds wierd, doesn't it?), especially since poker is evoling into a "game sport". I have found my relationships with fellow poker players to be much more accomdating and trusting (although part of me is always suspect at first glance) rather than from comedians, who for the most part, don't simply give a sh*t about the next guy and even come close to stealing other's material (Berle, Leary, Cook) to further their own chance for fame. At least in this squabble between DN and Raymer, it shows that poker players are starting to take care of each other and trying to formulate discussions and action to resolve issues related to poker. It's a positive start (minus the name calling, which at least is good for a nice laugh).

Casinos cannot ban players just because they are, or could be since there is not one yet, a part of a union. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that is black letter law as I have studied the era where such laws were made.

[minorityreport 0]

Sorry DN, I'm a fan, but your counter-arguments are very weak and embarrassingly naive.You are commiting three fallacious forms of argument: the slippery slope, disambiguation and appeal to force. You have to argue on the merits (case law, precedent, public policy), and not evaluate the validity of the legal claims on how it might effect the growth of poker, or on how it is like "biting the hand that fed". You talk so much around the actual legal issues, maybe you should have become a politician instead of a poker player.Future reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

[speedz99 145]

In the end this is just all about everyone trying to make more money for themselves. To pretend otherwise is just embarrassing to all involved.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Sean....most of us here have read the release. It has been published here in several threads. You might want to educate yourself on that before continuing to comment on the release which you freely admit that you do not know the details of.You have also stated that you agree wholeheartedly with DN on this. You do not seem to be aware that he signed the WPT contract and then sued them for using his likeness in a video game.I happen to agree with what DN did. I give more kudos, though, to these 7 individuals who are fighting to have have the contract changed first, rather than sign it and then try to fight it later when their image/name is used in a way they do not want it to be.You are also changing the language here of your previous statements about a lawsuit only being legal if a law was broken. Is it against the law for coffee to be served hot ? McDonalds was sued for that after some idiot spilled the hot coffee all over themselves.

Contract law is more black and white than other parts of the law. I agree there are parts of the law where things can get tricky, but contract law is one of the most straight forward areas of law. I read the WSOP release as I was going to enter the ME before something came up, so I I am not totally ignorant when it comes to these releases. I did not know DN sued the WPT, and will not comment on that situation as I have no knowledge base for the lawsuit you said DN filed.These seven players signed the release, and then didn't like the terms of the release after they signed it and reaped the benefits of the WPT tournaments. I have said all along that I am not a lawyer, but I do know some things about the law. From what I do know, and my knowledge does apply a little to this situation, there is no basis for the lawsuit.

Unfortunately, you do not understanding the matter at hand. First, while a lawyer may face punishment from their state bar for a frivilous lawsuit, this case would not fall under that category as a good faith argument could be made on their claims.Second, your understanding of contract law is incorrect. Courts can and do examine the reasonableness of a contract and can void the agreement for a number of reasons regardless of breach in equity. Let say you and I create a good faith contract to sell your soul to me. There is offer, acceptance and consideration. If a person with standing brought the matter before the court, the contract would be voided as unconscionable. A closer example would be a restraint of trade contract. Courts will weigh the reasonableness of a restraint of trade clause and will void the provision based on factors such as its duration, scope, the effect it has on competition and on the individual's ability to make a living.As for the antitrust matter, it is not about having a monopoly, it is about merely limiting competition. That is a huge difference.With all due respect, your legal opinions are incorrect and serve to only confuse readers.

That response was made by me because several posters said that you do not need a legal basis for a lawsuit. They claim they can sue anyone for any reason and do not need to have a reason based in law. That comment was not made for the specific case of the seven players.

Unfortunately, you do not understanding the matter at hand. First, while a lawyer may face punishment from their state bar for a frivilous lawsuit, this case would not fall under that category as a good faith argument could be made on their claims.Second, your understanding of contract law is incorrect. Courts can and do examine the reasonableness of a contract and can void the agreement for a number of reasons regardless of breach in equity. Let say you and I create a good faith contract to sell your soul to me. There is offer, acceptance and consideration. If a person with standing brought the matter before the court, the contract would be voided as unconscionable. A closer example would be a restraint of trade contract. Courts will weigh the reasonableness of a restraint of trade clause and will void the provision based on factors such as its duration, scope, the effect it has on competition and on the individual's ability to make a living.As for the antitrust matter, it is not about having a monopoly, it is about merely limiting competition. That is a huge difference.With all due respect, your legal opinions are incorrect and serve to only confuse readers.

I realize a contract can be voided for a reaon other than breach. lack of consideration is one example. Your exapmle of me selling my soul is off point because there could be an argument of lack of consideration (among other arguments that could be made). What, in the WPT release, makes it so the contract could possibly be voided. I have said that contract law can get tricky, but it is not in this case because this case is pretty straight forward.