Wpt Lawsuit...my Perspective

[blueodum 0]

They can't just go shut the sites down, but they can make it difficult or nearly impossible for individuals to play on those casinos online if they really want.Only people living in the US. Even if the worst happened and 90% of current American players stopped playing, these sites would continue to operate.

[GmanIV 0]

WPT made Poker popular...hands down!Gee now lets sue! Lets bite the hand that fed us.Suing the WPT is bad for poker.If you're not happy with the WPT, go to the WSOP or somewhere esle.The "elite 7" suing the WPT need to be grateful to the WPT!WPT stock got so high in summer of 2005 is because Doyle Brunson said he wanted to buy it, I dont see why the stock jumped so high.It's about where it should be right now, $3--$6 range.The TV show is great, but lest face it, the market is now flooded with Poker shows.You want some good stock, Party PokerThey make MILLINS each year and their stock is only at $2.15 a share, it boggles my mind why it's so cheap!go to etrade and buy some today.

[Aardhart 0]

This just goes to show that anyone that disagrees with DN is a complete idiot. If you disagree with him, then why don't you setup a meeting with Heydary Hamilton PC like I did. This lawsuit against the WPT is serisouly going to screw up online poker for everyone and who knows what other consequences and repercussions will take place. So before you shoot your damn mouths of, why not ACUTALLY TALK TO A LAWYER....Cheers,Greg

Thank you for posting about your conversation with a lawyer. I'm surprised to hear that online poker is illegal in Canada, but I have no basis to disagree with what the lawyer told you. I can tell you that your conversation is completely irrelevant to the WPT lawsuit. The WPT lawsuit does not involve online poker in any way. I am a lawyer, and other lawyers have posted on this thread. A lawsuit between Greg Raymer and company against the WPT does not endanger online poker any more than a lawsuit between Daniel Negreanu and the owner of the WSOP. This lawsuit is about the release and antitrust laws and, as far as online poker goes, can not be distinguished from a lawsuit Daniel actually filed.

[Aardhart 0]

The release languange.For all the supporters of the WPT and those saying that the lawsuit is wrong, here is the actual WPT language:

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.

Interpretation of TermsThis specifically grants the wrong to use a Player's name, photograph, and likeness in 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.). Can anyone argue that this language would not cover a Daniel Negreanu bobblehead doll, a knock-off Stacked video game, or anything the WPT could conceive of? (Compare it to the WSOP Circuit releases and other releases used in television.)Enforceability and StuffMany people argue that the lawsuit is not necessary because the clause would be unforced by a court because of unconscionbility or something. I agree that this is possible, but it would not be automatic. It is difficult to prove unconscionbility or other defenses and think that there is a chance that the WPT (or their successors) could get away with almost anything.However, this lawsuit does not endanger these defenses in any way. The plaintiffs are challenging the clauses and are represented by great lawyers. If this lawsuit can't invalidate these terms, then later plaintiffs wouldn't be able to either. These Seven are spending their own money to fight this clause. Everyone else gets the benefit.

[Aardhart 0]

Also as affirmation, the online sites are not US or Canada based, therefore not governed by US laws.

This is not quite accurate. It's fuzzy. US laws apply where they say they apply and where they can enforce them. Online poker players in the US are subject to US laws. Online sites that conduct business in the US are subject to US laws. The Betonsports CEO was arrested for taking bets from the US in Costa Rica. While he may not be convicted, the matter of what laws govern are a lot fuzzier than your statement suggests. Laws related to online poker are also a lot fuzzier than the laws related to betting on sports.

In fact, the WTO has ruled that the U.S.’s casino policies violated international trade standards, as the country hosts legally-sanctioned casino gaming within its borders, but restricts such pursuits for offshore Internet casino companies. The US has appealed, but no conclusion has been reached.

This is a good example of the fuzziness of international law. The Panel decision was already affirmed (with some modification) by the Appellate Body, finding that the US restrictions against online gambling violated an international trade treaty. The US has done nothing to comply. The WTO and Antigua can't really do much about it. More details are available on a website, which I think is maintained by the lawyers for Antigua.

[golfingdaddy 0]

Online sites that conduct business in the US are subject to US laws.

Not being a lawyer, I won't presume to know anything; but for entertainment purposes only I would think a competent lawyer wouldn't have a very difficult time convincing a court that business conducted in cyberspace is not "in the US" even if the customer originated from the US. One could argue that advertising in the US constitutes conducting business, but since the DOJ seized the advertising funds for one online site from Discovery channel, all commercials refer to the .net site, not the gambling site.Furthermore, and please correct me if I'm wrong, haven't US corporations set up shells & subsidiararies, and moved their headquarters outside of the US precisely because they can't be governed & regulated by US laws (except where their "branch" office is on US soil.) I know they avoid paying a great deal of taxes in this manner.Like you said, enforcement becomes the issue. I know we're a bit off topic & in an effort not to hijack this thread, let's agree that it's all speculation until a court convicts or acquits someone.One question that I haven't seen posed is: Didn't these tournaments exist before the WPT decided to broadcast them? Although the numbers have likely grown with the WPT coverage, (buyins, participants, etc.) the tournaments existing pre-WPT would add validity to their "right to earn a living" claims.

[blueodum 0]

The US government can't touch these sites. They can restrict access for US residents. They can arrest executives travelling in the US if they violate the federal Wire Act (Online Poker doesn't fall under the act). Beyond that they can do nothing.There is this concept of sovereignty, perhaps you've heard of it?Companies based in other countries must comply with the laws of that country. These sites are completely legal in the places they are set up. The US can only shut down branch operations based in the US, but again, these companies don't have any branch offices in the US.

[revg 0]

Well, we could argue this until we are blue in the face.1) Is the lawsuit justified? Maybe, maybe not.2) Will the lawsuit be bad for poker in general? maybe, maybe not.3) If "The 7" win the lawsuit will things be better for poker players? maybe, maybe not4) Does this lawsuit affect online poker or online casinos? maybe, maybe not.No one knows for certain the answers to these questions. We are arguing on opinions mostly with a few facts here and there to back us up. I can tell you right now that even the LAWYERS do not know for certain because I have talked some.So this will be my last post on this topic because there is no point in flogging a dead horse. My opinion is that this lawsuit will have a bad affect on the poker industry as a whole. My opinion is that this lawsuit WILL in deed affect online poker in a negative way. And finally I think "The 7" are just getting greedy and that this whole lawsuit will back fire on them. Then again, maybe it's just me.Cheers I'm out,Greg

[TulaneFlyr 0]

Lets not flog that dead horse, and lets just give one final answer, because I don't think the issues are that succinctly stated.1) Is the lawsuit justified? Your answer was maybe or maybe not. Our discussion of that is irrelevant. It only matters to the judge and the litigants involved. The 7 believe its justified. While I am not 100% convinced on the WHOLE lawsuit, parts of it are glaring, and need to be addressed. Honestly, in my opinion, if part of the lawsuit is justified, the whole is. And I think there is at least some credence to at least ONE argument they make.2) Will the lawsuit be bad for poker in general? This is Daniel's question. He has been outspoken about this. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe or maybe not is reasonable. Its my opinion, however, that this, in large part, depends on how these litigants treat each other. If either side slings mud, both will end up dirty.3) If "The 7" win the lawsuit will things be better for poker players?Daniel suggests this question differently in the last blog, saying if they lost, how much worse off things would be for the players, how much power the WPT and WSOP would have. From that perspective, I would hope that things would be better. I am sure that if you asked baseball fans if things were better after Curt Flood, they would probably give you a multitude of responses. Modern days, most people would ask "who the heck is Curt Flood?!"4) Does this lawsuit affect online poker or online casinos? This one is easy. In and of itself, in a bell jar, no, this suit does not, and can not affect online poker or online casinos. One judge can not make determinations that will change congressional action or that will enforce the laws as written differently. That being said, I know thise case is not going off in a bell jar. If there is mudslingigng everyone will get dirty and everyone looks at dirty people. If these litigants dont behave themselves, they both stand to lose. WPT as it has an online site of its own, and the players through their affiliations and the amount of money available in online poker. They know the risks involved and I think they are mostly gentlemen.My opinion. . . . for what it is worth. This lawsuit is necessary. Things are too ambiguous and unstated between the parties. As a business, WPT needs to be willing to sit at a table and negotiate in good faith. If they won't negotiate, the terms can never be understood and they can never formally contract with anyone. The players need to stop friggin whining too, as they didn't have smart enough lawyers to draft around these releases. They make millions of dollars at this game. They make millions from the online game. That being said, they need to protect that online game from coming under scrutiny. As long as both sides play this hand above board, and keep their hands clean, there can be a legal determination on the issues, which will be something quiet and boring. All hail quiet and boring!

[DerekTah 0]

Lets not flog that dead horse, and lets just give one final answer, because I don't think the issues are that succinctly stated.3) If "The 7" win the lawsuit will things be better for poker players?Daniel suggests this question differently in the last blog, saying if they lost, how much worse off things would be for the players, how much power the WPT and WSOP would have. From that perspective, I would hope that things would be better. I am sure that if you asked baseball fans if things were better after Curt Flood, they would probably give you a multitude of responses. Modern days, most people would ask "who the heck is Curt Flood?!"

And the important thing to remember about Flood, is that he lost his lawsuit (maybe he should of waited until every baseball player decided not to play).On whether things are better after Flood, for the baseball players there is no doubt the answer is YES! (for the actually game itself, completly different question.)

[Timinator99 0]

I'm sure this is exactly what DN and others were afraid of happening:World Poker Tour Files Answer To Lawsuit"The most interesting portion of the 22 page answer filed yesterday by WPT counsel is the WPT actually attempts to turn the tables. One portion of the answer asserts that any of the players in this suit that are affiliated with, or participate in the business decision making process of an online poker room are actually putting the WPT at an unfair advantage. The answer asserts that by participating in profits reaped by accepting US bettors via their online poker site, these players put the WPT at a competitive disadvantage. The WPT's online poker site, WPT Online does not take US bettors due to the unclear legal situation surrounding online poker here in the US. The answer also claims that, by promoting online poker in the US, and and taking US bettors, these players are actually subsidizing the poker TV programming these online poker rooms produce, and as such, competing with the WPT in its core business – producing poker television programming."

[revg 0]

4) Does this lawsuit affect online poker or online casinos? This one is easy. In and of itself, in a bell jar, no, this suit does not, and can not affect online poker or online casinos. One judge can not make determinations that will change congressional action or that will enforce the laws as written differently. That being said, I know thise case is not going off in a bell jar. If there is mudslingigng everyone will get dirty and everyone looks at dirty people. If these litigants dont behave themselves, they both stand to lose. WPT as it has an online site of its own, and the players through their affiliations and the amount of money available in online poker. They know the risks involved and I think they are mostly gentlemen.

Heh... I guess you should probably read the World Poker Tour Files Answer To Lawsuit and take another crack at your answer.I knew this lawsuit was a bad idea. These 7 poker players are in deep now... Cheers,Greg

[erikakazan 0]

I have a couple of questions that I am sure will get me flamed.1. Is Daniel an American citizen or still Canadian? I am just wondering if the online poker laws are different in Canada.2. What is the worst-case scenario that could happen with online poker? I find it hard to believe that Daniel or Doyle (along with all the others) would enter into something that could be illegal.3. Did the 7 just get bad legal advice? I mean did their lawyers not explain the possible ramifications of their actions?I apologize if these have been answered. I am just trying to educate myself.

[revg 0]

I have a couple of questions that I am sure will get me flamed.1. Is Daniel an American citizen or still Canadian? I am just wondering if the online poker laws are different in Canada.2. What is the worst-case scenario that could happen with online poker? I find it hard to believe that Daniel or Doyle (along with all the others) would enter into something that could be illegal.3. Did the 7 just get bad legal advice? I mean did their lawyers not explain the possible ramifications of their actions?I apologize if these have been answered. I am just trying to educate myself.

Well I can comment on this since I have sought legal advice on setting up an online poker/casino site and I am from Canada. The firm I contacted wanted a $5000 retainer right up front just so that they could do the required research before they would tell me if it was legal or illegal.They told me that online gaming is a very big gray area and even after they do the requried research to determine the legalities that I still am not entirely safe. So in essence anyone who profits off of the online gaming industry in the US or Canada directly or perhaps indirectly is taking a risk. How big of a risk? It's hard to say. They also told me that the laws regarding running on online gaming site in US and/or Canada states that it is illegal, but obviously the way around this is to host your site offshore.I dont' know for sure what the worst case scenario for online gaming could be, but one bad thing that could happen with online poker is that the US and/or canada pass legislation making it illegal to profit directly or indirectly from online gaming period. They could also pass legislation that makes it illegal to deposit money into an account that will be used to fund an online gaming site. This could really put a damper on the online gaming industry.The lawyers that "The 7" hired are most likely just doing their job. I have consulted my patent lawyer once to look into sueing a company that ripped off my website design and my dj software UI. He told me that it was a bad idea to even write them a cease and desist letter unless I was serious, especially if the company I was sending it to had more money than mine did. However, this didn't mean he wouldn't do the work for me, it was MERELY ADVICE. I can take his advice and not send the cease and desist, but if I was to tell the lawyer to go ahead and send it anyway he would still do it.Cheers,Greg

[NoxKo 0]

Just read DN's latest blog entry regarding this topic.His basic thesis is that the WPT put poker on the map, so we should all be grateful and just STFU. Yes he talks about other aspects of the issue, but his main thesis is what I stated.I'm sorry, but that's weak. That's like saying a parent has a right to abuse their kid because their kid wouldn't be alive in the first place without the parent. Totally silly argument. The WPT wouldn't be rich without the players anymore than the players would be rich without the WPT. The WPT should be just as "grateful" to the players. The players PAID their way in for Pete's sake. The WPT filmed it and made millions from it.Whether the lawsuit is overboard or not is not the question. Most reasonable people will come to the conclusion that the WPT release is unreasonable. As a comparison, simply look at the WSOP release. If the WPT would just make the release similar to the WSOP's, then I would hope that the lawsuit would be dropped. Until such time, I hope the lawsuit continues.

[blueodum 0]

2. What is the worst-case scenario that could happen with online poker? I find it hard to believe that Daniel or Doyle (along with all the others) would enter into something that could be illegal.3. Did the 7 just get bad legal advice? I mean did their lawyers not explain the possible ramifications of their actions?#2: The worst case scenario is that the US government puts significant financial and technical barriers up that discourage US players from playing. This is what the new proposed law in the US is about and all poker players should be worried about it. IMO no such law is or will be in the works in Canada for the next several decades. Unlike in many quarters in the US, there is very little appetite for "save us from ourselves" lawmaking in Canada. Online poker will continue to exist, of course, because there is a world beyond the borders of the USA.#3: No. What the 7 are doing is the correct course of action. The WPTE's response, bringing up the completely unrelated issue of online poker, is (A) an indication of the weakness of their defense and (B) not going to have any effect on online poker. The "moral majority" crowd is going after the devil that is online gambling full throttle as it is.Also, Daniel's citizenship isn't relevant. He is a resident of the US and Nevada, and must conform to the laws of those jurisdictions.As an aside, you all should read Michael Craig's blog (author of "The Professor, the Banker and the Suicide King).http://craigsjournal.pokerworks.com/In a recent entry, Richard Brodie (of Microsoft fame) was railing him in a tourney at Full Tilt. When Craig invited Brodie to play, Brodie responded that he couldn't because he would be breaking the law. Brodie lives in Washington state, where it is a felony to PLAY online poker for money (though no one has yet been arrested for doing so). Craig then said (or joked) that he would travel there and play online poker in front of the state legislature until they arrested him.