Phil Gordon Makes A Good Point About The Wpt Lawsuit, Don't Be Bias, Read

[bbz_Ghost 0]

What gets me is how so many people keep saying "suing the people that made them rich and famous."Sorry, but the people that make poker players rich and famous are (drumroll please)...Other poker players that pony up buy-ins to tournaments that make up the prize pool, unless you're talking about some big damn freeroll that's sponsored by some corporate lackeys. It would be nice if people would give credit where the credit is due: poker players put money in other poker player's pockets, 'nuff said.I think I understand the gist of the lawsuit, and I'm not going to start rattling off at the mouth (whoa, me?) but I'd say it's best left to the people involved in it firsthand. Sure, we can read the releases, we can read the debates, the arguments, even the litigation paperwork itself, but in the end we're still not going to understand the full ramifications of how this thing is going to play out.Basically as I get it, they (the players) are pissed that the WPT release (the one I read that supposed isn't going to be changed) gives the WPT the "universal" right to use the player's images, faces, representations, voices, etc any damned way they choose.Now, someone explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old, but if you get a legal document in front of you and you read it from start to finish and note all the stuff in between, and you read they can use you like a "sockpuppet" (sorry, had to do it) for their own nefarious purposes, and you then proceed to sign that document, doesn't that bind you to it?Sure, you can read it beforehand and complain about it, but at that point you say Yay or you say Nay and go on about your business. Either accept it or not accept it. The issue at hand now is that this group of 7 has stepped up "for the betterment of poker players everywhere" and is now taking the forefront of this supposed litigation thing - and I might be mistaken here but I think that's Daniel's issue with it:Who asked these people to step up in the first place? Wouldn't it be better for each player as an individual to just read the release and say, "Take this and wipe your *** with it, Mr. <insert WPT official's name here>" ?I agree with Daniel on one aspect: in the end, this is going to be bad for poker overall since it's attracting negative publicity. And screw the old maxim that "Bad press is better than no press at all" because in this case, it's negative all the way around and over and under and back around again.Just my $.02... and change...bb

[milbucksfans 0]

Am I the only one wondering why it's just an issue now? I'm assuming the WPT has used the same release since it's inception, and I know that Bloch, Gordon, Lederer, etc. have had to sign those releases in the past, as they've played in events. Those releases, if nothing has changed, allows the WPT to use their image and likeness in perpetuity. If these players had already signed these releases and then signed other endorsement deals in the meantime that conflict with the wording of the WPT release, wouldn't the endorsement contract be the conflicting document, rather than the WPT release?

I'm not certain, but I believe the contract has been altered within the last year or so to add the ominous language. I'm sure someone will be very quick to correct that if I'm wrong.

[cap gusto 0]

I have seen many people state that the WPT should just change the release form and I completely agree that it needs to be changed. The problem is that even if it were changed today...the lawsuit would still be going ahead.The reason is the already existing signed release forms. I believe that the players are fighting not only for a change to the existing form but for a nullification of the previous forms.

[$ STACKED $ 0]

I wish someone would bring a lawsuit against STACKED and Dan W. of Myelin Media....they're the real criminals!

[brvheart 1,752]

interesting chat with Phil Gordon.

One time when I was 16, I was driving around with a couple friends and one of my friends threw a firework into the open window of another vehicle with 16 year olds in it. It was a little black cat or something. Well, then later that night, my best friend called me and said to come down to the [insert local hang out place]. I did, and a when we got out, (I was still with my friends from earlier) a whole gang of people jumped on the car and pulled out the dude that threw the firework and beat the crap out of him. I didn't get beat up, as I was well respected (and huge...6'7"), but I hate my best friend for like 3 years, because he betrayed my trust.... That being said... if you told Phil that you won't say anything and then decided that you would betray his trust because you wanted to be e-cool for 15 minutes, then I hope you get stomach cancer.go away and never post here again.ps... I liked the chat it was interesting...nh.

[FileError404 0]

Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once.

Well, wait a while. When they use your image in 3 or 5 or 20 years, right after you've won a big tourney to promote their new poker site (or WPT Cigarettes...), you might change your mind. Just because they never did it doesn't mean they never will. Otherwise why wouldn't they just change the clause? I think you're a little too trusting. Sure, I believe Lipscomb and Berman, too but they won't be around in perpetuity, your signature will.Good luck!

[XA_kid 0]

Honestly, while I can see where Daniel is coming from and am annoyed at some comments that have been made by the 7, I do believe that they are right.There's a clause in the contract that grants unlimited usage of a player's personal images.So? It's not like they have used their images to any large extent.But who's to say they aren't going to?It's a mute point because you deal in what-ifs.Fine. Germany passed progressively Anti-Jewish laws that eventually led to the Holocaust during WWII. I am sure that people who looked at the situation went "Ok they put them in Ghettos. I don't think the Germans are going to commit Genocide so we had better stay out of it. No point in getting involved in what-ifs."That may be an extreme example, but it does carry my point. I could understand if the WPT was a freeroll and the players should be able to give up something in return, but they pay $10K every event and upwards and a precentage of that is rake. This is not a free ride for them. And this contract which some people cannot enter into hurts those players because it cuts off a source of income. Chris Ferguson has done very well in the WSOP circuit 10K events and think of the lost income to him since he can't play in WPT events due to his contract with Activision?Why not change the release clause, Lyle Berman, unless you have something to gain in the future?Honestly, while I can see where Daniel is coming from and am annoyed at some comments that have been made by the 7, I do believe that they are right.There's a clause in the contract that grants unlimited usage of a player's personal images.So? It's not like they have used their images to any large extent.But who's to say they aren't going to?It's a mute point because you deal in what-ifs.Fine. Germany passed progressively Anti-Jewish laws that eventually led to the Holocaust during WWII. I am sure that people who looked at the situation went "Ok they put them in Ghettos. I don't think the Germans are going to commit Genocide so we had better stay out of it. No point in getting involved in what-ifs."That may be an extreme example, but it does carry my point. I could understand if the WPT was a freeroll and the players should be able to give up something in return, but they pay $10K every event and upwards and a precentage of that is rake. This is not a free ride for them. And this contract which some people cannot enter into hurts those players because it cuts off a source of income. Chris Ferguson has done very well in the WSOP circuit 10K events and think of the lost income to him since he can't play in WPT events due to his contract with Activision?Why not change the release clause, Lyle Berman, unless you have something to gain in the future?

[Tiltinagain 973]

I have seen many people state that the WPT should just change the release form and I completely agree that it needs to be changed. The problem is that even if it were changed today...the lawsuit would still be going ahead.The reason is the already existing signed release forms. I believe that the players are fighting not only for a change to the existing form but for a nullification of the previous forms.

So what Daniel has been saying is correct. The players had no problem signing the waivers in the past, before they became celebraties (sp) but now that there's been this huge poker boom and there's money to be made by selling and/or endorsing items with their name and/or likeness on them, they want out of the deal. Look, I agree that it seems like the "logical" way to end this is for the WPT to stop including the offending release(s) from their agreements, especially if they really don't plan to do anything with them, but why should they be forced to if they don't want to? The WPT is a business no different from any other. They are there to make a profit. Period. Like with any business, if you don't like they way they do things you don't have to use their service or buy their products. Period. How can there be an anti-trust issue when there is no monopoly? The WPT made an agreement with a gaming property to televise it's tourneys exclusively, for which I'm sure the gaming property was paid. That's just ONE property! As DN had said, there are plenty of properties in Vegas, and around the country, that have no such exclusivity agreement and are thus free to hold and telecast any tournament they choose. McDonalds has an exclusive agreement to sell only Coke, Taco Bell can only sell Pepsi products. These kinds of deals are done in business all the time and this lawsuit will do nothing to change that. If this is really such a big issue for the "poker community" why then are other pro players not running to the podium to back these 7? Howcome DN can name 30 top pro's that think this is a bad lawsuit and should be dropped and there's only 7 moderately successful "pro's" (I don't consider Raymer or Hachem pro's just because they won enough money in one tourney to quit their jobs, but that's another debate) that are for it? Even Phil can only say "www.wptlawsuit.com" when pressed for answers. Why is that? Why didn't he counter anything DN said with facts rather than just saying "he's not being overly intelligent on this issue" etc... Then give the facts to make us more intelligent because just reading your lawsuit and the back and forth with the editorial page still makes you look like a sure fire loser of $200,000. And lastly, they're lawyers Phil. They took the lawsuit because you're paying them to. Period

[bbz_Ghost 0]

If Phil is one of the litigants, he might have been warned or simply instructed to not talk about the case because it's in process, who knows. Or he could be covering his own you-know-what.Pepsi owns Taco Bell, by the way. Seems like a damned good reason to not sell Coke products, right? :)bb

[Suited_Up 2]

Am I wrong, or isn't there another part to this lawsuit having to do with MGM/Mirage and WPT's exclusivity deal?If there is a 2nd part, I think this is simple.The part discussed by Gordon.... it makes sense from his point of view. I see what DN is saying, but better safe than sorry as far as the terms of the release go. Although I don't see why WPT would have to change it if they don't want to. They're a company, and get players voluntarily, and unless there are laws against putting certain things into release forms, then I don't know how much of a case there is. I'm not an expert so I won't say. But I do see why it should be changed.But as for the 2nd part. That is ridiculous and should never see the light of day. There are plenty of casino's all over the place for other tournaments to take place. I also noticed that Phil didn't bring that part up. Which is why I think either, it's a much weaker case, or maybe not existent anymore. I haven't followed closely enough to tell you which one.

[Tiltinagain 973]

If Phil is one of the litigants, he might have been warned or simply instructed to not talk about the case because it's in process, who knows. Or he could be covering his own you-know-what.Pepsi owns Taco Bell, by the way. Seems like a damned good reason to not sell Coke products, right? bb

Good point...I'd forgotten that... I think you get my point though....

[nutzbuster 7]

It annoys me to no end that Gordon, Bloch, and co. contuniously use that, "How would you feel if they made a bobblehead with your image on it and didn't pay you!" Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once. There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[Suited_Up 2]

Truer words have never been spoken...

And i'm sure they realize that as well.

[sdnuol 0]

Phil should go back to what he does best, not winning bracelets. anything

fyp

[FourFlusher 0]

The WPT could use the images...Lyle could shoot Annie Duke in her ear hole with a .45, too. He hasn't.Dammit.I read an article somewhere a long time ago...Lyle was asked why he keeps that clause in the release if he wasn't going to use it. He had an answer, but, I forget what he said. There is a reason, though. Somebody should ask him.

[poguemahone68 0]

Truer words have never been spoken...

And usually true when it comes to the little guy suing large corporations.The absolute worst response to the lawsuit IMO.

[cap gusto 0]

Tilt..." So what Daniel has been saying is correct. The players had no problem signing the waivers in the past, before they became celebraties (sp) but now that there's been this huge poker boom and there's money to be made by selling and/or endorsing items with their name and/or likeness on them, they want out of the deal"THat is not what I said. I said that the players likely want the previous releases voided but not for your reasons. I believe these releases were signed because the players were forced to sign them. They were forced to give up their rights. Not because of their marketablity now. Hell...Jesus, Duke, Raymer, and Hachem haven't won anything on the WPT.

[flintsword 4]

I heard about this lawsuit from Daniel's video blog, and did a little digging on the net, read the actual complaint, and thought about it a lot. This is a forum where people toss in their two cents, right or wrong.I really liked the post that talked about DN reacting to the moral (right or wrong) aspect of this lawsuit, and instinctively I think Daniel is right. Suing the WPT is indeed "biting the hand that feeds you" because there are a lot of other routes that could have been taken that would have - eventually - forced the WPT to modify their general release.The WPT runs events and has television, and they have a release that covers them 100% to use images. Understandably they do not want someone to suddenly block the finished product from airing because they have not agreed to release their image.Let us enter the real world here and state what we all know: "Most lawsuits are all about money."Call me cynical but I had a good laugh when I read somwhere that the defendants paid hundreds of thousands of dollars so far in this case. It may be true, but it is in all likelyhood a retainer, which is money put up in advance for legal work to be done. It is also quite possible that the legal firm retained is working this case on a percentage basis and stands to make a percentage of the judgement, something which is very common. Many things are possible but one thing is certain in this case: the key reasons revolve around money.The WPT has announced they will defend vigorously, stating the suit has no merit.As a businessman I know that once lawyers get involved, you enter an entirely different world. It is tempting to get involved with this issue on a personal level, but understand that now that it is a legal proceeding, it has nothing to do with personalities, it has to do with money: the damages the claimants are seeking from the WPT.From experience I would offer DN this advice:This lawsuit is between the claimants and the WPT. By all means support the WPT position if you feel like it. Recognize - however - that the claimants are in this to obtain a judgement. They are litigation-oriented (an important point) and will not hesitate to be consistant and sue you if you make comments that damage their image in any way. Think of it as a "legal continuation bet" in line with their strategy to paint the WPT as some sort of 'monopolistic poker monster'. They will not hesitate to try and tar you with the same brush.Have a short meeting with your lawyer about what you can and cannot say: it may save you a lot of aggravation while this suit drags on.IMHO it is a lot more biting to refer to the claimants politely for a few years (while generally ignoring them) and be a top player able to credibly testify helping the WPT win their case, than be painted as someone with a personal axe to grind against the claimants based on documented negative comments over that same period of time.This is just my opinion, which I offer freely, while really recommending that DN have serious chat with his lawyer re possible exposure to the fallout from this fight between a number of good poker players and the WPT.My personal read on the lawsuit? Well, it is sad really, but not totally unexpected. There is a lot of money in poker right now. Control of a player's intellectual property is a reason that sounds good. As my father told me, in any dispute, there is a reason that sounds good, .... then there is the real one.Well, in any case, it is outside the arena of debate, and firmly in a legal process, so eventually the law will decide and a judge will rule on this.Personally, I have always been a fan of the principle that a bad settlement is better than a good judgement. It is probably better for the WPT to agree to a settlement that makes some sort of sense (but stinks) than have to endure the long odours of years of litigation that will poison the poker environment, ironically to the detriment of the WPT and the claimants.The fact that the WPT can win the lawsuit may not be relevant: They can win the lawsuit and still lose significantly in the process, so I feel that the WPT may want to hold their noses and try and settle this.That said, if no reasonable settlement is possible, it is not in the control of the WPT to force a settlement and the lawsuit should just roll into a courtroom in the years ahead for a decision.

[speedz99 145]

How do his balls taste? Jeez man.

thank you(and the answer is salty)

[StevieV711 0]

what the WPT is doing is CRIMINAL and ILLEGAL and will not be allowed to continuePhil Gordon: periodI had to laugh at this....The WSOP's release is worse, yet they still play in WSOP events without litigation....why is that? Is it because the WSOP allows them to pimp their site and the WPT doesn't? Or can they wear their gear on the WPT? Come on Phil.....own up and tell us the truth for the lawsuit. Not to mention, they happily signed the release when they were "just" poker pros and had no marketability whatsoever. They signed it because it was a lucrative tourney where they could win a lot of money, and they had no idea there would ever be a boom in poker. Had this not gone global and mainstream, would these players even care about some release form if it was business as usual and they were still playing for $25,000 first prize events?And one more thing....I saw that Phil won a $700 + hand....it sure doesn't look like his ability to earn an income is being affected too much to me. DN is just saying that for all the WPT has done for them in making supplemental income, it sure seemed to be bad to go after that entity that helped to make those guys celebrities. The timing is horrible as well......The last thing I would mention is that if the WPT did abuse the wording on the release form, they would be cutting off their own head to spite their face. Misusing that would only anger the players and if the players were to stop playing the WPT events, the WPT would be dead in the water, and quickly. They could have saved a whole bunch of money had they just gone about their business. For every argument the 7 mentions, there will be 5 people that say they don't have a problem with it.

[hockeydude758 0]

Tilt..." So what Daniel has been saying is correct. The players had no problem signing the waivers in the past, before they became celebraties (sp) but now that there's been this huge poker boom and there's money to be made by selling and/or endorsing items with their name and/or likeness on them, they want out of the deal"THat is not what I said. I said that the players likely want the previous releases voided but not for your reasons. I believe these releases were signed because the players were forced to sign them. They were forced to give up their rights. Not because of their marketablity now. Hell...Jesus, Duke, Raymer, and Hachem haven't won anything on the WPT.

very true... wait i havent seen raymer or hachem win anything since the ME titles

[twinkizzle 0]

Last couple of years there have been some cases where players have challenged the draft eligebilty-rules of the NFL. They did so because they wanted to play in the NFL, but was not satisfied with the rules the league had. Nobody forces them to go to NFL, they can play AFL or Canadian Football in stead, but because NFL is the place to be and where the money is they felt it was worth it to challenge the validity of the NFL rules. The same is kind of the case with "the 7" and the WPT-rules.

From DN's perspective (and many others) it is not the same kind of case. There are plenty of other poker tournaments and series that have $10,000 events. The WPT does not need to be a top player's bread and butter. There is the WSOP and its Circuit Events and tons of other large buy-in events weekly. The WPT is not an exclusive poker player tour in the same way that the PGA, NFL, and NBA are for their players.What this means is that even though the WPT release is over-the-top, players are not at all forced to sign it, because the WPT just isn't important enough--there are lots of other options and players have other venues for their talents. If the PGA had such a realease and prevented Tiger Woods from signing other marketing agreements, you have a case. But Tiger can't play in the World Series of Golf Circuit Events or any of other numerous large buy-in, highly publicized events. The right move for the 7 is to get big name players to stop signing the release and playing in WPT events. That will for the WPT to change the release if it wants to continue to draw the players. The release is simply not illegal because the players have other options.

[LiquorBeaver 0]

As others have pointed out, Phil doesn't really make any points in that chat. He just wowed you with his celebrity.Am I the only one getting sick of these pros telling us how we should be grateful to them? It's disgusting the way they talk down to us regular poker players. It's just like the book animal house. The self-appointed 7 are the pigs who have taken over the house and they are the only ones that are "intelligent" enough to walk on 2 legs.I agree with Daniel, that if anything, this will affect poker players negatively. For one thing 99.99% of poker players will never even play on the WPT so any change in the release will have no affect on us whatsoever. The only affect for the 99.99% of us who will never play a WPT event is that this will draw unwanted negative attention to poker. Therefore, this lawsuit can only be negative for 99.99% of us with no positive benefits whatsoever. I view this lawsuit in the same way that I would view a lawsuit between Microsoft and GE. It's just two mega-rich organizations going after one another. The only difference is that if GE and Microsoft were suing one another neither side would waste my time trying to convince me how the lawsuit would supposedly benefit me.Oh, and one more thing. These pros also seem to think that if they can get DN on their side, suddenly every one on this board who thinks the lawsuit is bad will change their view. WRONG! Everyone here is capable of coming to their own conclusions and DN changing his view won't change that. These 7 self-appointed dieties think we are all mindless minions who cannot think for ourselves. What arrogant pricks they are.

[thib82 0]

Now that I have read a little of the lawsuit, I can see a point to it. This is alot like EA Sports not putting the names of players on their college games. They would have to pay each player royalties from what the game make is money. The lawsuit is trying to do this for poker players. If the WPT makes money off a player, then they are saying that player should get paid. The way it is now, the player can't get paid. I think the fact is, it's the WPT's choice whether or not to have this type of contract. If you don't like it, then don't play in their tournys. It's that simple, and I have to say, I think the 7 players will probably lose this case. But, this is just my opinion.

[WowThats 0]

Nearly all of you posting do not understand "Televised poker tours has become a international business" for those that have no conceptional understanding of "profit and loss" it called profit for the owners of the WPT. Stop looking at it from your personal point of view look at as a business. If none of the 7 players played again in any tournament would you notice or care? There is too much energy being put into this lawsuit that will "in my opinion" be won by the WPT, "poker player(s) are independent contractors" they choose where and when they want to spend their money to play in an tournament.Online gambling needs to change:What I don’t understand is why all USA players (80% of all revenue) don’t pool together to influence lawmakers to change the law allowing all online poker company’s to relocate within the USA, which will provide a legal means to dispute questionable business practices, like we do with all business in our court systems everyday. As we all know, poker sites are operating with impunity this is not good for anyone but owners of the gambling sites.Just off the wire see any similarities?Turns Out Major League Baseball Doesn't Own Stats, After Allfrom the strikeout deptA few years ago, the folks at Major League Baseball Advanced Media, better known as MLB.com, decided that despite all copyright law to the contrary, they actually owned the rights to factual information about baseball games. One thing that is consistent in copyright law is that you cannot copyright facts. However, MLB.com tried all sorts of contortions to suggest that they did, in fact, own the facts -- and no one else could use them. This came to a head earlier this year, when MLB.com refused to license official player names and stats to an online fantasy league. That league recognized that the players' names and stats are factual information and forged ahead with its service -- not paying baseball a dime. The company that provided the fantasy league, CBC, proactively filed a lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment, knowing that MLB was likely to sue them. MLB's response was to claim that it wasn't really a copyright case at all, but about the right to publicity -- and the right to control how others use your likeness. It seems that this defense has failed. Richard was kind enough to submit that the federal court hearing the case has sided with the fantasy league, saying they can continue to use the names and stats, since they're in the public domain and there is no violation of the right of publicity. The court noted that there is no indication that CBC is using the names and stats to suggest these players "endorse" or are associated with the fantasy league. Also, there's no commercial harm to the players. As the court notes, if anything, "this case actually enhances the marketability of the players." The court notes that, even if the right of publicity were violated, the First Amendment would protect the use of this data, because it is "historical fact," and just because CBC makes money on their service, it does not take away their First Amendment rights. Finally, the court also notes (once again) the point that facts are not copyrightable. In other words, MLB lost this case on every single argument. What will be interesting is to see the fallout from this decision. Will other fantasy leagues stop paying as well? Also, baseball (and other sports) have made a lucrative practice out of licensing such information to video game makers as well -- and it seems likely this ruling would apply to them as well. Of course, if MLB were smart, they're view this as a good thing. Getting more real info about real players out there in fantasy and video games should lead to more fans and more interest in the overall sport -- leading to many more opportunities to make money