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

[chrozzo 19]

online poker is rigged

[jayvegas420 0]

If Daniel's right and the WPT has never used anyones likeness improperly and only to promote their own product, I don't see the issue. Sign the form and take your shot and the big $$$ and "then" if, they abuse the contract SUE them. As mentioned before, you can sue anyone for anything. Isn't that the "American Way"? Instead of thinking it's your duty to take the legal initiative, and claim you are the poker world's leagal martyrs, sign the release and wait untill you have reason to go to court.

[phlegm 6]

I just love the way gordon says his lawyers wouldnt take the case if there was no merit. Then he goes on to say they are paying millions to them for this. He evidently knows little about lawyers.

[NicksDad1970 0]

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.

I honestly don't know much about the lawsuit at all. But I remember you were kind of upset at the WPT for using your likeness in a way you didn't approve. I believe you said you spoke with them and they changed it. From then on I agreed with you but after reading the chat with PG one thing sticks out, even though you trust the powers that be at the WPT what if you signed the release and a couple years down the road the WPT people sold out to someone that wasn't as considerate to your feelings?If the release allows them to use your likeness forever (I don't know that it does, but I'll assume so since PG said it and noone so far has denied it) and the next thing you know they have your face selling something that you really don't believe in. I mean I'm not talking about a hamburger type not believe in but something really bad.I think either way when it's all said and done the WPT will be just fine. If the players that started the suit lose then they should take all that cash and start their own tour. Then they can make the rules and not follow em.

[NoSup4U 0]

I just don't understand the amount of 'If they haven't improperly used anyone's image, then what is the big deal?' Don't you guys have any sense of the history of american corporations? I don't know, it just baffles me. Its not like this is something that no corporation has ever done before. People are exploited all the time. What is wrong with asking them to change a clause in a contract which you all acknowledge is wrong? And thats just assuming they haven't misused people's images, which the suit alleges they have.These statements just prove the point. Everyone KNOWS it would be wrong/bad/whatever for the WPT to use someone's image in way that would be damaging to the player. The players have tried to get the wording changed with no success. So they are using the only avenue left to them, the legal system.I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as anyone. But you know what I hate more? The fact that if I ever want to play in a WPT event I have to sign away all rights to the control of my image forever.I trust that Daniel knows what he's talking about and that there are other issues that this lawsuit affects which in his eyes make it the wrong thing to do. But since I don't have any knowledge of those things, and I do know about hundreds and hundreds of American corporations that have taken advantage of their employees, and I do know I would never want my image used to promote a product I don't agree with/believe in, I'm on the players side at the moment.Mark

[animat_dominat 0]

I think if anyone is harming poker its Daniel. Nobody was making a big deal about this until he brought it up, and showed his "real" self, you know the guy who always goes from being all smiles to a major league azzhole whenever he disagrees with somebody. He is the one comparing poker to prostitution. How is a simple dispute over a release going to harm poker, only a moron would confuse it with the online poker issue. He says the WPT is going to rip into the guys who brought the lawsuit, well while everyone has their skeletons the guys who brought the lawsuit, the "infamous seven" seem to be some of the classier individuals in poker. I'm sure they knew what they were getting themselves into, they don't need Daniel to protect them. The players are saying that they think the lawsuit will help all players, which is a perfectly valid opinion which is probably true. However, just because they are doing it to help others in addition to themselves (which is obviously their primary goal), doesn't mean that they have to get the permission of King Daniel or anyone else for that matter.I'm in law school and while I think the case has merit, I will admit that it could go either way depending on the judge. But that is the way most cases are, otherwise they would just settle instead of going to court. I think it is pretty obvious that the release is harsh, and at least these guys are willing to put up their own money to fight what they perceive as wrong. Daniel's advice of waiting until they actually abuse their rights before they do something is about the worst legal advice I have ever heard in my life. Once you actually sign it, the court is going to pretty much enforce unless you have pictures of them holding a gun to your head while signing it. DANIEL IF THE WPT MAKES A VIDEO GAME RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR PICTURE ON THE COVER YOU COULD SPEND A BRAZILION DOLLARS ON LAWYERS AND STILL GET LAUGHED OUT OF COURT. That is a cold hard fact, and these other guys don't want get put in that position, and they are saying that WPT is putting a lot of pressure on them to place them in that position. I don't know exactly what the WPT has done to get a near monopoly but they certainly have a near monopoly, and the case is going to turn on whether the players can show they did anything wrong to get to that position. I think it will be a close case. Daniel trusts the people who runs the WPT more than other people which is probably why he feels so strongly about this (besides the fact that he already screwed himself and is counting on their kindess not to bend him over), but the WPT is a business and SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE IT WILL GET SOLD AND I CAN GUARNATEE THAT WHOEVER BUYS IT IS GOING TO SAY "HEY I HAVE THE RIGHTS TO ALL THESE PLAYERS IMAGES, I BET THAT'S PRETTY VALUABLE MAYBE I SHOULD USE THEM," and its at that point that Daniel will start b**ching but at that point it will be way, way too late.Finally, the players owe nothing to the WPT, sure the WPT made some of them famous, but the players made the WPT a brazilion dollars, as far as I'm concerned they are even.Edit: None of them signed the release. Anyone that says, "they signed the contract simple as that," hasn't even taken the time to get the basic facts straight.

[CrazyJoe 0]

Oh please...DN has actually won more money than almost all of the players that we see on TV...well I am sure Doyle over the years can claim that title.This point is moot. You all are arguing over something that really makes no sense. How come you don't see anyone suing about the "High Stakes Poker" show? They use there images all of the time.The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Do you not think WPT pays alot of money to get all of the things to promote their shows? It is a business deal.Me being a stand up comic can refuse to do a gig if the money is not right or I don't like the setting. These people had that same right and they signed the paper...hopefully after reading it...and in the end they are still bound by a contract.Simple as that.Dave

you are right, after multiple threads that are ridiculously long, you finally summed it up in the exact right argument that is researched well and obviously is a result of reading up on the subject and has never been brought up before in any of the numerous threads. Gee, it sure was as simple as that, OKAY EVERYONE, WE CAN STOP ARGUING NOW NMDAVIDB HAS IT ALL FIGURED OUT.(SW)High Stakes Poker uses the images of the players to promote...... High Stakes Poker the TV show, not High Stakes Poker poker school, not High Stakes Poker online site, not High Stakes Poker the videogame. Nobody has a problem with WPT using footage in commercials for the show.Just because a contract is signed, doesn't mean it is necessarily legal. I could get you to sign a contract that says I can punch you in the face 30 times, but it wouldn't be legal for me to do it, it would still be assault.The WPT doesn't pay a dime for players to promote their stuff, that's the whole point. I don't see where WPT costs come in to be honest with you, how much can it cost for that set, a crew and Mike Sexton and VVP. How in the hell can WPT be losing money???You refusing a gig is not even close to the same thing as what we are talking about, come on. The only thing I know for sure is that it most definitely is NOT asSimple as that.Anyone that thinks so, is not intelligent.

[DrLongstack 0]

Phil Gordon is a disingenuous liar. I'm tired of hearing this crap, "how woud you feel. . .". The truth of the matter is, this lawsuit is not being funded by the players, it's being funded by video game companies and online poker sites. Just because they do an end around by paying the players "fees" so they can use their "own" money to file the suit, doesn't mean the players are actually funding the suit. Just look at the players involved and their affiliations.The public propaganda the ungrateful 7 are throwing out there is shameful. Go ahead and file your lawsuit, but don't make it sound like you are doing it to help others.

[Alina 0]

Oh please...DN has actually won more money than almost all of the players that we see on TV...well I am sure Doyle over the years can claim that title.This point is moot. You all are arguing over something that really makes no sense. How come you don't see anyone suing about the "High Stakes Poker" show? They use there images all of the time.The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Do you not think WPT pays alot of money to get all of the things to promote their shows? It is a business deal.Me being a stand up comic can refuse to do a gig if the money is not right or I don't like the setting. These people had that same right and they signed the paper...hopefully after reading it...and in the end they are still bound by a contract.Simple as that.Dave

The only thing simple is your ability to comprehend the issue. Freedom if contract doesn't simply prevail, that is the point of anti-trust law, restraint of trade etc.

That post wasn't very funny for a stand up comic.

I think the only thing comical about hgim is when he tries to argue a serious point.

Oh please...DN has actually won more money than almost all of the players that we see on TV...well I am sure Doyle over the years can claim that title.This point is moot. You all are arguing over something that really makes no sense. How come you don't see anyone suing about the "High Stakes Poker" show? They use there images all of the time.The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Do you not think WPT pays alot of money to get all of the things to promote their shows? It is a business deal.Me being a stand up comic can refuse to do a gig if the money is not right or I don't like the setting. These people had that same right and they signed the paper...hopefully after reading it...and in the end they are still bound by a contract.Simple as that.Dave

Winner of the most stupid post about the lawsuit award.

[flintsword 4]

The reason this thread has a life of it's own is that it involves a clash of ideas.One camp is "The Magnificent Seven" who have decided to obtain exclusive control of their image rights in order to be able to market them and make more money with them. The statement that they are "doing this for all poker players" sounds a bit hollow because having those rights is going to benefit a very small percentage of the tournament playing population. Note that it will benefit 100% of the 7 players in question.There is a strong vested interest for the seven suing players to win the suit and as I mentioned in a previous post, it *is* all about money.The other camp is supporting the WPT, actually grateful for the innovation, hard work, and positive results the WPT has brought to poker. I actually agree with DN's comment that this lawsuit is "biting the hand that feeds you", philosophically.The seven players are - however - well within their rights. We live on a free continent, and nothing stops a citizen (or citizens) from benefiting from an organization's hard work, then suing them for financial gain or future financial gain.Sure people can do this, but they should not expect everyone to share the same morality - or lack thereof. :angry:These two camps are obviously at loggerheads. Daniel decided to exercise his freedom of speech, and voice his opinion. I support that.My concern is that this is a legal case and there are different rules you have to follow when you are on the edges (or inside!) a legal proceeding like this. I sincerely hope that DN has taken legal counsel on this so he behaves in a way that does not accidentally embroil him in this crazy lawsuit.Cold-blooded I may be, but I stand by my contention that maintaining a cool, aloof reserve to the lawsuit and the players that are launching this lawsuit preserves for DN the opportunity to actually help the WPT position in the future.The worse thing for the lawsuit is to have a large enough group of top players able to claim that they do not feel the WPT is monopolistic.I feel that this is absolutely a case where "a bad settlement is better than a good judgement" ... but it may well go all the way to court, in a few years, and we will all have front row seats to the crazy lawsuit debate.Unfortunately.

[JMill420 0]

How do his balls taste? Jeez man.

HAHHAHA.All this back and forth about the lawsuit, im sick of it.Anyone else with me? It doesnt even concern us.

[Thumper 0]

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 NegrWPT 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.

Hello all,As I see it the poker players are media stars now and should be treated as such. This means that they should be able to control the usage of their images and shoule also expect residuales from the reshowing of events that they are in.Something fair and equatable needs to be worked out and I think that the "seven" are moving in the right direction to accomplish this.I really like Daniel, but on this issue, I think he is really off base with his comments.Just my two cents.

[capthowdy981 0]

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.

I think the major points of the "other side" were the facts that:A.) It would essentially be taking money out of Andy Bloch's pocketB.) It would halt any future endorsement deals for players in the future. Think about it. You're unknown, win a tourney - blow up and keep on winning. You become a household name. You decide to chase some potential endorsements - but get this - nobody is going to pay you for two reasons. One, WPT is advertising you for no cost already. Two, say you do come to an agreement with a company, but that want you to endorse them and ONLY THEM - you can't now because WPT is still blasting your name/face on *** cream billboards - AGAIN, killing any possible future endorsements that want you exclusively.In closing they aren't overvaluing themselves - they're protecting future superstars AND POKER from selling themselves short. They're pushing endorsements main stream for all, not just themselves, to enjoy. They are, afterall, putting their own money up to play in the tournies - why can't they cash in as a result of a few hundred thousand bobble heads? Or atleast a share of them. It's true that without WPT there wouldn't be bobble heads in this case -but the same can be said of the individual player.Summary - you won't get any future endorsements because your name/face won't be exclusive to their brand - WPT currently has the power to do so forever. It's HALTING THE PROGRESSION OF ENDORSEMENTS.And if you say "they haven't yet" - it may be true.. for now - but who's to say that if the company changes ownership that the new owners WON'T?

HAHHAHA. It doesnt even concern us.

You'd think differently if you just accomplished a great poker feat - and the WPT wanted to use you to gain major $$$, and you didn't catch a dime from them on it.It;s like a recording artist putting up money to record a CD album. The producer makes it a hit, sells 10 million copies and keeps all the cash. If you're the recording artist - how do you feel?

[playingtowin 0]

I'm not a legal expert and have not done extensive research into the legal aspects of this case, but I have one question for DN that many others have brought up or mentioned I believe...if the WPT does not intend to profit or use the likenesses of any players that play in WPT events, then why don't they change the release? Is it absolutely necessary for the purposes of the show? DN, or anyone else for that matter with accurate knowledge of this matter, could u clarify?

[blueodum 0]

These threads are rehahsing the same sh*t.A bunch of people who know nothing about the law make sweeping, erroneous statements about why these 7 players are wrong/ungrateful etc. Then a few people with legal knowledge try to help them understand the issues, at which point they are completely ignored. Then Negreanu chimes in with a rehash of the mindless generalities that constitute his "take". And finally, the Negreanu a** kissers arrive to root him on.

[Thumper 0]

Just a couple of points for Daniel to consider:It was no accident that DN was placed at the WSOP ME Featured table. DN is very intertaining and any time he is included in a ESPN etc., show thier ratings go way up and their sponsers are willing to pay more.DN IS a media star even if he doesn't realize it. Why does he think we've all flocked to FCP? Just to be taken to the cleaners by DN?If he doesn't think this is true I have some bottom land in Flordia for sale... with one little itsy bitsy problem... a small lizzard infestation... oh and I also have a few bridges for sale around the world.... like the original San Francisco to Oakland Bay Bridge.One more point: Daniel I really think that you and the rest of the poker pros, including "the seven", need to sponser legislation to legalize on-line poker in Nevada. Make it legal and regulated by the Nevada State Gaming Commision. Be very proactive on this and get it done. For the protection of all of us on line poker players... we need to be able to have legal recourses when there are problems with on line sites.The Thumper has just dropped all four feet.

[Dratj 0]

here's my question for the 7 - and I still haven't heard it asked or answered...Why not just skip the WPT tournaments? There are tournaments all over the world all the time...Seriously, nobody is *making* them play in these tournmanets...They are choosing to play and want to play and then complaining about the rules...Skip them - period. It's the same as complaining about the vig on certain events...people love to complain about that - and some people do skip them when they feel it's unfair...but seriously, it should be an acceptable alternative to not participate in these events if you don't like the way they are run. Nobody is *entitled* to have the rules changed.please - somebody - the next time you're chatting it up w/ one of the 7 - ask them this....

That's easy, they probably want to play in these tournaments but not with their current release form.

[milbucksfans 0]

I'm not a legal expert and have not done extensive research into the legal aspects of this case, but I have one question for DN that many others have brought up or mentioned I believe...if the WPT does not intend to profit or use the likenesses of any players that play in WPT events, then why don't they change the release? Is it absolutely necessary for the purposes of the show? DN, or anyone else for that matter with accurate knowledge of this matter, could u clarify?

No one will clarify. I have asked this same question and it is ignored. They don't change the release because it is potentially very valuable to them. They DO intend to profit from it someday, or at least know they CAN profit from it someday. And so there is no reason why a change to the release form would not be a valuable (maybe very minutely for some, but valuable nonetheless) act for every person that ever plays on the WPT.

[gadjet 11]

let me summarize:Phil you are a traitor"no I am not"Holy crap a "famous" person acknowleged my existance. Never mind phil. you are the best everI know. The lawsuit is good because (insert same crap here)Wow phil your buns are tight. Let me massage them for you.

This right here was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read...While I do agree that if they require you to sign a waiver for all of your rights for the rest of your life it sucks... but if you have a problem with it just don't sign it... Skip the WPT tourneys and play in the bazillion other tournaments that are available... (Does Gordan even play still? or does he just dump his chips as fast as he can so he can provide some of the worst play-by-play in the history of commentating?)DN is correct in saying that the 7 shouldn't be claiming to represent the rest of the poker players, they should speak for themselves... but in this case they shouldn't... It is absolutely ridiculous to bring the profession of poker into a legal spotlight when there are already so many areas of the game that are in the shade... i.e. Online play, and taxes etc etc...DN, you should sue the 7 for misrepresentation... ha! which would be beautifully ironic given that that's what their trying to fight off...

[DerekTah 0]

This right here was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read...While I do agree that if they require you to sign a waiver for all of your rights for the rest of your life it sucks... but if you have a problem with it just don't sign it... Skip the WPT tourneys and play in the bazillion other tournaments that are available... (Does Gordan even play still? or does he just dump his chips as fast as he can so he can provide some of the worst play-by-play in the history of commentating?)DN is correct in saying that the 7 shouldn't be claiming to represent the rest of the poker players, they should speak for themselves... but in this case they shouldn't... It is absolutely ridiculous to bring the profession of poker into a legal spotlight when there are already so many areas of the game that are in the shade... i.e. Online play, and taxes etc etc...DN, you should sue the 7 for misrepresentation... ha! which would be beautifully ironic given that that's what their trying to fight off...

I think the point is though that they want to play in the WPT but feel that the contract is illegal. If the contract was illegal then they can sue to change/invalidate it and still play. This is no more different then those contracts we have to checkmark before loading software, I mean sure we could just choose to uncheckmark and not use the software. Or we can complain that the contract is illegal (its already been done, most judges agree that the contract we check yes to before loading up a software program is illegal). There is more that can be done than just not playing in any WPT events.

[gadjet 11]

I think the point is though that they want to play in the WPT but feel that the contract is illegal. If the contract was illegal then they can sue to change/invalidate it and still play. This is no more different then those contracts we have to checkmark before loading software, I mean sure we could just choose to uncheckmark and not use the software. Or we can complain that the contract is illegal (its already been done, most judges agree that the contract we check yes to before loading up a software program is illegal). There is more that can be done than just not playing in any WPT events.

Well I want to play in the WPT but I feel the buy in is discriminatory against my medium limit grinding ***... Let's say the software you were using wasn't the most legal software in the world... would you still sue? That's the main concern here... is attracting unwanted attention...

[DerekTah 0]

Well I want to play in the WPT but I feel the buy in is discriminatory against my medium limit grinding ***... Let's say the software you were using wasn't the most legal software in the world... would you still sue? That's the main concern here... is attracting unwanted attention...

If the software was illegal I doubt it would have the contract. But if your asking me would I sue to get my money back from the latest Grand Thieft Auto game if it doesn't work on my computer because by suing them I am giving the makers of GTA another black eye. Well yes I would.I don't understand the unwanted attention aspect. What exactly is going to happen, the court finds for the players and then the entire world says "oh no, how could this be, well I wasn't certain before by now it must be illegal". I don't even understand the idea of such a thought.

[animat_dominat 0]

I find Daniel's attitude towards this very strange. In his blogs he rips the guys a new azzhole, then says "nothing personal dog, thats just my opinion, you know keeping it real." Then he wonders why they get mad at him, then he says he doesn't really care one way or another. Like I said he is the one bringing the negative attention to poker, and he is the one comparing it to prostitution. The only thing I can think of is that he somehow thinks this will hurt online poker (which I just don't see at all), and he thinks he is going to lose a ton of money from this site when they ban online poker.I guess if you think poker is something to be ashamed of like prostitution then I can see your point (in that case I would say hell yeah I'll sign it since you can't enforce a contract for an illegal activity anyway), but for those of us who see poker in a positive light and think this case is just about two parties bickering for their rights this whole thing is just bizarre.Edit: By the way I used to like Daniel even though I saw his nasty side before with the Annie Duke and Dreamclown situations (I didn't like the way he handled it but I thought they kind of deserved it). However, for him to rip into these seemingly decent guys for trying to protect their/and other's rights to their images is just wrong and I can't figure out his motivation for it. Why start something when your not involved in the case, and even if he thought it was bringing negative attention, he is bringing 10 times more negative attention through his actions.