Aardhart

This is wrong. It passed both houses. The rest is also wrong. Bills do not change after they pass both houses in identical form. That is what happened. This was a bill from committee. After the post security bill passed in slightly different forms, members of both houses negotiated and came up with a compromise form, and added this unrelated topic. It will become law unless Bush vetoes a bill to make ports safer. There is no line item veto.From the Washington Post article: "The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the

From the article: "The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns."

For those that can read, there is analysis in a 2+2 forum at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...;gonew=1#UNREADThe forum provided updates for the past few weeks posted by several people who work in congress (somewhere) and groups lobbying on the bill. It is a very good forum.

That's incorrect. The bill has passed. It was added to a bigger bill that has passed. The article may have been ambiguous, but you can check other articles on the internet. It awaits the president's signiture and then Department of Justice enforcement guidelines. This bill passed last night. There are no threads on this bill that has been passed, except for one posted last night that has been locked.It is not same s*** different day. THE S*** HAS HIT THE FAN.

Because Daniel implied (or flat out wrote) that the lawsuit would lead to bad things for online poker. Many (including me) argued that the lawsuit is completely unrelated to online poker. The bill has given an opportunity to see if the bill, and media coverage of the bill, would be linked to the WPT lawsuit. Daniel's legal and political predictions seems to have been proven wrong. (Unless the bill was ever discussed with the lawsuit. Hence, my challenge.)

Reuters story here: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....C1_%5BFeed%5D-2A lot of threads on a 2+2 discussion board here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist...0&Board=lawThere has been some press about the bill and Sen. Frist's efforts to ban internet gambling. I challenge anyone to find one story on the bill that mentions the WPT lawsuit.

Do Mike Sexton, Chip Reese, and Barry Greenstein think it is reasonable for the WPT to demand rights to "use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, . . . 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

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. This is a good example of the fuzziness of international law. The Panel

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

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 anti

I don't think that the attention from the press is the bad part. The seven are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. If this goes years, it will be millions. Even if they win, the damages may be less than the legal bills. (However they may win attorney's fees.)

I would love to hear a concise, consistant statement of Daniel's point, but he has been shifting his reasons for opposing the lawsuits. If these are his points, they are completely bogus. He sues Harrah's. That was how he got "things done in poker circles." Harrah's also owns the WSOP, a far far greater catalyst for the poker boom.I ask that Daniel outline a legitimate reason to oppose the lawsuit "for the good of poker" or shut-up and apologize. All his stated reasons have been disproven. If the real reason he opposes the lawsuit is that he is friends with Lyle and doesn't like [some of

WOW! Is this true? Is Brian Balsbaugh a lawyer? This would potentially be a conflict of interest profession conduct violation if Mr. Balsbaugh were a lawyer. (Potentially. I didn't look into all the facts and don't know everything about the situation. But it raises red flags.)

No. No it has not.He first said that the players have no shot at all. They will lose and lose bad.When this got refuted, he said the lawsuit will cause the end of online poker. The players could not go to court because they were pimps (even though Daniel Negreanu took Harrah's and Activision to court ... and won).When this got refuted and the media frenzy just wasn't there, he is saying that they should have waited (and waited and waited) until they convinced him and 500 others to boycott the WPT. It was pointed out that they have been trying this for a long time already.Daniel constantly

It'll be years if it is fully scorched-earth litigated. There will be answers, counter claims, and stuff; months of discovery deposing (interviewing) witness from broadcasting, casinos, the WPT; deposing expert economists on what the market is and what alleged damage was allegedly done by the alleged anticompetitvie behavior; and waiting months for a trial to be scheduled. It can end with a settlement at any time if all eight parties (seven players and the WPT) agree to terms.