Hi Everyone:

By now some of you may have heard that we have informed Todd Witteles and his website www.pokerfraudalert.com that they need to stop lifting entire or large portions of posts from www.twoplustwo.com. Here are a couple of examples:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2...liQF8Jmy0T0&e=

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2...HL8azK0XAgQ&e=

As you can see, the owner of site, Todd Witteles, (who posts as Dan Druff on PokerFraudAlert) was the person primarily responsible for posting Two Plus Two's content. This is a copyright violation and we have asked him to stop. Contrary to what Witteles has said in recent podcasts and posts, he should be well aware of most of the content at issue since he posted it himself. We don't buy the excuse that he’s unable to read or check every post on his forum to see if there is a violation.

Although posting a sentence or two of Two Plus Two posts with a link back to the thread (on www.twoplustwo.com) may qualify as fair use, that is not what Witteles was doing. He was lifting full posts from Two Plus Two for the purposes of starting separate discussion threads on his own website.

Best wishes,
Mason

Larry vs Mason cage fight to settle this imo

What an odd thread. But hey, it's your site.

Who the hell would know/care about this besides the parties involved?

I'm sure Todd will appreciate the trafffic.

So you're saying he's sweet

Hi Everyone:

I'm bumping this because I want as many people as possible to see it. Eventually, if the posts by Witteles are not fixed, we'll make it a sticky.

Again, Witteles has posted much 2+2 content on his site but in his discussions of this issue, as far as I know, he never states that he's has a history of doing this.

Best wishes,
Mason

This. But I do appreciate that Mason does this instead of David.

Mr Malmuth

I believe Witteles stated he would review/take down/comply with anything you identified as infringing on your copyright.

Did you contact him about this and ask for removal?

I would recommend you do so then it would appear that you are seeking only to protect your content. Indeed, I believe any judge would consider that reasonable action on your part. So put Mr Witteles to the test and see if he removes/pares down the copied content.

re: seeking to have a discussion in his thread? I believe your attorney's letter to him did says PFA could excerpt a few lines for the purpose of talking about the topic over there. Your objection seems to contradict the letter your attorney sent.

And having a discussion at PFA about something here on 2+2 has a fundamental difference of not being subject to 2+2 control/removal. So indeed there should be nothing wrong with PFA having a discussion about topics also discussed on 2+2 provided the copyright limitations are complied with.

Hi Gap:

And I stated in the OP:

In fact, two of these are linked to in my OP.

If he doesn't make the proper fixes, our attorney will probably address it, and they have already talked once.

If you look at the two threads linked to in my OP you'll see that this is not the case.

Isn't this exactly our point?

Best wishes,
Mason

Wittles' posts may legally be considered "fair use" and thus not copyright violations since he seems to attribute the posts to 2+2 (he isn't pretending they as his) and the original content is created by 2+2 users and not owners. Fair use is a tricky legal issue. Think about professors using handouts from various text books for class.

there is a private forum on that site that is focused on 2+2 material and bashing Mason. Since it's not publicly accessible i don't think Mason has an issue with that part. I could be wrong though.

This isn't accurate. He can't lift whole posts as he has been doing, and you may want to look at our "Terms and Conditions."

Let me give you an example. One of the current top selling books on Amazon is Astrophysics for People in a Hurry by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Are you saying that I could post the complete book on 2+2 as long as I attribute it to Tyson and/or his publisher and that this would be fair use? I don't think so.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mr Malmuth

Thank you for your cordial response to my post earlier in this thread.

I'm am glad you mentioned Witteles' podcast...indeed, you have already won concessions from Witteles as he has posted in his forums that only excerpts from 2+2 will be tolerated going forward plus discussed it on his podcast...thus his forum readers are aware of the copyright policy. And the few posts since the podcast show an attempt to comply (i am not sure if you are aware of that).

re: the threads in your OP you found objectionable, yes i agree those clearly are contrary to the copyright policy and should be taken down. Yet, i believe you will have a tough time proving to a judge that Witteles is aware of those two threads, and all other posts he made in violation of the policy...your position will be stronger if you notify him (see what your attorney recommends).

Lastly, let's go back to one of your closing sentences in your original post. "He was lifting full posts from Two Plus Two for the purposes of starting separate discussion threads on his own website. "...Two pieces to that sentence: "was", that is this is no longer going on; "starting a separate discussion" - i don't see anything illegal about such a motivation provided the copyright rules are complied with, nor do you i suspect

Hi Gap:

Here's a thread Witteles started today.

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...-makes-a-cameo

Do you think that reposting the pictures on his site is consistent with what he promised to do? And do you think that the use of the term "fluffer," is appropriate?

Our attorney will be the one to make the call here. We have a lot of confidence in his advice and he's been working with us for a long time.

First, there's nothing wrong with him (or anyone) starting a seperate discussion. And if he wants to use material from www.twoplustwo.com to do this, then he should just link back to it. We have no objection.

Second, concerning the word "was." Based on his statement on his website, and what my attorney told me Witteles told him on the phone, I, like you, thought this wouldn't happen anymore. But again, I'll just reference the link posted above. What do you think?

Best wishes,
Mason

PS: You don't need to call me Mr. Malmuth. On these forums and if we ever meet in person, my first name is fine.

re: pictures--you ask what i think? well, i don't see a watermark or copyright stamp in the photos as is commonly done by others on the internet. So i believe your copyright applies to text only...i admit, this is only what i believe…but i will not think otherwise until shown a citation or case law supporting something else. I don't recall your attorney's letter claiming the copyright covered anything other than text.

Right now i think you objections / demands are overly broad: do you want removal of acknowledged 2+2 text in Witteles posts only, acknowledged 2+2 in any PFA posts, 2+2 text in posts not attributing the content to 2+2, as well as pictures unaltered or altered...?and with or without your notification?

that's it for me, no more on this topic...

thank you for a civil discussion of this matter

No, (and the bolding is mine).

The key word in all of this has been "content" and not "text."

Here's a snippet from a Witteles post on his site:

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...-reposted-here

Mason

No, mason would not have a hard time proving this legally.

If the accused copyrighter was a regular person with no knowledge of twoplustwo or poker in general, it probably would be hard to prove. However, the accused is an avid live and online player(so to speak) a bracelet, tv time etc. With the background evidence any judge would clearly see that the accused is not innocent and is fully aware of what he is trying to do.

I don't have a dog in this fight but just want to challenge your claim that the content posted by users is your property. This is what the ToS says on the subject: The second para, which I bolded, says among other things:

(1) 2+2 does not claim ownership of our content (posts etc)

(2) We (users) grant 2+2 a licence to [use the content]

(3) That licence is non-exclusive

My reading of that is straightforward. The content belongs to the poster, not to 2+2. While 2+2 has a right to use the content, it has no blocking rights over third party use. (It can sub-licence others to use the content but can't prevent unlicenced third parties from doing so.)

Of course 2+2 has full rights over it's own content and site design etc., but that is not what is at issue here.

Should remove his website, dont want to give your enemy free traffic...

This post is made by me. By posting it here I accept that 2+2 is automatically granted a licence which allows them and their licencees to use it in perpetuity in all sorts of forms.

However, 2+2 does not claim ownership over content I post so, as far as I can see, I am free to also allow anyone else to use it. I have no objection to anybody using this post (or any of my other posts itt) for any purpose, including quoting it on their website. As far as I'm concerned they may quote it in full if they wish and don't need to restrict themselves to any "fair use" constraints.

If that website uses other of my posts they would be doing so without my (the poster's) permission since I (other posters) don't typically include such permission in my (their) posts. In that case, the third party website could ask my permission or they could take a view on whether I would likely sue them if they quote me without doing so. As far as I can see they don't need to worry about 2+2's view on the matter.

Nah, David would just hire attractive male models to seduce his girlfriend.

I found this on copyrightaid, which is a UK-focused forum...US may well be different in some aspects.

In answer to a similar query (copying of forum posts to another site) the 'expert/administrator of the forum suggested...

I would:

1. Contact the ISP hosting their site, highlighting the posts in question and ask them to remove the infringing material.

2. Contact the people who made the original posts (it is THEIR work that is being copied) stating that you have seen that their work has been copied without permission and suggest that they also complain to the forum admins and the ISP hosting the site.

3. Go have a cup of tea and calm down

Now, number 3 isn't a great option here because a lot of the material about Mason is just filth. (I would have my own way of handling this, as others might)

As Raidalot stated, the terms and conditions of 2+2 means that the original poster holds the copyright (and I believe in the US any 'handing over' of copyright must be accompanied by a signature) and thus 2+2 can't really claim copyright abuse/misuse, but the individual posters could certainly try.

In any event, from what I can gather, the ISP route is the way to go.

This is how I understand it as well.

I should add that I condemn the treatment of MM on other sites referred to itt. That seems to be just childish/cowardly. MM's efforts and resources might better be directed towards dealing with that.

A lot of nasty stuff has been said in response to the C&D letter, but none of what Kooukla said is true. He's just making stuff up to be funny.

Uhhh... do you think Witteles has reproduced the entirety of 2+2 on his website?

A better example would be asking whether a web forum on astrophysics could reproduce small portions of deGrasse Tyson's books for the purposes of discussing their contents... the answer is...clearly yes! That is the epitome of fair use.

I would advise you to get a better lawyer... but I know GT is a good firm and your lawyer undoubtedly knows you don't really have a leg to stand on here.