In the old days, this would have been settled by some barking iron.

Not sure whether you are trolling or just didn't read any of the previous posts.

Just saying something (either you or the TOS) does not magically change reality.

If it is so simple, please explain two things to me so I can understand:

1. How can you "copyright" something that you do not own?

The site can legally protect the name, layout etc. but it does not own the
content pursuant to the site's own TOS.

2. How can the TOS be binding upon a third party who has not agreed to the terms of the TOS?


The TOS is a contract between registered users and the site. It
cannot create legal obligations for third parties - this is basic contract law.

It is simple to state that something is, but it is another matter altogether to prove that it is.

Let me be clear, I am not insinuating that 2+2 has intentionally done anything wrong. However, it is my opinion that the site TOS is poorly drafted and does not have the legal effect that the owners seem to think that it has.

I still look forward to hearing from the site's attorneys.

What in the world.

How much do you think the attorney will charge for this post, anyway? I bet Druff would sell 49% of PFA to Mason for the same amount.

Mason, are you being compensated to drive traffic to this site? If not, let it go!

Mason,

I usually got your back on most issues. You are the head honcho, the creator of twoplustwo. With that said, the first link has to do with ignition and has some quoted post, along with Dan Druff's long thought out opinion and take on the issue. Instead of posting it on 2p2 he takes it to his own website, copies and quotes someones post but then in detail describes his own thoughts on the issue, which by the way, I was unaware of this site existed until now. This was the very first link I examined, so it wasnt exactly cut and dry plagiarism by any means. Without reading to much into it, the subject matter is relevant for some poker players and he did put the link at the bottom. While I am not sure if its fair use or not he at least is making an attempt.

It seems like there is a lot of fraud in poker and sometimes NVG threads are numerous and get locked/deleted or thrown to the bottom and never seen again. If there was a poker fraud site that could identify the scammers the poker community benefits, while that may or may not be outside of twoplustwo's monetary interest you will have a hard time convincing me that a website such as this one is a net negative for the poker community in general. I do not think its relevant in the argument but TwoPlusTwo is a massive success as a forum and I understand the need to protect it, but you can at least relate to the sentiment that these baby sites which are trying to grow are not some massive threat and overlooking some copyright issues (which you are not even clearly on and thus need a lawyer to clarify) can be occasionally acceptable.

On the other hand if hes being completely uncooperative, I understand but I just do not see how this is that big of a deal, hes not making a bunch of money from this, its a positive for the poker community to highlight popular topics. Unfortunately he should work with you and maybe give you $50 or $100 and let this go away. I mean really what are we talking about here?

Also, as a poster, I do not like this mentality of having post and my content now being owned by 2p2 where they are going to strictly enforce this concept. This is not how I envision the internet and forums working in an open market, and some people may visit pokerfraudalert who have not visited twoplustwo and there is some benefit in that itself. Okay everyone, looks like I will be taking a vacation for a few weeks, nice knowing you all .

Still dead.

But you only created this thread and decided to make it public (big mistake) after the Larry thread. You expect us to believe that's just a coincidence?

What if the person who made the post gave him permission? Seems like you are being pretty greedy with another persons thoughts. Sorry but you come off absolutely terrible in this Mason.

I haven't been to the PFA forum in years but revisited today due to this thread.
While on the site I ended up listening to his radio podcast, and a topic of his podcast was this legal issue, he mentioned that he was notified by Mason's attorney via EMAIL. Now I admit that I dont know anything about these things, but it seems that a notification via email seems hit and miss to me. I thought these legal "Cease and Desist" type notifications came via a server or certified mail.
He said that the law firm was Greenberg Traurig.

By the way, he mentions that he was notified on March 31st to an email that he rarely checks.

Of course he is.

Rumor: I heard something that they make $0.05 per post. That means on me alone they've made $1100+. And that doesn't include my deleted posts.

Hi Mason:

Not that I care for Dan Druff or his site, but I am curious what makes you think that:

1: a forum post is something that is protected by copyright laws; and
2: that if it is protected, twoplustwo owns the rights.

A major point of the last 100 posts is that our content is protected by copyright laws.

That may or may not be true, but apparently 2+2 is not the copyright holder and has no standing to undertake legal action, if I understand correctly.

If 2+2 were the copyright holder it would, presumably, open them up to legal action should any poster post something libellous or defamatory. They really don't need that liability.

It's a fact, actually. Usage of the content is open to interpretation, however.

It may well be that Witteles's site has violated copyright law by reprinting posts without the permission of the copyright holder. But I don't see how someone other than the copyright holder would have standing sue over this. How does Mason even know that the copyright holder -didn't- give their permission?

It also may be true that Witteles has violated the TOS of 2+2. But the remedy for this is not a lawsuit, but to ban him from 2+2, which as I understand it has already been done.

lol unbelievable.

You're doing a great job on giving him a website plug though

Between my 200 accounts than they've probably made 500$ off me ha ha

Mason, here is another .05

Cheers!

At least some of the content on the other site is photos of the tennis lesson, so Mason at least knows that there some stolen content.

This is so sad and petty but it's mason so story checks out I suppose.

I can't understand how druff sharing posts/threads of fraud on his website that come from here could ever be considered a bad thing from anyone who is a fan of the game of poker. Well, I guess unless you're a scammer or a bully who owns the biggest poker forum on the internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is all true, but continuing with them is rare after the person who does own the copyright has complained.

Posted almost 100 hours ago. Soon!

And one great thing about the DMCA is it provides court costs and damages to victims of false claims, which might be why Mason isn't using it. But we won't know until his super busy lawyer gets around to explaining the hidden nuances of the Witteles Infringement Issue.