Probably a misunderstanding?

It's not wise to post 2+2's formal legal advice here imo. This whole area is a minefield. Might be prudent to let this one go Mason? The legal position is shaky and, to be fair, Witteles seems to have adopted a reasonable approach on quoting 2+2 posts. Perhaps better to address this by (1) tightening/updating ToS; and (2) taking up any specific examples of abuse with PFA?

You seem to have deeper pockets than he does so could choose to harm him/PFA through a legal process as part of some apparent wider dispute/vendetta but that just seems abusive and likely to inflame/perpetuate the situation. Why not instead challenge the underlying grievances, whatever they are? Sometimes just sitting down face to face and talking, perhaps with a mutual acquaintance involved, can clear the air and be much more effective in changing behaviour.

Why don't you guys have a tennis match

It appears that Mason has let this go. Hasn't posted itt since 6/5.

Quite understated.

I don't think he gets enjoyment from diplomacy though. Greenberg and Traurig do great business because many people in the world also have such a mindset. It's a free country, and the good Trump willing, it will remain so.

This is a losing case, and I think there are more enjoyable battles to fight if I'm Mason. DanDruff never struck me as the scumbag type. Neverwin on the other hand...what ever happened to Dustin?

Hi Everyone:

Here's the statement you've been waiting for:

As I’ve confirmed with our attorneys, the referenced Two Plus Two terms of service Par. 7 (regarding post ownership and 2p2’s perpetual license to use user-generated content) applies to the contractual relationship between Two Plus Two and its forum users who author posts. These provisions do not apply to third parties, nor do they permit other users or guests to lift forum content directly from our website to place on other websites. Two Plus Two maintains its own copyright in the website itself. In fact, the TOS expressly prohibit anyone who visits or uses our site from replicating, reproducing, duplicating, copying, or exploiting any Two Plus Two website content without our express consent.

That being said, we recognize that PokerFraudAlert has used posts on Two Plus Two to call further attention to scams or fraud within the poker community, which is a goal Two Plus Two also shares. As such, we’ve reached an agreement with Todd Witteles and have decided to grant consent for these types of posts and to drop the issue for now.

Best wishes,
Mason

I really wish someone has pushed me to become a lawyer. It seems if you have half a brain you can make a god damn fortune.

Mmmh.

Sensible outcome.

Hi Mason, I recently complimented you in another thread, but this seems pretty weird.

You actively engaged the 2p2 community to see your view in protecting user posts, but have backtracked to saying the bad guys can keep doing it as long as they recognize your (2p2's) rights.

What rights are you intent on maintaining vs conceding, and how does that impact us as posters?

I don't think Mason is saying that Poker Fraud Alert is being granted permission from 2+2 to quote posts. I think he's saying that the lawyer concluded that Poker Fraud Alert's usage of posts so far have all fallen under the Fair Use doctrine, and so long as they continue to fall under the Fair Use doctrine, then he won't accuse them of copyright infringement.

The purpose and character of the use of the posts matter, and the Poker Fraud Alert site mentions that the site is dedicated to posting news about poker scams. Further, it doesn't appear to be a for-profit site since they don't have any ads showing. And since the post they quoted were all limited to potential scams, the posts appear to have been made for non-profit educational purposes.

I think Mason mentioned the terms of service again to emphasize to everybody else that quoting posts from 2+2 that don't fall within the fair use doctrine would be a copyright violation. It seems like the copyright for posts on 2+2 would be jointly held by the poster and 2+2 (Mason), but I'm not certain.

Errrr, no. Not unless you've re-written your ToS AND Copyright Law!

Glad you've come to an arrangement with PFA though - infighting such as we've witnessed can't be good for poker.

When people make posts on 2+2, I think we do give up some rights to 2+2. For example, if we wanted our posts removed, I think it'd be up to 2+2 to decide whether they wish to grant that request.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it'd be possible for 2+2 to have full copyright over posts. I can't imagine that if someone were to start their own blog and copy over a bunch of their own posts that they've made on 2+2 over the years, that 2+2 would be entitled to have them taken down.

It could be possible that posters have signed over full license of posts to 2+2, so that any profits derived from posts go to 2+2 in the same way Michael Jackson's estate owns the Beatles catalog.

Bad example, seeing as the Jackson estate no longer owns it. In fact he hadn't owned it 100% since 1995 when he sold half.
Not to mention Macca's upcoming lawsuit..

The point was that it is possible an individual other than the content creator can hold ownership rights to the profits of the original work because we're trying to figure out the copyright law that governs message board posting. It wasn't a gossip piece about Michael Jackson and Paul McCarney. Whether or not MJ is the current holder is of no import.

I looked up the lawsuit claim, and it looks like an artist may be entitled to a certain portion of publishing profits after 56 year, which for Paul McCartney would be next year, but it's not a given. So for any rights that 2+2 may hold of posts, in 56 years posters may be able to stake a claim. I think that clause would be an addition to the rules I posted, not a contradiction.

I think the most interesting aspect of this whole deal is whether Mason creating this thread affected the market more than the actual alleged infringement.

My understanding of fair use is that there needs to be a significant market effect for an infringement to have occured (but obviously IANAL).

Doesn't address the fair use issue.

Huge waste of legal fees. Accomplished nothing that doing nothing wouldn't have.

Coincidentally, I remember NVGers saying exactly the same thing about the Dutch Boyd litigation.

A man who relies on forum posters for legal advice is surely an even bigger fool than the proverbial lawyer who represents himself.

They had a case with Dutch Boyd and actually achieved something with the settlement. Boyd was unpopular due to PokerSpot, which closed and didn't return deposits.

This case is just silly. The settlement really does nothing, except allow Fraud Alert to quote 2+2 posts, which it was doing anyway.

Hi betgo:

The agreement between 2+2 and PFA covers a number of issues. You're just aware of one of them. But in time more should become apparent, and from our perspective, we're generally happy with the complete agreement and believe that PFA is happy as well.

Best wishes,
Mason

As a fan of 2+2 and PFA, I approve this message

This was an interesting read considering the recent revelations in the new ownership thread

2+2 is great again

will the new owners have same interest in our rights as posters?

I feel like Mason overstepped his place when it comes to content created by people not working for 2plus2.

I have reviewed a lot of books on Amazon under another name and I was going to create an account on here using that name to post reviews here, but this thread gives me pause.