Wow, this reply to my issue feels like i bet $25 and you tossed in a $1000 chip to call. Or were you raising? I don't know.

Your answer does not address any of the questions I asked. Maybe if I rephrase the questions I'll get an answer to what I ask.

1. Why don't the mods on 2+2 delete the links/posts that go to infringing content? Why are the users who post that material not suspended or banned from the forums if Mason is so concerned about sites making money off of other people's content? It can be argued that by allowing such links and displaying advertising banners on those threads 2+2 is knowingly profiting from copyright infringement on every page view.

2. You use copyrighted material to make bumps and drops. You can hide behind the "fair use" claims but the reality is that it really doesn't take much to create a thread or page on the site to list the music artists and owners, what material was sourced for drops, and similar. "Fair use" arguments do not preclude you from attributing the material you're using in your show that you are selling advertising for.

3. When you use music and other copyrighted material, where do you source it from? Does the show purchase the material or is it acquired via other means? Is your use of the copyrighted material cleared in every country you are listened to in under their 'Fair use' provisions?

Just wondering why you keep putting fair use in scare quotes as though it is a fabricated term instead of a thoroughly vetted legal principle in at least United States jurisprudence.

If I can cherry-pick one part, they DO a variation of this. If you quote all or too much of an article, rather than simply linking to it or quoting a key excerpt for the purposes of commenting on it, a mod will eventually edit the post.

Edit: Also, after this recent brouhaha, I could anticipate PokerTube links being banned from 2+2. After all, you can't post links to another certain site that shall not be named.

Just want to put in my two cents regarding this copyright infringement business.

In this issue, I occupy three different positions: I am a consumer of copyrighted material, I am an owner of copyrighted material (I am a part time musician and have released a bunch of albums) and I am also employed by an owner of copyrighted material (I am an editor for a publishing company). Also, I used to be co-owner of a record company.

I think this issue is really simple: In the long term it is in everybody’s interest do pay for (as opposed to “steal”) copyrighted material.

As a consumer, I do feel I should pay for the product I use. Why? One reason is I want to make sure that I still will have a quality product in the future. If less people pay for copyrighted material, the quality of content will eventually go down. The reason for this is that it takes money to get a good product out. Sure, anybody can record a song, write a book or shoot a film. But doing it on your own dime, on your own time, with limited resources and knowledge will result in inferior and fewer products. Creating, producing, marketing and distributing “art” costs money and time, and you need knowledge to do it well. So, when you “steal” copyrighted material you actually hurt “art” itself.

Also, people and companies get financially hurt.
The big companies and artists take a hit, but if you are big enough you can take it (not saying that it´s okay to steal from them, just that it won´t kill them).
If you are a small business or artist, it might (and often does) kill you. As an artist or “company person”, this is your livelihood. People not paying what they should can (and often does) put you out of business, forcing you to get another job and give up your dream. I have personally lost thousands of dollars, because record companies have gone belly up because of file sharing. I have additionally lost thousands of dollars trying to put content out using my own money.
If you are a user who pay for copyrighted material you get hurt by paying more than your share, plus you run the risk of getting less good content in the future.

The one get hurt the least is the person “stealing”. He or she loses no money, only runs the risk of quality of content dropping.

Cliffs:
- Stealing copyrighted material hurts the artist and the art itself
- Don´t be cheap and shortsighted, pay what you should
- In the game of being an artist, stealing of copyrighted material is the rake
- Get the fxxx off my lawn!

But what happens to the user who posts to a Youtube link? The video linked to is uploaded by user Bob123 and is of the WSOP final table. Bob123 has his watermark on the video and Youtube gets ad revenue from those who watch it from the page. The discussion around the video becomes popular here and generates hundreds or thousands of page views and ad revenue for 2+2.

ESPN gets nothing from the views.

So +1 on the one instance you mention of 2+2 doing something to control text based infringement, but negative points for all the infringement they allow that benefits them.

There's nothing scary about the quotes, they are just simple quotation marks.

I used them in the number 2 section because copyright violators often hide behind fair use claims. Tchan's response, to me, boiled down "Its all under fair use". I don't think the use they put the material to falls under the fair use statute as I understand it*. Therefore I put the phrase in quotes.

In the number 3 section, I used the quotes because i was asking a question that covers copyright in all the countries the show is downloaded. I don't know if the concept is called Fair Use all over the world, therefore the quotes there.

* Due to my understanding of Fair Use is as a lay person and not a lawyer, its one reason why I believe that all drops and intros should be attributed to their owners and be properly sourced. At least if that is done, it shows good faith should it become a legal issue later on. Copyright owners can find the attributions via web searches and act upon the use accordingly.

I enjoy their banter, but hope the pro-tranny segment doesn't become a regular feature. Like most of society, Doyle is surprised to see a former "World's Greatest Athlete" get breasts and wear nail polish. Most of the world doesn't just blindly and naively endorse random deviancy.

Classy by Adam though, to wish Doyle best wishes after his latest cancer scare.

I'll assume this was a joke and not post the definition of scare quotes.

Does this actually happen? 2+2 are usually pretty sharp to stop people spamming their own financial interests, plus YouTube has its own copyright infringement filters (eg stuff not available in your country, not available for embedding, etc).

Edit: it is a murky area, and one I encounter in another walk of life in a different guise where people usually seem comfortable to wave a fair use wand at and then ignore, but I would say that all of the use of third party material on 2+2/the pokercast seems (to my ianal eyes at least, and what I encounter, at least) of a fundamentally different, and much more justifiable under fair use definitions, nature to ripping whole programmes and then rehosting them, and whilst that doesn't mean 2+2 is the clear, the two can't be simply equated in talking about the issue.

Also 2+2 powers that be are very conservative about a lot of these things, so I would be very surprised if they had not investigated them and quite surprised if they'd decided to take a very loosely goosey interpretation. One area in particular I would hope/expect (especially given their obvious interest in live music) the pokercast to be ensuring that they were complying fully with commercial & industry standards would be the music used in between segments. But by this point, im very much speculating since I know nothing about it.

Interesting of you to use the words "blindly" and "naively" when projecting your own ignorance onto the viewpoints of "most of the world." What sample size were you using when you derived this brilliant conclusion?

At the beginning when Adam was talking about the super bowl he said about the listeners "I cant imagine there aren't many people who didn't watch it". You should run a pole because I think you'd be surprised!

Certainly outside North America, I have to imagine the majority of people did NOT watch it.

98%. Outside of Europe even higher.

Where DID suggest a guest go?

About the men entering the women's event.
I guess i'm just surprised there's no official rule saying "no men allowed".
women's event means... women's event. It stops being a women's event when a man is allowed to enter the event?? It then becomes, just another event.
22 entered, ya, looking forward to the next "women's event"!

About Doyle and his issue with Bruce Jenner.
When Terrance mentioned his dad also says, less than nice things... i totally related.
My dad can be off the map.
While Doyle is certainly entitled to his opinion, unfortunately for him, his narrow outlook ultimately gives the rest of us a big "life-read" on him.

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/...en-waiting-for

Sigh Doyle needs to be a bit more liberal but understandable given the times when he grew up.

-Ive wins Challenge vn

I would agree men shouldn't be able to enter ladies events. It's the same thing as if I dressed up for the Seniors event rolling up in a wheel chair.

Did you say there would be no new show?

no, new show is in progress

You know, Bruce Jenner isn't exactly a spring chicken. He's younger than Doyle, but he's still 65.

It's really sad that there are people like this still around in 2015.

Looks like I'm going to have to make an intro to the regular pro tranny feature!

You also mentioned the incentive to go all in blind the first hand with someone you are staking. I find this interesting because being chip leader at your table increases the likelihood of getting more bounties going forward versus being an average stack.

You mean people who like to stick with one gender? Yeah, we're a strange breed.

You're free to do that, the question is why do you care what others do?

Of course, the answer is homophobia.