You can "believe" you are on the Partnership track, but actually not be anywhere close to it. Obviously, you are more inclined to grind out over 2000 billable hours a year (while working the over 3,000 to get them) if you think you will be rewarded for the sacrifice by having a chance to get a piece of the pie (So Firm's, in their self-interest, make you believe that partnership is a near certainly). Her leaving indicates to me she probably was not on that track (at least not with that Firm).

No matter, as the world is a better place with more one female poker player and one less lawyer in it.

Not sure if she ever mentions partner track or why I thought that, but she made 500k her last year and left because she quit lawyering.

wtf is going on ITT

Crazy idea-- maybe she quit being a lawyer because she didn't want to be a lawyer her whole life.

I think that's now officially called "grabbing her by the p***y".

'male' quote is truly bizarre I agree. Second quote is whatev. Third is you missing some overt sarcasm. Fourth guy is on my ignore list; seems to be some kind of hardcore rightwinger.

Do we even know for sure that the letter actually came from GSN's attorneys? Was it sent directly to Doug or through Youtube?

If GSN wanted the videos taken down why wouldn't they just submit a DCMA takedown notice to youtube which would then have the videos removed? Youtube's Content ID system makes it easy for copyright holders to protect their IP through their system without having to go outside of it by sending alleged violators independent communication.

Youtube's Content ID system gives control to copyright holders on how they can deal with potential content violations. They can either mute the audio (for the case of copyrighted music being played on a video), block the entire video from being viewed, monitize the video for themselves with the option of sharing revenue with the uploader, or just tracking views.

From what Doug said they at least initially decided to monetize the video. If they then decided to block the video they could have just done that through youtube instead of asking Doug to do it.

If it was in fact GSN's actual lawyers doing it they might have sent the letter to Doug because they see him as low hanging fruit. They know who he is and how to serve him with documents and that he has money.

You say that like it's some kind of bad thing.

She would not be the first attorney to get involved with the poker and gaming industries in some other role than lawyering.

The truth is you often can not swing a dead cat in these industries without hitting someone with a JD degree*.

(*Caitlin Hall has a JD, Yale Law School, 2009.)

It was an e-mail from an @GSN.com address, with all the correct information. Is it still possible to spoof e-mail addresses? If this is a hoax, seems like quite an elaborate one.

I think it's obvious that nobody at GSN is actually monitoring YouTube, Twitch, or anywhere else for copyright infringement. They're not in the habit of sending DMCA notices through YouTube's system, and have elected to just collect ad revenue.

In my opinion, what happened here is that somebody talked with GSN's legal department and named Doug specifically. The attorney probably has no idea that these videos were monetized on GSN's behalf, and certainly has never issued a DMCA notice through YouTube. She just wrote up a C&D the old fashioned way, as instructed, and called it a day.

set up = we can pay for arbitration, ldo.

i frequently hear youtubers talking about youtube drama but i never cared to know. now i see some of it. lol. i wish we could apply a common sense law but unfortunately people find it tough to know what common sense is.

doug's videos are great and are absolutely different content than what is originally aired. taking down his videos puts up a very dangerous precedent which would ruin a lot of the internet for a lot of people.

greg has joined the dark side of trolling. other doods are making america great again.

it's clear that BP was footing the bill for all types of adjudication, including offering a free memo by his high-powered legal team regarding the subject matter. He also noted in other comments that he hopes Doug wins the bet. BP is not trying to troll, he simply wants to spread the game and his love of poker. There is no way he would make Doug pay the costs.

I haven't paid much attention, but wonder if Doug ever heeded his advice re: "Hey guys, it's Doug here."

Just tuning in ..... How's Dog Puke's "BRAND" doing ?? It appears to be @ an all time low ????? First stars killed HU / Then liBRATUS came along / followed by a series of big timing events culminating in a complete cucking by copyright lawyers ...

the h3h3 vs. matt hoss lawsuit (currently ongoing) is expected to be the case for fair use on youtube. h3h3 should win as they hired top-brass lawyers and have a very strong argument, but who knows, maybe they end up losing, i'm not sure how these things work.

That's plausible but it still seems odd. GSN is a big enough entity that they would be using Content ID so someone needs to be familiar with how it all works.

I didn't know this before but I was looking at YouTube's fair use page at https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright...ght-protection and it says they now have fair use protections where "YouTube indemnifies creators whose fair use videos have been subject to takedown notices for up to $1 million of legal costs in the event the takedown results in a lawsuit for copyright infringement"

They say they aren't able to protect all creators but if they have such a policy in place it seems logical that they might have some system in place to determine if a video would fall under fair use when a takedown notice is received. At least in some instances.

If GSN's lawyer sent the notice directly to Doug I wonder if they tried to do it through YouTube first and youtube told them to go fly a kite?

Either way, that indemnification from youtube might be worth looking into. I don't know though... haven't watched too many of Doug's high stakes HU videos. Maybe he just likes to fold frequently preflop to minraises.

Torelli repeats about 3 different times that he has a tell read on Doug, without actually bringing himself to say it out loud.

I lol'd at

They are indeed using ContentID (and have earned several thousand dollars from these 17 videos), but it's an automated system. You set it and forget it, which they probably did years ago.

lol at that title. I saw it in my recommendations when watching Doug's video from yesterday and just chuckled while clicking x. And people think Doug's title from a week or so ago was OTT.

alec is just as excited as i've imagined every fish was when they made a ******ed call and won.

i also hope he's trolling with that shirt

Was involved in Copyright Infringement litigation in US (my work stolen).
Followed the h3h3 stuff, lol @ not paying out the 4k original offer. Fair Use is often gray area, sure let's go to court and figure this one out. Lol.
Good place to start is a pragmatic approach. Infringement laws are designed to protect the jobs of the creators. Ask the question: does my 'fair use' damage the market for the original? Check out the movie commentary guys Doug mentions. They do not damage it. This is tied closely to transformation. You watch movies mainly for pure enjoyment. You do not critique the lighting, cinematography, symbolism in your head. Any work that uses the original to do this is really transformation. Still bound to use minimum original content to do this though.
Many people watching televised poker in order to critique it. Not watching for the banter or to just see the stars. You are analysing the hands and the play in your head. Any critique using the original to repeat this process for the viewer, albeit in a more structured and elevated fashion, is not very transformational, certainly nothing like on the level of the movie commentary.
Would I want to see the movie after the movie critique? Sure. How about the poker clip? No, I've seen it all already, and the purpose of me watching it (to analyze and evaluate the plays in my head) has already been done for me by Doug.
There is a DMCA route on YouTube. This process also indicates that you're free to go through your own channels for notification also.
Content ID match and leech monetisation does not exculpated you. Still Infringement. Also, probably different bodies/mechanisms in the plaintiff, meaning they could end up monetising like this and still sue.
I'd run from this. Don't even bother with lawyers.
Shame. Commentary was great. Love the channel.

While HSP is long dead, GSN is still an active television network. Someone has to still be managing it and feeding new videos to it.

I don't want to argue the details with you I don't use Content ID but the point I was making, which I believe you mentioned and Doug did as well is that the whole request is odd.

1. They're handling Doug's videos different than they are handling other youtube videos they're monetizing through ContentID.

2. Instead of just submitting a DMCA takedown notice to Youtube which would be a quick and easy way to get the videos taken down, they sent a C&D directly to Doug. I don't think ContentID lets you set different policies based on users/channels. Just length and geographic region. But I can't find anything that says you can't use DMCA takedowns if you're also using ContentID.

3. There was a third point but a friend texted me a picture of her tits and I got distracted and forgot. :-/

So either..

A. The attorney who represents a fairly large media outlet is stuck in a time warp and is handling IP issues inneficiently like it's 1997 which seem likely or..

B. There are no roadblocks sending a C&D directly vs a DMCA takedown notice. The DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing a takedown and Youtube seems to be more mindful of that as well lately.

I don't remember anything too terribly embarrassing about any of the hands but I wonder if one of the players might have seen one and wasn't happy about the analysis.

I think there's a good argument that it's covered under fair use and worth it for Doug to assert his rights. Especially if Youtube will indemnify him. I think he should even challenge the ContentID claim so he can keep the money from his ads.

The work is transformative. One example of why is that his commentary often is different from the announcers and his insights adds new value.

He's only using one hand not an entire episode.

Doug's use doesn't deprive GSN income. HSP is off the air and I don't think reruns are playing anywhere. It doesn't look like they even have the episodes online on Youtube or elsewhere except for a couple of clips. Looks like the only way they're making money of those episodes is from YouTube via ContentID when other people, like Doug, post them.

HSP poker comes on local sports cable in vegas still