Indeed... this is one thing we both clearly agree on. Figure this: according to his fundraising goal, he is allocating only $800 for the purposes of actually making the film.

Dutch Boyd is kicking himself right now

We do not defend this "jackass" kid, we are saying that he is trying to get backed for the ME the only way he can.. Let him try and do be such a negative ****er that needs to hate to feel good about urself. So much hate in here, take a chillpill and enjoy the freakshow man

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tomorrow

Filmed secretly at Disneyland. Some legal scholars think it could fall under fair use at a public place.

(Ian's friend)

This documentary was going to be a huge hit and would have most certainly created a second, but much larger, poker boom. Good work OP, for ****ing this one up.

He said the $800 was for IndieGogo and Paypal fees.

I am robot

what is this thing you call "hu-mour"

I didn't miss that part at all. I'm just pointing out, generally, that when protectionist policies are perpetrated on you (not you individually, but you in the general sense) the ethical answer is not to want it uniformly enforced on others, but instead to have that protectionism abolished. I don't think it's consistent to be for the abolition of such rules, but then insist they be evenly enforced. You (again, in the general sense) should think of someone who breaks bad rules as justified and brave, not "rule breakers". It reminds me, as an example that's unrelated, of people who complain about having to pay taxes, but then complain about people who don't pay taxes and call them "tax cheats". They should applaud the bravery and justified civil disobedience to such laws if they disagree with them.

I'm glad you see things the way you do, and perhaps I misconstrued your intent (as did others). I apologize if I did that. I also agree, this doesn't seem very well thought out, and that makes it seem even more likely to be a scam.

BTW, the part about "getting a new gig" if one can't compete without protectionism wasn't meant to be just about you in particular...it was a generality about ANYONE who needs protectionism to maintain power, wealth, income, or market share. It wasn't personal, and I hope you know that. My bad for assuming anything about your intent that wasn't really there. I make mistakes sometimes.

Anyways, keep up all the good work out there. I am a fan of your comedic sensibility.

This is a good point. I'd wager, however, that if such an agreement exists in such a contract, those who agree to such things never even read the agreement. That isn't alone an excuse, but I'd refer folks to the User Agreements these days that take 4 hours to read (which is on purpose), and which basically force you sign away your rights to everything in the process (which is unnecessary and much maligned by all sides of the political spectrum).

But your point stands...and perhaps as the rights relinquished grow in number, consumers will tire of it enough to start a competing series that doesn't include such rights-devouring, competition-thwarting contractual arrangements. People who want to play in these tournaments shouldn't have to agree to all that. They should agree to rules, not protectionism, a relinquishment unnecessarily of rights, and/or support for a cardroom(s) that push for laws that go against their personal interests (like how some cardrooms are in the very casinos that fund the effort to keep online poker illegal and out of the hands of Americans who want to play online).

Yeah, not everything you implicitly or explicitly agree to, whether in User Agreements, other contracts, or any other way, are legally binding. They look to be, but in the end, there are some clear cut exceptions (like the exposure of a crime), and some not-so-clear-cut exceptions.

He way well win in court regardless, if he were to actually make the film, and if he were to actually be sued for doing so. But he also may well lose...we'll have to wait and see what happens.

This could be interesting.

Would you please post any articles written by the legal scholars you refer to who think it could fall under fair use at a public place?

I am legitimately curious. This is not my area, but this is intriguing.

And, as I said, this is not my area, but I may have guessed that Disney World was not a public place. It is after all privately owned and generally an admission fee must be paid for an admission ticket. I would actually be interested in reading more about this.

I don't get it, is he selling 100% of himself?
So, basically, he will play just for sake of playing while filming a documentary with hidden cameras?

Yes, sounds like an awesome idea...

Not to stray off topic but I saw that film last night and it's definitely one to watch.

If anyone wants some lulz you should search poker on indeigogo

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/poker-girls

Just make sure the OP does not recognize the filmmaker to avoid being ratted out to the Rio authorities by him

I bet it's really Chino

Thread title change to "SrslySirius is a bitch who is butt hurt bc someone else came up with a cool idea"

Also, OP is a bitch.

You could probably make an awesome documentary about this without filming one second inside the Amazon room. What is stopping him from making an extremely entertaining film? (Whether intentionally or unintentionally.)

Drama is always good for a story. And OP was hoping his post would squash Ian's chance of making the movie and playing in the Main Event. This can now be an added element where Ian addresses the haters and the obstacles he encounters during the process.

Ironically, yet karmically correct, OP is helping him raise the last bit by posting this.

If you want to kill dreams, OP, stick you your field of expertise. Rap music videos. Google, Bryan raps free Matthew, to find mine. Or google Odog gettin it in.

So it's a cool idea to pull a scam and tell others that you're better at poker than you really are, so they'll invest in you? Kinda says a lot about your ethics.

Get off your high horse. Poker players talking about ethics is major lulz.

Wow, pretty black and white, aren't you? So all poker players, including the millions of amateurs who play poker for fun, are all unethical? From the last two posts alone, I'm getting a pretty clear picture of your personality

Looks good. It's a shame it fell just $49,900 short of its $50,000 goal.

Man, Asians sure do love Baccarat.

I enjoy reading comments like this by people who attempt to insult others on the internet. You do it poorly by attacking my personality. I find it even more lulz that you have any idea of my personality based on a comment I made. In today's poker world, my knee jerk reaction is to cringe anytime a poker player tries to bring up anything to do with ethics. Sorry, but its the world we live...