I respect your opinion and we'll see how this plays out.

small sample size bro.

lolololololol

I'd probably start playing again just for that feature alone

breaking laws?

oooooh maybe broken laws.

prison? ohhhh noooooo!





And everyone stop with the politically charged blackface discussion herein.

Are there people who don't think Negreanu is a sellout?

but they're "famous"!

To all who questioned washoe's sincerity - he's not trolling. He never is. But I will say this for him - he is willing to listen and amend his opinions, however strongly he argued for them at the beginning.

Glad I got to see Srsly's video while it lasted. Maybe a "clean" version (i.e. without the last few seconds) can go back up?

"This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on nudity or sexual content."

No surprise at all. As Washoe pointed out, where else do you see this kind of thing posted? (apart from on porn sites)

On the one hand the video being removed may reduce the amount of any damages awarded should anyone decide to sue its creators and win the case, because of its number of views now being halted, but on the other hand its removal adds weight IMO to the chances of any legal action, should it take place, succeeding.

The creators of this video (assuming they were Doug Polk and SrslySirius) IMO got greedy. They have made/published satirical attack videos on DNegs previously (e.g. the one about DNegs being obsessed with winning the WSOP POTY and Doug Polk mocking this by struggling through extreme Vegas heat to go and play comp after comp) but have kept the videos within the bounds of satire.

This video, which was a full out attack on DNegs broke some of those boundaries IMO, as well as potentially tarnished two other brands/organisations, Masterclass and ChoiceCentre.

Not impossible a lawyer could get himself some hefty legal fees.

I think Daniel could find himself a reputable law firm to take/make a case.

Mayor Polk has been obsessed/harassing/stalking Daniel for some time.

The Lawyers would have plenty to work with.

In front of the right jury, it could be worth millions.

Mayor Polk would be wise to start hiding his money now.

1. Perhaps it was not directly monetized, I don't know, but views and exposure on Doug Polk's YouTube channel(s) and related views on his social media platform(s) surely at least in part serve to promote his poker training business, and I am pretty sure he stated this himself in a recent video, that his poker content was designed to, and/or had/has the effect of promoting and bringing sales and revenue to his poker training business.

2. It is not a parody, the video was not an imitation is was lots of clips of the actual person stitched together, plus the meme at the end which as far as I remember you created some time ago (the meme that is).

3. So according to your logic, you can take anyone's actual words on video clips of them (and by implication therefore, or anyone's words in print) and place them/edit them into any order that you want to, and that it's fine and totally legal to do this, regardless of the content, meaning or inference(s) of the end product that you have created.

4. As if people taking legal action always do so within a few short days of something happening.

----------------------------------------------------

Parody noun

par·​o·​dy | \ ˈper-ə-dē , ˈpa-rə- \

Definition of parody
1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
// wrote a hilarious parody of a popular song

2: a feeble or ridiculous imitation
// a cheesy parody of a classic western

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody

----------------------------------------------------

You're exhibiting confirmation bias - only seeking out information that confirms your preconceived notions. Like looking to define something as broad as a parody from a dictionary, where brevity limits scope. First you were a legal expert. Now you're an expert on parodies too? Were you a double law-arts major?

"A parody , also called a spoof, a send-up, a take-off, a lampoon, a play on (something), a caricature or a joke, is a work which is created to imitate and/or make fun of or comment on an original work—its subject, author, style or some other target—by means of satiric or ironic imitation."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody

Doug Polk is not going to be sued over the video you clowns, get over it.

All of the sub definitions / alternative definitions of a parody quoted in the Wikipedia article, are themselves defined as imitation or mimicry, apart from lampoon, and Wikipedia is obviously not a dictionary anyway so unlikely to be admissible as evidence in a court of law.

I will bet £500 at 8/1 that one or more of Daniel Negreanu, Masterclass or ChoiceCentre file a legal action of any type against the creator or the creators of the video within a year of today. A trusted/respected escrow person required of course.

Many people ITT appear to assume that because this is poker and because there has been a mainly jokey tit for tat feud between Polk and Neagranu, that the video gets a free pass as far as the law goes.

IMO it doesn't. The creator(s) went way too far, and as I mentioned they got greedy believing that literally anything goes, because they have never (as far as I am aware) been sued for any of the content that has been put out.

it's like every single time there's discussion over someone well known a bunch of brand new accounts will always start arguing in their favor... weird...

sure, I'm in

I am not a DNegs fan, my view is that he'll sometimes toe the company line (the sponsor he is working for) even if what he is saying he might not personally believe in, i.e. "more rake is better", but you and I might do too if we earned a lot of money from it.

I am just commenting on the video. It went way too far, would you be happy to be attacked so viciously, including the meme at the end? And how would you feel if your company logo appeared at the end of the video purely because the person who is being attacked in the video is/was a client of yours/an attendee of yours on a course that has nothing to do with poker.

Doug Polk is very intelligent, so I can only put this down to poker video content making ring rust that he would think that it was a good idea to put such an extreme video out on his YouTube channel, or perhaps he is so determined to "win" his spat with DNegs that it clouded his judgement.

I think he has lost his touch and direction generally since he switched to making more mainstream/political content. He's a small fish in a big pond in that area, many others are far better and far more advanced than him in that type of content (on TV) and the Mayoral recall fiasco wasn't thought through properly by him and has made him look less than good.

Great. Can someone well known and trusted offer to be an Escrow please.

My Escrow will have to be by bank transfer but I'm quite happy to pay any bank/fx fees if the recipient does not have a UK bank account.

Here's a summary thread on Twitter from user @rachelees69 that has received over 150 likes.

I think he's one of the most successful poker players on the planet. And the single most widely known.

Which is exactly what the video did - mimicked Daniels' Master Class commercial. The fact they used his own words from other videos doesn't stop it from being a parody. From what I can tell you're being earnest here, and I can appreciate that - you're unfortunately just not very bright.

Doug summed it up nicely. Daniel spent his life as a champion for the game, going out of his way to call out other poker players who, when faced with the decision to either enrich themselves or protect the integrity of the game and community chose the former. When PokerStars decided to welch on their Super Nova Elite program and keep millions of dollars promised to players for themselves it became Daniel's turn to face that same decision - the company was paying him a rumored $3M/year for his sponsorship. After a "few meetings" with management he decided to defend PokerStars and came up with his famously lame "it was a communication error" rationale for what PokerStars did.

Once that happened Daniel was done. He went on to defend every player-adverse decision PokerStars did after that, going so far to claim that increasing the rake is a good thing for the game, not to mention whispering in his girlfriend's ears to say "**** the pros" on his own YouTube vlog.

The sellout is complete. The man is but a mere shell of what he once proclaimed to be.

Fyp.

You didn’t answer the question btw.

Jackie Chiles ?

A funny part of viewing the video on YouTube was thew advertisement that ran first, which was the DNegs spot shilling for Masterclass.