They can do a search on Google that targets the site and looks for the term PokerNews. Here is a link to that search which will bring up an interesting point.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site....com+pokernews

There are almost 10,000 results. If you click through to any of them most likely the video will be deleted but the page still exists. By leaving the page behind and all the text that the story covered, they are still stealing page-views from Poker News or any other party that requested their video be removed and directing them to their site. This also makes it very difficult to locate new content.

As far as having an automated system, Youtube has such a system. Twitch has it to find copyrighted music and mutes the audio of any archived stream that contains copyrighted music.

Whilst I respect its your site etc I don't think banning someone who opposes your view is in the communities best interest, though obviously it is in yours.

Please don't ban me.

Jamie states several times that the video pages contain no ads. This is technically true but disingenuous.

What he doesn't tell you is the page is placed in a frame that does contain ads and they potentially do make money with every view.



If he is being dishonest about that point multiple times how can you trust anything he says?

I'm just observing, eating popcorn but I do produce IP in a non-poker related field. My view is that if you were serious you would start with the ones that can be easily found using your own search function:

http://www.pokertube.com/search?q=pokernews.com

I believe its up to Pokertube to put in the work to find the Pokernews vids. I feel like 180vita as a company are a bit scummy as a whole.

+1 to this

Also if he is wrong - then attack him/respond... banning him makes it seem unfair [like you are taking your ball away because you are losing the game]

I'm not saying poker tube is correct [or wrong] I just think in this thread poker tube should have a voice to defend themselves. At the end of the day if they are in the wrong, it will be their own comments that will end up doing the most damage.

As it is, with him banned - I think it reflects badly on 2+2

That's just my .02c

Please don't ban me

I had not known of Mark Hoke before this thread but Jamie did bring Mark's name into here without any prompting. Jamie brought the information into this thread regarding a private email/email conversation he was having with Mark regarding Mark's videos that had been uploaded onto pokertube:


As Jamie was the one to bring this conversation public, I am not sure why when Mark responds in kind (albeit on a FB post, as he claims he does not use 2+2) the he is considered an ass.

This is very narrow search which, naturally, returns predominantly PokerTube results. It effectively tells Google to search for videos and content tagged Pokernews on Pokertube pages. I don’t see how is that stealing views – why would anyone use this type of search syntax?

Not to mention that landing on a page with a broken video is not exactly something that any site would be proud of and would want the visitors to see.


I do not know how this frame was achieved, but this is most certainly not how the site looks when you are watching a video. Not that there is much need to argue this as anyone can easily check it out by watching any video on the site.

On this picture it is clear that the browser was ‘squashed’ so that it would move the banner from the footer of the page inside the video frame (it is clearly covering some of the functions under the video, so I don’t believe that, even if there were ads in the frame, this would be a way to deploy them).

It is possibly a bug of some sort but I've never seen anything like this.

Also, I think banning Jamie was pretty bad form, despite of not seeing eye-to-eye or whatever.

I also agree with this.

Seems like all sides were having a reasonable discussion and could have came to some sort of resolution that would have potentially turned into a positive.

I'm shocked people here aren't more disgusted by pokernews.com . Matt Parvis you seem to be downplaying things here…

I've personally had to ask youtube to remove videos I created a long time ago, and I know for a fact they ask you to contact them officially and ask for the individual URLs of each piece of your owned content.

Seems to be like pokernews.com are refusing to give a list of all their videos on pokertube. Why is that? You say they take down videos very quickly whenever you make a complaint.

@Matt Parvis - for somebody preaching about IP rights, maybe you should act and send them a list of copyright videos instead of taking to twitter to attack them? that might be more constructive.

You're complaining that the videos shouldn't have been added to pokertube in the first place. ….But that's hypocritical because you also had an agreement for them to add the content in the first place!*That's ignoring that pokertube is a tube site where any random user can upload a video in the first place - and I do understand pokertube can 'moderate' what's published - but at least they're better than YouTube in that respect. Also, from everything you people are saying, it sounds to me like after somebody makes an official complaint, pokertube are respecting that complaint in future….

For people to call pokertube 'thieves' is really out of order IMO.*

I was upset to see WSOP videos no longer on poker tube, but a quick search on Google shows all the episodes from 2014 on youtube with over 150k views on each one. So why people are so 'disgusted' with pokertube 'damaging' poker is really totally baffling me here…People need to seriously put things in perspective.

P.S. Yes I am a fan of pokertube, you guessed it.

I can't believe you can just ban a guy for giving his point of view in a very polite manner. This seems very un-American.

Please don't ban me.

What is the difference between PokerTube and what this guy does?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/37...hread-1494707/

I can't understand why this Jamie guy was banned. He didn't start this thread. He came into this thread after being brought to account for things he may or may not be doing and he tried to defend himself and answered a lot of the concerns/complaints. He wasn't insulting.

What is this forum coming to? It's ok to slander some guys name and when he tries to defend himself he gets banned?

I'm not speculating whether he's innocent or guilty of the things he's being accused of and personally I think his concern for poker goes hand in hand with what he can financially gain from it. But that's besides the point. If someone's called out on this forum and it's poker related he deserves a chance to defend himself. I do agree about his circle-jerk comments.

Why does it seem like Jamie is the only affiliate having problems with everyone else? Is everyone out to get him cuz he's doing so well? Is he the king of poker affiliates right now?

Did you stop to think maybe there's a chance that he posted something outrageous that got deleted and/or he send a PM that was way out of line?

From the way he justified his nonsense, the guy didn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, and none of what I surmised above would surprise me.

Finally, regarding "slander", please point out a false spoken statement damaging to his reputation.

Catching up on thread, but feel the need to reply here. Many of us here followed Lock closely starting with the whole Girah incident. I thought 2+2 was pretty much spot on when they decided to ban Lock.

I suppose there is a chance that he posted something inappropriate but I didn't see it and based on how he wrote his 2 posts I doubt it... perhaps a mod could add to this.

I'm not saying what was spoken of him is true or untrue, but the man deserves a chance to defend himself. If I were to bet I'd say he's guilty of all sorts of piracy etc. but I think it's best to let the facts play out with both sides being given equal opportunity to speak freely and then we as a community will be able to make more informed judgements.

pokernews is complete trash, the "reporters" they employ are basically minimum wage idiots who know absolutely nothing about poker and are under qualified to get a job in the actual media. Literally 50% of the HHs the post on their live updates are wrong, a lot of them seem just completely made up just so they can try to use some clever puns.

I'm told they are paid by most poker tours for promotion purposes, so they basically have 0 integrity. They fail to report huge mistakes made by the tournament staff. It happened many times during Aussie Millions, but was completely ignored by Pokernews, most likely cause the tournament pays to make themselves look good.

Stop with the boasting of traffic increases for content that isn't yours. It's not relevant at all.

The entire issue is that you take other people's content and have people consume it as you see fit. That's it, that's the entire problem people have with you.

Of course, you understand all this and are just waving your arms to distract from the core issue.

I love that you think we're all just sitting here reading your twitter timeline.

It's not incumbent on content owners to scour the internet for people stealing it. It's incumbent on people, like yourself, that have a business model that rides the line of hosting content that you didn't produce to make sure that you have systems in place so you don't infringe.

Pokernews, and others, shouldn't have to spend hours and hours searching your site every week for their content so they can beg you to take it down.

I tend to agree that Jamie should be allowed to defend himself, even if his position may be indefensible.

The comparison with youtube is not valid. Youtube is a place where users upload videos and if one of those users uploads something they don't own then you send a link to youtube and they take it down. IANAL but as I understand it, the DMCA is about protecting such companies from people using the medium in an illegal way (before the internet age the closest precedent would have been newspaper or book publishers who certainly could be held responsible for anything they facilitated getting out). Poker tube appear to be putting up the content themselves so their position is more equivalent to that of the rogue youtube users than that of youtube's owners.

BTW I agree he shouldn't be banned.

PM is not possible with less than 5 posts.

That ban doesn't seem right. But i don't know all the facts.

The ban seems to be for stating that 2+2 copyrighted material, i.c. the PokerCast, might have gotten a broader audience thanks to pokertube. That argument is the same as all piratesites use, and might be relevant in music where pirating has changed the business-model completely. More people know your music, but you sell less CD's and LP's, so you focus on concerts.

Stating that more people will listen to the PokerCast because of pokertube seems a bit hautain and arrogant. And if I understood Mason correctly, the traffic and streams the PokerCast generate are making TwoPlusTwo (the owners) money. Most likely they have a contract with the sponsor of the show PokerStars, and are able to up their prizes when they have more listeners. In that case the listening via pokertube is costing the owners of the material money. Then again: I don't know the model, so forgive me for this bit of speculation. It's just meant to show that the argument from pokertube is illogical and invalid: what does TwoPlusTwo have to benefit from listeners on pokertube?

The argument might be wrong or invalid, but I don't feel this justified the ban. The discussion was pretty civil, so there most likely is another reason for the ban.

Hi Everyone:

Well, due to popular demand, we have reinstated Jamie. But I also want to quickly summarize some of the background which most of you don’t know that led up to our banning decision.

First, in July, 2013 we had a couple of phone conversations with Jamie (and one of these also included his father). Here’s a short excerpt from an email Jamie sent us on 7/29/13:

So you can see that this issue goes back some time and we were under the impression after 7/29/13 that the issues were being properly addressed.

But then these issues came back and on 6/19/14 I sent the following email to Jamie:

Here is part of Jamie’s replay on the same day:

Anyway, Jamie then wanted another phone call but I informed him that after his porn comment there would be no such conversation. Jamie also told us in some emails that quickly followed that there was no Poker News content on their site and argued that Bluff should be happy with having their stuff on PokerTube (which of course they were not).

This is an excerpt from a 6/20/14 email we received from Jamie:

My reply to him, also on 6/20/14 was:

Anyway, we didn’t get rid of him and again the issues seemed to get better.

Then on Jan 12 of this year the following twitter exchange appeared:

https://twitter.com/MasonMalmuth/sta...18519222669313

Not only were we quite surprised that 2+2 material was now appearing on PokerTube, but they had the nerve to tweet it out. In addition, you would think that after all our communication they would be very careful not to use any of our stuff.

Continuing on, on 2/8/15 here is an excerpt from a Jamie email:

My response to this on 2/9/15 was:

So this should give everyone some background as to why we made the original banning decision. Of course, there’s more than what is posted here, but the main reason for the decision was that we just had enough of this and didn’t want to deal with it any more. But we do listen to our posters and Jamie can now post again.

I also want to address one additional issue. Jamie has stated in this thread that they did not want to advertise with us anymore and when I corrected this he stated that my correction was not true. Here is an excerpt from an email he sent to our advertising representative on 1/10/15 (which is two days before he tweeted out our PokerCast):

Best wishes,
Mason

^^I agree. I think the ban hammer was unjustly used. The guy was trying to defend himself. Is he full of ****? Probably. Why not just let him dig a deeper hole? Now, he looks like a victim, instead of the Jack Sparrow he most like is.