Printable View
MontyBurns = GOD
Even you know you were gonna get banned anyway so stop being such a drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffer
i would say a little harsh. Until SS chimes and explains himself i will give the closet fag the benefit of the doubtQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
maybe he was concerned that i was going to get druff in further trouble, hence him posting
"fluffer is just making things up to be funny"
which inadvertently got me banned
Maybe try not to be such a giant fag ALL THE TIMEQuote:
Originally Posted by Hockey GuyEven you know you were gonna get banned anyway so stop being such a drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffer
So has nobody posted Druffs response in the OP to 4 or has it been deleted?
Serious question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
no one posted. his links are being banned
you'll notice even mason used a proxy website link to PFA in his OP.
look at todge with a 31 year old unpaid intern just reporting back to him
Case law from 2011, involving a forum reposting an entire 19-paragraph Las Vegas Review Journal article.
The defendant won under "fair use".
https://www.wired.com/2011/06/fair-use-defense/
And that involved material the LVRJ actually produced and owned.
The ruling basically stated that it was okay because the LVRJ did not suffer any losses from it, and that the article was reposted for non-commercial discussion purposes.
Mason is claiming intellectual property over something he does not own.
All of PFA's content is non-commercial discussion, as the site does not run for profit, and in fact the Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness forum operates as a public service to inform people about poker related scams.
John Mehaffey found the above article.
The most germane part of that suit, IMO, is that Righthaven was the one who sued, and much like Mason, they didn't own the copyright to the material they were suing over, therefore they had no standing. You get the wrong judge, you have almost no chance with fair use (some judges just won't ever rule in favor of it), but if they have no standing to sue in the first place, you never need to make the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
True, the Demur, or "so what, your not hurt" argument applies here, and its strong in PFA's favor...PFA does not directly compete commercially with 2+2 in that PFA does not sell merchandise, has only one linked advertiser, nor take sign up commissions from online gaming sites...so its not like anyone coming to PFA from 2+2 will spend money her that would be spent at 2+2....also, PFA is has a news/commentary focus while most of 2+2 is focused on gaming instruction...and most of the PFA readers think they know gaming well enough not to look at 2+2 forums...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
with all this being said....
when will druff just tell this clown to "get fucked."
this is his shining moment. why is he not shining.
(yes i get that druff wants to handle this as profesh as he can.......)
Stil no lawyer post (it's 2 am chicago time)
LOL i hope I didn't cause Mason to have a stroke or anything.
His own users are turning on him pretty quickly.
More appropriate case law would be Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Although this can was not brought in Nevada, the principle does apply in virtually all jurisdications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
29th April 1971
Dear Sir,
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.
Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Yours,
(Signed)
Goodman Derrick & Co.
------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Yours,
Private Eye
There was no further correspondence.
Background info: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08...pressdram.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belly BusterMore appropriate case law would be Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Although this can was not brought in Nevada, the principle does apply in virtually all jurisdications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
29th April 1971
Dear Sir,
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.
Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Yours,
(Signed)
Goodman Derrick & Co.
------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Yours,
Private Eye
There was no further correspondence.
Background info: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08...pressdram.html
god damn i was hoping someone would give the Pressdram response.
GOOD CALL BELLY BUSTER
Druff, have you noticed more traffic after MM post on the hate site?
A lot of holes in the desert, and a lot of problems are buried in those holes. But you gotta do it right. I mean, you gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you’re talking about a half-hour to forty-five minutes worth of digging. And who knows who’s gonna come along in that time? Pretty soon, you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all fuckin’ night.
A thread like this on NVG has less than 100 replies? Is 2+2 dead?
There were a lot more than 100 replies before Mason and his mods came along with a broom.Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
Lets see........
10:25 am CT.
no response from lawyer yet.
but this one makes me LOL
Quote:
I feel bad for the fourth-year Greenberg associate who is going to be tasked with coming into this thread to proffer a tortured defense of the TOS and Mason's bizarre notion of fair-use jurisprudence.
"Okay, after two all-nighters, I finished my section of the amicus brief.... you want me to do what? Go into an internet message board and make a specious argument to a bunch of NVG-tards???? I'm quitting to go into investment banking."
Yeah he's acting professionally ( keep the lawyers fees down)Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryLaffer
But in other threads he's saying you should feel good getting idiots sacked from their jobs,
Even though a lot of these lazy fucking idiots have 1/2 y olds who need the fucking lazy idiots money.
Tight life millionaire