WPT Lawsuit
I had avoided commenting on the WPT Lawsuit filed by a group of prominent tournament players. F-Train has done a good job analyzing the legal merits of the claim, and I know nothing about anti-trust law to debate him; I take him at his word that the case has little legal merit. My thoughts on this are more about whether there is justice in what the WPT is doing, and - regardless of whether or not the WPT violated law - if the poker players have a reasonable grievance.
I really believe that they do. Poker is a burgeoning industry, and the operating procedures of Lipscomb's WPT have mimicked the manipulative tactics practiced by venture capitalists that I watched during the technology bubble. Idealistic, naive, and business-unsavvy techies were manipulated and wooed by a chance at major wealth. They sold away their dreams to high bidders and, in the process, signed away much of their future. Nearly ever dreamy startup crashed and burned, and lots of good ideas that might have thrived if they were incubated in a slower, more mature way were abandoned. This isn't that far from what WPT has done to poker.
There's been an argument brewing, (that F-Train again commented on,) between Raymer and Negreanu over the law suit. Negreanu indicates publicly that the lawsuit is bad for poker by bringing needless and pointless discontent and argument while online poker is under legal fire. Raymer argues that Negreanu doesn't know what he's talking about and lacks adequate knowledge to criticize the lawsuit publicly. F-Train argues that Raymer is being a jerk, that the lawsuit will help only a tiny few. F-Train further argues that Negreanu misses the point too because WPT policies do hurt those very few.
I disagree with F-Train that the suit, should it reach its aims, helps only the few. Granted, I and players like me are huge underdogs to ever satellite into a WPT event and parlay that into a final table appearance. But if we did, do we really want WPT to have full likeness rights for anything they want? And would we ever have the power to fight them if we wanted to? I honestly had been thinking I'd try to satellite to a WPT event someday, but I don't like the idea of having to sign that contract just to play.
As a tangent, note who really benefits when small-time players like myself go for satellites. We're huge underdogs to win, so you might think that the only people who really benefit are the shareholders of the online sites where I play those satellites. However, WPT and the big-time tournament pros alike benefit from the huge fields generated by constant satellite play. Big buy-in tourneys are a pyramid scheme that mostly rewards the greatest tourney players and those who run tourneys (i.e., the WPT). They all have a huge interest to keep me and players like me playing these satellites, so it behooves both parties to respect each other and settle their differences.
Anyway, even as a player with a $24 satellite entry to blow and a hopeless dream, I don't like the idea of signing away broad likeness rights in a non-negotiable agreement. In the unlikely event I get there, the lawsuit certainly helps me should it get lucky and succeed in making the WPT contracts negotiable.
Of course, there is the structure question as well. If I do someday make it to a WPT final table, perhaps I will benefit because the fast structure forces gambling against my likely more skilled opponents. Although, I don't think so. I am better at big stack, small blind poker than I am at preflop-only games, so I would probably benefit, should I ever get there, from a slower structure sought by the suing parties.
So, I do agree with F-Train to a point - the lion's share of the benefit of the law suit goes to a tiny fraction of the poker world. But, if they don't push this, I and other small-time players who might get lucky would never have an weight to push the issue of the unreasonable contracts. If I make it to the WPT by some huge stroke of poker luck (and a small amount of skill), I'd be quite grateful if the rules were changed regarding likeness rights and structure.
I don't know enough about anti-trust law to know if they have a reasonable case that can reach their goals, but I'm glad they are shelling out the cash to at least give it a try.
I also don't think it's bad for poker. If WPT can be smart and make a deal with the players, it means a number of highly recognizable players are back in WPT events and probably approaching final tables. That's good for WPT, and good for poker; the fans like those players. While the rancor may be echoing on two-plus-two and other fora, the rank and file of casual poker fans (who are the ones we can't afford to lose if we want the poker boom to go on just a little bit longer), aren't going to notice the suit in any case. Besides, Negreanu's arguments read too much like “don't question the President in a time of war” for my taste.
Finally, as for Raymer's comments that F-Train quoted, he's certainly being a lawyer snob. I've experienced that first-hand, as a computer scientist who happens to be well educated about how copyright law works with software. Lacking a formal legal education, I've often been treated as if my thoughts were meaningless by lawyers who happened to have taken a copyright class once when they were in law school. In most cases, I knew more about the specific area of copyright on software than they did, but they refused to consider that as even feasible because I couldn't put Esquire after my name. Raymer is being a jerk to assume that just because someone didn't go to law school means they aren't smart enough to figure something legal out on their own.