Publishing of Copyrighted Material

[ExecutionerSpts]

I believe that the only cases that may have been won by Root
et al involved the reselling of information.
Those sites or individuals required paid membership to see service plays. As long as you don't try to sell the original info and it is provided for free, whether it is in print/electronic or telecommunication there is no case.

In the history of copywrite violation, only those cases that every found the defendent at fault were those cases where money or potential income had or could have occured. Or there would be confusion with the general public on a product or would decieve the general public into beleiveing that they are paying for the original intended product.

[savage1]

All I know is that it is a free country, and anyone has a right to try to sue if he/she feels someone is infringing on his/her rights and/or earning power by selling or giving out for free information which was produced by the litigant.
That being said, and although I am not a lawyer by any means, it seems to me that it would be very difficult if not impossible to sue over an activity(giving out picks) related to an activity(sports gambling), which is illegal in every state except Nevada.
I have always said that if a suit like this is successful, then a bettor who was lied to by a service about its record or who was mislead in any way by deceiving statements to purchase picks should be able to sue the service for monetary services both for the lies stated and any money lost by subsequentally playing the service in question's picks.
Personally I don't think the courts wish to get involved with either kind of suit at this time, because as stated sports gambling in 49 states is illegal, and as I read once sports services themselves "operate within the gray area of the law" in any event.

[MemphisMafia]

Originally posted by ExecutionerSpts
I believe that the only cases that may have been won by Root
et al involved the reselling of information.
Those sites or individuals required paid membership to see service plays. As long as you don't try to sell the original info and it is provided for free, whether it is in print/electronic or telecommunication there is no case.

In the history of copywrite violation, only those cases that every found the defendent at fault were those cases where money or potential income had or could have occured. Or there would be confusion with the general public on a product or would decieve the general public into beleiveing that they are paying for the original intended product.

*************************************************

Education of laws are not what is sought , just deflamation and slander only matter or so it seems with many here .

A very good outlook of whats real for a change , and I must add that all this so called " law breaking " and the 2 cents added by the a huge bunch of " law breakers " does nothing but make me laugh very deeply .

Case in point will always be to wave the finger in a direction that does not come near whats really the location but rather do the usual smoke up the dress maneuver and cast light where none is needed .

Hope everyones winning thier wagers , as winning a case puts very little were it really counts

***MMM***

[WICKEDLESTER]

You guys are losing the bottem line here. The way ROOT squeezed out people like these forms here was to drag them through the system. Force you to retain a attorney & he OUT BUCKS you . He has more money then GOD so he can run these little places into the ground. He makes you go into your pocket & you best have DEEEEEEP pockets. I mean anyone can sue anyone we established that fact but what was the old saying about a client who defends himself??

[bigbill]

or...be smart and make yourself 'sue-proof' by having your
assets in a trust fund or spouse's name or other trusted
family members name.

[BettorsChat]

Originally posted by WICKEDLESTER
You guys are losing the bottem line here. The way ROOT squeezed out people like these forms here was to drag them through the system. Force you to retain a attorney & he OUT BUCKS you . He has more money then GOD so he can run these little places into the ground. He makes you go into your pocket & you best have DEEEEEEP pockets. I mean anyone can sue anyone we established that fact but what was the old saying about a client who defends himself??

Countersuit

[SuperZero]

Judges don't dig frivilous suits. People who file them often end up paying the other sides costs. Of course it costs money up front to defend yourself. Root can smoke my root.

[pascal5757]

copy right law suits

I think all we need to do is come up with alternative names for each handicapping service. So that it doesn't say anything about the service or has any part of real name in it.

EXAMPLE: Animal's picks could be Group #1
Sean Michaels Group #2
ASA Group #3

All we have to do is get all these our to everyone. Then come Saturday morning all we would need to do is

Post Group #1 has ******** plays
Group #2 ************* plays

Just an idea?? This might work.

Any other suggestions>>>>

[FastBreak]

Relax.........

All of the consensus sites...you know who they are...
are all active and posting who and what they want!!

Last year's lawsuit did diddley squat.

[rwall]

If I may interject

First of all Wayne Root hasn't had a winner in a long time!!!

I have purchased service plays before and have never been given any disclaimer about the information provided.

And a question... If I buy doesn't it become mine?

Give the idiots a spoon so they can eat my ass!!!

[chuck]

Tellem' to take it in tha ass.

[SuperZero]

YUP

THAT'S THE SPIRIT CHUCK, F@#! THOSE HANDISCAMMERS!:D

[sosodef76]

Originally posted by ExecutionerSpts
As long as you don't try to sell the original info and it is provided for free, whether it is in print/electronic or telecommunication there is no case.

That's not entirely true. There is also the issue of lost income from the copyright holder. That is why it is still illegal to distribute and downloaded copyrighted works from the Internet (e.g., Napster), whether or not it is provided for free.

The problem with suing someone who is providing the copyrighted material for free, however, may be the infringer has no money -- no deep pockets to pay the judgement.

[sosodef76]

Originally posted by savage1
That being said, and although I am not a lawyer by any means, it seems to me that it would be very difficult if not impossible to sue over an activity(giving out picks) related to an activity(sports gambling), which is illegal in every state except Nevada.
...
Personally I don't think the courts wish to get involved with either kind of suit at this time, because as stated sports gambling in 49 states is illegal, and as I read once sports services themselves "operate within the gray area of the law" in any event.

The only problem with this argument, although it does make common sense, is that the legal system the US works under the First Amendment. The First Amenment protects most speech, regardless of whether the actions within the speech are illegal.

The First Amendment may be overridden by other more important concerns, such as national security. However, such an issue isn't readily apparent for Gambling.

Remember, the suit isn't about illegal Gambling -- that is only an ancillary issue. The suit is about a copyright violation of what they believe to be original material.

[savage1]

Sosodef76-To me the implication is that if case like this is heard and is won by the litigant, then by inference in my eyes it validates that the information is actually useful and in a sense condones gambling.
Again and although I am not a lawyer, to me this would open the door for any bettor to turn around and successfully sue a sports service if the latter in any way falsified his record,or if the bettor was in any way dissatisfied with the results of the handicapping picks that he bought and paid for based on the claims of the service prior to his purchasing the picks.
I still believe that at this point there is a lot of confusion about the actual legality of services to exist and to promote an activitity which is illegal outside of Nevada.
I feel that this opens up a can of worms that legal system is not ready for at this point at least on a large scale.