Every Pokerbook Ever Pdf

[kingcobra]

I'm guessing they laid the smack on him through Host Gator and the gator bit him and he's taking it out on them. There were a few of their books copied on his site so I don't blame them really. No books on there I didn't have by the way although my wife threw out a couple of them even though she doesn't admit it. Already read them though The two e-books I reviewed are available for free though although you will need to look elsewhere as they took down the whole site.

[pauljones]

Originally Posted by kaus

LOL Kingcobra ...... I just wanted to point out how very wrong you as a mod, and a webmaster are by condoning others to use/take from someone without paying for it

This
epic fail by the OP, but more-so IMO by the mod. what is t'interwebz coming to?

<3 the way there was some twoplustwo books in there. If the mod thinks it's okay to encourage copyright theft, they should maybe steal or encourage theft of copyright/IP from an entity that is not the biggest poker forum and one of the biggest 5 forums on the internet, let alone massive players in the poker/gambling verticals.
hehe

lol at randy's edit of his thread too

[BobRains]

Paul,

You're Paul Jones of Bullet Business right?

So let's just be open, you are a competitor for all practical purpose, so it's understandable that you have a bit of an axe to grind, and there is some benefit for you to do your best to harm our org.

It's cool, I get it, it's a dog eat dog world, we all pick sides, yours is obvious.

Here is the thing. Errors happen, I did not post the books on a website, I posted a link to a website, that did not have the proper copyright permissions to post those books.

At no time did I or anyone else at AMI claim copyright on these items.

On your sites legal notice page, you claim copyright on all material in the site? But is it all yours, really>?

I'm not going to take the time to go over the site page by page to call you out.

Just saying, mistakes happen, and I've admitted mine. I understand we are under the microscope, and I am working very hard to ensure we at AMI do the best we can to keep it above the board.

I found said link on a gambling forum, a popular uk gambling forum, who I won't call out, out of professional courtesy. But if I had, I'm sure you would have thought it less an epic fail.

Do we really want to take the gloves off? Or can you find it in yourself to show us a little professional courtesy as well?

[BobRains]

F

[akhil_jks]

LOL @ the curses and whines in that series of links :P

[kingcobra]

Well I've got a big grin on my face here. You don't really need to defend yourself here Bob as I'm sure that other than a couple people who as you say have axes to grind the folks on here understand where you're coming from. I don't mind Paul's comments but he in particular has a real big axe which he seems to wield on every post

I guess I'm the big heavy here in a few people's eyes anyway although I'm going to continue to give my personal opinions on whatever and if everyone agreed well things would be a whole lot less interesting I guess

Akhil_jks, yeah that was a hoot, he set this up directory style and THAT's what you call a rant I guess

Paul you can sell all the links you want in my opinion as you know how damn permissive I am However I know you didn't understand my arguments but that's fine. If you believe that reading material posted on the internet is in violation of copyrights then so be it I guess. FYI, the term copyright is a combination of "copy" and "right." The key components of copyright infringement is firstly to copy, the second is to distribute, and when you do both with a protected work you get the infringement. No one on here did any of this nor was encouraged to do so. Nothing was copied or distributed by any of our friends on here. One more time, our ranting freak did this, and no one encouraged anyone here to engage in such matters. It doesn't take much of an understanding of copyright law to get this, common sense should be enough I would think. On the other hand your posts provide evidence to the contrary

For those of you who are interested in this further, if you remember I initially advised that you do not download this stuff and the reason is that in certain jurisdictions, the U.S. for instance, legislation exists which interpretets downloading (i.e. saved on your computer) as copying and the normal doctrine of fair use that would apply is overridden by statute. In other jurisdictions this may not be the case, for instance here in Canada you can legally download copyrighted material, for instance songs, however uploading is illegal. Viewing or listening to material already uploaded isn't copying and isn't a violatation even in the most strict jurisdictions, and by the way that's the USA since they have the strongest lobbyists (and we'll leave it at that)

So at the worst, no copy, no copyright. Now there way be folks who may object on eithical grounds or whatever but that's a separate position and there's probably no way to settle that. There are bigger issues here than the law and it's far from cut and dried, as you have the commercial intellectual property interests on the one hand and some principles of liberty on the other where some claim that private non-commercial sharing of material is fair use. The problem that you get into is when this sharing has the potential of a large scale distribution which you get from the internet. Back in the earlier days of the internet this was actually seen as legal although industry pressures eventually got the law on their side a lot more for better or worse and pretty much had statutes written to their own preferences. It used to be whether a distribution was commercial or not which determined whether the laws had been violated but now due to technology it's the non-commercial stuff that's the bigger threat ironically.

So can you separate the two and feel OK about perusing this stuff but since you're not distributing it you're all right? Do I feel bad about my rather large mp3 collection which I can get for free legally for instance? Well as a rule this is a matter of personal taste and really is a matter of principles although folks do have different principles here and what we really don't want to do is get on a high horse where you feel your principles are more principled and therefore more right. Essentially moral arguments always end up being reduced to assertions of personal preference though but that's another topic for another day If you want to argue the law though then fine but it's an advantage to know what the hell the law is of course

I told you not to get me started on this

[punchtheclock]

The irony of your worthlessness precedes all of you.

[TheOPC]

Before we go too far off topic, I feel the need to remind everyone the official fight thread is here

[punchtheclock]

Originally Posted by BobRains

Additionally I wonder what Mat Cutts would think about the abundant link selling you're currently involved in?

I must have missed this comment the first time through. It appears as though you are threatening to report one of your members for having paid links. This is directly on par with what I would expect to see from this forum. I bet you think Sklansky is mad about copyright issues here. In reality, he probably knows who you are, he knows the history of this forum, and he is giving you no leeway because of this. Dont be a piece of shit... you wont get hassled. This is exactly why this forum is dead these days and all of the valuable members have left.

[RakeVIP]

Originally Posted by BobRains

Additionally I wonder what Mat Cutts would think about the abundant link selling you're currently involved in?

Pot meet kettle.

Operators - I hope you are watching.