April Fools

Found this humorous post on Don's Domain, thought you all may get a good chuckle out of it...

RGE PUBLISHING, LTD. PURCHASES STANFORD WONG�S BJ21.COM

Las Vegas, Nevada � In a move that will delight many in the blackjack community while sickening others, RGE Publishing and Stanford Wong of Pi Yee Press have closed the deal on RGE�s acquisition of the BJ21.com website.

After several weeks of tense negotiations and legal wrangling over the superiority of dark vs. light beer, RGE Publishing and Pi Yee Press announce that RGE has purchased BJ21.com for the sum total of 21 cents, give or take a couple hundred thousand dollars.

According to Viktor Nacht of RGE Publishing, �[RGE�s] first act as the new despots of BJ21 will be to immediately begin the Moonie, err, I mean Green Chip deprogramming process in an effort to enlighten people that communities are built, not bought, and that you don�t have to pay money just to exchange messages with your friends.�

�Likewise,� added Nacht, �we will be imposing the full will of RGE author and advisor Don Schlesinger on the people of BJ21. We expect subscriptions to decline 50% after day one.�

During a phone interview, when asked why he decided to sell his beloved site, Stanford Wong said �Isn�t it obvious, I was bored with blackjack! At this time I would also like to announce my plans to restore my 1965 VW bus, convert it into a rolling full-size craps table, and travel the country in search of rhythmic rollers, while selling loaded fuzzy dice to pay my expenses.�

RGE Publishing was founded over 20 years ago and specializes in publishing and marketing high-quality gambling books, reports and services. RGE's book portfolio includes Blackjack Attack: Playing the Pros' Way by Don Schlesinger and Blackjack Wisdom by Arnold Snyder. RGE also offers cutting-edge online services such as Trackjack.com, a vast interactive database of blackjack rules around the world, and AdvantagePlayer.com, the world's largest professional blackjack community.

END

Actually, it's on the free page, not Don's Domain. Good thing, too. It's not ethical to copy & paste from a paid subscription page to a free one.

I think there is some frustration exposed in this "joke". Recently, it was polled on the Greenchip Pages if Greenchip Members would like to purchase Blackjack Attack III from BJ21. Many members committed to buying a copy despite the fact that they would be paying the $39.99 price instead of the $31.99 specially offered by RGE. They would also not receive the complimentary 3 months of Trackjack and Don's Domain by purchasing it from BJ21.

This is the second time that Nacht has recently referred to Greenchippers as "Moonies". The first time, he said that Arnold Snyder used to refer to Greenchippers as Moonies:
http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=11332

In another post of interest, proposals are made for adding to RGE features similar to BJ21's Admin and Social & Humor pages while still slighting the other sites for "unfettered bickering".
http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=11301

Actually, it's on the free page, not Don's Domain. Good thing, too. It's not ethical to copy & paste from a paid subscription page to a free one.

It is not legal to copy it from any page period. Punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Also illegal to post e-mails. Something you should ask a lawyer about. I have complained to this site several times over their refusal to stop copyright violations to no avail.

In another post of interest, proposals are made for adding to RGE features similar to BJ21's Admin and Social & Humor pages while still slighting the other sites for "unfettered bickering".

I have not seen anyone comment on unfettered bickering on Admin or Social.

Explain to me, how copying something posted on a free site accessable to anybody who can also access the site it was pasted to can possibly be illegal? I can see how you might have a SLIGHT (albeit outragous) case if it were a pay site, but I see nothing stated about ANY of the material being copywritten. Without official copywrites, I could copy anything and paste it anywhere. FURTHERMORE, I did not claim it was my writing, so nothing illegal there. I did not say who wrote it, so nothing on the slanderous issue there either.

In addition, lighten up. It was stated in humor, I am a subscriber to both sites, and found it kind of funny. If you did not, thats up to you, nothing to be so damn pissy about.

Best Regards...

First, realize that T-Man has been attacking Viktor every slight chance he can get for a year including some posts that I can't mention in polite society. He had a falling out with his boss and just can't get over it.

Secondly, copyright law is very simple. Once something is 'published' it is automatically copyrighted under the Copyright Act of 1978 and the Berne Convention. 'Published' has a very wide meaning. Speaking is not publishing because it is transitory. Posting or e-mailing is. The common example is someone writing something on a napkin and handing it to someone else in a restaurant. It is automatically 'published' and therefore copyrighted as soon as it is read by the second party. (The US Copyright Office uses that example.)

Thirdly, I have no complaint with you. I have long had a complaint with this site for allowing copyright violations.

I was not aware of that. Certainly did not mean to spark a continuing fued among everybody, I just thought it was funny.
I will be more careful of that in the future, but that leads me to another question. What about, with what is a common practice of copying somebody's posting in with a response in order to respond to specific references within the posting. (happens alot on Don's Domain since the reply posting is already copied into the response.) Wouldnt this be illegal as well? Or is this copywrite law as it pertains to websites specifically in transfering of the information from website to website

I apologize if you thought I was attacking you

What about, with what is a common practice of copying somebody's posting in with a response

That's simply a colloquy. You aren't re-publishing something to a different audience.

I had gotten the impression that you were a believer in the First Amendment.

Perhaps I am mistaken.

The Fair Use arguments are so obvious here that I don�t think I need to go into them.

The First Amendment and Fair Use do not allow copying the complete text of a source.

"3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."'

"I think there is some frustration exposed in this "joke"." T-Man

Several months ago .. you, Arnold Snyder, Anthony Curtis, and the good folks at BJFOL .. tried to ruin both RGE and Viktor Nacht personally and publically, while BK'ing them professionally.

Let's see, Arnold Snyder has turned into the invisible BJ man, BJF and BJFOL are now goners, Curtis would not/could not publish Snyder's reprint of BB in BJ, RGE is publishing the third edition of one of the all time great BJ reference books ever, RGE seems to be stronger than ever .. and you seem to not be able to quite get over it all.

Tell me again, who is frustrated?

"Recently, it was polled on the Greenchip Pages if Greenchip Members would like to purchase Blackjack Attack III from BJ21. Many members committed to buying a copy despite the fact that they would be paying the $39.99 price instead of the $31.99 specially offered by RGE. They would also not receive the complimentary 3 months of Trackjack and Don's Domain by purchasing it from BJ21." T-Man

What? The ideas expressed in this paragraph are so goofy I can't get my arms around them.

The Green Chippers had to take a poll to help them decide if they wanted to pay $40 (25% mark-up) for BJA III? Forget about the free Trackjack and Don's Domain thing. For $32 it got signed by the author!!

(These guys are 'advantage players'?)
(Sorry fellas, that does sound a little cult-like to me.)

Call me dis-loyal; just don't call me a Moonie.

T-Man .. it's over. Go get some help and ease up on this thing. You are the only one continuing to bring it up.

"Several months ago .. you, Arnold Snyder, Anthony Curtis, and the good folks at BJFOL .. tried to ruin both RGE and Viktor Nacht personally and publically, while BK'ing them professionally."

This incident was precipitated by a breach of contract by Viktor.

AC and most of the others at BJFO did not pile on 'poor Viktor'. AS and his loyalists... who were aware of the particulars concerning the dissolution of partnership at RGE... were understandably outraged at these new circumstances with T-man since it reflected the same business practices that contributed to the end of RGE with AS at the helm.

I find the continuing portrayal of Viktor as some kind of 'victim' to be fatuous in extremis.

"Let's see, Arnold Snyder has turned into the invisible BJ man, BJF and BJFOL are now goners, Curtis would not/could not publish Snyder's reprint of BB in BJ, RGE is publishing the third edition of one of the all time great BJ reference books ever, RGE seems to be stronger than ever .. and you seem to not be able to quite get over it all."

Arnold wrote two excellent featured articles in last month's 'Casino Player' and has a revised edition of 'Blackbelt in Blackjack' coming out this fall with an different publisher. He has published the definitive text of shuffle-tracking recently and I am sure is not invisible to those whom he trusts. You do not know the details of the HP situation which has by all reports been restored to a friendly state between the two principals. BJF was ended after 24 continuous years of publication because it was time. While BJFO suffered from an untimely demise, it was cutting edge while it was vital.

"Call me dis-loyal; just don't call me a Moonie.

I could call you a Schlesinger sychophant, but instead I will use Norm's term since it has a certain holier-than-thou ring to it already..."Don's Disciples."

"T-Man .. it's over. Go get some help and ease up on this thing. You are the only one continuing to bring it up."

The ability to speak freely is what makes bj21 what it is...both laudatory and dispicable. T-man has brought up several 'new' points that have merit since he and Viktor have parted ways. That is his perogative. It is also commendable that you and Norm visit bj21 from time to time to uphold the honor of RGE. But get your facts straight. At least T-man relates his opinions to observable events and documents of record.

I am not going to delve further into this debate so feel free to trash me, too. I just want to remind you that the issue is not over when it continues to have manifestations of malfeasance. We have not forgotten what really went on at RGE, despite attempts to obfuscate the actual events with moral outrage that T-man has the temerity to express his opinions.

Regards,
scobee

This incident was precipitated by a breach of contract by Viktor.

This is your opinion. I strongly disagree.

AC and most of the others at BJFO did not pile on 'poor Viktor'. AS and his loyalists... who were aware of the particulars concerning the dissolution of partnership at RGE... were understandably outraged at these new circumstances with T-man since it reflected the same business practices that contributed to the end of RGE with AS at the helm.

This is your opinion. I in no way agree. But, now that you mention it, there is much in common between the dissolution of the Arnold/Vicktor agreement and the Arnold/Curtis agreement.

I find the continuing portrayal of Viktor as some kind of 'victim' to be fatuous in extremis.

You are welcome to your opinion. I find the continuing portrayal of T-Man as some kind of 'victim' to be fatuous in extremis.

I could call you a Schlesinger sychophant, but instead I will use Norm's term since it has a certain holier-than-thou ring to it already..."Don's Disciples."

I am not aware of this term.

But get your facts straight. At least T-man relates his opinions to observable events and documents of record.

I strongly disagree. Of course all his comments on BJFO are now gone.

I am not going to delve further into this debate so feel free to trash me, too. I just want to remind you that the issue is not over when it continues to have manifestations of malfeasance. We have not forgotten what really went on at RGE, despite attempts to obfuscate the actual events with moral outrage that T-man has the temerity to express his opinions.

This is your opinion. But, you do not know the 'actual events.'

On the green pages I am concerned about a post that appears to me to violate both copyright law and the copyright notice posted on my site.

In it the author partially but substantially quotes from a post on cardcounter.com (without my permission) and in the process of this quote distorts the intent of the original post on my site.

I have informed Stanford of the problem, and he appears unwilling to take action to remove the offending post, based on:

1) fair use
2) the post is the poster's property, not his

I have explicitly disclaimed 1) in my COPYRIGHT NOTICE, and item 2) only holds if this site did not censor posts.

The way ISP's can handle distribution of Porn is that they allow all traffic to pass through unchecked. If they started selecting which things they allowed, then they become liable for all content.

Same here. Once a single post is deleted for any reason on this site, then this site is responsible for those posts it does allow.

Please comment, Norm.

--Eliot

Four points:

1. Whether or not it is Fair Use depends on the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon any potential market. It doesn't sound like Fair Use to me; but I am no expert.

2. Stanford unfortunately is right that he may not be liable if he doesn't take any action on any posts. There was a big AOL case on this issue. But, I believe that this is a very poor stance. I think that a higher standard should be taken by BJ forum hosts. But, that is just my opinion.

3. Disclaimers of responsibility have little meaning.

4. At least it is good that Stanford has finally agreed that posts belong to the poster.

Viktor coined the phrase 'Don's Disciples', not Norm. My bad.

I said I would end my comments with the last post. Ditto.

Otherwise, I still maintain that continuing questions about Viktor's business practices are relevant when evidence such as that recently brought to light by T-man about Trackjack updates is so troubling. So T-man is not the only one curious about Viktor. There are others I am sure. We are watching a bit more dispassionately, though.

Arnold once said that "Norm doesn't know as much as he thinks he knows." I am aware of at least two incidents where Norm was absolutely certain he had the facts and he was mistaken. But you can be sure in this case he has all the inside poop. That is why it is so confusing to me that he ignores some very salient points.

If I am given a choice to form an opinion based on forthright, detailed accounts from Arnold and T-man with documentation ...or be persuaded by innuendo and intimidating reminders that I do not know the 'real facts,' I guess you know where I stand. I make no claims to having formed my opinions with access to all relevant information or without subjective bias.

I think that T-man still probably has all the pertinent emails and other documents that support his position that he was not treated fairly. You are correct in stating that I do not know everything...but I also had a rather unique perspective on the whole proceeding thanks to you and others at RGE as well as the BJF faction.

What I was emphasizing was that 'Homerism' often leads one to discount objectivity in light of preconceptions. There are still relevant anomalies apparent in RGE business practices. Arnold has not taken up residence with Bin Laden in a cave. Arnold and Anthony can go to the same party without coming to blows. These are the facts. I agree that opinions based on facts may vary when all facts are not equally weighted in consideration. As it is well known, I will stand up for my friends from time to time even when they are misguided. I think that a eulogy for AS Enterprises is premature and that the jury is still out on who benefits from doing business with VN.

and that is strictly my opinion...

You obliquely refer to some instances that I said I knew facts and didn�t and some comment from Arnold with no context. But you don�t state what you are talking about. I will leave these types of comments to the reader for characterization. And how would you be certain that your facts are correct? You believe that you have seen documentation. How do you know that there were no omissions or redactions? Were you directly copied on e-mails? I only use as sources e-mails that I received directly and I do not use as a source the parties to a disagreement.

I never said anything about Arnold�s future. I wouldn�t part with the first two editions of BiB and look forward to the next edition. AS is at the top of BJ contributors. That has nothing at all to do with any of this.

T-Man had a falling out with Viktor. Arnold has had several 'fallings out' too; but you don�t see him attacking people. T-Man needs to get over this. Until he does, I will continue to correct him whenever he renews his attacks.

If you copied the entire Green Chip POM archives to your site, changing a few works or adding a few comments, Stanford might change his definition of Fair Use and see the rational behind a copyright policy:)

Disclaimer - This is obviously not a serious suggestion.

and I will avidly look for your responses as I always do. Let me add that you have given me a perspective on all things political that is of great value.

If you are curious as to what I was referring to as erroneous and have no inkling, I apologize. It had to do with mistaken identity and email authorship. Hope that helps. I was not calling in the press to illustrate your misconceptions. I like to quote Arnold even if it is out of context. Often without context it still makes sense ...in some Zen-like fashion.

e.g. " YOU WON'T WIN." or "SUBVERSIVES, ANARCHISTS, and CPA'S UNITE!"...maybe it's just me.

Two instances I found your authority lacking is a pretty good percentage all things considered, doncha think?

Oblique post? Sounds like I should be doing crunches to help clarify my points...

Now let's leave it to Sun and T-man duke it out on their own.