Hopefully in the future all rules will be laid out in advance and things like this can be avoided.
.... had an agreement with the owner, etc. ......
Jason
This isn't directed to you in particular, just referring only to the idea several have mentioned that it may not have been completely clear what was or was not ok to do...
One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to just video tape, but not stream, the matches.
One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream before or after the PPV stream shuts down.
One might could argue that it might not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream other matches aside from the PPV matches.
Most would probably agree that you should probably ask the room owner, streamer, or tournament director to find out before doing it though and not asking probably indicates that you really don't care if it is ok or not.
But the one thing I don't think anyone can even begin to argue about is whether or not it would be ok to free stream the PPV match. Everybody knows without doubt that would be a huge no no without even having to ask anybody. And Erica tried free streaming the PPV table too. This isn't about her not knowing exactly what she should or shouldn't do, this was about her not caring. And in fact it was about her intentionally doing what she knew was wrong just so she could hurt the business of someone she disagrees with, and so she can gain adoration and recognition in the pool world for giving free streams, the adoration and attention she she has been desperately wanting and seeking for quite some time now.
You think this is really all about the players and the fans for Erica as she sometimes tries to allude to? Lets see if she would be willing to stream completely anonymously from now on if that is the case then. Zero chance that will ever happen. This is all about trying to be somebody in the pool world for her. She wants the "fame" and recognition and adoration in the pool world, and she wants to try to hurt anybody in her way to getting that. That is all this was really about, somebody was in her way and she didn't care that she was the one out of line, in her mind they were the one that was going to have to accommodate her and her wants, because to her, she is all that matters.
At no point did big truck have the right to touch her equipment. Of she's alleging it was damaged and he's admitted moving it, he can be held responsible.
/QUOTE]
That knife cuts both ways. How did Erika plug Ray's ethernet cable into her laptop without touching it?
And, since we could see with our own eyes that the phone was working fine after the moving of it, there is no case here.
A landlord can't evict a tenant, touch their property or cut power....you can't go moving people's stuff cause you want to...
Leo, I'm sorry Playa 9, did you miss where I said Big Truck was right? Not gonna go round and round as you already know. Good day sir.
That's what we thought.
Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.
Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason
I believe I've seen this suggestion several times between the two threads.
Maybe I heard it wrong, but it sounded like Erica said she had permission to be there doing what she was doing.
If that's the case, why would she care that somebody got mad about it.
I would think the issue would be with the person that gave all the permission for multiple people to stream. I don't think it was her fault and it certainly wasn't BT's fault.
Nevertheless, he should have never put his hands on her stuff without her express permission, or at least not within her eye shot
Did you miss where I said this wasn't directed at you? It was the first line. It was directed in general to those that thought part of the problem was that it may not have been clear what was ok or not ok to do, and my point is that although clarity in "rules" is always better, that wasn't the real issue or cause of problem here. Don't know who Leo is either.
At no point did big truck have the right to touch her equipment. Of she's alleging it was damaged and he's admitted moving it, he can be held responsible.
Obviously the free streams are a major competition for ppv. I will watch them over some 30 to 50 dollar 3 day stream because I can't just sit and watch 30 hours of pool. Streams like Erica s, mezz west coast, upsate Al and others always get several times the viewers as most ppv. It's not a sustainable model because you only have a few hundred hard core guys willing to pay the money.
That's what we thought.
Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.
Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason
Say you were camping and woke up in the middle of the night to loud noise coming from the camp site next to yours. You come out of your tent and see they have bright lights and music and dancing going on and you're wondering how the heck are they doing that. As you walk a little closer you see they have attached a cable to your car's battery.
Q: Do you have the right to shut this down?
Ray stated in the thread that Erica helped herself to his ethernet cable and when either Ray, himself, or one of his crew began fishing for *their* redirected cable that was going "under the stage", it pulled Erica's laptop off of a table where it was perched.
If it happened like that do you still feel that Ray was at fault?
After listening to the video what I heard was Ray being polite and reasonable and Erica repeatedly saying "Don't touch my shit" and "I can do whatever I want, wherever I want".
best,
brian kc
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what happened- Ray does not have the right to just yank on the cable. I believe that would fall under the phrase of something like "should have reason to believe would cause harm". Everyone knows you don't see a cable and just yank on it. It's reasonable to believe that doing so would cause harm to whatever the cable could be plugged into. So, I think legally, he is responsible for any damage to her computer.
That said, he does have the right to carefully remove the cable from her computer, providing her computer is out in the open. He does not have the right to enter any of her property, such as a car, ect., to retrieve it. Nor does he have the right to retrieve it if he has reason to believe doing so would cause damage.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what happened- Ray does not have the right to just yank on the cable. I believe that would fall under the phrase of something like "should have reason to believe would cause harm". Everyone knows you don't see a cable and just yank on it. It's reasonable to believe that doing so would cause harm to whatever the cable could be plugged into. So, I think legally, he is responsible for any damage to her computer.
That said, he does have the right to carefully remove the cable from her computer, providing her computer is out in the open. He does not have the right to enter any of her property, such as a car, ect., to retrieve it. Nor does he have the right to retrieve it if he has reason to believe doing so would cause damage.
Ok ....no need to be such a douche though champ.That's what we thought.
Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.
Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason
The cable should not be plugged into anything. It is his and if it isn't plugged into something by him then there is no reason for him to assume someone else plugged it into something.