1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,399
Speaker 1: Got a little bit of music news, and I will

2
00:00:02,399 --> 00:00:04,519
be very curious to see how people react to this

3
00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:07,919
on social media or if you are listening live. Of course,

4
00:00:07,960 --> 00:00:11,240
you can always chime in in the chat room as well.

5
00:00:12,279 --> 00:00:16,320
Because I say that because I have what maybe among

6
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:18,679
people who are active in the music industry as I

7
00:00:18,719 --> 00:00:21,960
am and a lot of our audiences people in the

8
00:00:22,039 --> 00:00:25,160
music industry, I have what may be an unpopular opinion

9
00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:29,039
about this. I'm not sure though. So this is something

10
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:34,359
that the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding piracy and

11
00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:40,679
copyright and record labels and all of it. And this

12
00:00:40,719 --> 00:00:42,759
isn't important. This could be you know, we use the

13
00:00:42,840 --> 00:00:48,719
term landmark ruling, so this is important and it does

14
00:00:48,759 --> 00:00:51,039
involve the Supreme Court. You know, we don't do politics

15
00:00:51,079 --> 00:00:53,280
on this iteration of the show, but this isn't political.

16
00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:55,359
This is but it does. It is something that affects

17
00:00:55,359 --> 00:00:59,719
the music industry, and I have my opinion about this

18
00:00:59,799 --> 00:01:01,840
might be a little bit unpopular. We'll see, we'll get

19
00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:05,079
into it. But I actually agree with the Supreme Court's

20
00:01:05,159 --> 00:01:08,359
ruling on this in a time where you know, I

21
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:10,599
may not agree with a lot of Supreme Court rulings,

22
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:13,400
but I do agree on this, but I'll be very

23
00:01:13,439 --> 00:01:17,040
curious to get audience feedback, either live and or afterward

24
00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:19,840
on social media. But this is from one of my

25
00:01:19,879 --> 00:01:24,719
favorite websites for music industry news, music businessworldwide dot com.

26
00:01:25,239 --> 00:01:27,640
US Supreme Court. This has happened this week. US Supreme

27
00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:33,359
Court sides with Coxcommunications in landmark music piracy case brought

28
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:37,640
by record labels. Okay, so here's the article. This we'll explain.

29
00:01:38,079 --> 00:01:41,519
The US Supreme Court has ruled that internet service provider

30
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:47,840
Coxcommunications cannot be held responsible for music piracy committed by

31
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:53,000
its subscribers, ending a landmark copyright case in which the

32
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:58,879
major record companies had won a one billion dollar jury verdict.

33
00:01:59,519 --> 00:02:02,480
This was This was unanimous, by the way, The unanimous

34
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,400
decision by the Supreme Court was handed down on March

35
00:02:05,439 --> 00:02:07,480
twenty five, so this was just a few days ago.

36
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:11,400
Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the court. Again, if you

37
00:02:11,479 --> 00:02:15,240
know me, we don't get into politics on this iteration

38
00:02:15,319 --> 00:02:18,319
of the show, but not anymore. We used to a

39
00:02:18,319 --> 00:02:20,560
long time ago. But if you know me, you know again,

40
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:24,439
Justice Thomas not someone I would necessarily agree with much,

41
00:02:25,159 --> 00:02:29,000
if ever, but he's got it right here. In my opinion,

42
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,159
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that Cox

43
00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:37,800
quote neither induced its users infringement nor provided a service

44
00:02:37,879 --> 00:02:43,520
tailored to infringement. So, in other words, saying that an

45
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,879
Internet service provider, just because they are providing you internet

46
00:02:48,039 --> 00:02:52,240
service does not mean that that somehow is inducing you

47
00:02:52,319 --> 00:02:57,159
to do something illegal like piracy, like infringing on somebody's copyright.

48
00:02:57,319 --> 00:03:04,360
They're just providing you the service, you know. He's right, uh,

49
00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:07,039
He also said. He also wrote in his opinion, quote

50
00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:10,879
Cox provided internet service to its subscribers, but it did

51
00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:14,919
not intend for that service to be used to commit

52
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:20,639
copyright infringement. Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate

53
00:03:20,759 --> 00:03:26,639
Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability

54
00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:30,840
beyond our precedence. Unquote. Again, if you know me, you

55
00:03:30,879 --> 00:03:33,439
won't hear me say this often, if ever. But in

56
00:03:33,479 --> 00:03:37,199
this case, Justice Clarence Thomas got this right. He's right.

57
00:03:37,319 --> 00:03:40,639
I agree absolutely. Now. The reason I say this may

58
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:44,560
be an unpopular opinion within some of with some of

59
00:03:44,599 --> 00:03:46,800
our audience and people in the music industry who listen

60
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:48,639
to the show is there are some in the music

61
00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:52,400
industry who are who are upset about this, who say no, uh,

62
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:56,039
piracy is uh has always been a problem, and we

63
00:03:56,120 --> 00:03:59,240
need to do whatever we can to tamp down piracy

64
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:05,159
and copyright infringement. And look, I am someone who again,

65
00:04:05,199 --> 00:04:06,879
if you know me, if you know my background, if

66
00:04:06,919 --> 00:04:09,039
you're a regular listener to the show, you know that

67
00:04:09,159 --> 00:04:13,240
ultimately I will always advocate on behalf of artists and

68
00:04:13,560 --> 00:04:16,600
the music industry, you know, the people, not necessarily the

69
00:04:16,959 --> 00:04:20,519
major labels who But we won't get into that, and

70
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:23,959
certainly not I won't advocate on behalf of Live Nation

71
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:25,879
and Ticketmaster, but we won't get into all of that.

72
00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:29,439
But I'm saying artists making money, making a living, which

73
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:32,439
is much harder than people might realize, Artists making a

74
00:04:32,519 --> 00:04:35,920
living within the music industry and being paid for their work.

75
00:04:36,199 --> 00:04:39,720
I will always advocate on behalf of that, always, always, always,

76
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:44,160
That's what I care about most is artists get getting paid,

77
00:04:44,319 --> 00:04:46,240
being compensated for their work, and being able to make

78
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:49,120
a living. It's it's crucial, it's critical, and we talk

79
00:04:49,160 --> 00:04:51,079
about that a lot on the show, especially with AI

80
00:04:51,639 --> 00:04:54,519
and the advent of all this AI generated music and

81
00:04:54,560 --> 00:04:58,000
the threats that that that that holds, And you know,

82
00:04:58,040 --> 00:05:00,279
we talk about this stuff all the time on the program.

83
00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,720
But I do think it's a little bit absurd this

84
00:05:04,959 --> 00:05:10,199
idea that you're going to hold internet service providers responsible

85
00:05:11,199 --> 00:05:15,160
and make them have to pay for what individual users

86
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:23,800
are doing. That would be like, you know, penalizing auto

87
00:05:23,879 --> 00:05:29,680
manufacturers every time someone gets into a car accident where

88
00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:33,199
somebody ends up dead. You know, is the is it

89
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:37,480
the fault of the auto manufacturers for producing a product

90
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:40,879
that someone uses to accidentally kill someone on the highway.

91
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:45,120
You know, let's see some common sense. Let's be reasonable

92
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:48,480
and rational about this. And again some people will say, Matt,

93
00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:51,560
we have to do whatever we can, literally whatever we

94
00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:56,120
can to stop piracy, to stop people from having their

95
00:05:56,120 --> 00:06:00,759
copyrights infringed upon. I understand that, but but we also,

96
00:06:01,240 --> 00:06:03,839
again we have to be reasonable and use common sense,

97
00:06:04,399 --> 00:06:07,600
and so to hold Internet service providers responsible for what

98
00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:13,920
individual users are doing, whether it's piracy, whether it's using

99
00:06:13,959 --> 00:06:16,759
the dark Web to do other things that are illegal,

100
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:21,600
accessing the dark web, whatever it is, right, you know,

101
00:06:22,480 --> 00:06:27,160
unless the Internet service provider is somehow And again, as

102
00:06:27,399 --> 00:06:30,680
just as Thomas said, there's no inducing of individual users

103
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:33,720
to commit fraud or to do any kind of illegal activity,

104
00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:36,519
you know, unless you have an Internet service provider who

105
00:06:36,639 --> 00:06:39,959
is marketing their service in a way that they're actually

106
00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:42,480
saying somewhere in their marketing. By the way, you know,

107
00:06:42,519 --> 00:06:44,720
you can do whatever you want. You can do illegal

108
00:06:44,759 --> 00:06:47,680
things if you use our internet service, and we won't

109
00:06:47,759 --> 00:06:50,639
even nobody will even get mad at you about it,

110
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:54,360
you know. But obviously that's not happening. Okay, So more

111
00:06:54,399 --> 00:06:56,720
to this article. Again, this is from Music Business Worldwide

112
00:06:56,759 --> 00:07:02,000
dot com. Commenting on the decision, Mitch our i AA

113
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:05,439
chairman and CEO CEO said, and okay, so here's the

114
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:08,360
dissenting opinion, dissenting against me. I feel like I'm the

115
00:07:08,399 --> 00:07:10,600
dissenting opinion because again I feel like I have an

116
00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:14,879
unpopular opinion about this within the music industry. Here's what

117
00:07:15,279 --> 00:07:18,959
Here's what Mitch Glazier said. Again, he's the RIAA chairman

118
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:22,040
and CEO. He said, quote, we are disappointed in the

119
00:07:22,040 --> 00:07:27,879
court's decision vacating a jury's determination that Cox Communications contributed

120
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:33,040
to mass scale copyright infringement based on overwhelming evidence that

121
00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:42,319
the company knowingly facilitated theft, knowingly facilitated theft. Come on,

122
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:48,680
so by that logic, you know, take the music industry,

123
00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:51,800
take the piracy part out of it. Let's just you know,

124
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:54,560
back up and take a broader view of this what

125
00:07:54,639 --> 00:07:59,480
and what he's saying By that logic, anything that anyone

126
00:07:59,600 --> 00:08:03,439
ever does that might be illegal, It might be fraudulent,

127
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:07,240
that might be deceptive. On the Internet, if they're using

128
00:08:07,319 --> 00:08:13,360
Coxcommunications for their Internet service, anything anybody ever does online

129
00:08:13,439 --> 00:08:17,519
while using that service, well it's it was facilitated by

130
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:23,079
by the Internet service provider. I mean, that's absurd, that's crazy.

131
00:08:23,759 --> 00:08:28,519
That's that's that's truly, that's that's an insane standard. How

132
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:32,200
could any business live up to that and and and

133
00:08:32,240 --> 00:08:37,759
be held responsible for that. That's nuts to me, um,

134
00:08:39,480 --> 00:08:42,960
he said more mits. Glazier said more quote. To be effective,

135
00:08:43,039 --> 00:08:46,320
copyright law must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement,

136
00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:50,200
and policymakers should look closely at the impact of this ruling.

137
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:54,799
The Court's decision is narrow, applying only to contributory infringement

138
00:08:54,919 --> 00:08:59,240
cases involving defendants like cos that they do not themselves, copy, hosts,

139
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:04,320
distributor publish infringing material, or control or induce such activity unquote.

140
00:09:06,519 --> 00:09:12,879
The ruling means that simply knowing some subscribers are pirating

141
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:17,240
music and continuing to provide them with Internet access is

142
00:09:17,279 --> 00:09:20,559
not enough to make an ISP liable for copyright infringement,

143
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:26,960
right because again the ISP, Yeah, they know that some

144
00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:29,960
people are pirating music. Of course they do, because we

145
00:09:30,000 --> 00:09:36,159
all know that. But is there I guess maybe there's

146
00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:42,399
an implicit expectation that the ISP is supposed to detect

147
00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:46,000
who is pirrating music and then turn off their service.

148
00:09:46,200 --> 00:09:48,639
Is that? Is that what we're expecting? Oh? What could

149
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:53,919
possibly go wrong there? I mean, come on, this is

150
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:56,840
this is crazy. So again I agree with the court's decision.

151
00:09:57,200 --> 00:10:00,200
There's more to this. Under the standard set of today

152
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:05,759
is set by today's decision, rights holders must provide either

153
00:10:06,279 --> 00:10:10,600
must prove either that a provider actively encouraged infringement or

154
00:10:10,639 --> 00:10:14,000
that its service was designed for piracy with no real

155
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:18,080
lawful use. Internet access, the court said, clearly has many

156
00:10:18,159 --> 00:10:22,000
lawful purposes. The case dates back to twenty eighteen, when

157
00:10:22,039 --> 00:10:25,240
Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and dozens

158
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:29,320
of other rights holders sued Cox, arguing the company ignored

159
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:33,679
over one hundred and sixty three thousand infringement notices about

160
00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:39,000
subscribers illegally downloading more than ten thousand copyrighted songs. The

161
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:44,519
labels pointed to evidence that a Cox manager overseeing piracy

162
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:49,919
compliance told his team to quote f the DMCA unquote

163
00:10:50,919 --> 00:10:54,960
and the DMCA is a law that is designed to

164
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:57,120
I wish I could remember exactly what it stands for

165
00:10:57,840 --> 00:11:03,080
digital media copyr Is that the Digital Media Copyright Act. Again,

166
00:11:03,120 --> 00:11:08,039
it's an antipiracy law. A jury sided with the labels

167
00:11:08,039 --> 00:11:12,080
in twenty nineteen, awarding one billion dollars. The Fourth Circuit

168
00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:15,919
Court of Appeals partially overturned the verdict in twenty twenty four,

169
00:11:16,320 --> 00:11:20,759
throwing out the vicarious liability finding but keeping the contributory

170
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:25,519
infringement ruling and ordering a retrial on damages that could

171
00:11:25,519 --> 00:11:29,399
have reached one point five billion. The Supreme Court took

172
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:32,039
up the case last June, heard oral arguments in December,

173
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:36,320
and has now reversed the remaining contributory liability, including finding

174
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:40,799
entirely The Thomas opinion laid out two and only two

175
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:45,440
paths to contributory copyright liability. The first is inducement, where

176
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:49,919
a provider actively promotes its service as a tool for piracy,

177
00:11:50,919 --> 00:11:53,639
as in a landmark two thousand and five MGM versus

178
00:11:53,679 --> 00:11:58,080
Groster ruling involving file sharing software. By the way, remember

179
00:11:58,480 --> 00:12:01,759
if you're old enough to remember two thousand and five,

180
00:12:03,519 --> 00:12:06,799
early to mid two thousands. That's the era of napster.

181
00:12:07,320 --> 00:12:12,120
That's the era of mass panic and I do mean

182
00:12:12,279 --> 00:12:16,559
panic within the music industry about file sharing. That was

183
00:12:16,679 --> 00:12:19,080
when in two thousand and five, I was still working

184
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:22,519
for trans World Entertainment, which owned Strawberries and Fye and

185
00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:26,440
all of that at the time, and there was panic

186
00:12:26,720 --> 00:12:30,000
because it was I remember having conversations with people where

187
00:12:30,039 --> 00:12:33,120
I just, you know, kind of shrugging and said, well,

188
00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:38,000
music is free. Now, that's it. You can't stop it,

189
00:12:38,039 --> 00:12:41,639
you can't help it. Music is now free. What are

190
00:12:41,639 --> 00:12:45,559
you gonna do? But anyway, so that's why I say,

191
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:47,600
you know, two thousand and five, remember what was happening

192
00:12:47,639 --> 00:12:49,519
and too again, if you're old enough, remember what was

193
00:12:49,559 --> 00:12:52,200
happening in two thousand and five within the music industry

194
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:55,320
at that time. Okay, So the second path is where

195
00:12:55,320 --> 00:12:58,159
a service is specifically tailored to infringement and has no

196
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:02,639
real commercial use beyond fire. So now so when you're

197
00:13:02,639 --> 00:13:04,519
talking about that, I mean, I don't know of an

198
00:13:04,559 --> 00:13:09,000
Internet service provider anywhere that actively promotes itself as a

199
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:13,159
service designed specifically for piracy. Now, there's lots and lots

200
00:13:13,200 --> 00:13:16,960
of websites. I won't get into how I know that

201
00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:19,600
that you can do that. You can you can download

202
00:13:19,759 --> 00:13:23,960
things that you otherwise might be required to pay for. Uh.

203
00:13:24,039 --> 00:13:28,200
But but I don't know of an internet service provider

204
00:13:28,279 --> 00:13:32,120
that actively markets themselves as Hey, if you need to

205
00:13:32,159 --> 00:13:35,399
pirate something, where where? Where the place to go for it?

206
00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:38,840
I don't I don't know that. Okay, So Cox, the

207
00:13:38,879 --> 00:13:43,600
court found met neither test. The company had contractually prohibited

208
00:13:43,600 --> 00:13:47,120
subscribers from using its service to infringe copyrights, sent warnings,

209
00:13:47,320 --> 00:13:53,320
suspended services, and terminated accounts. The opinion stated, quote, this

210
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,480
court has repeatedly made clear that mere knowledge that a

211
00:13:56,559 --> 00:14:00,399
service will be used to infringe is in se efficient

212
00:14:00,639 --> 00:14:06,039
to establish the required intent to infringe. Elsewhere in the opinion,

213
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:10,919
Thomas wrote, quote based on this theory of infringement respondence,

214
00:14:11,279 --> 00:14:15,240
Sony Music, Entertainment and other major copyright owners secured a

215
00:14:15,279 --> 00:14:19,559
billion dollar verdict against Cox. The United States Court of

216
00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:23,960
Appeals of the Fourth Circuit agreed that because Cox provided

217
00:14:24,039 --> 00:14:28,879
Internet service to known infringers, it was a willful infringer itself.

218
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:33,600
Under our precedence, a company is not liable as a

219
00:14:33,639 --> 00:14:36,519
copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general

220
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:38,799
public with knowledge that it will be used by some

221
00:14:39,159 --> 00:14:46,440
to infringe copyrights. Accordingly, we reverse unquote yeah, because even

222
00:14:46,440 --> 00:14:49,480
if you know and look, even if you know that

223
00:14:49,519 --> 00:14:54,399
there are specific people, maybe customers you've had in the

224
00:14:54,440 --> 00:14:58,679
past who have bought your internet service, you know that

225
00:14:58,960 --> 00:15:02,919
these people have been flagged previously for copyright infringement, for

226
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:06,120
piracy somehow they've been flagged. What are you gonna do,

227
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:10,720
so you're never going to give them service again? Do

228
00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:13,600
they just depending on where they live? I mean, look,

229
00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:15,799
depending on where you are geographically, you might have very

230
00:15:15,799 --> 00:15:20,120
limited options for home internet service. So does someone who

231
00:15:20,159 --> 00:15:24,399
may have got caught or have been at least noticed

232
00:15:24,399 --> 00:15:27,279
by an internet service provider at some point in the past,

233
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:30,759
you know, downloaded something that maybe they didn't pay for,

234
00:15:31,519 --> 00:15:34,399
maybe they pirated something. So now they just don't get

235
00:15:34,440 --> 00:15:36,240
to have internet ever again. I mean, what are you

236
00:15:36,279 --> 00:15:40,200
supposed to do again? From just let's be practical about it,

237
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:44,360
think about it practically, what do you want these internet

238
00:15:44,399 --> 00:15:52,639
service providers to do? There's no practical way for them

239
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:54,679
to do what you want them to do. If what

240
00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:56,559
you want them to do is make sure that nobody

241
00:15:56,559 --> 00:16:03,600
ever pirates anything. It's it's an unfair, untenable burden to

242
00:16:03,679 --> 00:16:11,200
be placing on these Internet service providers. So the ruling

243
00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:14,440
also found that the Fourth Circuit had gone wrong by

244
00:16:14,480 --> 00:16:18,399
creating a broader form of liability, holding that quote supplying

245
00:16:18,440 --> 00:16:21,120
to product with knowledge that the recipient will use it

246
00:16:21,159 --> 00:16:24,919
to infringe copyrights was enough. The Supreme Court said this

247
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,639
conflicted with decades of its own case law. Justice Sonia

248
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:34,960
Soda Mayor, joined by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, agreed Cox

249
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:37,879
should not be liable in this case, but warned that

250
00:16:37,919 --> 00:16:41,279
the majority's ruling goes too far. Soda Mayor argued that

251
00:16:41,279 --> 00:16:43,559
it strips ISPs of any real reason to deal with

252
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:47,840
piracy on their networks, making the DMCA's Safe Harbor rules pointless.

253
00:16:48,039 --> 00:16:50,960
Those rules require ISPs to cut off repeat infringers in

254
00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:54,240
exchange for legal protection. She wrote that the majority's decision

255
00:16:54,320 --> 00:16:58,600
completely upends the balance Congress created end quote, consigns the

256
00:16:58,639 --> 00:17:03,000
Safe Harbor provision to obsolescence, adding that ISPs no longer

257
00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:06,839
face any realistic probability of secondary liability for copyright infringement,

258
00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:10,119
regardless of whether they take steps to address infringement on

259
00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:13,920
their networks. Unquote again, I agree with the Supreme Court's

260
00:17:13,920 --> 00:17:17,319
decision on this, but I'll be very curious. Like I said,

261
00:17:17,400 --> 00:17:20,599
I will be very curious to see on social media

262
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:23,480
how you all feel about it, or you know, on YouTube,

263
00:17:23,519 --> 00:17:25,640
you can you know, we stream the show on YouTube,

264
00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:27,680
you can leave comments and so forth. But I really

265
00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:30,519
do want to get feedback on this because, like I said,

266
00:17:30,599 --> 00:17:34,599
I know that my opinion may be unpopular in some circles,

267
00:17:35,119 --> 00:17:37,599
and but I'm happy to I'm happy to fight it

268
00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:40,720
out with anyone who wants to, all right,