Speaker 1: And now it's time for Joe Escalante live from Hollywood,
Speaker 1: if by Hollywood you mean Burbank across the street from
Speaker 1: a Wienerschnitzel that serves beer.
Speaker 2: Good Evening, America. We're coming to you this week from Utah,
Speaker 2: Salt Lake City's X Games taking place here, and I'm
Speaker 2: here traveling with the band Sublime, of course, and you
Speaker 2: are in for two hours of the business end of
Speaker 2: show business as usual right here on KEIB eleven fifty
Speaker 2: on your AM dial. You can also hear us all
Speaker 2: over the world live on your iHeartRadio app. And to
Speaker 2: get the podcast, just search my name and whatever podcast
Speaker 2: thing you use and you'll find it a couple hour
Speaker 2: hours after we finish here. Let's go to the movies
Speaker 2: this week. I've got my prediction for the top five
Speaker 2: movies of the weekend. I say will be number one
Speaker 2: and How to Train Your Dragon, followed by Megan two
Speaker 2: point zero twenty eight years later and Elio from Disney Pixar,
Speaker 2: which didn't do very well that last week, so that's
Speaker 2: kind of a problem for Disney and Pixar, but you
Speaker 2: know they're used to it, right. What do you need
Speaker 2: to know about Formula one? The movie f one. Are
Speaker 2: you gonna go see it? I'm gonna go see it.
Speaker 2: It's an Apple original, so Apple movie. When Apple does anything,
Speaker 2: they just pour money into it. They don't care about
Speaker 2: the budget, they just don't care. So it hit the theaters
Speaker 2: this weekend. Earlier, it debuted in Europe. And this movie
Speaker 2: comes from a powerhouse team directed by Joseph Kazinski who
Speaker 2: brought us Top Gun Maverick, so you know it's gonna
Speaker 2: be the visuals are going to be good. And it's
Speaker 2: produced by Jerry Bruckhimer. He's a legend in action films.
Speaker 2: And you have a kind of a significant layer of
Speaker 2: authenticity with seven time Formula one world champion Lewis Hamilton
Speaker 2: also as a producer on the film. He got Brad
Speaker 2: Pitt playing a guy named Sonny Hayes who sits around
Speaker 2: making up these names that one seems recycled. So he's
Speaker 2: a former Formula one driver from the nineteen nineties whose
Speaker 2: career was cut short by an accident. Okay, Then you
Speaker 2: got Damson Idris as Joshua Pears, a hot shot rookie driver,
Speaker 2: and the film explores the dynamic between a veteran trying
Speaker 2: to make a comeback and a rising star as they
Speaker 2: team up for a struggling fictional Formula One team called APXGP.
Speaker 2: And we also got Javier Bardam in the cast and
Speaker 2: Carrie Condon. But what sets this movie apart, most people
Speaker 2: are saying, is their commitment to realism. But have we
Speaker 2: heard that before?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Maybe much of the action was actually filmed during a
Speaker 2: real Grand Prix or many Grand Prix weekends throughout the
Speaker 2: twenty three to twenty four Formula one seasons. Brad Pitt
Speaker 2: even drove a modified Formula two car on real tracks
Speaker 2: to capture that authentic racing feel. And they worked very
Speaker 2: closely with the Formula one organization to achieve an unprecedented
Speaker 2: level of access and authenticity, they say. And Formula one
Speaker 2: it was revived by a Netflix series, That's what I understand.
Speaker 2: Like it was struggling Netflix series and then it got huge.
Speaker 2: Then my brother in law bought it. Oh sorry, my stepbrother.
Speaker 2: It's a long story, okay, So the story that's a
Speaker 2: story here. You know, I told the other story. So
Speaker 2: it's kind of like an underdog and redemption story set
Speaker 2: against a high stakes world of Formula One. You get it.
Speaker 2: You've seen it before, not just another racing movie. Perhaps
Speaker 2: if it redelivers on this real world, real life stuff,
Speaker 2: you gotta go see it in the IMAX, right or
Speaker 2: the XD at Cinema, Cinema Belitaria.
Speaker 3: You gotta.
Speaker 2: Okay, I don't want to see you watching it on
Speaker 2: your phone, so I'll probably be doing that, I'm gonna
Speaker 2: say tomorrow. You know, everybody I talk to, like except
Speaker 2: for like, you know, my closest friends or guys in
Speaker 2: my band or people I work with, everything starts off.
Speaker 2: Every conversation nowadays starts off with something like or ends
Speaker 2: or somewhere they have to inject like wow these times, Wow,
Speaker 2: everything is so I mean, you know, everything's so crazy
Speaker 2: or chaotic or oh everybody's suffering. And I don't know,
Speaker 2: just like, is anything worse than it's ever been? Hasn't
Speaker 2: it always been like this? I think the only thing
Speaker 2: different is the the media's ability to wind us up
Speaker 2: and get us to click on things or watch news
Speaker 2: on TV or Instagram or whatever. Or people are winding
Speaker 2: us up with their posts about how wound up they are.
Speaker 2: But I really don't think the world is different. And
Speaker 2: thank god we have entertainment and for now entertainment seems
Speaker 2: to be doing pretty good.
Speaker 3: The box office is civil.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's okay, live music thriving, t shirts based
Speaker 2: on live music thriving.
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
Speaker 2: People always people trying to bring me down? Are they
Speaker 2: trying to do that to you? It's got a little
Speaker 2: like they say some little speech and they look at
Speaker 2: you like you hate Donald Trump, don't you? I mean
Speaker 2: that's how I'm getting from. Like everybody like, hey, you
Speaker 2: want to join this conversation. I'm like, I don't want
Speaker 2: to join any conversation. Hey, how about those bombs in Iran?
Speaker 2: And I'm like, guess what. Guess what, mister trying to
Speaker 2: convers have a conversation with me, and people just straight
Speaker 2: up ask me, what's your opinion on that? Here's my opinion.
Speaker 2: I'll tell it to you. I don't have enough information
Speaker 2: to know whether dropping bombs on Iran is a great
Speaker 2: idea or the worst idea in the world. And if
Speaker 2: you have that information, wow, good for you. I don't
Speaker 2: have it.
Speaker 3: I can't get it.
Speaker 2: Because the news just tells you whatever they think you
Speaker 2: want to hear or whatever they want to tell you.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter what side you're on. They don't. There's
Speaker 2: probably about eight people in the world that know whether
Speaker 2: that was the right decision or the wrong decision, but
Speaker 2: probably about eight everyone else is shut out. No one's
Speaker 2: getting the info. If you think you have all the info,
Speaker 2: many congratulations. I don't have it, so I don't know,
Speaker 2: so I don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 3: I guess, you know.
Speaker 2: When people ask me about this kind of stuff, I
Speaker 2: like to say, I'm just worried about who's going to
Speaker 2: be our next pope. And now we have Pope Leo
Speaker 2: from Chicago, first American pope. Of course, the jury is
Speaker 2: still out what kind of a pope will he be?
Speaker 2: But I have high hopes for him, and I'm always
Speaker 2: positive about the new pope. So this pope, he comforts
Speaker 2: me somewhat. I don't have to worry about the other stuff.
Speaker 2: But wow, here's a good one. I'm speaking of media.
Speaker 2: President Trump is indicated an intent to pursue legal action
Speaker 2: against CNN and The New York Times. The basis for
Speaker 2: this threatened litigation stems from these outlets reporting regarding the
Speaker 2: recent US military strikes and I RAN's nuclear program. President
Speaker 2: Trump stated that these strikes had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. However,
Speaker 2: both CNN and The New York Times published information reportedly
Speaker 2: from a preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the
Speaker 2: strikes resulted in a setback of only a few months.
Speaker 2: Trump's Legal council has formally notified The New York Times,
Speaker 2: meaning they wrote a letter demanding a retraction of its
Speaker 2: reporting and an apology. It's so funny because he knows
Speaker 2: they're not going to retract or apologize, but he does
Speaker 2: it anyway. It's kind of like if you're his wife,
Speaker 2: he'd be like, oh, darling, don't do that. Don't do that.
Speaker 2: Just dunted them, don't do that. I'm going to do it,
Speaker 2: So he did it. The communication characterized the reporting as
Speaker 2: defamatory and unpatriotic. Additionally, President Trump publicly requested that CNN
Speaker 2: terminate the reporter responsible for the breaking the story, Natasha
Speaker 2: Bertrand obviously a Russian spy. Of her name's Natasha right.
Speaker 2: Both CNN and The New York Times have issued statements
Speaker 2: affirming their reporting and expressing support for their journalists. Defense
Speaker 2: Secretary Pete hegsith what I bardied with true story. I
Speaker 2: acknowledged the existence of the preliminary intelligence report. So he said, yeah,
Speaker 2: we have a there's a report, but he didn't say
Speaker 2: it was in it. So do you know, do I know,
Speaker 2: I'm back to the same thing. I don't know was it,
Speaker 2: did it obliterate the stuff or not? I don't know
Speaker 2: who knows. All I know is CNN is running around
Speaker 2: trying to find as many stories as they can to
Speaker 2: make the president look bad. And then other people on
Speaker 2: YouTube are running around trying to find any story that
Speaker 2: makes President Trump look good.
Speaker 3: So what can you do?
Speaker 2: All right, I'll continue with this after the traffic Joe
Speaker 2: Escalante Live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4: Hello, this is Crispinglover dot com and you're listening to
Speaker 4: Joe Escalante.
Speaker 2: We are back Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood by Hollywood
Speaker 2: and Member Bank. Okay, now we just we're talking about
Speaker 2: President Trump threatening some kind of litigation against the New
Speaker 2: York Times and CNN for being the New York Times
Speaker 2: and being CNN.
Speaker 3: So it's interesting.
Speaker 2: There's obviously something more to this, and some might say,
Speaker 2: and a cynical person would say, well, this is pretty
Speaker 2: bad because it chills the free speech and these news
Speaker 2: outlets have a right to report on whatever they find
Speaker 2: and if they are, do they have a right to
Speaker 2: mischaracterize it. Well, they have a right to make their
Speaker 2: opinions known. So a cynical person would say that's this
Speaker 2: is chilling free speech. So he shouldn't do it. Like
Speaker 2: I said before, his wife after right before, he was
Speaker 2: about to do this, or go dialing, don't do that.
Speaker 2: Don't do that dialing. Just don't just leave it alone.
Speaker 2: You can't tell them how to think. Everybody knows CNN
Speaker 2: and New York Times hate you, and they come to
Speaker 2: sit by things. How about you, But you don't.
Speaker 3: I don't have to play their game. Don't don't sink
Speaker 3: to the level. Honey.
Speaker 2: That's what goes on behind closed doors. And this is
Speaker 2: the only show that will that will tell you this.
Speaker 2: I tell you the truth. So okay, legally, can he
Speaker 2: do this threatened litigation? I mean he wins these things.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I would say no, but then he's suing these
Speaker 2: people like and he's getting settlements out of these news organizations,
Speaker 2: and so he's what he's doing is he's softening them up.
Speaker 2: He's making them be a little more careful because when
Speaker 2: you go and you know, I've worked for Fox News before,
Speaker 2: and you know, if they get sued for something or
Speaker 2: they get a lot of grief for something, it sticks
Speaker 2: with them. And then when I make my TV shows
Speaker 2: sometimes I run across it and I get pushback on
Speaker 2: something something that's silly. But they got sued once, so
Speaker 2: there was an embarrassment one. So they tell me, hey,
Speaker 2: you can't say that. Don't say this, and don't say that,
Speaker 2: And I'm like, I have a legal right to say.
Speaker 2: We all have a legal right to say this. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but you know, or they'll or sometimes they ask they
Speaker 2: would ask me my legal opinion, Hey Joe, do you
Speaker 2: think something will have if we say this about this
Speaker 2: guy that saw the monster? And I'm talking about monsters
Speaker 2: and aliens, so it's not that big a deal. But
Speaker 2: they might say to me, hey, Joe, if we show
Speaker 2: this guy's gravestone, could be something like that. If we
Speaker 2: show this guy's gravestone, I mean, can we can? We
Speaker 2: can we show it his name and stuff? And I'm like, Yeah,
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? Why are you asking me
Speaker 2: that opinion? Shouldn't you know? Now they're asking me as
Speaker 2: a lawyer, I could say, yeah, this is totally legal
Speaker 2: to show somebody's gravestone in a story we're talking about.
Speaker 2: The worst thing that's going to happen is someone might
Speaker 2: go on Facebook and say, how dare you exploit that
Speaker 2: person's death? You know, and then you might get yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what I'm talking about, don't do it. So this
Speaker 2: kind of stuff where the president is, it's going after him,
Speaker 2: you know, I think it does kind of do something
Speaker 2: where it creates a headache in the newsroom, one more
Speaker 2: headache for them, so they're gonna think twice, be a
Speaker 2: little gun shy, and maybe just maybe they might want
Speaker 2: to report objectively instead of one of the time trying
Speaker 2: to find a way to make him look bad. So
Speaker 2: that's a reality. He can't do anything about it, but
Speaker 2: he could soften him up a little bit. I think
Speaker 2: that's what he might be doing. And he's kind of
Speaker 2: bulletproof because people are gonna make fun of him, of course,
Speaker 2: because I mean, these people have a first AMENMA right
Speaker 2: to do this stuff. If they are lying, then there
Speaker 2: would be like and if it's lying in a way
Speaker 2: that would hurt the military, then it would be maybe
Speaker 2: the Sedition Act or something they could be accused of
Speaker 2: being a trader or for an agent trying to because
Speaker 2: if you you were a foreign agent and you wanted
Speaker 2: to hurt the US. You might have infiltrators in the
Speaker 2: media making reports that tell the American citizens that all
Speaker 2: is lost. Your leader is a buffoon. And he came
Speaker 2: on TV and said he obliterated something, and you want
Speaker 2: to tell the people that he didn't. Now, if they
Speaker 2: have evidence of that, then they could go that route.
Speaker 2: But if it's just, hey, we hate Trump. So this
Speaker 2: is our spin on it. And we found a guy
Speaker 2: that said this, and so here's what the guy said.
Speaker 2: He said, it might only be a couple months setback.
Speaker 2: They're allowed to do that.
Speaker 3: So it's a.
Speaker 2: Hard one to win, But I don't know, maybe you
Speaker 2: get a settlement. Also, here's another thing that happens. What's
Speaker 2: CNN doing. It'll look at their business background or what's
Speaker 2: going on in the big picture of CNN and Los
Speaker 2: Angeles Times Los Angeles Times. You know, maybe they're trying
Speaker 2: to merge with someone and they're going to be needing
Speaker 2: federal approval from the FTC or the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: or whoever in charge of the antitrust department. To prevent monopolies.
Speaker 2: They got to get some government approval for certain things.
Speaker 3: They do.
Speaker 2: And if you push back on these things and say
Speaker 2: I hate these things, you're hurting the administration, and you
Speaker 2: want favors out of the administration, it might pay to
Speaker 2: bring it to their attention that we want to sue
Speaker 2: you over this. We're not just complaining, We're going to
Speaker 2: take you to court. Then they might behave better because
Speaker 2: they need favors from the government. I don't know what's
Speaker 2: going on over if there's anything like that going on
Speaker 2: over at the La Times, but there certainly is something
Speaker 2: going on like that at CNN because CNN is part
Speaker 2: of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers is part of Discovery.
Speaker 2: So Discovery wants to spin off this one all their
Speaker 2: cale their invaluable cable channels, and then keep HBO somewhere else.
Speaker 2: You know, they're trying to re structure their business and
Speaker 2: they might need government approval for some.
Speaker 3: One of the things they want to do. I don't know.
Speaker 2: So they might be scared of him, So if you
Speaker 2: say that, then they might just soften up and just
Speaker 2: go easy on me. Guys, go easy. But could he
Speaker 2: go into a court and win this argument. No, I
Speaker 2: don't think so, unless he has proof that there is
Speaker 2: like a spy, and that they're actually working for a
Speaker 2: foreign government and they're trying to bring down the United States.
Speaker 2: Otherwise there's no way to win this. And I'm not
Speaker 2: saying they're not trying to bring down the United States.
Speaker 2: They could be, but they that could be any proof anywhere.
Speaker 2: But he doesn't care. He's just playing his game. They're
Speaker 2: playing a game against him, He's playing a game against them.
Speaker 2: On Thursday, I was sitting at the Beach House restaurant
Speaker 2: Seal Beach, and I look up the TV and it's
Speaker 2: all kinds of P Diddy news going on.
Speaker 3: So what happened with P Diddy this week?
Speaker 2: Well, they wrapped up things, say, they wrapped up The
Speaker 2: defense wrapped up their case and uh, prosecutors already wrapped
Speaker 2: their case. So now it goes to the journey. So
Speaker 2: we'll see what happens. That'll it's going to be a while.
Speaker 2: I think, what do you think will happen to Diddy?
Speaker 2: I think he could I think a hard time getting
Speaker 2: a conviction out of it. It won't be automatic, but sometimes,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think of all things were equal, but
Speaker 2: sometimes if the the tipping point comes where people just
Speaker 2: hate this guy, they're not afraid of him, and they
Speaker 2: just have already said he's bad. He's bad, he's bad,
Speaker 2: he's bad. There's nothing that you can do. But if
Speaker 2: you just looked at the elements of the crime and said,
Speaker 2: did the prosecutor prove these beyond a reasonable doubt? It
Speaker 2: starts to get crazy, Like, I don't know if you
Speaker 2: can do that. Can you prove the existence of an
Speaker 2: enterprise that he used to facilitate and cover up his
Speaker 2: criminal activities? That means he has to you know, there
Speaker 2: had to be like a board of directors or other
Speaker 2: employees they were helping him do this. That's hard and
Speaker 2: I don't know if he can and a pattern of
Speaker 2: racketeering activity. They have to prove that Combs agreed to
Speaker 2: participate in an enterprise in the enterprise affairs through a
Speaker 2: pattern of racketeering activity. This means proving he or members
Speaker 2: of the enterprise committed at least two predicate acts of
Speaker 2: specific illegal activities. So at least two to do sex trafficking,
Speaker 2: forced labor, kidnapping, arts and bribery, drug distribution, obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: So if you can put two of those together, I
Speaker 2: guess you got some racketeering and there has to be
Speaker 2: these agreements. You have to prove that they agreed to
Speaker 2: do this, Like what if they just you know, people
Speaker 2: did it and then they if they did it because
Speaker 2: they were afraid of Diddy and they followed his instructions.
Speaker 2: You know, is that different than agreeing than someone coming
Speaker 2: up to Diddy and saying, I agree, this is a
Speaker 2: good idea to traffic With these people, it's different anyway,
Speaker 2: we'll see, jury will be out.
Speaker 3: But sometimes they don't care.
Speaker 2: They don't follow the law or anything. They just said
Speaker 2: we hate the guy. Anybody, I dare anybody here to
Speaker 2: vote not guilty, And then you get kind of stuff
Speaker 2: like that. All right, Joe Scalante live from Hollywood. Stick
Speaker 2: a break, We'll come. Oh, all air breathers, this is
Speaker 2: SpongeBob square Pants and you are filling your ear holes
Speaker 2: with Joe Escalante.
Speaker 3: Joe Escalante live from Hollywood. We are back.
Speaker 2: Okay, KiB eleven fifty on your AM dial here in
Speaker 2: the fine state of Utah, coming to you as we
Speaker 2: do from remote locations every now and then. So, what's
Speaker 2: going on in the Disney World, Disneyland specifically, because this
Speaker 2: is a show about southern California. First, and foremost big
Speaker 2: news for parkgoers in anahuh. Just in the last couple
Speaker 2: of days, Disneyland has announced plans for a brand new
Speaker 2: transportation hub on the east side of the resort. This
Speaker 2: is like you know, Harbor Area. It's a massive project.
Speaker 2: It's part of this larger Disneyland Forward expansion they keep
Speaker 2: talking about, and it's designed to supposedly improve parking and
Speaker 2: traffic flow. The new hub will feature around six thousand
Speaker 2: parking spaces, plus indicated areas for shuttles and ride sharers,
Speaker 2: with direct access off Disney Way. Concept art that's over
Speaker 2: by the five Freeway. Concept art that I've seen hints
Speaker 2: at a pedestrian bridge over Harbor Boulevard.
Speaker 3: That'd be nice.
Speaker 2: Have you Have you ever seen that Harbor and Catella
Speaker 2: that that intersection. Wow, there's a lot of families waiting
Speaker 2: to get run over there. But now there will be
Speaker 2: a you know, some kind of civilized bridge. How do
Speaker 2: you like that? I went to Disneyland on Tuesday, actually
Speaker 2: went on Thursday.
Speaker 3: Also, what did I do? Yeah, I'm on Thursday and Tuesday.
Speaker 3: I'm a grown up.
Speaker 2: But you know, every once in a while, it's it's
Speaker 2: more friends that say Hey, you want to go, and
Speaker 2: then I go with them. It's not like I'm just
Speaker 2: like I got to go to do the live Little
Speaker 2: Walk a Round.
Speaker 3: It's my Disneyland voice. All right, Oh, I got some.
Speaker 2: Some sports news I don't usually have. This is a
Speaker 2: new thing. It's a significant legal move in the sports world.
Speaker 2: University of Wisconsin, the Badgers, that's where my niece just
Speaker 2: graduated from, issuing University of Miami alleging that Miami, that
Speaker 2: Miami University intentionally induced a star athlete to break breaches,
Speaker 2: record breaking name image and likeness contracts and transfer to Miami,
Speaker 2: costing the University of Wisconsin millions. Now, this is a
Speaker 2: direct legal challenge to the burgeoning nil landscape, that's name, image,
Speaker 2: and likeness. We've talked about this a little bit in
Speaker 2: college sports. It goes down to high school too. It
Speaker 2: suggests that institutions are willing to sue each other over
Speaker 2: alleged poaching and contract interference in this new and lucrative
Speaker 2: and often loosely regulated environment of name, image and likeness.
Speaker 2: Deals are deals that allow amateur players to make money.
Speaker 3: You know, for a.
Speaker 2: While, it was like this is amateur sports and this
Speaker 2: is professional sports. It was like it was illegal, like
Speaker 2: you go to jail if you're making any money off
Speaker 2: of your amateur sports career. But then as time went
Speaker 2: on and people started realizing how many billions of dollars
Speaker 2: are made by the universities with their football broadcasts, chiefly,
Speaker 2: the tide turned and people said, well, I shouldn't the
Speaker 2: students athletes make some money. But then it gets weird.
Speaker 2: They're all making a lot of money.
Speaker 3: I got.
Speaker 2: I mean, I see him around my town in Los Alamitos,
Speaker 2: be some senior with a one hundred thousand dollars car
Speaker 2: because they made a deal with them and they're going
Speaker 2: to control for rights to his name, image and likeness.
Speaker 2: They're going to give him money, and they're making commercials,
Speaker 2: or they could promise to make commercials in the future.
Speaker 2: And now they just got a whole lot more litigious
Speaker 2: because people are saying saying, hey, they have these portals
Speaker 2: where people can leave their school and go into a portal. Now,
Speaker 2: if you convince somebody if someone has a contract with
Speaker 2: one what's the legalities Someone has a contract with a name,
Speaker 2: image and likeness deal attached to a school and they
Speaker 2: breach it, you know there's going to be some contract
Speaker 2: law will come in and say, okay, you breach something.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not a crime to breach a contract,
Speaker 2: but someone might have to be made whole. You can't
Speaker 2: go to jail for breaching a contract. It's just a
Speaker 2: civil case that would happen. And they would say, I
Speaker 2: lost ten million dollars when you breach this contract because
Speaker 2: I anticipated this, this, and this, I didn't draft other players,
Speaker 2: I only drafted you, and now we were going to
Speaker 2: make all this money. And now I'm not because you
Speaker 2: breach the agreement, and which you can, but you have
Speaker 2: to make me whole. So you have to pay some
Speaker 2: kind of penalty to make me whole because you're obviously
Speaker 2: leaving this contract because you think you're going to make
Speaker 2: more money somewhere else. Okay, give me some of that money,
Speaker 2: you know, and next time come to see me, and
Speaker 2: maybe I'll just to let you go if you tell
Speaker 2: me how much money you're gonna give me. But if
Speaker 2: you leave, you know, people get mad. So the legal
Speaker 2: theory that they usually use is something called a tortious
Speaker 2: interference with contract, meaning you got a contract, someone interferes
Speaker 2: to get you to breach it for their benefit. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's a torte, a civil case tortious and they take
Speaker 2: you to court and the jury deliberates and decides whether
Speaker 2: you breach the contract, whether the person in question breached
Speaker 2: the contract, and whether someone induced him to. Did someone
Speaker 2: say hey, I will give you this if you breach
Speaker 2: that contract, and then you got your damages. You got
Speaker 2: to prove your damages basically, I mean it's more than
Speaker 2: just saying, well, you promised them a million dollars, give
Speaker 2: me that million dollars. Now you got you approve your
Speaker 2: damages and you might get them.
Speaker 3: But now these are kids that are breaching these agreements.
Speaker 2: Now, if a kid has a tantrum, he doesn't really
Speaker 2: understand the legal ramifications. He talks to his lawyers, and
Speaker 2: his lawyers say, yeah, you can go. Well, I mean,
Speaker 2: we're gonna have to just defend this lawsuit, but yeah,
Speaker 2: we got that. We'll make a few million dollars out
Speaker 2: of that. You'll see it on your bill, and we'll
Speaker 2: get you out of it. Yeah, it'll be ten million
Speaker 2: in legal fees, but you'll be able to leave and
Speaker 2: go play at the school that you want to play.
Speaker 2: And the kid's gonna think, well, if I play at
Speaker 2: this other school. I'm gonna get have a better career
Speaker 2: going to protein. I'm gonna make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2: So ten million dollars in litigation costs, that's nothing. I
Speaker 2: don't care. But are these kids really equipped to make
Speaker 2: those decisions or you know, they're little league parents. There's
Speaker 2: a question I don't have an answer to. All Right,
Speaker 2: I got another lawsuit for you. I'm gonna blow your
Speaker 2: mind today with this one. Well, maybe not. Maybe it's
Speaker 2: kind of boring though. Okay, there's a couple of lawsuits
Speaker 2: involving intellectual property that are in the news this week.
Speaker 2: One of them is there's a small one and a
Speaker 2: big one. Let's start with the small one. Okay, the
Speaker 2: music publishers, a group of seventeen publishing companies. We're suing
Speaker 2: X for copyright infringement because they said, we're not gonna
Speaker 2: let you use our songs anymore unless you make a
Speaker 2: new deal. And then they, you know, keep using them
Speaker 2: and then they say, okay, it's copyright infringement, and then
Speaker 2: they assue them. And now the judge has granted the
Speaker 2: case in ninety days stay that means a pause so
Speaker 2: they can work out a settlement, meaning they are talking
Speaker 2: and probably gonna make a settlement, and then they will
Speaker 2: create a new licensing agreement between the major music right
Speaker 2: holders and the massive social media platform. The outcome could
Speaker 2: set a precedent for how music is used and licensed
Speaker 2: another social media platforms impacting revenue streams for artists and publishers.
Speaker 2: And they are real and I kind of live off
Speaker 2: them right now. So is Elon Musk finally ready to
Speaker 2: settle this case? Or is this just a pause for
Speaker 2: round two? We'll see, you know, they pause and try
Speaker 2: to settle, and if they can, they do, and if
Speaker 2: they can't, they go back to their corners and get
Speaker 2: ready to continue the fight. But it's a rather expensive fight,
Speaker 2: so they you know, they should set up anyway. Let's
Speaker 2: take a break on and when I come back, I'm
Speaker 2: going to tell you about this an AI case that
Speaker 2: actually went before a judge and it's been a substantive
Speaker 2: law has come out of this that will govern how
Speaker 2: AI models are allowed to continue the training models. Can
Speaker 2: they use copyrighted works in these training models? Well, we
Speaker 2: have a case.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Joe'scalante live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4: Hello, this is John Crier from two and a half men,
Speaker 4: and you're listening to Joe Escalante.
Speaker 1: Joe Scalante, here's my lawyer. You don't want money.
Speaker 2: Joe Scalante live from Hollywood, coming to you from the
Speaker 2: X Games out here in Salt Lake City, And.
Speaker 3: I got a case for you. Man.
Speaker 2: This is this is a good one. This is major landmark.
Speaker 2: It will govern the creation of AI models for some
Speaker 2: time to come. The if you're using AI, I usually
Speaker 2: use mostly Google Gemini, but Chat, GBT or other ones.
Speaker 2: You know, this kind of depends on what you're comfortable with.
Speaker 2: What do I use them for everything? Okay, there's a
Speaker 2: company called Anthropic AI, and we have a verdict. They
Speaker 2: sued a group of authors sued Anthropic and it said
Speaker 2: they copyrighted their books without permission. So here's what they're doing.
Speaker 2: They have to train their AI robots to know stuff.
Speaker 2: So they got to feed them everything. Like if I
Speaker 2: come into my Google Gemini right now and say, hey,
Speaker 2: what's the difference between the Tom Sawyer book and the
Speaker 2: Huckleberry Finn book. Now it's going to go through, it's
Speaker 2: gonna read it's already read them, or it's gonna read
Speaker 2: them real fast. And then it's gonna tell me, it's
Speaker 2: gonna give me an analysis. Okay, those books are in
Speaker 2: the public domain. What if it says, what if I say, hey,
Speaker 2: give me a comparison of the novelization of What's Upon
Speaker 2: a Time in Hollywood and the Beastie Boys book. So
Speaker 2: got to read both of them. Where does it get them?
Speaker 2: Can it do that? And then it spits out an
Speaker 2: answer to me, is it allowed to use those copywriting
Speaker 2: materials to tell me an answer? What kind of world
Speaker 2: do we want to live in? Is kind of how
Speaker 2: I usually phrase these things. Do we want to live
Speaker 2: in a world where the AI is allowed to do that?
Speaker 2: Or do we want to say they can't? And so
Speaker 2: the AI companies have to make a deal with every
Speaker 2: single author on Earth, every single thing on Wikipedia, every
Speaker 2: single thing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, every single thing in
Speaker 2: the Harry Potter encyclopedia. I use Harry Potter because she's
Speaker 2: in the news. I don't know if you heard about that.
Speaker 2: There's a bookstore in San Francisco that has refused to
Speaker 2: sell any more HK. Rowling books because of her stance
Speaker 2: on transgenders or whatever. So that's in the news this week.
Speaker 3: Too.
Speaker 2: That's a brief digression. Should they be allowed to ban
Speaker 2: her books a San Francisco bookstore? Is that illegal? No,
Speaker 2: it's just book banning. Book banning is not illegal. So
Speaker 2: they're banning books in San Francisco, perfectly legal. It's a
Speaker 2: private company. They don't want to sell JK. Rowling books.
Speaker 2: They don't have to, Okay, Anthropic, Where do they get
Speaker 2: their books? Well, that's why we have a split decision
Speaker 2: in this case, and it has to do with where
Speaker 2: they got this stuff. Can they let's start with this one.
Speaker 2: Can they use their books to train their AI models?
Speaker 2: They argue that training on copyrighted material these authors did
Speaker 2: without a license constituted unauthorized copying. So are they copying
Speaker 2: or are they just reading? I guess they copy it
Speaker 2: to go in one part of the computer to the
Speaker 2: other or is it just reading.
Speaker 3: Well, the judge said.
Speaker 2: That anthropics use of copyrighted books to train its large
Speaker 2: language models LMS, that's what they are, does qualify as
Speaker 2: a fair use under the US copyright law. Okay, before
Speaker 2: we do this, I want to give you a little
Speaker 2: brief recap on the fair use doctor, because we have
Speaker 2: talked to that many times. But you know, there's four
Speaker 2: major prongs, and we got to keep them in mind.
Speaker 2: This is the fair use doctrine. People are always coming
Speaker 2: to me and say, I can do this because it's
Speaker 2: a fair use. I can do that. It's a fair use. Oh,
Speaker 2: I can do a parody. It's a parody, So I
Speaker 2: can do whatever I want. That's not true and fitting.
Speaker 2: But if you do qualify for the fair use doctrine,
Speaker 2: you can use other people's copyrighted work. You don't have
Speaker 2: to give them credit, you don't have to pay them
Speaker 2: any money, and you don't need their permission. Okay, So
Speaker 2: that's the holy grail where people want to get to
Speaker 2: so they can use all this stuff and make mashups
Speaker 2: and derivative works, et cetera. It's not that easy to
Speaker 2: get there. To get there, you have to satisfy these
Speaker 2: prongs or you just have to be You're going to
Speaker 2: be judged on whether you've satisfied any of those prongs,
Speaker 2: or some of those prongs, or all of those prongs.
Speaker 2: Here are the prongs. The number one prong when trying
Speaker 2: if you're trying to take something and use parts of
Speaker 2: it for some other project without paying or getting permission.
Speaker 2: This is what the courts will look at when you
Speaker 2: get sued. The look at the nature, the purpose and
Speaker 2: character of the work, like the why and how. They
Speaker 2: tend to favor things that are transformative. Remember that word
Speaker 2: transformative meaning the new work adds new meaning, expression, or
Speaker 2: a message to the original, like criticism. If you have criticism,
Speaker 2: they're transforming the work into criticism of the work, commentary,
Speaker 2: news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or parody. Now that's when parody
Speaker 2: comes in. If Weird Al Yankovic takes a song and
Speaker 2: changes the lyrics and makes it funny, how transformative is that?
Speaker 2: I think you could argue with it. All it's doing
Speaker 2: is transforming it. It's not transforming it at all. Really,
Speaker 2: it's just changing the words. So that's a derivative work.
Speaker 2: You got to get permission. Now, what if you take
Speaker 2: a song and mock that song with some other words
Speaker 2: that that don't just mock something else like oh I'm fat,
Speaker 2: or like a surgeon like weird A Yankovic songs. But
Speaker 2: what if you mocked a song by saying, okay, this
Speaker 2: song by Taylor Swift, shake it off. If you change
Speaker 2: the words, I'm gonna be really bad now because I'm
Speaker 2: making this up at the top of my head, and
Speaker 2: you said fake it off, okay, fake it off, and
Speaker 2: then you went through and criticize this song as being
Speaker 2: a fake pop song. It's not really good. It's fake.
Speaker 2: It has no value, and she knows it and she's pretending,
Speaker 2: so she's gonna fake it off. Okay, Now you're making
Speaker 2: fun of the you're doing it, and I don't believe that.
Speaker 3: I think it's it's an amazing song.
Speaker 2: But but if that was your position, you could record that,
Speaker 2: you could use her work, and I think you may
Speaker 2: have a good chance of prevailing in court saying, look,
Speaker 2: I have a right to comment on this song, and
Speaker 2: the best way to comment on the song. The way
Speaker 2: I do it is I have to steal from the song.
Speaker 2: I have to use parts of the song.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: The second prong the nature of the copyrighted work. Is
Speaker 2: it facts? If it's factual, Generally, courts are more likely
Speaker 2: to consider fair use. If it's highly creative, fictional or imaginative,
Speaker 2: very low chance of getting a fair use, And if
Speaker 2: it's unpublished, forget it.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Number three the amount that you use and substantiality did
Speaker 2: you have to use the whole song. Well maybe it
Speaker 2: did because you had a beginning, middle, and an end
Speaker 2: and the effect of what you did on the original work,
Speaker 2: did it ruin the market for it?
Speaker 3: That kind of thing. Okay.
Speaker 2: So anyways, in this AI course case, it said that, okay,
Speaker 2: this is the crux of the whole case.
Speaker 3: Then I'll let you go.
Speaker 2: By copying books and putting them in this AI model.
Speaker 2: It's a transformative use, okay, because it trained. These AI
Speaker 2: models are trained upon works, not to race ahead and
Speaker 2: replicate them or supplant them, like ruining the market for them,
Speaker 2: but they are there to create something new and different
Speaker 2: out of them otherwise. So it's a machine to create
Speaker 2: transformative work. So she said, you can do that, But
Speaker 2: where do they get these books? They got them from
Speaker 2: pirated libraries, a lot of them. They just they like
Speaker 2: these people that are putting them in. They go, where
Speaker 2: are we going to get the books to put in
Speaker 2: this thing? Oh, here's a website that steals books and
Speaker 2: puts them up online and they use that. Okay, you can't.
Speaker 2: So the court said, you can't use that. You can
Speaker 2: do it, but you can't get them from pirated sites
Speaker 2: because then that's not fair. So I think what the
Speaker 2: court is trying to say is is if you're going
Speaker 2: to do these models, you got to buy the books. Okay,
Speaker 2: you pay for them, or you get a license for them,
Speaker 2: and then it's legal, or you can because you can
Speaker 2: buy a book and then you can do whatever you
Speaker 2: want with it, like at first use kind of a doctrine.
Speaker 2: But so just go ahead and do this. Don't steal
Speaker 2: the books. So that's the law now, and that's the show.
Speaker 2: Joe's Goance live from Hollywood, Hollywood can be Burbank. And
Speaker 2: I now leave you with just the taste of the
Speaker 2: greatest song ever written.