June 28, 2025 • 39 mins
Joe Escalante's weekly look into the business end of showbiz. This week: The latest box office predictions, Joe's perspective on the Iran bombings and Trump's demands for retractions from sources saying anything different than him. Also, Joes recent Disneyland visits, contract breeches, and musicians suing Twitter for copyright infringement, and the impact of AI on music and books.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And now it's time for Joe Escalante live from Hollywood,
if by Hollywood you mean Burbank across the street from
a Wienerschnitzel that serves beer.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Good Evening, America. We're coming to you this week from Utah,
Salt Lake City's X Games taking place here, and I'm
here traveling with the band Sublime, of course, and you
are in for two hours of the business end of
show business as usual right here on KEIB eleven fifty
on your AM dial. You can also hear us all
over the world live on your iHeartRadio app. And to
(00:41):
get the podcast, just search my name and whatever podcast
thing you use and you'll find it a couple hour
hours after we finish here. Let's go to the movies
this week. I've got my prediction for the top five
movies of the weekend. I say will be number one
(01:01):
and How to Train Your Dragon, followed by Megan two
point zero twenty eight years later and Elio from Disney Pixar,
which didn't do very well that last week, so that's
kind of a problem for Disney and Pixar, but you
know they're used to it, right. What do you need
to know about Formula one? The movie f one. Are
(01:23):
you gonna go see it? I'm gonna go see it.
It's an Apple original, so Apple movie. When Apple does anything,
they just pour money into it. They don't care about
the budget, they just don't care. So it hit the theaters
this weekend. Earlier, it debuted in Europe. And this movie
(01:44):
comes from a powerhouse team directed by Joseph Kazinski who
brought us Top Gun Maverick, so you know it's gonna
be the visuals are going to be good. And it's
produced by Jerry Bruckhimer. He's a legend in action films.
And you have a kind of a significant layer of
authenticity with seven time Formula one world champion Lewis Hamilton
(02:08):
also as a producer on the film. He got Brad
Pitt playing a guy named Sonny Hayes who sits around
making up these names that one seems recycled. So he's
a former Formula one driver from the nineteen nineties whose
career was cut short by an accident. Okay, Then you
got Damson Idris as Joshua Pears, a hot shot rookie driver,
(02:31):
and the film explores the dynamic between a veteran trying
to make a comeback and a rising star as they
team up for a struggling fictional Formula One team called APXGP.
And we also got Javier Bardam in the cast and
Carrie Condon. But what sets this movie apart, most people
are saying, is their commitment to realism. But have we
(02:53):
heard that before?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Maybe much of the action was actually filmed during a
real Grand Prix or many Grand Prix weekends throughout the
twenty three to twenty four Formula one seasons. Brad Pitt
even drove a modified Formula two car on real tracks
to capture that authentic racing feel. And they worked very
(03:15):
closely with the Formula one organization to achieve an unprecedented
level of access and authenticity, they say. And Formula one
it was revived by a Netflix series, That's what I understand.
Like it was struggling Netflix series and then it got huge.
Then my brother in law bought it. Oh sorry, my stepbrother.
(03:37):
It's a long story, okay, So the story that's a
story here. You know, I told the other story. So
it's kind of like an underdog and redemption story set
against a high stakes world of Formula One. You get it.
You've seen it before, not just another racing movie. Perhaps
(04:00):
if it redelivers on this real world, real life stuff,
you gotta go see it in the IMAX, right or
the XD at Cinema, Cinema Belitaria.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
You gotta.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, I don't want to see you watching it on
your phone, so I'll probably be doing that, I'm gonna
say tomorrow. You know, everybody I talk to, like except
for like, you know, my closest friends or guys in
my band or people I work with, everything starts off.
(04:33):
Every conversation nowadays starts off with something like or ends
or somewhere they have to inject like wow these times, Wow,
everything is so I mean, you know, everything's so crazy
or chaotic or oh everybody's suffering. And I don't know,
just like, is anything worse than it's ever been? Hasn't
(04:56):
it always been like this? I think the only thing
different is the the media's ability to wind us up
and get us to click on things or watch news
on TV or Instagram or whatever. Or people are winding
us up with their posts about how wound up they are.
(05:17):
But I really don't think the world is different. And
thank god we have entertainment and for now entertainment seems
to be doing pretty good.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
The box office is civil.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
I mean, it's okay, live music thriving, t shirts based
on live music thriving.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
People always people trying to bring me down? Are they
trying to do that to you? It's got a little
like they say some little speech and they look at
you like you hate Donald Trump, don't you? I mean
that's how I'm getting from. Like everybody like, hey, you
want to join this conversation. I'm like, I don't want
to join any conversation. Hey, how about those bombs in Iran?
(06:03):
And I'm like, guess what. Guess what, mister trying to
convers have a conversation with me, and people just straight
up ask me, what's your opinion on that? Here's my opinion.
I'll tell it to you. I don't have enough information
to know whether dropping bombs on Iran is a great
idea or the worst idea in the world. And if
(06:24):
you have that information, wow, good for you. I don't
have it.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I can't get it.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Because the news just tells you whatever they think you
want to hear or whatever they want to tell you.
It doesn't matter what side you're on. They don't. There's
probably about eight people in the world that know whether
that was the right decision or the wrong decision, but
probably about eight everyone else is shut out. No one's
(06:51):
getting the info. If you think you have all the info,
many congratulations. I don't have it, so I don't know,
so I don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I guess, you know.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
When people ask me about this kind of stuff, I
like to say, I'm just worried about who's going to
be our next pope. And now we have Pope Leo
from Chicago, first American pope. Of course, the jury is
still out what kind of a pope will he be?
But I have high hopes for him, and I'm always
positive about the new pope. So this pope, he comforts
(07:24):
me somewhat. I don't have to worry about the other stuff.
But wow, here's a good one. I'm speaking of media.
President Trump is indicated an intent to pursue legal action
against CNN and The New York Times. The basis for
this threatened litigation stems from these outlets reporting regarding the
recent US military strikes and I RAN's nuclear program. President
(07:51):
Trump stated that these strikes had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. However,
both CNN and The New York Times published information reportedly
from a preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the
strikes resulted in a setback of only a few months.
(08:11):
Trump's Legal council has formally notified The New York Times,
meaning they wrote a letter demanding a retraction of its
reporting and an apology. It's so funny because he knows
they're not going to retract or apologize, but he does
it anyway. It's kind of like if you're his wife,
he'd be like, oh, darling, don't do that. Don't do that.
Just dunted them, don't do that. I'm going to do it,
(08:32):
So he did it. The communication characterized the reporting as
defamatory and unpatriotic. Additionally, President Trump publicly requested that CNN
terminate the reporter responsible for the breaking the story, Natasha
Bertrand obviously a Russian spy. Of her name's Natasha right.
Both CNN and The New York Times have issued statements
(08:53):
affirming their reporting and expressing support for their journalists. Defense
Secretary Pete hegsith what I bardied with true story. I
acknowledged the existence of the preliminary intelligence report. So he said, yeah,
we have a there's a report, but he didn't say
(09:15):
it was in it. So do you know, do I know,
I'm back to the same thing. I don't know was it,
did it obliterate the stuff or not? I don't know
who knows. All I know is CNN is running around
trying to find as many stories as they can to
make the president look bad. And then other people on
(09:36):
YouTube are running around trying to find any story that
makes President Trump look good.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
So what can you do?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
All right, I'll continue with this after the traffic Joe
Escalante Live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Hello, this is Crispinglover dot com and you're listening to
Joe Escalante.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
We are back Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood by Hollywood
and Member Bank. Okay, now we just we're talking about
President Trump threatening some kind of litigation against the New
York Times and CNN for being the New York Times
(10:15):
and being CNN.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
There's obviously something more to this, and some might say,
and a cynical person would say, well, this is pretty
bad because it chills the free speech and these news
outlets have a right to report on whatever they find
and if they are, do they have a right to
mischaracterize it. Well, they have a right to make their
(10:38):
opinions known. So a cynical person would say that's this
is chilling free speech. So he shouldn't do it. Like
I said before, his wife after right before, he was
about to do this, or go dialing, don't do that.
Don't do that dialing. Just don't just leave it alone.
You can't tell them how to think. Everybody knows CNN
and New York Times hate you, and they come to
sit by things. How about you, But you don't.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I don't have to play their game. Don't don't sink
to the level. Honey.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
That's what goes on behind closed doors. And this is
the only show that will that will tell you this.
I tell you the truth. So okay, legally, can he
do this threatened litigation? I mean he wins these things.
Sometimes I would say no, but then he's suing these
(11:24):
people like and he's getting settlements out of these news organizations,
and so he's what he's doing is he's softening them up.
He's making them be a little more careful because when
you go and you know, I've worked for Fox News before,
and you know, if they get sued for something or
they get a lot of grief for something, it sticks
with them. And then when I make my TV shows
(11:47):
sometimes I run across it and I get pushback on
something something that's silly. But they got sued once, so
there was an embarrassment one. So they tell me, hey,
you can't say that. Don't say this, and don't say that,
And I'm like, I have a legal right to say.
We all have a legal right to say this. Yeah,
but you know, or they'll or sometimes they ask they
(12:08):
would ask me my legal opinion, Hey Joe, do you
think something will have if we say this about this
guy that saw the monster? And I'm talking about monsters
and aliens, so it's not that big a deal. But
they might say to me, hey, Joe, if we show
this guy's gravestone, could be something like that. If we
show this guy's gravestone, I mean, can we can? We
(12:30):
can we show it his name and stuff? And I'm like, Yeah,
what are you talking about? Why are you asking me
that opinion? Shouldn't you know? Now they're asking me as
a lawyer, I could say, yeah, this is totally legal
to show somebody's gravestone in a story we're talking about.
The worst thing that's going to happen is someone might
go on Facebook and say, how dare you exploit that
person's death? You know, and then you might get yeah,
(12:52):
that's what I'm talking about, don't do it. So this
kind of stuff where the president is, it's going after him,
you know, I think it does kind of do something
where it creates a headache in the newsroom, one more
headache for them, so they're gonna think twice, be a
little gun shy, and maybe just maybe they might want
(13:16):
to report objectively instead of one of the time trying
to find a way to make him look bad. So
that's a reality. He can't do anything about it, but
he could soften him up a little bit. I think
that's what he might be doing. And he's kind of
bulletproof because people are gonna make fun of him, of course,
(13:36):
because I mean, these people have a first AMENMA right
to do this stuff. If they are lying, then there
would be like and if it's lying in a way
that would hurt the military, then it would be maybe
the Sedition Act or something they could be accused of
being a trader or for an agent trying to because
(13:59):
if you you were a foreign agent and you wanted
to hurt the US. You might have infiltrators in the
media making reports that tell the American citizens that all
is lost. Your leader is a buffoon. And he came
on TV and said he obliterated something, and you want
(14:20):
to tell the people that he didn't. Now, if they
have evidence of that, then they could go that route.
But if it's just, hey, we hate Trump. So this
is our spin on it. And we found a guy
that said this, and so here's what the guy said.
He said, it might only be a couple months setback.
They're allowed to do that.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
So it's a.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Hard one to win, But I don't know, maybe you
get a settlement. Also, here's another thing that happens. What's
CNN doing. It'll look at their business background or what's
going on in the big picture of CNN and Los
Angeles Times Los Angeles Times. You know, maybe they're trying
to merge with someone and they're going to be needing
federal approval from the FTC or the Department of Justice
(15:02):
or whoever in charge of the antitrust department. To prevent monopolies.
They got to get some government approval for certain things.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
They do.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
And if you push back on these things and say
I hate these things, you're hurting the administration, and you
want favors out of the administration, it might pay to
bring it to their attention that we want to sue
you over this. We're not just complaining, We're going to
take you to court. Then they might behave better because
they need favors from the government. I don't know what's
going on over if there's anything like that going on
(15:33):
over at the La Times, but there certainly is something
going on like that at CNN because CNN is part
of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers is part of Discovery.
So Discovery wants to spin off this one all their
cale their invaluable cable channels, and then keep HBO somewhere else.
(15:58):
You know, they're trying to re structure their business and
they might need government approval for some.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
One of the things they want to do. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
So they might be scared of him, So if you
say that, then they might just soften up and just
go easy on me. Guys, go easy. But could he
go into a court and win this argument. No, I
don't think so, unless he has proof that there is
like a spy, and that they're actually working for a
(16:29):
foreign government and they're trying to bring down the United States.
Otherwise there's no way to win this. And I'm not
saying they're not trying to bring down the United States.
They could be, but they that could be any proof anywhere.
But he doesn't care. He's just playing his game. They're
playing a game against him, He's playing a game against them.
(16:54):
On Thursday, I was sitting at the Beach House restaurant
Seal Beach, and I look up the TV and it's
all kinds of P Diddy news going on.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
So what happened with P Diddy this week?
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Well, they wrapped up things, say, they wrapped up The
defense wrapped up their case and uh, prosecutors already wrapped
their case. So now it goes to the journey. So
we'll see what happens. That'll it's going to be a while.
(17:27):
I think, what do you think will happen to Diddy?
I think he could I think a hard time getting
a conviction out of it. It won't be automatic, but sometimes,
I mean, I think of all things were equal, but
sometimes if the the tipping point comes where people just
(17:49):
hate this guy, they're not afraid of him, and they
just have already said he's bad. He's bad, he's bad,
he's bad. There's nothing that you can do. But if
you just looked at the elements of the crime and said,
did the prosecutor prove these beyond a reasonable doubt? It
starts to get crazy, Like, I don't know if you
(18:12):
can do that. Can you prove the existence of an
enterprise that he used to facilitate and cover up his
criminal activities? That means he has to you know, there
had to be like a board of directors or other
employees they were helping him do this. That's hard and
(18:38):
I don't know if he can and a pattern of
racketeering activity. They have to prove that Combs agreed to
participate in an enterprise in the enterprise affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity. This means proving he or members
of the enterprise committed at least two predicate acts of
specific illegal activities. So at least two to do sex trafficking,
(19:03):
forced labor, kidnapping, arts and bribery, drug distribution, obstruction of justice.
So if you can put two of those together, I
guess you got some racketeering and there has to be
these agreements. You have to prove that they agreed to
do this, Like what if they just you know, people
did it and then they if they did it because
they were afraid of Diddy and they followed his instructions.
(19:24):
You know, is that different than agreeing than someone coming
up to Diddy and saying, I agree, this is a
good idea to traffic With these people, it's different anyway,
we'll see, jury will be out.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
But sometimes they don't care.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
They don't follow the law or anything. They just said
we hate the guy. Anybody, I dare anybody here to
vote not guilty, And then you get kind of stuff
like that. All right, Joe Scalante live from Hollywood. Stick
a break, We'll come. Oh, all air breathers, this is
SpongeBob square Pants and you are filling your ear holes
with Joe Escalante.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Joe Escalante live from Hollywood. We are back.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Okay, KiB eleven fifty on your AM dial here in
the fine state of Utah, coming to you as we
do from remote locations every now and then. So, what's
going on in the Disney World, Disneyland specifically, because this
(20:23):
is a show about southern California. First, and foremost big
news for parkgoers in anahuh. Just in the last couple
of days, Disneyland has announced plans for a brand new
transportation hub on the east side of the resort. This
is like you know, Harbor Area. It's a massive project.
(20:46):
It's part of this larger Disneyland Forward expansion they keep
talking about, and it's designed to supposedly improve parking and
traffic flow. The new hub will feature around six thousand
parking spaces, plus indicated areas for shuttles and ride sharers,
with direct access off Disney Way. Concept art that's over
(21:07):
by the five Freeway. Concept art that I've seen hints
at a pedestrian bridge over Harbor Boulevard.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
That'd be nice.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Have you Have you ever seen that Harbor and Catella
that that intersection. Wow, there's a lot of families waiting
to get run over there. But now there will be
a you know, some kind of civilized bridge. How do
you like that? I went to Disneyland on Tuesday, actually
went on Thursday.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Also, what did I do? Yeah, I'm on Thursday and Tuesday.
I'm a grown up.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
But you know, every once in a while, it's it's
more friends that say Hey, you want to go, and
then I go with them. It's not like I'm just
like I got to go to do the live Little
Walk a Round.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
It's my Disneyland voice. All right, Oh, I got some.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Some sports news I don't usually have. This is a
new thing. It's a significant legal move in the sports world.
University of Wisconsin, the Badgers, that's where my niece just
graduated from, issuing University of Miami alleging that Miami, that
Miami University intentionally induced a star athlete to break breaches,
(22:26):
record breaking name image and likeness contracts and transfer to Miami,
costing the University of Wisconsin millions. Now, this is a
direct legal challenge to the burgeoning nil landscape, that's name, image,
and likeness. We've talked about this a little bit in
college sports. It goes down to high school too. It
suggests that institutions are willing to sue each other over
(22:48):
alleged poaching and contract interference in this new and lucrative
and often loosely regulated environment of name, image and likeness.
Deals are deals that allow amateur players to make money.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
You know, for a.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
While, it was like this is amateur sports and this
is professional sports. It was like it was illegal, like
you go to jail if you're making any money off
of your amateur sports career. But then as time went
on and people started realizing how many billions of dollars
are made by the universities with their football broadcasts, chiefly,
(23:28):
the tide turned and people said, well, I shouldn't the
students athletes make some money. But then it gets weird.
They're all making a lot of money.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I got.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
I mean, I see him around my town in Los Alamitos,
be some senior with a one hundred thousand dollars car
because they made a deal with them and they're going
to control for rights to his name, image and likeness.
They're going to give him money, and they're making commercials,
or they could promise to make commercials in the future.
(23:56):
And now they just got a whole lot more litigious
because people are saying saying, hey, they have these portals
where people can leave their school and go into a portal. Now,
if you convince somebody if someone has a contract with
one what's the legalities Someone has a contract with a name,
image and likeness deal attached to a school and they
breach it, you know there's going to be some contract
(24:19):
law will come in and say, okay, you breach something.
You know, it's not a crime to breach a contract,
but someone might have to be made whole. You can't
go to jail for breaching a contract. It's just a
civil case that would happen. And they would say, I
lost ten million dollars when you breach this contract because
I anticipated this, this, and this, I didn't draft other players,
I only drafted you, and now we were going to
(24:40):
make all this money. And now I'm not because you
breach the agreement, and which you can, but you have
to make me whole. So you have to pay some
kind of penalty to make me whole because you're obviously
leaving this contract because you think you're going to make
more money somewhere else. Okay, give me some of that money,
you know, and next time come to see me, and
maybe I'll just to let you go if you tell
(25:00):
me how much money you're gonna give me. But if
you leave, you know, people get mad. So the legal
theory that they usually use is something called a tortious
interference with contract, meaning you got a contract, someone interferes
(25:26):
to get you to breach it for their benefit. Okay,
that's a torte, a civil case tortious and they take
you to court and the jury deliberates and decides whether
you breach the contract, whether the person in question breached
the contract, and whether someone induced him to. Did someone
(25:47):
say hey, I will give you this if you breach
that contract, and then you got your damages. You got
to prove your damages basically, I mean it's more than
just saying, well, you promised them a million dollars, give
me that million dollars. Now you got you approve your
damages and you might get them.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
But now these are kids that are breaching these agreements.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Now, if a kid has a tantrum, he doesn't really
understand the legal ramifications. He talks to his lawyers, and
his lawyers say, yeah, you can go. Well, I mean,
we're gonna have to just defend this lawsuit, but yeah,
we got that. We'll make a few million dollars out
of that. You'll see it on your bill, and we'll
get you out of it. Yeah, it'll be ten million
in legal fees, but you'll be able to leave and
go play at the school that you want to play.
(26:36):
And the kid's gonna think, well, if I play at
this other school. I'm gonna get have a better career
going to protein. I'm gonna make hundreds of millions of dollars.
So ten million dollars in litigation costs, that's nothing. I
don't care. But are these kids really equipped to make
those decisions or you know, they're little league parents. There's
a question I don't have an answer to. All Right,
(26:58):
I got another lawsuit for you. I'm gonna blow your
mind today with this one. Well, maybe not. Maybe it's
kind of boring though. Okay, there's a couple of lawsuits
involving intellectual property that are in the news this week.
One of them is there's a small one and a
big one. Let's start with the small one. Okay, the
(27:20):
music publishers, a group of seventeen publishing companies. We're suing
X for copyright infringement because they said, we're not gonna
let you use our songs anymore unless you make a
new deal. And then they, you know, keep using them
and then they say, okay, it's copyright infringement, and then
(27:42):
they assue them. And now the judge has granted the
case in ninety days stay that means a pause so
they can work out a settlement, meaning they are talking
and probably gonna make a settlement, and then they will
create a new licensing agreement between the major music right
(28:04):
holders and the massive social media platform. The outcome could
set a precedent for how music is used and licensed
another social media platforms impacting revenue streams for artists and publishers.
And they are real and I kind of live off
them right now. So is Elon Musk finally ready to
settle this case? Or is this just a pause for
(28:25):
round two? We'll see, you know, they pause and try
to settle, and if they can, they do, and if
they can't, they go back to their corners and get
ready to continue the fight. But it's a rather expensive fight,
so they you know, they should set up anyway. Let's
take a break on and when I come back, I'm
going to tell you about this an AI case that
(28:49):
actually went before a judge and it's been a substantive
law has come out of this that will govern how
AI models are allowed to continue the training models. Can
they use copyrighted works in these training models? Well, we
have a case.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Joe'scalante live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Hello, this is John Crier from two and a half men,
and you're listening to Joe Escalante.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Joe Scalante, here's my lawyer. You don't want money.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Joe Scalante live from Hollywood, coming to you from the
X Games out here in Salt Lake City, And.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I got a case for you. Man.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
This is this is a good one. This is major landmark.
It will govern the creation of AI models for some
time to come. The if you're using AI, I usually
use mostly Google Gemini, but Chat, GBT or other ones.
(30:11):
You know, this kind of depends on what you're comfortable with.
What do I use them for everything? Okay, there's a
company called Anthropic AI, and we have a verdict. They
sued a group of authors sued Anthropic and it said
(30:33):
they copyrighted their books without permission. So here's what they're doing.
They have to train their AI robots to know stuff.
So they got to feed them everything. Like if I
come into my Google Gemini right now and say, hey,
what's the difference between the Tom Sawyer book and the
(30:54):
Huckleberry Finn book. Now it's going to go through, it's
gonna read it's already read them, or it's gonna read
them real fast. And then it's gonna tell me, it's
gonna give me an analysis. Okay, those books are in
the public domain. What if it says, what if I say, hey,
give me a comparison of the novelization of What's Upon
(31:16):
a Time in Hollywood and the Beastie Boys book. So
got to read both of them. Where does it get them?
Can it do that? And then it spits out an
answer to me, is it allowed to use those copywriting
materials to tell me an answer? What kind of world
do we want to live in? Is kind of how
(31:37):
I usually phrase these things. Do we want to live
in a world where the AI is allowed to do that?
Or do we want to say they can't? And so
the AI companies have to make a deal with every
single author on Earth, every single thing on Wikipedia, every
single thing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, every single thing in
(32:00):
the Harry Potter encyclopedia. I use Harry Potter because she's
in the news. I don't know if you heard about that.
There's a bookstore in San Francisco that has refused to
sell any more HK. Rowling books because of her stance
on transgenders or whatever. So that's in the news this week.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
Too.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
That's a brief digression. Should they be allowed to ban
her books a San Francisco bookstore? Is that illegal? No,
it's just book banning. Book banning is not illegal. So
they're banning books in San Francisco, perfectly legal. It's a
(32:42):
private company. They don't want to sell JK. Rowling books.
They don't have to, Okay, Anthropic, Where do they get
their books? Well, that's why we have a split decision
in this case, and it has to do with where
they got this stuff. Can they let's start with this one.
(33:06):
Can they use their books to train their AI models?
They argue that training on copyrighted material these authors did
without a license constituted unauthorized copying. So are they copying
or are they just reading? I guess they copy it
(33:26):
to go in one part of the computer to the
other or is it just reading.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Well, the judge said.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
That anthropics use of copyrighted books to train its large
language models LMS, that's what they are, does qualify as
a fair use under the US copyright law. Okay, before
we do this, I want to give you a little
brief recap on the fair use doctor, because we have
(33:54):
talked to that many times. But you know, there's four
major prongs, and we got to keep them in mind.
This is the fair use doctrine. People are always coming
to me and say, I can do this because it's
a fair use. I can do that. It's a fair use. Oh,
I can do a parody. It's a parody, So I
can do whatever I want. That's not true and fitting.
But if you do qualify for the fair use doctrine,
(34:16):
you can use other people's copyrighted work. You don't have
to give them credit, you don't have to pay them
any money, and you don't need their permission. Okay, So
that's the holy grail where people want to get to
so they can use all this stuff and make mashups
and derivative works, et cetera. It's not that easy to
get there. To get there, you have to satisfy these
prongs or you just have to be You're going to
(34:40):
be judged on whether you've satisfied any of those prongs,
or some of those prongs, or all of those prongs.
Here are the prongs. The number one prong when trying
if you're trying to take something and use parts of
it for some other project without paying or getting permission.
This is what the courts will look at when you
get sued. The look at the nature, the purpose and
(35:04):
character of the work, like the why and how. They
tend to favor things that are transformative. Remember that word
transformative meaning the new work adds new meaning, expression, or
a message to the original, like criticism. If you have criticism,
they're transforming the work into criticism of the work, commentary,
(35:28):
news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or parody. Now that's when parody
comes in. If Weird Al Yankovic takes a song and
changes the lyrics and makes it funny, how transformative is that?
I think you could argue with it. All it's doing
is transforming it. It's not transforming it at all. Really,
(35:51):
it's just changing the words. So that's a derivative work.
You got to get permission. Now, what if you take
a song and mock that song with some other words
that that don't just mock something else like oh I'm fat,
or like a surgeon like weird A Yankovic songs. But
what if you mocked a song by saying, okay, this
(36:13):
song by Taylor Swift, shake it off. If you change
the words, I'm gonna be really bad now because I'm
making this up at the top of my head, and
you said fake it off, okay, fake it off, and
then you went through and criticize this song as being
a fake pop song. It's not really good. It's fake.
It has no value, and she knows it and she's pretending,
(36:34):
so she's gonna fake it off. Okay, Now you're making
fun of the you're doing it, and I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
I think it's it's an amazing song.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
But but if that was your position, you could record that,
you could use her work, and I think you may
have a good chance of prevailing in court saying, look,
I have a right to comment on this song, and
the best way to comment on the song. The way
I do it is I have to steal from the song.
I have to use parts of the song.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
The second prong the nature of the copyrighted work. Is
it facts? If it's factual, Generally, courts are more likely
to consider fair use. If it's highly creative, fictional or imaginative,
very low chance of getting a fair use, And if
it's unpublished, forget it.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Number three the amount that you use and substantiality did
you have to use the whole song. Well maybe it
did because you had a beginning, middle, and an end
and the effect of what you did on the original work,
did it ruin the market for it?
Speaker 3 (37:35):
That kind of thing. Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
So anyways, in this AI course case, it said that, okay,
this is the crux of the whole case.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Then I'll let you go.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
By copying books and putting them in this AI model.
It's a transformative use, okay, because it trained. These AI
models are trained upon works, not to race ahead and
replicate them or supplant them, like ruining the market for them,
but they are there to create something new and different
out of them otherwise. So it's a machine to create
(38:08):
transformative work. So she said, you can do that, But
where do they get these books? They got them from
pirated libraries, a lot of them. They just they like
these people that are putting them in. They go, where
are we going to get the books to put in
this thing? Oh, here's a website that steals books and
puts them up online and they use that. Okay, you can't.
So the court said, you can't use that. You can
(38:29):
do it, but you can't get them from pirated sites
because then that's not fair. So I think what the
court is trying to say is is if you're going
to do these models, you got to buy the books. Okay,
you pay for them, or you get a license for them,
and then it's legal, or you can because you can
buy a book and then you can do whatever you
want with it, like at first use kind of a doctrine.
But so just go ahead and do this. Don't steal
(38:52):
the books. So that's the law now, and that's the show.
Joe's Goance live from Hollywood, Hollywood can be Burbank. And
I now leave you with just the taste of the
greatest song ever written.
And now it's time for Joe Escalante live from Hollywood,
if by Hollywood you mean Burbank across the street from
a Wienerschnitzel that serves beer.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Good Evening, America. We're coming to you this week from Utah,
Salt Lake City's X Games taking place here, and I'm
here traveling with the band Sublime, of course, and you
are in for two hours of the business end of
show business as usual right here on KEIB eleven fifty
on your AM dial. You can also hear us all
over the world live on your iHeartRadio app. And to
(00:41):
get the podcast, just search my name and whatever podcast
thing you use and you'll find it a couple hour
hours after we finish here. Let's go to the movies
this week. I've got my prediction for the top five
movies of the weekend. I say will be number one
(01:01):
and How to Train Your Dragon, followed by Megan two
point zero twenty eight years later and Elio from Disney Pixar,
which didn't do very well that last week, so that's
kind of a problem for Disney and Pixar, but you
know they're used to it, right. What do you need
to know about Formula one? The movie f one. Are
(01:23):
you gonna go see it? I'm gonna go see it.
It's an Apple original, so Apple movie. When Apple does anything,
they just pour money into it. They don't care about
the budget, they just don't care. So it hit the theaters
this weekend. Earlier, it debuted in Europe. And this movie
(01:44):
comes from a powerhouse team directed by Joseph Kazinski who
brought us Top Gun Maverick, so you know it's gonna
be the visuals are going to be good. And it's
produced by Jerry Bruckhimer. He's a legend in action films.
And you have a kind of a significant layer of
authenticity with seven time Formula one world champion Lewis Hamilton
(02:08):
also as a producer on the film. He got Brad
Pitt playing a guy named Sonny Hayes who sits around
making up these names that one seems recycled. So he's
a former Formula one driver from the nineteen nineties whose
career was cut short by an accident. Okay, Then you
got Damson Idris as Joshua Pears, a hot shot rookie driver,
(02:31):
and the film explores the dynamic between a veteran trying
to make a comeback and a rising star as they
team up for a struggling fictional Formula One team called APXGP.
And we also got Javier Bardam in the cast and
Carrie Condon. But what sets this movie apart, most people
are saying, is their commitment to realism. But have we
(02:53):
heard that before?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Maybe much of the action was actually filmed during a
real Grand Prix or many Grand Prix weekends throughout the
twenty three to twenty four Formula one seasons. Brad Pitt
even drove a modified Formula two car on real tracks
to capture that authentic racing feel. And they worked very
(03:15):
closely with the Formula one organization to achieve an unprecedented
level of access and authenticity, they say. And Formula one
it was revived by a Netflix series, That's what I understand.
Like it was struggling Netflix series and then it got huge.
Then my brother in law bought it. Oh sorry, my stepbrother.
(03:37):
It's a long story, okay, So the story that's a
story here. You know, I told the other story. So
it's kind of like an underdog and redemption story set
against a high stakes world of Formula One. You get it.
You've seen it before, not just another racing movie. Perhaps
(04:00):
if it redelivers on this real world, real life stuff,
you gotta go see it in the IMAX, right or
the XD at Cinema, Cinema Belitaria.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
You gotta.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, I don't want to see you watching it on
your phone, so I'll probably be doing that, I'm gonna
say tomorrow. You know, everybody I talk to, like except
for like, you know, my closest friends or guys in
my band or people I work with, everything starts off.
(04:33):
Every conversation nowadays starts off with something like or ends
or somewhere they have to inject like wow these times, Wow,
everything is so I mean, you know, everything's so crazy
or chaotic or oh everybody's suffering. And I don't know,
just like, is anything worse than it's ever been? Hasn't
(04:56):
it always been like this? I think the only thing
different is the the media's ability to wind us up
and get us to click on things or watch news
on TV or Instagram or whatever. Or people are winding
us up with their posts about how wound up they are.
(05:17):
But I really don't think the world is different. And
thank god we have entertainment and for now entertainment seems
to be doing pretty good.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
The box office is civil.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
I mean, it's okay, live music thriving, t shirts based
on live music thriving.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
People always people trying to bring me down? Are they
trying to do that to you? It's got a little
like they say some little speech and they look at
you like you hate Donald Trump, don't you? I mean
that's how I'm getting from. Like everybody like, hey, you
want to join this conversation. I'm like, I don't want
to join any conversation. Hey, how about those bombs in Iran?
(06:03):
And I'm like, guess what. Guess what, mister trying to
convers have a conversation with me, and people just straight
up ask me, what's your opinion on that? Here's my opinion.
I'll tell it to you. I don't have enough information
to know whether dropping bombs on Iran is a great
idea or the worst idea in the world. And if
(06:24):
you have that information, wow, good for you. I don't
have it.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I can't get it.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Because the news just tells you whatever they think you
want to hear or whatever they want to tell you.
It doesn't matter what side you're on. They don't. There's
probably about eight people in the world that know whether
that was the right decision or the wrong decision, but
probably about eight everyone else is shut out. No one's
(06:51):
getting the info. If you think you have all the info,
many congratulations. I don't have it, so I don't know,
so I don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I guess, you know.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
When people ask me about this kind of stuff, I
like to say, I'm just worried about who's going to
be our next pope. And now we have Pope Leo
from Chicago, first American pope. Of course, the jury is
still out what kind of a pope will he be?
But I have high hopes for him, and I'm always
positive about the new pope. So this pope, he comforts
(07:24):
me somewhat. I don't have to worry about the other stuff.
But wow, here's a good one. I'm speaking of media.
President Trump is indicated an intent to pursue legal action
against CNN and The New York Times. The basis for
this threatened litigation stems from these outlets reporting regarding the
recent US military strikes and I RAN's nuclear program. President
(07:51):
Trump stated that these strikes had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. However,
both CNN and The New York Times published information reportedly
from a preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the
strikes resulted in a setback of only a few months.
(08:11):
Trump's Legal council has formally notified The New York Times,
meaning they wrote a letter demanding a retraction of its
reporting and an apology. It's so funny because he knows
they're not going to retract or apologize, but he does
it anyway. It's kind of like if you're his wife,
he'd be like, oh, darling, don't do that. Don't do that.
Just dunted them, don't do that. I'm going to do it,
(08:32):
So he did it. The communication characterized the reporting as
defamatory and unpatriotic. Additionally, President Trump publicly requested that CNN
terminate the reporter responsible for the breaking the story, Natasha
Bertrand obviously a Russian spy. Of her name's Natasha right.
Both CNN and The New York Times have issued statements
(08:53):
affirming their reporting and expressing support for their journalists. Defense
Secretary Pete hegsith what I bardied with true story. I
acknowledged the existence of the preliminary intelligence report. So he said, yeah,
we have a there's a report, but he didn't say
(09:15):
it was in it. So do you know, do I know,
I'm back to the same thing. I don't know was it,
did it obliterate the stuff or not? I don't know
who knows. All I know is CNN is running around
trying to find as many stories as they can to
make the president look bad. And then other people on
(09:36):
YouTube are running around trying to find any story that
makes President Trump look good.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
So what can you do?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
All right, I'll continue with this after the traffic Joe
Escalante Live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Hello, this is Crispinglover dot com and you're listening to
Joe Escalante.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
We are back Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood by Hollywood
and Member Bank. Okay, now we just we're talking about
President Trump threatening some kind of litigation against the New
York Times and CNN for being the New York Times
(10:15):
and being CNN.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
There's obviously something more to this, and some might say,
and a cynical person would say, well, this is pretty
bad because it chills the free speech and these news
outlets have a right to report on whatever they find
and if they are, do they have a right to
mischaracterize it. Well, they have a right to make their
(10:38):
opinions known. So a cynical person would say that's this
is chilling free speech. So he shouldn't do it. Like
I said before, his wife after right before, he was
about to do this, or go dialing, don't do that.
Don't do that dialing. Just don't just leave it alone.
You can't tell them how to think. Everybody knows CNN
and New York Times hate you, and they come to
sit by things. How about you, But you don't.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I don't have to play their game. Don't don't sink
to the level. Honey.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
That's what goes on behind closed doors. And this is
the only show that will that will tell you this.
I tell you the truth. So okay, legally, can he
do this threatened litigation? I mean he wins these things.
Sometimes I would say no, but then he's suing these
(11:24):
people like and he's getting settlements out of these news organizations,
and so he's what he's doing is he's softening them up.
He's making them be a little more careful because when
you go and you know, I've worked for Fox News before,
and you know, if they get sued for something or
they get a lot of grief for something, it sticks
with them. And then when I make my TV shows
(11:47):
sometimes I run across it and I get pushback on
something something that's silly. But they got sued once, so
there was an embarrassment one. So they tell me, hey,
you can't say that. Don't say this, and don't say that,
And I'm like, I have a legal right to say.
We all have a legal right to say this. Yeah,
but you know, or they'll or sometimes they ask they
(12:08):
would ask me my legal opinion, Hey Joe, do you
think something will have if we say this about this
guy that saw the monster? And I'm talking about monsters
and aliens, so it's not that big a deal. But
they might say to me, hey, Joe, if we show
this guy's gravestone, could be something like that. If we
show this guy's gravestone, I mean, can we can? We
(12:30):
can we show it his name and stuff? And I'm like, Yeah,
what are you talking about? Why are you asking me
that opinion? Shouldn't you know? Now they're asking me as
a lawyer, I could say, yeah, this is totally legal
to show somebody's gravestone in a story we're talking about.
The worst thing that's going to happen is someone might
go on Facebook and say, how dare you exploit that
person's death? You know, and then you might get yeah,
(12:52):
that's what I'm talking about, don't do it. So this
kind of stuff where the president is, it's going after him,
you know, I think it does kind of do something
where it creates a headache in the newsroom, one more
headache for them, so they're gonna think twice, be a
little gun shy, and maybe just maybe they might want
(13:16):
to report objectively instead of one of the time trying
to find a way to make him look bad. So
that's a reality. He can't do anything about it, but
he could soften him up a little bit. I think
that's what he might be doing. And he's kind of
bulletproof because people are gonna make fun of him, of course,
(13:36):
because I mean, these people have a first AMENMA right
to do this stuff. If they are lying, then there
would be like and if it's lying in a way
that would hurt the military, then it would be maybe
the Sedition Act or something they could be accused of
being a trader or for an agent trying to because
(13:59):
if you you were a foreign agent and you wanted
to hurt the US. You might have infiltrators in the
media making reports that tell the American citizens that all
is lost. Your leader is a buffoon. And he came
on TV and said he obliterated something, and you want
(14:20):
to tell the people that he didn't. Now, if they
have evidence of that, then they could go that route.
But if it's just, hey, we hate Trump. So this
is our spin on it. And we found a guy
that said this, and so here's what the guy said.
He said, it might only be a couple months setback.
They're allowed to do that.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
So it's a.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Hard one to win, But I don't know, maybe you
get a settlement. Also, here's another thing that happens. What's
CNN doing. It'll look at their business background or what's
going on in the big picture of CNN and Los
Angeles Times Los Angeles Times. You know, maybe they're trying
to merge with someone and they're going to be needing
federal approval from the FTC or the Department of Justice
(15:02):
or whoever in charge of the antitrust department. To prevent monopolies.
They got to get some government approval for certain things.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
They do.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
And if you push back on these things and say
I hate these things, you're hurting the administration, and you
want favors out of the administration, it might pay to
bring it to their attention that we want to sue
you over this. We're not just complaining, We're going to
take you to court. Then they might behave better because
they need favors from the government. I don't know what's
going on over if there's anything like that going on
(15:33):
over at the La Times, but there certainly is something
going on like that at CNN because CNN is part
of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers is part of Discovery.
So Discovery wants to spin off this one all their
cale their invaluable cable channels, and then keep HBO somewhere else.
(15:58):
You know, they're trying to re structure their business and
they might need government approval for some.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
One of the things they want to do. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
So they might be scared of him, So if you
say that, then they might just soften up and just
go easy on me. Guys, go easy. But could he
go into a court and win this argument. No, I
don't think so, unless he has proof that there is
like a spy, and that they're actually working for a
(16:29):
foreign government and they're trying to bring down the United States.
Otherwise there's no way to win this. And I'm not
saying they're not trying to bring down the United States.
They could be, but they that could be any proof anywhere.
But he doesn't care. He's just playing his game. They're
playing a game against him, He's playing a game against them.
(16:54):
On Thursday, I was sitting at the Beach House restaurant
Seal Beach, and I look up the TV and it's
all kinds of P Diddy news going on.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
So what happened with P Diddy this week?
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Well, they wrapped up things, say, they wrapped up The
defense wrapped up their case and uh, prosecutors already wrapped
their case. So now it goes to the journey. So
we'll see what happens. That'll it's going to be a while.
(17:27):
I think, what do you think will happen to Diddy?
I think he could I think a hard time getting
a conviction out of it. It won't be automatic, but sometimes,
I mean, I think of all things were equal, but
sometimes if the the tipping point comes where people just
(17:49):
hate this guy, they're not afraid of him, and they
just have already said he's bad. He's bad, he's bad,
he's bad. There's nothing that you can do. But if
you just looked at the elements of the crime and said,
did the prosecutor prove these beyond a reasonable doubt? It
starts to get crazy, Like, I don't know if you
(18:12):
can do that. Can you prove the existence of an
enterprise that he used to facilitate and cover up his
criminal activities? That means he has to you know, there
had to be like a board of directors or other
employees they were helping him do this. That's hard and
(18:38):
I don't know if he can and a pattern of
racketeering activity. They have to prove that Combs agreed to
participate in an enterprise in the enterprise affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity. This means proving he or members
of the enterprise committed at least two predicate acts of
specific illegal activities. So at least two to do sex trafficking,
(19:03):
forced labor, kidnapping, arts and bribery, drug distribution, obstruction of justice.
So if you can put two of those together, I
guess you got some racketeering and there has to be
these agreements. You have to prove that they agreed to
do this, Like what if they just you know, people
did it and then they if they did it because
they were afraid of Diddy and they followed his instructions.
(19:24):
You know, is that different than agreeing than someone coming
up to Diddy and saying, I agree, this is a
good idea to traffic With these people, it's different anyway,
we'll see, jury will be out.
Speaker 3 (19:38):
But sometimes they don't care.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
They don't follow the law or anything. They just said
we hate the guy. Anybody, I dare anybody here to
vote not guilty, And then you get kind of stuff
like that. All right, Joe Scalante live from Hollywood. Stick
a break, We'll come. Oh, all air breathers, this is
SpongeBob square Pants and you are filling your ear holes
with Joe Escalante.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Joe Escalante live from Hollywood. We are back.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
Okay, KiB eleven fifty on your AM dial here in
the fine state of Utah, coming to you as we
do from remote locations every now and then. So, what's
going on in the Disney World, Disneyland specifically, because this
(20:23):
is a show about southern California. First, and foremost big
news for parkgoers in anahuh. Just in the last couple
of days, Disneyland has announced plans for a brand new
transportation hub on the east side of the resort. This
is like you know, Harbor Area. It's a massive project.
(20:46):
It's part of this larger Disneyland Forward expansion they keep
talking about, and it's designed to supposedly improve parking and
traffic flow. The new hub will feature around six thousand
parking spaces, plus indicated areas for shuttles and ride sharers,
with direct access off Disney Way. Concept art that's over
(21:07):
by the five Freeway. Concept art that I've seen hints
at a pedestrian bridge over Harbor Boulevard.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
That'd be nice.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Have you Have you ever seen that Harbor and Catella
that that intersection. Wow, there's a lot of families waiting
to get run over there. But now there will be
a you know, some kind of civilized bridge. How do
you like that? I went to Disneyland on Tuesday, actually
went on Thursday.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Also, what did I do? Yeah, I'm on Thursday and Tuesday.
I'm a grown up.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
But you know, every once in a while, it's it's
more friends that say Hey, you want to go, and
then I go with them. It's not like I'm just
like I got to go to do the live Little
Walk a Round.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
It's my Disneyland voice. All right, Oh, I got some.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Some sports news I don't usually have. This is a
new thing. It's a significant legal move in the sports world.
University of Wisconsin, the Badgers, that's where my niece just
graduated from, issuing University of Miami alleging that Miami, that
Miami University intentionally induced a star athlete to break breaches,
(22:26):
record breaking name image and likeness contracts and transfer to Miami,
costing the University of Wisconsin millions. Now, this is a
direct legal challenge to the burgeoning nil landscape, that's name, image,
and likeness. We've talked about this a little bit in
college sports. It goes down to high school too. It
suggests that institutions are willing to sue each other over
(22:48):
alleged poaching and contract interference in this new and lucrative
and often loosely regulated environment of name, image and likeness.
Deals are deals that allow amateur players to make money.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
You know, for a.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
While, it was like this is amateur sports and this
is professional sports. It was like it was illegal, like
you go to jail if you're making any money off
of your amateur sports career. But then as time went
on and people started realizing how many billions of dollars
are made by the universities with their football broadcasts, chiefly,
(23:28):
the tide turned and people said, well, I shouldn't the
students athletes make some money. But then it gets weird.
They're all making a lot of money.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I got.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
I mean, I see him around my town in Los Alamitos,
be some senior with a one hundred thousand dollars car
because they made a deal with them and they're going
to control for rights to his name, image and likeness.
They're going to give him money, and they're making commercials,
or they could promise to make commercials in the future.
(23:56):
And now they just got a whole lot more litigious
because people are saying saying, hey, they have these portals
where people can leave their school and go into a portal. Now,
if you convince somebody if someone has a contract with
one what's the legalities Someone has a contract with a name,
image and likeness deal attached to a school and they
breach it, you know there's going to be some contract
(24:19):
law will come in and say, okay, you breach something.
You know, it's not a crime to breach a contract,
but someone might have to be made whole. You can't
go to jail for breaching a contract. It's just a
civil case that would happen. And they would say, I
lost ten million dollars when you breach this contract because
I anticipated this, this, and this, I didn't draft other players,
I only drafted you, and now we were going to
(24:40):
make all this money. And now I'm not because you
breach the agreement, and which you can, but you have
to make me whole. So you have to pay some
kind of penalty to make me whole because you're obviously
leaving this contract because you think you're going to make
more money somewhere else. Okay, give me some of that money,
you know, and next time come to see me, and
maybe I'll just to let you go if you tell
(25:00):
me how much money you're gonna give me. But if
you leave, you know, people get mad. So the legal
theory that they usually use is something called a tortious
interference with contract, meaning you got a contract, someone interferes
(25:26):
to get you to breach it for their benefit. Okay,
that's a torte, a civil case tortious and they take
you to court and the jury deliberates and decides whether
you breach the contract, whether the person in question breached
the contract, and whether someone induced him to. Did someone
(25:47):
say hey, I will give you this if you breach
that contract, and then you got your damages. You got
to prove your damages basically, I mean it's more than
just saying, well, you promised them a million dollars, give
me that million dollars. Now you got you approve your
damages and you might get them.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
But now these are kids that are breaching these agreements.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Now, if a kid has a tantrum, he doesn't really
understand the legal ramifications. He talks to his lawyers, and
his lawyers say, yeah, you can go. Well, I mean,
we're gonna have to just defend this lawsuit, but yeah,
we got that. We'll make a few million dollars out
of that. You'll see it on your bill, and we'll
get you out of it. Yeah, it'll be ten million
in legal fees, but you'll be able to leave and
go play at the school that you want to play.
(26:36):
And the kid's gonna think, well, if I play at
this other school. I'm gonna get have a better career
going to protein. I'm gonna make hundreds of millions of dollars.
So ten million dollars in litigation costs, that's nothing. I
don't care. But are these kids really equipped to make
those decisions or you know, they're little league parents. There's
a question I don't have an answer to. All Right,
(26:58):
I got another lawsuit for you. I'm gonna blow your
mind today with this one. Well, maybe not. Maybe it's
kind of boring though. Okay, there's a couple of lawsuits
involving intellectual property that are in the news this week.
One of them is there's a small one and a
big one. Let's start with the small one. Okay, the
(27:20):
music publishers, a group of seventeen publishing companies. We're suing
X for copyright infringement because they said, we're not gonna
let you use our songs anymore unless you make a
new deal. And then they, you know, keep using them
and then they say, okay, it's copyright infringement, and then
(27:42):
they assue them. And now the judge has granted the
case in ninety days stay that means a pause so
they can work out a settlement, meaning they are talking
and probably gonna make a settlement, and then they will
create a new licensing agreement between the major music right
(28:04):
holders and the massive social media platform. The outcome could
set a precedent for how music is used and licensed
another social media platforms impacting revenue streams for artists and publishers.
And they are real and I kind of live off
them right now. So is Elon Musk finally ready to
settle this case? Or is this just a pause for
(28:25):
round two? We'll see, you know, they pause and try
to settle, and if they can, they do, and if
they can't, they go back to their corners and get
ready to continue the fight. But it's a rather expensive fight,
so they you know, they should set up anyway. Let's
take a break on and when I come back, I'm
going to tell you about this an AI case that
(28:49):
actually went before a judge and it's been a substantive
law has come out of this that will govern how
AI models are allowed to continue the training models. Can
they use copyrighted works in these training models? Well, we
have a case.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Joe'scalante live from Hollywood.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Hello, this is John Crier from two and a half men,
and you're listening to Joe Escalante.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Joe Scalante, here's my lawyer. You don't want money.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Joe Scalante live from Hollywood, coming to you from the
X Games out here in Salt Lake City, And.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I got a case for you. Man.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
This is this is a good one. This is major landmark.
It will govern the creation of AI models for some
time to come. The if you're using AI, I usually
use mostly Google Gemini, but Chat, GBT or other ones.
(30:11):
You know, this kind of depends on what you're comfortable with.
What do I use them for everything? Okay, there's a
company called Anthropic AI, and we have a verdict. They
sued a group of authors sued Anthropic and it said
(30:33):
they copyrighted their books without permission. So here's what they're doing.
They have to train their AI robots to know stuff.
So they got to feed them everything. Like if I
come into my Google Gemini right now and say, hey,
what's the difference between the Tom Sawyer book and the
(30:54):
Huckleberry Finn book. Now it's going to go through, it's
gonna read it's already read them, or it's gonna read
them real fast. And then it's gonna tell me, it's
gonna give me an analysis. Okay, those books are in
the public domain. What if it says, what if I say, hey,
give me a comparison of the novelization of What's Upon
(31:16):
a Time in Hollywood and the Beastie Boys book. So
got to read both of them. Where does it get them?
Can it do that? And then it spits out an
answer to me, is it allowed to use those copywriting
materials to tell me an answer? What kind of world
do we want to live in? Is kind of how
(31:37):
I usually phrase these things. Do we want to live
in a world where the AI is allowed to do that?
Or do we want to say they can't? And so
the AI companies have to make a deal with every
single author on Earth, every single thing on Wikipedia, every
single thing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, every single thing in
(32:00):
the Harry Potter encyclopedia. I use Harry Potter because she's
in the news. I don't know if you heard about that.
There's a bookstore in San Francisco that has refused to
sell any more HK. Rowling books because of her stance
on transgenders or whatever. So that's in the news this week.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
Too.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
That's a brief digression. Should they be allowed to ban
her books a San Francisco bookstore? Is that illegal? No,
it's just book banning. Book banning is not illegal. So
they're banning books in San Francisco, perfectly legal. It's a
(32:42):
private company. They don't want to sell JK. Rowling books.
They don't have to, Okay, Anthropic, Where do they get
their books? Well, that's why we have a split decision
in this case, and it has to do with where
they got this stuff. Can they let's start with this one.
(33:06):
Can they use their books to train their AI models?
They argue that training on copyrighted material these authors did
without a license constituted unauthorized copying. So are they copying
or are they just reading? I guess they copy it
(33:26):
to go in one part of the computer to the
other or is it just reading.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Well, the judge said.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
That anthropics use of copyrighted books to train its large
language models LMS, that's what they are, does qualify as
a fair use under the US copyright law. Okay, before
we do this, I want to give you a little
brief recap on the fair use doctor, because we have
(33:54):
talked to that many times. But you know, there's four
major prongs, and we got to keep them in mind.
This is the fair use doctrine. People are always coming
to me and say, I can do this because it's
a fair use. I can do that. It's a fair use. Oh,
I can do a parody. It's a parody, So I
can do whatever I want. That's not true and fitting.
But if you do qualify for the fair use doctrine,
(34:16):
you can use other people's copyrighted work. You don't have
to give them credit, you don't have to pay them
any money, and you don't need their permission. Okay, So
that's the holy grail where people want to get to
so they can use all this stuff and make mashups
and derivative works, et cetera. It's not that easy to
get there. To get there, you have to satisfy these
prongs or you just have to be You're going to
(34:40):
be judged on whether you've satisfied any of those prongs,
or some of those prongs, or all of those prongs.
Here are the prongs. The number one prong when trying
if you're trying to take something and use parts of
it for some other project without paying or getting permission.
This is what the courts will look at when you
get sued. The look at the nature, the purpose and
(35:04):
character of the work, like the why and how. They
tend to favor things that are transformative. Remember that word
transformative meaning the new work adds new meaning, expression, or
a message to the original, like criticism. If you have criticism,
they're transforming the work into criticism of the work, commentary,
(35:28):
news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or parody. Now that's when parody
comes in. If Weird Al Yankovic takes a song and
changes the lyrics and makes it funny, how transformative is that?
I think you could argue with it. All it's doing
is transforming it. It's not transforming it at all. Really,
(35:51):
it's just changing the words. So that's a derivative work.
You got to get permission. Now, what if you take
a song and mock that song with some other words
that that don't just mock something else like oh I'm fat,
or like a surgeon like weird A Yankovic songs. But
what if you mocked a song by saying, okay, this
(36:13):
song by Taylor Swift, shake it off. If you change
the words, I'm gonna be really bad now because I'm
making this up at the top of my head, and
you said fake it off, okay, fake it off, and
then you went through and criticize this song as being
a fake pop song. It's not really good. It's fake.
It has no value, and she knows it and she's pretending,
(36:34):
so she's gonna fake it off. Okay, Now you're making
fun of the you're doing it, and I don't believe that.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
I think it's it's an amazing song.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
But but if that was your position, you could record that,
you could use her work, and I think you may
have a good chance of prevailing in court saying, look,
I have a right to comment on this song, and
the best way to comment on the song. The way
I do it is I have to steal from the song.
I have to use parts of the song.
Speaker 3 (37:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
The second prong the nature of the copyrighted work. Is
it facts? If it's factual, Generally, courts are more likely
to consider fair use. If it's highly creative, fictional or imaginative,
very low chance of getting a fair use, And if
it's unpublished, forget it.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Number three the amount that you use and substantiality did
you have to use the whole song. Well maybe it
did because you had a beginning, middle, and an end
and the effect of what you did on the original work,
did it ruin the market for it?
Speaker 3 (37:35):
That kind of thing. Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
So anyways, in this AI course case, it said that, okay,
this is the crux of the whole case.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Then I'll let you go.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
By copying books and putting them in this AI model.
It's a transformative use, okay, because it trained. These AI
models are trained upon works, not to race ahead and
replicate them or supplant them, like ruining the market for them,
but they are there to create something new and different
out of them otherwise. So it's a machine to create
(38:08):
transformative work. So she said, you can do that, But
where do they get these books? They got them from
pirated libraries, a lot of them. They just they like
these people that are putting them in. They go, where
are we going to get the books to put in
this thing? Oh, here's a website that steals books and
puts them up online and they use that. Okay, you can't.
So the court said, you can't use that. You can
(38:29):
do it, but you can't get them from pirated sites
because then that's not fair. So I think what the
court is trying to say is is if you're going
to do these models, you got to buy the books. Okay,
you pay for them, or you get a license for them,
and then it's legal, or you can because you can
buy a book and then you can do whatever you
want with it, like at first use kind of a doctrine.
But so just go ahead and do this. Don't steal
(38:52):
the books. So that's the law now, and that's the show.
Joe's Goance live from Hollywood, Hollywood can be Burbank. And
I now leave you with just the taste of the
greatest song ever written.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.