1 00:00:00,017 --> 00:00:07,747 It's entertainment law update. Episode number 154 for February 2023. 2 00:00:07,600 --> 00:00:13,360 Music. 3 00:00:13,830 --> 00:00:19,234 Hello and welcome to entertainment law update. I'm Gordon Firemark from Los Angeles, California. 4 00:00:19,609 --> 00:00:28,750 Hey and from the Dallas Fort Worth Texas area I'm Tamara Bennett thank you so much for joining us for this episode this is as you know our podcast about entertainment law, 5 00:00:28,846 --> 00:00:39,381 Or each month we pull together a round up of legal and business news stories and share our opinions and commentary and analysis and and have a good time to. 6 00:00:39,694 --> 00:00:46,214 Oh 7 00:00:46,355 --> 00:00:59,222 Well, I have the air conditioner on. That's my update. Oh, it's 90°. 90° in Texas yesterday and, 8 00:00:59,228 --> 00:01:10,493 Well, that's interesting here in California. We are experiencing cold. It is not expected to go above about 45° today in my hometown here, 9 00:01:10,535 --> 00:01:13,104 Which is pretty unusual for this time of year so. 10 00:01:13,533 --> 00:01:27,057 Yes I think we will be back to more normal average starting today I I'm in my upstairs office slash studio slash. 11 00:01:27,586 --> 00:01:28,552 Wow, 12 00:01:28,594 --> 00:01:40,525 It is really hot about 13 00:01:40,342 --> 00:01:50,229 Brother-in-law and sister-in-law come in to stay with us for the for the a few days so, 14 00:01:50,298 --> 00:02:00,195 My world on the on the home front and then just you know works kinda been work it's it's I can't believe we're recording this on February 22 so, 15 00:02:00,300 --> 00:02:04,912 Gosh does that mean we're already a good 6 weeks into. 16 00:02:05,044 --> 00:02:16,345 It's 46 weeks. 17 00:02:16,531 --> 00:02:22,727 Client service work done in that amount of time 18 00:02:22,598 --> 00:02:34,466 Took me I I think I'm I mentioned I've been in three states in the last 4 or 5 days so you know a trip to Kentucky and a trip to Tennessee for some family matters and which were. 19 00:02:35,049 --> 00:02:43,649 Wish for great fun, 20 00:02:43,718 --> 00:02:52,633 Yeah, you know you're in trouble when you get to that point where you're looking forward to going back to work 21 00:02:52,513 --> 00:03:02,445 I I do thrive on my routine but I I love that are routine is that once a month we get together we we get to chat and get to go over these cases and. 22 00:03:02,587 --> 00:03:07,937 Well, let's get started. Open him. 23 00:03:08,249 --> 00:03:17,272 Please believe it. Hey, I've known gosh, 24 00:03:17,314 --> 00:03:27,544 Does some music and entertainment law anyway I talked to him a couple of weeks ago and he was just sharing with me 25 00:03:27,361 --> 00:03:37,311 I was like, hey, so, alright, Lou, I don't know what you're cooking tonight, but I hope it's tasty. 26 00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:47,016 Didn't see you. He doesn't go to sleep. So, I thought that was the ultimate endorsement, 27 00:03:47,031 --> 00:03:58,701 Maybe we should revisit our CLE strategy for the the show which you know in our first season or two we were doing CLE offering CLA and we didn't have a lot of takers but 28 00:03:58,590 --> 00:04:07,136 Maybe things have changed in the last. 29 00:04:07,421 --> 00:04:17,659 Sometimes makes it easy and sometimes makes it hard but but we'll talk about it hey so just to say you can always claim us for your independent study that's right, 30 00:04:17,683 --> 00:04:21,818 That's right. Alright. Well, let us get started with our show for this, 31 00:04:21,878 --> 00:04:30,929 This month we have a couple of, 32 00:04:30,998 --> 00:04:33,341 Said earlier before the show you said. 33 00:04:33,464 --> 00:04:48,051 Yeah we're probably gonna be talking about AI every every episode this year. I think you probably write about that. So, 34 00:04:48,129 --> 00:04:50,959 Graphic illustrated novel, 35 00:04:51,037 --> 00:05:05,065 Zaria of the dawn by chris crash to note, 36 00:05:05,107 --> 00:05:14,311 Still waiting on the USCO to respond but they've allegedly informed council that it's an error in the new system and may not actually be cancelled, 37 00:05:14,389 --> 00:05:21,891 And listener of the show Franklin Graves and a few other people on Twitter. 38 00:05:22,275 --> 00:05:36,528 Cover it office. 39 00:05:36,786 --> 00:05:45,584 And. 40 00:05:46,248 --> 00:05:54,209 No, I'm a human generated work and what's the threshold of human involvement in order to have a copyright? So, could be an interesting. 41 00:05:54,332 --> 00:05:58,908 You're watching this check out, 42 00:05:59,022 --> 00:06:12,465 As soon as we finish this episode. Yeah, this afternoon. We won't. 43 00:06:12,660 --> 00:06:20,495 The Supreme Court is expected to hear a rid of the case of Thailand versus Vidal. 44 00:06:20,771 --> 00:06:27,517 Where the plaintiff had developed an AI capable of creating patentable inventions. 45 00:06:27,730 --> 00:06:35,358 The system is known as Dave's device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified science. 46 00:06:36,435 --> 00:06:42,308 Hey what do you call it? An acronym for the sake of acronyms. I don't know what it is. 47 00:06:42,620 --> 00:06:56,405 Anyway, back in 2019, Taylor had issued various patent applications listing debuts as the inventor and disclosing that it was an artificial intelligence. He then assigned the rights to those inventions to himself. 48 00:06:56,736 --> 00:07:04,777 And the patent dreadmark office then denied the applications because they're incomplete failing to identify and inventor which has to be a natural person 49 00:07:04,721 --> 00:07:11,817 So in 2022 the federal court of appeals affirmed the lower court ruling that an inventor does need to be a natural person. 50 00:07:12,345 --> 00:07:19,559 Referring to a variety of presidential rulings and so on saying an inventor cannot be a corporation or sovereign entity 51 00:07:19,538 --> 00:07:28,435 So fellas of course has litigation in the district of Columbia so you can enforce the registration of the work and we're now waiting to see if the Supreme Court. 52 00:07:28,559 --> 00:07:33,243 On this. 53 00:07:33,690 --> 00:07:39,013 Because he has a parallel copyright case going on. Mm hmm. And and the 54 00:07:38,884 --> 00:07:50,113 DC circuit 55 00:07:50,011 --> 00:07:58,323 From last month which is where do those cases go. 56 00:07:59,202 --> 00:08:12,844 On the copyright cases when they've been denied a registration so he has a pending case there that's in the motion for summary judgment stage. 57 00:08:13,534 --> 00:08:23,313 Invention. Yeah. That in which he's seeking a patent on the invention? No, interesting. So, maybe those cases can get consolidated at some point and. 58 00:08:23,499 --> 00:08:36,276 Somewhat definitive 59 00:08:36,166 --> 00:08:38,698 Consolidate cases so, 60 00:08:38,713 --> 00:08:51,724 Okay, well, the supreme court is in our news a little later on. We'll get there but let's continue talking about AI here, 61 00:08:51,812 --> 00:08:58,458 Robot lawyers are coming 62 00:08:58,266 --> 00:09:11,412 It delayed for a bit. Joshua Browder is the creator of an AI powered chatbot called do not pay which can use form letters and chat bots to secure refunds lower your bills and dispute parking tickets, 63 00:09:11,454 --> 00:09:16,265 And he planned on having it participated in an actual trial letting the bot, 64 00:09:16,298 --> 00:09:24,862 Dictate what to say in exchange for a one 1 million dollars 65 00:09:24,715 --> 00:09:35,358 This week basically but there were threats of litigation and threats of jail. 66 00:09:35,599 --> 00:09:42,632 The time may come but it's not here yet. 67 00:09:43,133 --> 00:09:52,688 Lack of knowledge. Mm hmm. 68 00:09:52,928 --> 00:10:01,033 Are there lots of different ones? You know, I think you and I have talked to before about the chat, G. 69 00:10:01,219 --> 00:10:03,905 GBT GPT. 70 00:10:04,964 --> 00:10:12,934 And and that I had tested it out to try and write the summaries. 71 00:10:13,426 --> 00:10:18,209 Hilarious. 72 00:10:18,611 --> 00:10:27,932 My understanding is updated legal data after 2021 so that means it's not it's not real time so it's not gonna be accurate, 73 00:10:28,037 --> 00:10:37,393 Yeah that I think is is the prompt I think there are a lot of different. 74 00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:47,034 The data sets that they use may be different depending on the intended use of the. 75 00:10:47,347 --> 00:10:51,067 Of the tool and I think for a law. 76 00:10:51,308 --> 00:10:58,701 You know a lawyer 77 00:10:58,554 --> 00:11:09,648 When additional data set and you're right it would have to be very up to date it would have to be constantly ingesting new case law new statutory changes. 78 00:11:09,951 --> 00:11:19,839 Close to the mark. 79 00:11:20,088 --> 00:11:30,497 Yeah, and I have not. Play it around. Don't do not pay and I don't know if you can freely use tonight, okay? And maybe you can based on the 80 00:11:30,377 --> 00:11:43,803 Game 81 00:11:43,719 --> 00:11:47,737 Draft me a. 82 00:11:48,031 --> 00:11:56,010 Argumentative response for co-parenting. 83 00:11:56,133 --> 00:11:58,521 Interesting. 84 00:11:58,933 --> 00:12:13,429 So you don't maybe there are. 85 00:12:13,750 --> 00:12:19,515 And it's not us anymore. 86 00:12:19,647 --> 00:12:29,795 Last week on a podcast for voice artists, voice actors. 87 00:12:30,143 --> 00:12:32,028 I guess I'll call it deep fake. 88 00:12:32,322 --> 00:12:44,469 Replacements for their voices and so, you know, if you give an AI system enough input of a person's voice you can create audio that sounds just like the person. 89 00:12:44,799 --> 00:12:54,074 Inflection. 90 00:12:54,297 --> 00:13:02,762 So 91 00:13:02,849 --> 00:13:08,406 And I played with it the other day and I had it read the Gettysburg address in my voice, 92 00:13:08,502 --> 00:13:18,246 Man, it sounded better than my voice. At the moment, 93 00:13:18,261 --> 00:13:31,776 Yeah, the day is coming when someone could type AA simple query into a chat GPT and pipe the output to 11 labs or one of these systems and outcomes and audio recording of of the answers 94 00:13:31,710 --> 00:13:36,610 No human ever touched it other than you know. 95 00:13:37,228 --> 00:13:48,223 The monkey selfie. 96 00:13:48,607 --> 00:13:59,035 We have a lot of audio recordings of us 97 00:13:59,023 --> 00:14:06,219 Well, where do you think I got the stuff I fed it to 98 00:14:06,198 --> 00:14:14,960 I don't know if we need to be worried that the human touch will always be valuable, 99 00:14:15,029 --> 00:14:19,308 Component of things and I was talking to somebody yesterday. They were saying, you know, 100 00:14:19,881 --> 00:14:29,021 When you when you look at these deep fakes it's harder to distinguish a fake video than it is an audio because something in the brain triggers when there's an audio. 101 00:14:29,424 --> 00:14:33,216 That just isn't quite right and you can't put your finger on what it is, 102 00:14:33,295 --> 00:14:43,479 But it's there. So, we'll see. 103 00:14:44,178 --> 00:14:53,508 I think our other topic, you know, we picked it as a hot topic, I think for 2022 and it didn't end up being such a hot topic for 2022. 104 00:14:53,928 --> 00:14:58,810 It was non-fungeable tokens. We we really thought we would have a depth of. 105 00:14:59,707 --> 00:15:07,182 Cases in law last year and maybe this is the year for NFTs. 106 00:15:07,341 --> 00:15:11,539 We we talked about the board ape. 107 00:15:12,553 --> 00:15:18,705 Hey, 108 00:15:18,801 --> 00:15:27,230 Right and and the market has slowed down since we first started talking about things from early 2021 2022 but 109 00:15:27,146 --> 00:15:38,051 Trademark dispute over the famous NFT collections Yuga Labs created the NFT collection titled Board Ape Yacht Club 110 00:15:37,958 --> 00:15:52,742 Where each NFT contains a profile of a cartoon monkey head adorned by various algorithm generated accessories 111 00:15:52,650 --> 00:15:57,604 Of the NFTs eclipse one. 5 million in a sale price. 112 00:15:57,790 --> 00:16:12,052 I don't even understand that. Okay, 113 00:16:12,166 --> 00:16:17,607 Okay 114 00:16:17,595 --> 00:16:30,948 Trademark application somehow they they were advised hey we probably have a brand here that needs to be protected they they actually related to the board a yacht club. 115 00:16:31,152 --> 00:16:39,554 Whether it's a design market it's a word mark or it's initials they they have 30 pending live applications. 116 00:16:39,875 --> 00:16:48,115 Within that though 10 of those have the ape skull. 117 00:16:48,743 --> 00:16:58,162 There's 30 in all 10 of these though have been opposed. 118 00:16:59,149 --> 00:17:04,193 I'll say it Cam. Yeah. 119 00:17:04,425 --> 00:17:10,459 He's an artist and a creator of who would have guessed competing in a cheese. 120 00:17:10,690 --> 00:17:17,931 Hey and he has filed as an individual opposing these 10 applications not. 121 00:17:18,171 --> 00:17:22,036 And or any kind of corporate name. 122 00:17:22,177 --> 00:17:32,380 Not that there's a likelihood of consumer confusion but on the basis that there was no bonafide intent to use. 123 00:17:32,746 --> 00:17:39,950 As trademarks. 124 00:17:40,596 --> 00:17:45,523 I thought this was an interesting argument to do that. I'm also gonna. 125 00:17:46,312 --> 00:17:54,345 Fast forward to say 126 00:17:54,243 --> 00:18:06,093 The two parties are in litigation already outside of the trademark office. So, you know, we'll see what happens. Ugalabs has until March 21 to file their 127 00:18:05,874 --> 00:18:11,539 Response to the filing at the TTAB. 128 00:18:11,888 --> 00:18:20,082 This question of. 129 00:18:20,620 --> 00:18:28,545 That there was a loss of control on some of these because they were included as part of the NFT and there weren't restrictions. 130 00:18:28,704 --> 00:18:32,146 Ape is generic or merely descriptive. I. 131 00:18:32,521 --> 00:18:38,915 Completely disagree with that assertion because how is ape. 132 00:18:39,309 --> 00:18:47,837 For a piece of art or for a digital file 133 00:18:47,825 --> 00:18:57,892 So you know I'll be interested to see if they follow and answer this to me was just something to spend money and make people spend money. 134 00:18:58,456 --> 00:19:07,182 One of the interesting things for me they they. 135 00:19:07,351 --> 00:19:17,076 For a lawful use of the marks because NFTs are securities and they never filed any registration paperwork with the SEC. So, 136 00:19:17,037 --> 00:19:27,104 I don't know. 137 00:19:27,453 --> 00:19:35,387 You know and I don't know how the TTA be would respond to that. 138 00:19:35,726 --> 00:19:45,433 I don't know if there's an ad analogy we can draw to, 139 00:19:45,448 --> 00:19:57,496 You know if it's used on an edible it's not gonna be allowed but if it's used something that's a topical you know so there could be I I don't know if there have been any security type issues. 140 00:19:57,781 --> 00:20:02,907 Raise or if the TTAB just punched that and says that's outside the scope of our. 141 00:20:03,336 --> 00:20:13,160 I wonder if you can register a trademark for a security instrument the name of a kind of instrument, 142 00:20:13,274 --> 00:20:25,349 Is it a brand a dinner fire I don't know why it couldn't be if they use it yeah. 143 00:20:25,670 --> 00:20:34,081 Interesting. 144 00:20:34,745 --> 00:20:41,706 Litigation tactic that. 145 00:20:43,099 --> 00:20:51,177 Going through 2 or 3 years of TTAB proceedings. They're all gonna settle something. So, how does the TTAB handle it when there's a 146 00:20:51,147 --> 00:21:02,240 In parallel litigation going on do they stay the proceedings until the court case is done or do they do their thing and let the court pork it out or I think. 147 00:21:03,021 --> 00:21:08,542 Federal court proceeding is done each other. 148 00:21:09,394 --> 00:21:14,736 Actually cancel a mark. Only the TTA. 149 00:21:16,542 --> 00:21:21,478 I suspect they will stay at, 150 00:21:21,529 --> 00:21:32,146 Yeah. Oh, it's it's gonna be interesting to watch this case as a as it progresses. There's you know, we've had competing anti-slap motions and and first amendment arguments and 151 00:21:32,143 --> 00:21:39,618 Questions about whether it's hate speech involved in their there's all kinds of interesting stuff going on so 152 00:21:39,606 --> 00:21:54,355 The big news this last month of course if you've been following NFTs and art and those kinds of things. 153 00:21:54,991 --> 00:22:07,003 Of Mason Rothchild. 154 00:22:07,144 --> 00:22:16,059 Luxury handbag. So, he created and sold these metaburkans as NFTs through his website, ran a major marketing campaign 155 00:22:15,903 --> 00:22:20,371 And initially they were priced at $450 each 156 00:22:20,233 --> 00:22:27,231 But they soon rose in price on the secondary market up to his tens of thousands of dollars. Again, tens of thousands of dollars for. 157 00:22:27,588 --> 00:22:34,289 What is basically a picture 158 00:22:34,286 --> 00:22:46,784 The use of the Birkin trademark in connection with the minting of these NFTs and they filed suit against him raw child under trademark infringement claims a nine person jury was in paneled in New York 159 00:22:46,655 --> 00:22:50,313 I think it was New York City and ultimately after 160 00:22:50,211 --> 00:23:02,367 Someone lengthy trial they found in favor of Hermes awarding the the luxury brand $133 thousand now 161 00:23:02,265 --> 00:23:07,021 Is protected under the first amendment because it's artistic expression and his expert witness. 162 00:23:07,378 --> 00:23:20,371 Apparently it wasn't allowed to testify before the jury drew an analogy to the Andy Warhol soup cans and things like that he said the metabolic and NFTs are no different than the famous Campbell soup can silk screens 163 00:23:20,224 --> 00:23:29,301 And that any other position would be inconsistent with freedom of expression guaranteed by the first amendment his attorneys. 164 00:23:30,019 --> 00:23:33,848 Going back to 1989 murders versus crimality which allows 165 00:23:33,845 --> 00:23:46,559 Artist to use a trademark without permission if it meets a minimum level of artistic relevance and isn't explicitly misleading 166 00:23:46,412 --> 00:23:50,907 This case brings up the novel issue of law that can be implicated with. 167 00:23:51,390 --> 00:23:57,515 You know all kinds of things but specifically when it examines how NFTs and other digital assets. 168 00:23:58,088 --> 00:24:07,795 Should be viewed in context of these intellectual property laws. So, 169 00:24:08,134 --> 00:24:14,898 You know, murky stuff going on here and NFT's is this area that's sort of straddling this line. 170 00:24:15,039 --> 00:24:22,226 This is a trial court decision. I have someone asked me to predict the outcome and I said I think the jury is gonna go with. 171 00:24:22,772 --> 00:24:31,939 With MS but I think it'll be appealed, 172 00:24:32,044 --> 00:24:41,797 Hey I do wonder though. 173 00:24:42,064 --> 00:24:50,997 Why an ick i think you could see it would be a. 174 00:24:51,282 --> 00:24:59,405 Burke and the owner of the Birkin Mark my also decide to issue NFTs for this. 175 00:24:59,897 --> 00:25:08,551 And that the consumers would be confused. So, 176 00:25:08,729 --> 00:25:18,526 Before we go there, I just wanna take a you know, yes, I think that this question of misleading is a is a valid issue but. 177 00:25:18,748 --> 00:25:27,753 Make a commentary poke fun of a brand, 178 00:25:27,768 --> 00:25:35,063 Camel soup cans prints so and and that was really Rochelle's argument was hey 179 00:25:35,033 --> 00:25:44,218 I'm an artist. This was a commentary on the Birkenbags and by the way, the jury was presented evidence that nobody's gonna confuse a $450 180 00:25:44,207 --> 00:25:51,501 NFT picture of a bag with a $4000 handbag. 181 00:25:52,057 --> 00:25:59,117 About the jury didn't buy it. They said, no, you're, you're ripping them off 182 00:25:59,060 --> 00:26:08,903 Purchase the handbag and then. 183 00:26:12,132 --> 00:26:26,448 I don't get it. Yeah. But who knows? I've been I've been wrong before but I was just going to say it. It's this to me. It's also this split in the circus which is some circuit say, 184 00:26:26,508 --> 00:26:29,716 When we have this question regarding a trademark, 185 00:26:29,722 --> 00:26:38,484 The first thing we need to do is determine likelihood of consumer confusion which is a trademark standard. 186 00:26:40,030 --> 00:26:45,335 Other circuits say the first thing we need to do is apply Roger's Veg Remaldi. 187 00:26:46,061 --> 00:26:50,916 Which is. 188 00:26:51,255 --> 00:27:03,186 And are the decisions do they reach different decisions based on the application of which comes first or is there even a likelihood of confusion question that needs to be. 189 00:27:04,102 --> 00:27:05,050 Yeah. 190 00:27:05,380 --> 00:27:15,258 So it's question of even if there's a confusion a likelihood of confusion then be I mean yeah so which order do you do parts the analysis 191 00:27:15,246 --> 00:27:22,946 So and I think that gets us to this Jack Daniel's. Yes 192 00:27:22,934 --> 00:27:29,554 Yeah once you fill us in this Jack Daniel's properties versus VIP products LLC. 193 00:27:29,956 --> 00:27:43,381 Yeah so it is VIP products produced in marketed a dog toy feel like we talked about this last month or the month of before many times 194 00:27:43,316 --> 00:27:50,763 Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey 195 00:27:50,697 --> 00:28:00,441 Contained a smooth on the widely recognized Jack Daniel's black and white bottled label 196 00:28:00,285 --> 00:28:08,849 And there was a bench trial at the district court. 197 00:28:09,287 --> 00:28:18,931 And this was from 2020 the ninth circuit reversed the lower chord. 198 00:28:19,109 --> 00:28:29,185 The question is one whether the allegedly in virgin use of the mark was artistically relevant to the expressive cat character of the underlying work and two. 199 00:28:29,776 --> 00:28:36,513 Weather it the infringing alleged infringing use miss leads consumers as to source. 200 00:28:36,996 --> 00:28:45,245 Hey, 201 00:28:45,323 --> 00:28:51,565 So on appeal Jack Daniel's appeals the S 202 00:28:51,544 --> 00:29:05,581 Appeals the ruling excuse me that the dog toy wasn't expressive work protected against trademark infringement liability by the first amendment the case has been docketed under the supreme court 16 Amika's briefs have been filed 203 00:29:05,461 --> 00:29:11,757 Most of which support Jack Daniels in reversal of the ninth circuit decision others, 204 00:29:11,772 --> 00:29:18,202 Filing what might be considered a neutral brief. 205 00:29:18,650 --> 00:29:27,106 I I like this notably the US government chimed in with a brief on the solicitor general arguing the appropriate test. 206 00:29:27,661 --> 00:29:34,145 Is the traditional likelihood of confusion not Roger V gramaldi 207 00:29:34,097 --> 00:29:48,639 Former judges filed a brief saying the ninth circuits decision undermines the purpose of trademark law which is to secure goodwill in the interest of consumers and trademark owners. 208 00:29:49,077 --> 00:29:51,385 Marketing to children. 209 00:29:52,048 --> 00:30:01,098 That's not what we wanna do as far as alcohol use 210 00:30:01,041 --> 00:30:03,907 Define what is considered an expressive 211 00:30:03,832 --> 00:30:15,205 Work. You know, is it a dog toy? Is it a book? Is it a movie? Is it a video game 212 00:30:15,175 --> 00:30:22,550 I think we may see this a decision on a split in the circuit. Maybe we get clarity as to when. 213 00:30:23,457 --> 00:30:37,359 When do you apply Roger's vehicle mall date in the analysis. 214 00:30:37,644 --> 00:30:45,506 Really just use the name. 215 00:30:45,719 --> 00:30:54,644 Commercial product. 216 00:30:55,244 --> 00:31:03,169 That. 217 00:31:04,309 --> 00:31:06,950 Distinguish things. 218 00:31:07,325 --> 00:31:19,922 And and then you get into the meta burkins is that is that a commercial product or is it an artistic expression and that's where the what is an NFT question really comes in. 219 00:31:20,108 --> 00:31:27,763 Yeah and I'm kinda going backtracking to the. 220 00:31:29,209 --> 00:31:38,746 Eat part of what I think saves the Andy Warhall type. Campbell soup argument is. 221 00:31:39,247 --> 00:31:49,494 But isn't that what an NFT is? A limited edition, 222 00:31:49,528 --> 00:31:56,039 It's my understanding that the the artist in in the Burking case had one. 223 00:31:58,215 --> 00:32:04,726 Artwork that in which in NFT was minted. Yeah 224 00:32:04,678 --> 00:32:18,455 First amendment free expression and. 225 00:32:18,983 --> 00:32:22,452 It's turning out to be a big year for the Supreme Court isn't it, 226 00:32:22,512 --> 00:32:32,606 It is. It really is. We're gonna have a lot to talk about as these decisions start coming down over the next few months. Yeah 227 00:32:32,495 --> 00:32:41,077 Six circuit court of appeals has 228 00:32:40,886 --> 00:32:51,466 And back in episode 121 in May of 2020 we talked about the case it was everly versus everly at the time that case now is Garza versus Everly and 229 00:32:51,346 --> 00:32:54,653 But it involved was the brothers Don and Phil Everly. 230 00:32:54,803 --> 00:33:02,359 Who recorded and released among many the song Cathy's Clown in 1960 and they granted the copyrights to a cafros. 231 00:33:02,527 --> 00:33:15,502 Music. They were both listed as authors. They received credit as authors in 1961 and 1975 when receiving awards. They both received royalty payments and then 232 00:33:15,346 --> 00:33:23,811 In 1980 Phil agreed at agreed to and signed a release to Dawn of all his rights in the compositions including quote, 233 00:33:23,835 --> 00:33:31,193 Every claim of every nature 234 00:33:31,100 --> 00:33:39,952 Licenses and credits for Kathy's clown and a in AA 1988 copyright renewal. 235 00:33:40,174 --> 00:33:46,605 So both brothers nonetheless made public statements continuing to credit fill as a co author. 236 00:33:46,737 --> 00:33:52,744 So Phil's Airs interpret this 1980 release as only a transfer of the rights to profits, 237 00:33:52,778 --> 00:34:06,491 And public recognition for the compositions. 238 00:34:06,614 --> 00:34:09,192 Disclaim his claim as co composer. 239 00:34:09,945 --> 00:34:24,045 And in 2011. 240 00:34:24,223 --> 00:34:30,869 So, after Phil died in 2014, his children filed notices of termination as to the 1960 grant 241 00:34:30,812 --> 00:34:38,629 Seeking to regain Phil's rights to Cathy's clown and in 2016 they served that notice notice of termination 242 00:34:38,473 --> 00:34:44,589 As to Phil's 1980 assignment to Don. 243 00:34:45,036 --> 00:34:53,852 2017 Don files a complaint for declarator relief seeking an order declaring that Phil Everly is not an author of Cathy's clown that 244 00:34:53,633 --> 00:35:09,201 The 1980 release is not a grand subject determination under sections 304 C in 203 A of the copper attack and that Donna really owns 100% of the copperette termination rights in Kathy's clown and 100% of songwriters royalties to the compositions. 245 00:35:09,711 --> 00:35:14,449 Phil's a state fountain answer including various affirmative defenses and counter claims. 246 00:35:14,788 --> 00:35:24,955 And there was a summary judgement argument that the counter claims filed by Phil were barred by the statute limitations and that meant that Don should excuse me if Phil should get some rejuvenate, 247 00:35:25,042 --> 00:35:35,668 And the district court granted Don, 248 00:35:35,701 --> 00:35:44,256 Termination, 249 00:35:44,352 --> 00:35:59,019 Transfer ship only the ownership rights that arise from authorship 250 00:35:58,962 --> 00:36:02,602 And it was undisputed that Phil had transferred ownership. 251 00:36:03,113 --> 00:36:12,694 The evidence what was disputed as to whether he had expressly excuse me whether Dawn had expressly reputed it Phil's authorship, 252 00:36:12,781 --> 00:36:23,308 Reverse the trial court of summer judgment and. 253 00:36:23,458 --> 00:36:24,775 For further proceeding, 254 00:36:24,808 --> 00:36:39,188 On Ramand. The district record found that Don had reputated Phil's authorship, 255 00:36:39,221 --> 00:36:46,866 So the district court also rejected Phil's estates argument that the limitations period shouldn't apply to the defense that fill as a co-author. 256 00:36:47,476 --> 00:36:54,833 So back up to the six circuit we go, 257 00:36:54,876 --> 00:37:04,133 Authors can transfer ownership of a copyright. 258 00:37:04,445 --> 00:37:07,571 Copyright authorship cannot be transferred. 259 00:37:07,983 --> 00:37:17,690 When someone makes an adverse claim against that authorship right like and repeatiation the copperad act gives that person 3 years within which to bring a cause of action to protect the right. 260 00:37:18,281 --> 00:37:24,640 Authors who fail to do this in a timely manner. 261 00:37:25,249 --> 00:37:34,533 Hmm. 262 00:37:34,684 --> 00:37:44,103 Of Cathy's clown by letter and then by a telephone call in 1980 and at the 1980 release was intended to be a memorialization of that repeatiation. 263 00:37:45,063 --> 00:37:52,142 The court says that's not clearly erroneous and therefore feels a state is barred from bringing an affirmative co-authorship claim. 264 00:37:53,876 --> 00:38:02,503 So it sounds like we need something and it'd be helpful. 265 00:38:03,014 --> 00:38:07,860 To have them sign off and say I hereby reputate my claim to authorship. 266 00:38:08,523 --> 00:38:13,684 Well in this case it was the other the the co-author was saying you're not an author anymore, 267 00:38:13,735 --> 00:38:19,374 Oh, yeah, okay. I hear by agree that you say I'm not an author. Right. Right 268 00:38:19,173 --> 00:38:30,131 Yeah, I mean, you know, those signed releases that specify not just ownership but authorship also seem to be a pretty clear reputation. I think that that's what the court sort of hanging its head on, 269 00:38:30,183 --> 00:38:32,616 So 270 00:38:33,126 --> 00:38:44,886 Hey successors have no claims or or any right to. 271 00:38:45,252 --> 00:38:54,555 You know, terminate or anything like that and so the the judgement of the district being affirmed now by the six circuit. Wow. 272 00:38:55,182 --> 00:39:03,467 It was I I think. 273 00:39:03,851 --> 00:39:12,631 To really figure out is this gonna hold. 274 00:39:13,042 --> 00:39:26,270 It feels like there's all kinds of back story and and we'll have to wait for the movie of the week to come out to explain what was going on between brothers that led to this 275 00:39:26,060 --> 00:39:28,619 I still see this issue. 276 00:39:29,417 --> 00:39:36,082 Similar issue as to authorship today. I have these conversations with songwriters. 277 00:39:36,718 --> 00:39:43,995 You know, everybody in the band, should they get any cool share. 278 00:39:44,172 --> 00:39:53,150 To which I default to if there's two names on the copyright application the assumption is they each contributed 50% yeah. 279 00:39:53,994 --> 00:40:00,028 And. 280 00:40:00,448 --> 00:40:06,960 Putting that in writing as to what that different split is or don't be putting people on a copyright application. 281 00:40:07,686 --> 00:40:20,616 Right. 282 00:40:20,748 --> 00:40:29,150 As co authors. 283 00:40:29,346 --> 00:40:39,701 Video on the credit and and these other things and she seems to be 284 00:40:39,635 --> 00:40:40,709 Authorship, 285 00:40:40,733 --> 00:40:50,126 Claim. 286 00:40:52,373 --> 00:40:56,022 Versus. 287 00:40:56,487 --> 00:41:09,624 All do you do a permanent reputation and if for some reason this is not a permanent reviewation you hereby a sign. 288 00:41:10,477 --> 00:41:12,784 Right and if we had done an assignment. 289 00:41:13,250 --> 00:41:23,029 There may be a termination claim if it's a reputation that's why they can't file that truck be successful in a termination filing. 290 00:41:23,197 --> 00:41:35,272 The tone of that original agreement may have been what created the ambiguity is it an assignment or is it a. 291 00:41:35,566 --> 00:41:44,995 And perhaps the facts we don't know is the only way to get the deal done was the language that was. Yeah. Agreed to. That's awesome. The case, isn't it? Yeah, 292 00:41:45,028 --> 00:41:54,582 Well you know the belt and suspenders approach you know doing assignment and reputation just in case 293 00:41:54,444 --> 00:42:06,699 Because you don't have anything to assign. 294 00:42:07,173 --> 00:42:19,365 Appropriate jurisdiction finds there was no validation 295 00:42:19,272 --> 00:42:22,975 Work for higher stuff all the time, right? Back up assignment language. So. 296 00:42:23,791 --> 00:42:30,960 Same idea. 297 00:42:31,128 --> 00:42:36,938 I hear Gip Gibson guitars has had a crazy kind of history over the last, 298 00:42:37,034 --> 00:42:49,793 Well, over their whole lifetime but really the last few years is. 299 00:42:50,186 --> 00:42:57,607 After Gibson were located to Tennessee in 1976 and had ceased using a Kalamazoo. 300 00:42:58,108 --> 00:43:06,195 I'm guessing that's Michigan, right? Factory. Heritage purchase that Kalamazoo building and some of the equipment that was 301 00:43:06,057 --> 00:43:21,012 Left behind and began to craft and sell instruments under the heritage brand in 1990 gibson sued them for alleged trademark infringement over to the design and appearance, 302 00:43:21,073 --> 00:43:25,253 They settled in 1991 303 00:43:25,169 --> 00:43:38,045 Ed and Gibson for nearly three decades went their separate ways this is a quote went there separate ways each selling its own well known guitars into the market with no problems or issues, 304 00:43:38,060 --> 00:43:47,038 Send the investor gets involved. 305 00:43:47,161 --> 00:43:57,346 Or which is the investment company that I guess helped get them out of bankruptcy. Yeah. And that company explicitly explicitly threatened to sue heritage. 306 00:43:57,757 --> 00:44:08,130 And quote presumably because of a prior unfavorable trade emergency, 307 00:44:08,227 --> 00:44:22,786 More 12 for the last three decades. Right. 308 00:44:23,287 --> 00:44:24,704 So 309 00:44:28,416 --> 00:44:38,270 Gibson's intellectual property rights and upholding gibson's longest established and well recognized trademarks in a 2022 victory that Gibson had over 310 00:44:38,096 --> 00:44:42,663 Dan Guitars which we discussed back in episode 146 311 00:44:42,588 --> 00:44:52,836 Heritage have put their dispute to rest. We do not have a copy of that settlement agreement. It's not been publicly revealed. 312 00:44:53,121 --> 00:45:01,442 With this another lawsuits out of the way Gibson made the statement Gibson can move forward and focus on innovation with confidence 313 00:45:01,376 --> 00:45:16,989 So Gibson also has a variety of trademark registrations online for their brand name but the distinctive shape of their guitars so 314 00:45:16,824 --> 00:45:22,048 You know, but it's interesting. So, they left, 315 00:45:22,054 --> 00:45:28,431 Things behind in this factory and they may have left behind fabrication devices. Sure. 316 00:45:28,914 --> 00:45:33,679 Babe we're set up to produce a shape of a guitar. 317 00:45:35,297 --> 00:45:42,141 Yeah I mean, 318 00:45:42,237 --> 00:45:52,863 But yeah, well, yeah, yeah, I mean, for me, you've a take away from this is, hey, even if you settle a lawsuit, 30 years can go by and somebody could come along and say, hmm. We're gonna sue you again. 319 00:45:53,400 --> 00:45:58,831 And. 320 00:45:59,018 --> 00:46:13,496 Stop all or issue preclusion 321 00:46:13,385 --> 00:46:21,571 But maybe not so much here and I mean the list there was a breach of that settlement which I think was the argument here but 322 00:46:21,505 --> 00:46:30,564 Hey, 323 00:46:30,661 --> 00:46:33,229 Somebody wanted another bite at the apple. Yeah. 324 00:46:34,550 --> 00:46:41,538 Yeah. 325 00:46:41,787 --> 00:46:51,108 Weight versus UMG recordings an attempt at a class action lawsuit against UMG has been knocked down in the southern district of New York the court. 326 00:46:51,258 --> 00:47:04,701 Took the defendant side that's UMG and Sony deciding that plaintiffs do not qualify for class action on several different standards most importantly to qualify for their claim to section 203 in the copy of Act 327 00:47:04,527 --> 00:47:10,976 Each planet must pass a fact intensive inquiry based on several tests specific to their contracts, 328 00:47:10,982 --> 00:47:15,963 The employment relationship under the CCMB versus Reid 329 00:47:15,888 --> 00:47:26,586 Specific is it especially commissioned work and validity of the termination notices on. So, the back story here is that in 2019, David Johansson John Wade and. 330 00:47:26,709 --> 00:47:35,840 Other prominent 1970's musicians sued the record labels from not honoring their notices of termination to transfers of copyright 331 00:47:35,747 --> 00:47:49,325 Each of the musicians that are six of them total entered what are fairly standard recording agreements with these labels that gave the the labels the lions share of profits along with exclusive reproduction distribution and 332 00:47:49,178 --> 00:47:54,538 The planets argued that they're entitled to reclaim their copyrights person to section 203. 333 00:47:54,949 --> 00:48:00,020 4304 depending on the situation which permits authors at or heirs. 334 00:48:00,251 --> 00:48:04,953 Under certain circumstances to terminate the exclusive or non-exclusive grant of a transfer 335 00:48:04,851 --> 00:48:13,082 But the defendants contended that they work fell under work for hire to which section 203 does not apply 336 00:48:13,016 --> 00:48:27,846 You know the that applies to either work especially prepared. Excuse me, prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or. 337 00:48:28,482 --> 00:48:38,063 The defendants are looking at the original transfers of the copyrights all of which contain the language quote employee for hire. 338 00:48:38,277 --> 00:48:43,366 Language alone not spicing they also argue that the sound recordings were made for higher because. 339 00:48:43,831 --> 00:48:52,341 Planets produced recordings as employees acting within the scope of their employment. 340 00:48:52,473 --> 00:48:57,950 As one of the enumerated categories in that in that code section, 341 00:48:58,055 --> 00:49:05,214 Plane of smooth for an order certifying two proposed classes one. 342 00:49:08,173 --> 00:49:21,850 Describing an effective date for the recording terminations occurring after January 2013 and no later than the date the court branch certification and class B is artists who have served defense with notices trans 343 00:49:21,749 --> 00:49:29,620 Describing a effective date. 344 00:49:29,788 --> 00:49:38,730 December 31 to 2031. 345 00:49:39,888 --> 00:49:43,816 203 and 30455 putting in those 2 days. 346 00:49:43,993 --> 00:49:57,797 And they were looking for an injunction against defendants from infringing copyrights of artists who had served termination notices, 347 00:49:57,857 --> 00:50:01,740 Regardless of the effective dates of termination whether there was been reached. 348 00:50:08,804 --> 00:50:18,979 And so each point if now needs to show individualized proof, 349 00:50:19,084 --> 00:50:27,153 I mean this is a hard blow for the. 350 00:50:28,446 --> 00:50:39,072 Yeah the the smaller artist that may be more as successful and may not have the resources to pursue these termination lawsuits you know that which have become pretty. 351 00:50:39,564 --> 00:50:49,128 Carmen. 352 00:50:49,962 --> 00:50:57,077 You know, unless you are a substantial artist. Yeah. It's a fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. 353 00:50:58,001 --> 00:51:04,071 Yeah the labels are basically saying what are you gonna do about it 354 00:51:03,942 --> 00:51:13,488 Right. 355 00:51:13,881 --> 00:51:16,008 Unlike with a song. 356 00:51:16,167 --> 00:51:24,704 Where we will assume for purposes of this conversation we know exactly who the songwriters were and nobody's reputed anything. 357 00:51:24,927 --> 00:51:39,189 It's much more straight forward with the publishers. I mean, I have in the past running to some small independent publishers. They were very confused via termination notice. 358 00:51:39,492 --> 00:51:44,077 So it was all on that note I thought I would just say. 359 00:51:44,255 --> 00:51:56,510 Let's see what am I gonna say, 360 00:51:56,579 --> 00:52:03,198 So 361 00:52:03,060 --> 00:52:15,522 No I will give credit to John Way I I can't help it the whole conversation I'm singing that song is like on my head and I was like. 362 00:52:15,889 --> 00:52:28,332 Hey, missing them at all. So, since you've been gone away. 363 00:52:28,465 --> 00:52:36,696 Has not been sitting quietly in the sidelines. 364 00:52:36,837 --> 00:52:41,791 For the amount of 49. 98 million why not 50 1 million just round it up 365 00:52:41,572 --> 00:52:52,620 For releasing audio tape interviews without Trump's consent Trump gave these interviews during Woodward's writing of rage the New York Times best seller list topping book the issue. 366 00:52:52,771 --> 00:52:55,501 Is the audiobook the Trump tapes 367 00:52:55,499 --> 00:53:09,167 Bob Woodward's 20 interviews with President Donald Trump which was released in October of 2022. 368 00:53:09,389 --> 00:53:15,000 Trump is arguing that he is entitled to a copyright for these interviews as well as recovery of damages. 369 00:53:15,457 --> 00:53:21,500 And the complaint asserts that the audio recordings were protected material subject to various limitations on use and distribution. 370 00:53:21,623 --> 00:53:28,837 As a matter of copyright license contract basic principles of the publishing industry and core values of fairness and consent. 371 00:53:29,248 --> 00:53:36,048 They also claim that the defendant's systematically blatantly and unlawfully engaged in user patient manipulation and exploitation. 372 00:53:36,225 --> 00:53:39,946 Of Trump's copyright interest his contractual rights, 373 00:53:40,033 --> 00:53:52,360 And the rights he holds as an interviewee. 374 00:53:52,708 --> 00:53:54,637 Claim also states that 375 00:53:54,418 --> 00:54:14,559 Paramount SSI in Woodward deviated from industry standard practices didn't obtain the opposite releases misappropriated Trump's copyright interest manipulated the recordings to benefit Woodward's desired narrative while pedaling the story that the recordings are raw and deprived President Trump of the opportunity to publish on 376 00:54:14,367 --> 00:54:16,171 Red in his voice. 377 00:54:16,708 --> 00:54:26,199 So Trump took to Twitter on January 30 to post a bunch of tweets where he describe the book as quote an open and blatant attempt to make me look as bad as possible 378 00:54:26,124 --> 00:54:33,104 So what would Simon choose to have released a joint statement saying that the lawsuit is without merit 379 00:54:33,065 --> 00:54:47,120 All these interviews were on the record recorded with Trump's knowledge and agreement more over it's in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. 380 00:54:47,478 --> 00:54:51,055 A celebrity has sued for use of their speech. 381 00:54:51,313 --> 00:55:02,073 In situations like this and we have, you know, in fallwell versus penthouse. It's funny. I I just had my students brief the case fall over his pen house limit international. 382 00:55:02,448 --> 00:55:09,581 The evangelical fundamentalist minister objected when interviews of him were published. 383 00:55:09,857 --> 00:55:23,220 And the court ruled against him saying. 384 00:55:23,667 --> 00:55:28,846 Are you in that there that celebrities expressions should be afforded the extraordinary protection of copyright 385 00:55:28,843 --> 00:55:39,180 That's just not the case. The state of Hemingwavers is random house where the estates ought to claim rights in a book. 386 00:55:39,430 --> 00:55:48,597 Hemingway and the books author and that court also rejected this contention saying any attempt to quantify or otherwise analyzer a portion these elements. 387 00:55:48,756 --> 00:55:57,293 Demonstrates both the futility of the endeavor and unworthiness of the idea, 388 00:55:57,326 --> 00:56:11,157 $49. 98 million 389 00:56:11,091 --> 00:56:15,928 Either wood word or Simon and Shuster have a copyright registration. 390 00:56:16,096 --> 00:56:24,021 Which must not list, 391 00:56:24,099 --> 00:56:29,359 And also he's it looks like he may be asking for punitive damages which. 392 00:56:30,419 --> 00:56:39,433 While there are willful infringement damages which one could consider our punitive in nature that's what localness is. 393 00:56:40,285 --> 00:56:53,404 It's unclear how they they've calculated. It's also. Yeah. 394 00:56:53,969 --> 00:57:01,002 Asking the questions. 395 00:57:01,494 --> 00:57:05,665 They could be potentially protected by copyright. Mm hmm, 396 00:57:05,771 --> 00:57:19,268 Hey 397 00:57:19,175 --> 00:57:23,922 Because it's fixed. 398 00:57:24,873 --> 00:57:32,897 Part of what I think is gonna be come out and this is that President Trump wasn't the person operating the recording device 399 00:57:32,840 --> 00:57:40,864 It was Woodward. So, who fixed it into a tangible meaning tangible medium? I think the argument's gonna be 400 00:57:40,762 --> 00:57:46,184 The Woodward and to me it's analyst to a bootleg recording. 401 00:57:47,181 --> 00:57:58,266 The Rolling Stones are on stage and I record it. I record the concert. Mm hmm. Rolling Stones don't have a copyright in my recording of the concert. 402 00:57:59,514 --> 00:58:12,894 True, 403 00:58:12,945 --> 00:58:27,748 They were okay with the audience recording their concerts. 404 00:58:28,123 --> 00:58:39,325 Well, and even, you know, when you sit down with the reporter, you and you watch the reporter press the record button, you know it's being recorded. They're that level of consent as a given. It's really what was the full scope 405 00:58:39,187 --> 00:58:48,921 Of of the of the consent what did Trump what should Trump have known. 406 00:58:49,567 --> 00:58:53,360 Disengenuous for somebody in. 407 00:58:53,960 --> 00:59:02,200 In such a position of. 408 00:59:02,323 --> 00:59:15,847 So I think I I think it will help the the everybody see the commentators all seem to think this case is gonna get thrown out I think for one thing that might stick around is. 409 00:59:16,276 --> 00:59:24,210 Either material was left out or they were ordered in a sequence that was not those sequence they were made. 410 00:59:24,342 --> 00:59:29,810 Maybe there's some argument that there was a manipulation of the message and that that would be, 411 00:59:29,906 --> 00:59:43,070 Some kind of a misrepresentation by Woodward but Woodward's a well respected journalist I think that's gonna be hard to persuaded but judge and jury but that's the case so. 412 00:59:43,679 --> 00:59:48,138 To know if it is truly just, 413 00:59:48,252 --> 00:59:58,185 Or if they talked about you know something in interview one that then got circled back to an interview five and so then for purposes of the audio book. 414 00:59:58,776 --> 01:00:10,149 Hey Facebook. 415 01:00:10,380 --> 01:00:14,344 From the five or six different times we talked about it or something like that but. 416 01:00:14,800 --> 01:00:22,653 You know I think it's gonna be a the burden proof is gonna be on Trump to show that there was some. 417 01:00:23,424 --> 01:00:30,224 In the way that was done. 418 01:00:30,968 --> 01:00:39,001 Tie in to our next case and that is this idea that buy. 419 01:00:39,574 --> 01:00:50,191 Is there some liability for that? Just yesterday, the Supreme Court heard it's arguments in the case of Gonzales versus Google 420 01:00:50,062 --> 01:00:55,286 Section 230 of the communications decency act is interpreted and applied, 421 01:00:55,319 --> 01:01:03,514 As we move forward this is a case involving the parents of Naomi Gonzalez and American student who was killed 422 01:01:03,466 --> 01:01:12,940 In an Isis attack in Paris back in 2015. 423 01:01:13,252 --> 01:01:20,762 Under the anti terrorism act because they supported ISIS recruitment, 424 01:01:20,778 --> 01:01:31,998 And then the algorithm of YouTube would then suggest videos to people as recommended viewing, 425 01:01:32,049 --> 01:01:33,915 They were supporting terrorism. 426 01:01:34,299 --> 01:01:44,060 Hey 427 01:01:43,905 --> 01:01:50,452 But if they apply it the algorithm is applied evenly then it is protected under section 230. 428 01:01:51,232 --> 01:01:55,016 So the court the Supreme Court granted sir in this and a 429 01:01:54,860 --> 01:02:11,076 Sister case that that is being heard today as we speak actually, 430 01:02:11,172 --> 01:02:16,100 A number of all the rest almost and Eric Goldman among them. 431 01:02:16,763 --> 01:02:30,314 I had filed there and make his briefs in support of google's position 432 01:02:30,194 --> 01:02:34,869 This is what the Biden administration are used elaborating at the algorithm and YouTube 433 01:02:34,749 --> 01:02:42,791 Automatically play what's next in its sequence. It's the recommendation so that is a creation of some kind of publication. It's the argument 434 01:02:42,716 --> 01:02:46,266 Now the related case I mentioned is Twitter versus Taminate 435 01:02:46,209 --> 01:02:54,044 It's also in front of the Supreme Court substantially similar kinds of claims where the night circuit found Twitter 436 01:02:53,924 --> 01:03:08,295 For violating anti-terrorism act because it aided and embedded terrorist communications so Twitter is taking it up on appeal arguing that it hadn't substantially assisted terrorists for a specific act of international terrorism and that, 437 01:03:08,310 --> 01:03:15,236 Even if they knew terrorists might have used the platform for terrorism it that did not meet the knowledge requirement they 438 01:03:15,080 --> 01:03:24,283 You know, told them accountable unless they were aware of specific terrorist and accounts that were involved. So, a lot of the amichi in the gonzales case. 439 01:03:24,613 --> 01:03:26,173 Had argued that. 440 01:03:26,350 --> 01:03:34,869 A reversal in the tamni case would render the gonzalez case mode 441 01:03:34,795 --> 01:03:36,490 You know, substantially together, 442 01:03:36,514 --> 01:03:48,589 So just a little background for those who aren't too familiar section 230 of the communications decentiac was enacted in 1996 this is the infancy of the internet and it was the a reaction. 443 01:03:48,748 --> 01:04:02,902 To a decision that held an online message board liable for what a user had posted because the service had engaged in a degree of content moderation. I think that was the case of. 444 01:04:03,062 --> 01:04:15,596 The point of but anyway. 445 01:04:15,746 --> 01:04:21,744 Of any information provided by another information content provider, 446 01:04:21,750 --> 01:04:34,662 You know make it possible for the big social networks like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube for that matter to rise and grow because it insured that they were not facing any legal liability for the user generated content. 447 01:04:35,047 --> 01:04:37,345 In the oral arguments. 448 01:04:37,963 --> 01:04:48,742 The the gun in the Gonzales case. The the justices were a little dubious about all this. They they were very cautious also. Just as Cagan expressed out about whether the court's members. 449 01:04:48,883 --> 01:05:02,380 We're confident to find a middle ground that made any sense she said these are not the nine greatest dinner experts on the internet 450 01:05:02,297 --> 01:05:04,226 Crash the digital economy. 451 01:05:04,367 --> 01:05:15,560 And justice clearance Thomas expressed his view that the recommendations provided by these internet platforms is precisely what makes them useful. 452 01:05:15,827 --> 01:05:24,913 You don't want thumbnails on light jazz. 453 01:05:25,369 --> 01:05:32,385 Professor Goldman wrote a blog post today 454 01:05:32,256 --> 01:05:41,072 Argument so much. 455 01:05:41,519 --> 01:05:52,568 He says he's unclear why the court even granted sir. 456 01:05:52,709 --> 01:06:03,380 So, you know, it's gonna come down here anyway. He's he's cautiously optimistic. That the court will uphold the section 230 protections for google in this case and I, 457 01:06:03,413 --> 01:06:14,894 Reverse the tablet case as well and I think I I lean that way also. So, I listened to most of the argument yesterday and it was really hard to figure who was on which side. This is not a, 458 01:06:14,945 --> 01:06:18,909 Partisan thing because we had. 459 01:06:19,725 --> 01:06:30,584 Progressive and conservative justices asking the same kinds of hard hitting questions and and seeming to have the same concerns in mind so. 460 01:06:31,104 --> 01:06:40,181 Will that's encouraging yeah yeah. 461 01:06:40,880 --> 01:06:50,435 The law and the facts and you know, does it? Listening to various commentaries yesterday while I was in the car on the radio, on the news. 462 01:06:50,738 --> 01:06:57,979 You know. 463 01:06:59,677 --> 01:07:04,676 Has out, 464 01:07:04,745 --> 01:07:14,453 Oh gosh that's just like a whole lot like the copyright act. 465 01:07:15,602 --> 01:07:22,015 There was. 466 01:07:22,228 --> 01:07:27,947 Sex and previous to that of of this ability to have the algorithm. Yeah. 467 01:07:28,619 --> 01:07:38,858 Just invented the thing, right? Here, there we go. It also makes me look a little bit at the prints, purple rain, dancing, baby, case of. 468 01:07:40,286 --> 01:07:47,698 The court saying, you can't just have the computer make the decision on fair use. There needs to be a human making it decision. Well. 469 01:07:48,685 --> 01:08:02,552 Yeah and yeah I mean it raises all kinds of issues about. 470 01:08:02,765 --> 01:08:11,365 To 471 01:08:11,875 --> 01:08:18,315 It's almost like a products liability. Kind of a claim. 472 01:08:19,275 --> 01:08:23,617 And, 473 01:08:23,731 --> 01:08:37,436 I think we could all sue the internet at the end. 474 01:08:38,648 --> 01:08:42,099 And we'll have this flood of the gate as he's as. 475 01:08:42,366 --> 01:08:55,071 As Kavanaugh said, you know, I could blow up the internet. Oh, okay. And I have to sound good. Disagree with just as Thomas. If I'm interested in cooking, I might also be interested in light jazz. For while I'm cooking. 476 01:08:55,689 --> 01:09:05,802 Well, and that's where some fuzzy logic and and AI come in, right? That's right. 477 01:09:13,250 --> 01:09:19,026 If you like pasta, I'll diablo then it's gonna be hard rock. 478 01:09:19,635 --> 01:09:24,013 And if you like Alfredo, it's gonna be smooth jazz. 479 01:09:24,551 --> 01:09:30,423 Hey I was super excited that I saw that there's gonna be a six saxophone, 480 01:09:30,465 --> 01:09:39,578 Jazz, presentation, concert at the Dallas Symphony and I'm like, oh my gosh, sign me up. So, there you go. Oh, that sounds really cool. Hope it tours 481 01:09:39,386 --> 01:09:55,692 I will I will send you the link and see if they are touring. 482 01:09:55,834 --> 01:10:02,750 Rulings. So, we'll see 483 01:10:02,657 --> 01:10:12,968 Listeners we appreciate and are grateful for you for spending your time with us. 484 01:10:13,226 --> 01:10:25,355 And we welcome your feet back if you have anything you'd like to tell us you can leave it for us using a voice 485 01:10:25,136 --> 01:10:32,710 Click on that little red flag on the right side of the screen or email us at Entertainment Law update@Gmail. Com or 486 01:10:32,581 --> 01:10:36,301 Tweet us at law at excuse me at in-law update, 487 01:10:36,353 --> 01:10:44,520 And Tamara tell folks how to read you. Sure, they can find me online tee Benette Law. Com or create protect 488 01:10:44,410 --> 01:10:50,228 Dot com. We'll take you to my website 489 01:10:50,054 --> 01:11:01,814 T A M E R A B E N N E T T and yeah we we love to feedback I I know both of us love talking to our listeners or Emailing with folks. 490 01:11:02,000 --> 01:11:05,325 Whether you just have questions you know if you want my 491 01:11:05,079 --> 01:11:18,378 Smooth jazz recommendations for my pasta sauce I'm happy to share all of the above with you so Gordon where folks finding you these days well I'm in Los Angeles and you can find my website Firemark. Com, 492 01:11:18,465 --> 01:11:26,976 My email address is G Fire Market Firemark. Com and on most social media G firemark is the way to find me and I'm just gonna add since we're talking about. 493 01:11:27,342 --> 01:11:35,401 Food and music pairings. 494 01:11:35,597 --> 01:11:44,548 The team and I had talked about John's famous tamale recipes. 495 01:11:44,815 --> 01:11:49,175 Different varieties of of tamales that apparently he's. 496 01:11:49,334 --> 01:12:01,166 He's very proud of. So, if you're interested in hearing about that, send us a little feedback there and we'll we'll see if we can get that published and out to the folks though. Oh, I I'm bracing my hand right now. Alright, I love tamales 497 01:12:01,028 --> 01:12:09,394 So anyway a big thanks to John our managing editor John Janiceek and Charlestone Mark Lindeman 498 01:12:09,193 --> 01:12:12,968 Malhar Oza and Alexis Allen who have. 499 01:12:13,433 --> 01:12:24,292 Stepped up in the absence of some of our other team members who've made their departures recently and I would just say we've got openings if you're interested in joining the fun and being a part of this, 500 01:12:24,335 --> 01:12:31,486 Old entertainment law update family of contributors please reach out to the email address entertainment law update@Gmail. Com, 501 01:12:31,555 --> 01:12:39,740 Is the way to do that? And that's gonna wrap up this episode. I've entertain the law update. Thank you again for listening and until next time. 502 01:12:39,600 --> 01:13:04,277 Music.