Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 07-23-25_WEDNESDAY_8AM

Episode Date: July 23, 2025

State Rep. Dwayne Yunker breaks down the Gov. Kotek call for a Special Session August 29th to raise your taxes. Intellectual property attorney Kristen Roberts from Trestle Law - Authors suiing for their books being feed to AI. Do they have a case?

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years Find out more about them at Clouser Drilling.com 11 minutes after 8 state representative Dwayne Younger on the program here What are the talk with Dwayne about the latest announcement from Governor Koteck? There's going to be a special session August 29th August 29th you are commanded to appear, Representative. Welcome to the show. How you doing? I'm doing well, Bill. Yes. The Labor Day weekend special session, we should call it. The most Governor way possible, we find out through the news, instead of giving us a

heads up that this is the date she's going to call, she goes through, you know, Oregon Public Broadcasting and puts the word out. Oh, okay. So the Oregon Public Broadcasting is now the governor's press release service. Got it. Okay. Makes a lot of sense. Now, wouldn't it have made more sense to perhaps get together with the Democrat and Republican leaders and saying, hey, you know, we need to do a special session, I'm going to call one. When do you think is a good time? And I would just think that Labor Day weekend would not be the wisest time to try to get a whole bunch of, well, herding a whole bunch of cats, legislative cats, into order.

Would I be wrong about about that to assume? I don't think you're wrong. I have a prediction that it won't happen on the 29th because if she wants to tax people more and to pass her tax, she needs 36 Democrats to do that. And there's, how many is there going to be 36 Democrats on a Friday of Labor Day weekend available that don't have plans already to be at a special session. I I mean Uh, you know, that's a that's a pretty big ask. Yeah, give up your Labor Day weekend to tax the The citizens of Oregon. Yes, we we want you to hear to tax the people of Oregon so they will have to labor harder.

All right. I can't help myself. You know, I just imagine Queen Kotech, you know, doing this sort of thing. But in all seriousness though, what about my mathematics there? How many Republicans would have to be present in order to gavel in for a special session? Do you know, at least on the House side, what would it take? They would need four, if they had all 36 of their Democrats, they would need four Republicans to show up for this special session to actually partake, you know, to happen. And am I right though that if for some reason

every Republican were to stay away, there's no special session. Am I right about that? If they were all to stay away? That's correct. Yes. If it never gobbles in, then this session never happened. Oh, okay. That means there would be no unexcused absences to deal with under the Measure 113 rules passed stupidly by the Oregon electorate. But I digress here. So anyway, we move forward here on that. The point being though, does the governor actually need to raise taxes to accomplish what she claims to need for the special, well, which is what she's claiming is the need for the

special session. I'm sorry, I'm stumbling over myself a little bit there, Rep, but you know, what is actually needed? Because I thought the Republicans had a plan that would have actually helped all dot without having to raise taxes well we we definitely had a plan that was pushing things around uh... given the things that are uh... that we feel are

not needed you know we have uh... sixty eight million dollars and uh... vacancies we can we don't need to fill those. We can give her this bicycle pedestrian program, which you always complain about. Oh yeah. Isn't that called the multimodal program, I think is what it is? Yes, $47 million. The passenger rail is $38 million. The privilege tax is $35 million. The social equity and civil rights division is $ 35 million. You know, social equity and civil rights division is 25 million. There's a social and civil rights equity division at ODOT. How does that get any roads built? DEI. Come on, Bill. Not that we're going to hire the best employees or any employees.

We're going to look for the odd ones. You know what I'm saying? employees, we're going to look for the odd ones. You know what I'm saying? The more nose rings and purple hair, the better. That means it's a better transportation system, huh? Yes. We're not going to get the best workers, the people who are going to get the job done. We're looking for these special people. It is just odd. This is the leadership that the governor has, but she's never really ran anything in her life, you know. Being a politician, and I, you know, I am a politician now, does not give you experience running businesses or leading people or, you know,

managing money or even running a household, I guess, you know, where you have to budget your money. You and your wife budget your money just like all of us do. And well, if it's out of our means, we figure out how we can do things within our budget. And that's what Republicans are asking. Hey, stop making it unaffordable for Oregonians. They complain about we have a housing crisis and this and that, but then they do things like this and just raise the taxes on people. That's their first incognito. It's the first reaction, right? The first reaction, hey we having problems with money? Well, we're not getting enough money in. Boom! Off we go. So, state Rep

Duane Younger, can the Republicans actually have a good impact on a special session? I mean, truly have an impact? Or is it, once again, what you and I have talked about in the past, that only by stopping the session can you have any real impact? Is it one of those things where the Democrats are going to do what only the Democrats need to do, and that's all there is to this? How do you see this as a political action? I think that we could put pressure on it. We, and I think Nick Stark thought we have an Oregon

Freedom Coalition and we spent I think about $20,000 pushing the initiative with people, citizens, Oregonians, emailing their legislators through our Oregon Freedom Coalition. They can go on that site and it sends an email, we're going to update it now for this too, and just put pressure on these vulnerable Democrats about raising taxes. Other Democrats don't want taxes. They're living day to day, independence and not affiliated. Well, let's be real about it.

In the session, in the regular session, it was Democrats not supporting the tax increases that ended up killing it, wasn't it? It was. They couldn't get enough of their Democrat colleagues to come out and vote for it because they knew it would have hurt them bad. Orgonians are filling it every day. You know, there's only one place I would see that anything out. Unbalanced and this whole thing about raising anything was probably the electric vehicle people.

They're not paying a fuel tax like all rest of us. That would be the only one I see that's reasonable, but I'm not, I think we can do it with what the cuts we proposed, you know, that not raising taxes on people is the best thing. We just have to manage our money properly. There's, there's reserve fund. We have a reserve fund. We can use that. We can, we can push this out to February. We can use our reserve fund. We don't have to lay anybody off. We can say, Hey, we're going to come back in February. We can use our reserve fund. We don't have to lay anybody off. We can say, hey, we're going to come back in February and we can continue to work this out and figure out where we can make cuts and adjust things. Yeah. I love the first people that they lay off,

Phil, are the ones that drive the snowplows, right? You know, the stuff that people care about. Well, you know that that's going to hurt the people the most and complain. You know, that's the road maintenance. That's where they go first. We're going to make them pay the price. So she's just being victim to those rural people, these people. They're going to pay the price for not giving me what I want. That's kind of a dictatorship kind of thing. Well, yeah. I've kind of, and I will say this for, I know someone complained about me using the term, but they do tend to view us as a bunch of gap-toothed hillbillies. That sort of feel. The country cousins, it's like, we don't really love you, but we won't let you go

to Idaho either. That kind of thing. Well, if you go to Rep Gamba, he calls us petulant children. They like to call us names because we don't agree with their grift. You know, because we want to keep our money for one thing. We want to be able to buy food for our family. We want to be able to pay our own bills. Imagine that. Now, do you think that there's enough Republican juice in a special session here to actually have some real impact? What is your evaluation of it all right now?

I mean, do the Republicans actually have an appetite for being tough on this one because they were all out there writing letters after the session saying, look what we did, the gas taxes didn't rise and now they're going to come back with a gas tax. You know that, right? Yeah, I would say, you know, I'm not a hundred percent there. I would say the majority of them, I think, are definitely know that this is unpopular. And so I think that it's going to take the people to pressure those people. I'm not really worried about Southern Oregon reps.

I think they're all going to be fine. They're going to vote no or whatever. It's the same handful of people that we always worry about. Do you think Kevin Mannix would vote no? I think he regretted what he did. Oh yeah? Not personally said it to me, but I just think that he realized that getting a little too excited coming out there was not the thing. I think there was not the thing. I think I, you know, I don't... I know, we don't know. I'm just asking for a little conjecture because you, you know, these are your colleagues in there and I don't want you to say awful things about your colleagues.

Means well and, but, and I think he wants, you know, doesn't want to lay people off, but at the end of the day, I, from, you know, what I'm hearing is he jumped the gun and he did an unpopular vote in committee, but I think he's come out since then and said that was wrong. So we'll see where he's at. I mean, I hope that he stands strong with Republican values and doesn't vote for a tax at all. We don't need a tax increase. We can stay to making cuts, good cuts that maintain what we have and keep what we have going and we just live

on a little thinner budget. I mean, that's what everybody needs to do. And there's... We need to look at the other waste in the state. There's so much waste every day in the state that we're doing. I mean, we could save money. We could stop wasting so much money on homelessness, that grift. There's so much that's going out there that could be redirected to the things we need in Oregon that maintain things for every single person, every Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever you are that we rely on. But did you hear my talk with Brian Boetteler just a few minutes ago?

I did not. Okay, yeah. I was talking with him and I asked him how many open beds he had, and he was talking about 30, 35 beds in each of the shelters, pretty close to that, somewhere around that. And so you have a whole bunch of homeless people that don't want to be forced to follow any kind of rule or get themselves off the various substances, and you got to have a dog in there with you and everything. They just don't want to do it.

It's astounding to me. And yet... Yeah, and the mission here in town, the numbers were before all this HB 315, you know, Governor Kotech's bill that she passed, the mission had a lot higher numbers in there, but since there's no pressure to go to the mission, because you can live in your tent, you know, and on any corner and Grants Pass, it feels like, they don't need to go there. And if you look at the Medford Mission, I haven't looked at the numbers in a while, but it was the same way. I think they were even worse because they can go, they don't have to follow the rules of the mission. They can

go live in some tent village and don't really have to have any change in their life. There's no mandatory change. You could still do drugs. You just can't do them on the property. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, we're not going... Well, you know, it would be bad to actually convince people not to do drugs because drugs are healthy. Being sarcastic. We're going to enable them by doing what, you know, putting our heart out because we want to give them needles and we're just killing them ourselves. It's all backwards. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that you are looking at the legislative process, not in the backward fashion there, Representative. Thanks for keeping us in the room here, and we'll have you back.

So if you were a betting man, that special session's not going to start on the 29th of August, right? Not going to happen? I just don't see enough representatives and senators to show up on the 29th on Labor Day weekend and demand that we be there when people have plans already or things going on. I just don't see it. I know that several Republicans already had plans. Yeah. But the point is, I would have thought that the governor, smart woman... Well, she doesn't have kids. Come on, Bill, she doesn't have kids.

Oh, okay. That must be it. Must be it. She doesn't have kids. She doesn't know what Labor Day weekend vacation is with your family. Yeah, because every weekend is a Labor Day weekend family when you don't have the kids, right? Okay.

Well, as you know, last weekend was Pride in Portland, so you know, those are weekends for her. Oh, you know, you're right. Labor Day is probably not on the governor's calendar. No, because we don't promote labor. We lay off, we lost 6,500 jobs in the state this year. Just good paying jobs. Come on. All right. You got it. Thanks, Dwayne. Good talking with you. All right. All right. Thank you, Bill. Bye. Take care. State Rep Dwayne Juncker. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Junkyard Dog. It is 826 at KMED 993 KBXG. Coming up here just a little bit, I'm looking forward to this next talk I'm going to have here too. Kristen Roberts, intellectual property attorney.

There's been a new lawsuit out there. It's talking about how there's these publishers, these book authors, they work and they get stuff out of their head, they put it down on paper. And then the tech bros, just more or less demanding that everything gets there, it's just thrown into the computers to feed the AI brains so they can mess with them.

What about copyright? We'll dig into that a little bit too before we take off. If you've been injured in an accident, you've got to read the Bill Meyers Show on 1063 KMED. It's 8.30. We'll check the rest of the news here in just a moment. Then into, should authors and musical people just have to send all their stuff into the AI brain so that AI can create their stuff later. And then the tech pros make lots of money. I don't know. It is a weird culture that we seem to be getting force fed at the moment. I could be wrong about that. But speaking of weirdness, well, what she said was not weird though. But the whole thing about the coup

against Donald Trump, weaponized intelligence, 2016, 2020, all those years in here. We all know about that. And hearing more about it, President Trump talked about that yesterday. Tulsi was on Newsmax. I wanted to play a bite of her on Newsmax last night, saying that today they were going to be releasing more. We're releasing further documents tomorrow that will refute that statement.

And I would go back and point to, and we will be pulling a whole host of statements that were made by the Obama administration, by Hillary Clinton, by senior Democrat officials, by their friends in the media that state over and over again, after this January 2017 manufactured intelligence document was created created that repeat the narrative and I'm looking at my notes here New York Times says Russian hackers acted to aid Trump in the election CIA's Obama's CIA director John Brennan says there is strong consensus among us the to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump's election Hillary Clinton, I would be president if not

for the Russian hackers supporting Donald Trump. So there is a vast body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement you've just read and others coming from some of the Democrat leaders in Congress today. So get the popcorn and look for those documents probably coming later today. All right. It is 832. More of it coming up. This is the Bill Maier Show. documents probably coming later today. All right. It is 832. More of it coming up. This is the Bill Myers Show. Appreciate you waking up here.

Two Dogs Fabricating has the resources to transform your rig into the most efficient configuration for you. It's an actual extension of our house. The Hughes Lumber Timber Tech Sale is going on now. Don't miss out. This is News Talk 1063 KMED and you're waking up with the Bill Meyers show. I am so delighted to have Kristin Roberts back. She's an intellectual property attorney and deals regularly in a very specialized field, trademark and copyright registration,

licensing, enforcement, litigation, and she's also worked as an adjunct law professor. She teaches various intellectual property courses and is heavily involved in her community too. Many cases have involved transactions with the big companies like Walmart, Target, Luluman, Chipotle and more. What was the problem with Chipotle? I just have to ask you. I'm kind of wondering what would be involved with that and welcome back by the way. Thank you, Kristin. No, thank you for having me. Good to see you. Good to talk to you, I'm kind of wondering what would be involved with that? And welcome back by the way. Thank you, Kristen.

No, no, no. Thank you for having me. Good to see you. Good to talk to you, Bill. No problem with Chipotle. We do deals all the time for our clients, you know, very friendly stuff, licensing, that kind of stuff with them. Oh, okay.

I was wondering, it was one of those things like, you know, when somebody sues Subway because the foot long was like 11 and a half inches long, you know, that kind of thing. No, I help businesses make money. Got it. And by the way, your firm, you're the founder of Tressel Law, TresselLaw.com. So if you have any questions about this kind of stuff that we're going to be talking about, intellectual property, making sure that you get paid, you want to talk with Kristin. There's a really interesting lawsuit and it involves artificial intelligence.

And I've expressed to you before that I was kind of concerned that we're all supposed to go just into the artificial intelligence arbatoir, no matter what you create, whether you're an author, whether you're a musician, whether you're a talk show host, whether you are a blogger, a vlogger, whatever the case might be, everything is supposed to be consumed, sliced and diced and chopped up by artificial intelligence, and we're not supposed to say anything about this.

What happened with this interesting federal lawsuit? I'm looking more forward to finding out more. Yeah, this case is really exciting, especially for people that are in my industry, because we're all sort of looking for guidance right now to the issues you just spoke about, right? Like, is it legal for them to take everything and sort of amalgamate it into a soup and then deconstruct it and learn from it and then spit out things that might not be identical,

but similar? And this case really delves into the heart of really two issues. One, can everybody band together who feels like they've been aggrieved by these AI companies and is using their stuff? Can they all get together and form a class and sue as a class action?

And then the second issue that they're looking at in this case is whether or not pirated information is fair use. If they download it off the internet and that information has been sourced from pirated sites, is that fair use to train the AI models? And then also if you buy the copies and then use it and scan it in, is that fair use? And the judge actually has already ruled on, previously has ruled on the second issue. The company here, Anthropic, took millions and millions and millions of books to train

its clawed AI. But they bought millions of books too. Some of them, millions, around seven million were pirated. But seven million, or another millions and millions of books were actually bought by Anthropic and ripped apart, scanned in, and fed to the AI. The judge actually said purchased copies were fair use, but the pirated copies are not, and that's what's going to trial in December. And then recently in the last couple of days, the judge also ruled on the class action and said these three authors can actually sue on behalf of all of the authors

in the United States. So this is a big deal because now we're talking about potentially trillions of dollars of damages. All right. I want to make sure I understand this, Kristin, that the judge actually said if you bought the copies of the books, it is fair use. And that even kind of strikes me as a little bit odd. Fair use to feed it into something which essentially wants to duplicate or at least something similar to what the authors do. It's kind of odd, don't you? I disagree with that story or that ruling, but maybe that's the law, perhaps. Well, they went into the whole Fair Use analysis in the decision and the way that it was set in. So they ripped the covers off, they fed the information in. I think a lot of

legal scholars and people in the industry kind of raised an eyebrow at that as well because they basically said, well, purchasing the book is effectively like, you know, sort of the first, you know, when you buy something, kind of like a CD or a piece of clothing, you can kind of go and resell it and buy it so you have this sort of like first purchase. Oh yeah, and I get that. And that makes sense. I'm not saying I agree. I'm saying that's what the court decided are allowing the pirated

stuff to move forward. I think they were, I don't know if they were trying to split the baby, so to speak, and give something to the AI companies because there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of government interests too in permitting some of this AI stuff to go forward because it is so useful, what we've seen the uses of. So I'm not sure exactly why it leans that way. But that's how it leaned with this judge in particular. So it does give some insight, payment matters.

And I don't think the judge said every instance of buying is fine fine as long as you buy it and you feed it in and it spits something out that's illegal. You can still go after the illegality of that. But in terms of how they evaluated fair use of what they did with these purchased copies, the judge was inclined to call that specific use fair use. Yeah. I'm trying to think of how the court would think about this. All right, I buy a Coldplay CD, right? Assuming I had a, or else I paid for the download

because I guess you don't really buy many CDs these days. But I buy a Coldplay download. I feed it into my artificial intelligence network then. And then I say, I want you to come up with something which is just like the clocks song but but does but does everything but you know it sounds like it but it's not the real thing and then Coldplay's not supposed to be upset about that right well so I think we I want to make sure it's clear that the court didn't say it was fair use just because it was purchased.

Okay. The purchasing of it, it got over one hurdle. They have to go through four factors to determine whether something is fair use. And that's what they did. So it's the purpose and the character of the use. And really they looked at that and they said, well, they're feeding it into this program and this program is making something else. So they looked at that from like a transformational standpoint. That was the first hurdle. They also looked at the nature of the copyrighted work. Certain

creative works get more protection. So like creative things that are highly creative get more protection than factual ones. And in this case, a lot of these were like textbooks and you know nature books and things like that. So again, you know it's not just because they purchased it, the purchasing of it sort of helped clear that initial hurdle so that they could get to the fair use argument, if that makes sense. I get it. Now okay, that is interesting. There was a different protection then for a factual textbook kind of thing. All right, that's interesting. That's an interesting distinction there.

Because I could see the time come in which, all right, you take all of Stephen King's novels, you feed it into the AI brain, and then say, write me Christine, without violating copyright there, but with a different thing in which Christine is a gay car or whatever it is, right? I don't know. I'm just having a little fun with you here, Kristen, but I could see though why Stephen King and other big authors and maybe even small authors would be kind of hacked off of this kind of stuff, wouldn't you say? Sure, sure. And I think that, but even still, whether or not, so if that book came out, if we use

that book as an example, right, this knockoff Christine book from Stephen King, if it's recognizable as a knockoff of Stephen King, somebody, Stephen King can still sue that person responsible for putting out that work. So if it's like, hey, this is just AI and nobody is buying, you know, it's not being sold for any money. It's not, you know, they're just, we're just showing as an example for entertainment purposes because we want to show that it's a parody. Well, then it goes through a similar fair use analysis, right? So the the product the resulting product of the AI Still falls under the purview of our standard, you know copyright laws and fair use laws defenses, etc, etc

the real what a lot of these authors and artists and musicians and copyright holders are Really focused on right now is the use of their work to train the AI. Because right now the AI is getting so good that most of what it's spitting out is not direct infringement because you're not looking at it going, oh, Stephen King wrote that, that must be his new book. Right, it's more subtle now.

The resulting product is so much more subtle now that the authors and the owners of the intellectual property are really going, well, wait a second, I get it, I can't do anything about the resulting work, but you used my stuff to get to that point. And you forced my... In other words, you forced me in order to... you forced me, or at least have created a system right now in which I am forced to train my replacement in some ways. It's not all that different from when you had those Disney workers that were having

to train the H1B or H2B people, I forget which number it was, they had to train their replacements. And there's a little bit of that going on here, that kind of feel, isn't there? It does feel like that. And also I think the bigger, you I think a lot of it also has to come down to money, right? Because they get paid, music for example, when somebody uses a song in a movie or in a television show or online or, you know, social media sites have these deals with the publishing houses to be able to use songs in your stories and on your posts. They get paid for that.

And it's all through like a licensing system. And there is no licensing system for AI right now. There's no method or mechanism where if something gets used in the training, there's an automatic payment like there is for the radio or bar or restaurants, right? You pay a fee. There isn't that same system. So the authors, the owners of the copyright are missing out on millions and millions and millions of dollars. Yeah, the owners of the copyright get hosed, and then all the tech bros are the ones that, and their investors are the ones. Exactly. It's the AI companies that are making, they're making billions in revenue off of

these subscriptions for people to go and make these things. And I think a lot of the copyright holders are, they're not, they're a little chagrined about what's happening with AI using them in a sec, you know, essentially training, training their replacement, like you said, but I think there's a spectrum of people, right? Copyright holders aren't all saying they're I'm going to get replaced, but they're like, well, wait a second. If they're going to do this, I should at least be getting paid for my efforts that go into the training. And that's really what this case is at issue. That's really interesting. Now, you're saying that there are trillions of dollars at stake in this AI versus the publishers

type thing. What happens next? Well, that's why this case is so exciting because it is set to go forward. We're hoping to see a trial around December of this year. Now the signal that the judge has given is that these authors can now all band together. And if you think about copyright infringement damages for intentional infringement, which is what we're alleging here, because Anthropic has said,

well, it was too hard to get in touch with all the authors. It was too cumbersome to try to find everybody. And the judge said, I don't buy that. And so that is a signal that one, intentionality is on the table here. And that increases damages to up to $150,000 per infringement. We're talking about 7 million works. 7 million times 150,000 per work per per infringement, can easily reach in the trillions of dollars. I mean, it's huge numbers. And I think that that signal, what is worrisome to people like me in this industry is we want

guidance. So it's in our best interest to see how the case turns out. But Anthropic might go, we're getting some bad signals here, folks. Let's settle this. So we might see them pay money out and settle it instead of taking their chances and going to court. That's what we've seen with a lot of these cases, right? We get a really interesting case that goes forward, and then the companies go, ah, we might as well just pay them because we don't want this

law, this precedent to be set not in our favor and ruin the whole industry for everybody. Do you think this anthropic case was probably encouraged in some way by the way Google treated books. Google essentially in search scanned millions of books, did it not? You know the Google search? I'm not sure if the Google search had, the way Google does things had anything to do with how this case went forward. I think we saw the initial cases start to move. Sarah Silverman was one of the main defendants in the, in the, one of the very first cases because of her books being trained by the AI. I also

think a lot of this started because the AI wasn't as good in the beginning at the outset. There was a lot more of that direct infringement happening that was easy to pinpoint back to the AI. And now that it's getting harder and harder and the AI is getting better and better, this issue becomes really really important because if you're feeding, it's very hard to like stop that moving train, you know what I mean? Like it's really hard to, AI is moving forward at the pace it is, it doesn't seem like we're gonna be able to really slow it down. And so stopping it by saying, hey, wait a second, keep your innovation moving forward, but pay the people that helped you create all of this innovation, I think is really

kind of what's at the heart here. Yeah, but the whole idea of being a tech bro is to not pay the people. Let's be real. Okay? But the whole idea of being a tech bro is to not pay the people. Let's be real. Okay Thing is because national security We know no no you pay us we're not paying anybody now this is this is just a completely wild speculation I've been having fun with this. I don't know that if I asked you this before the late Rush Limbaugh thousands of hours of shows, right sure The late Rush Limbaugh, thousands of hours of shows, right? Sure.

It is possible that someone could take everything that Rush ever said on the air and load it into an AI and create an AI Rush. Is there not? There is a potential possibility that that could happen. However, I'm assuming Rush's estate still controls his name and likeness. Yes. So there are still privacy protections in place to stop that from happening. But again, this would be a question that would be centered around how are they using it? Now, are they taking his voice and his likeness and his image and just creating another rush? Or are they doing something with his voice that's so out of left field and putting it

to like a cartoon character and transforming it and not making it exactly him and turning him into a parody of himself and making him like a left leaning liberal? You see what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah. There are questions about how the use happens. So could that happen? Sure. If it does happen, are there still legal protections in place that Russia's estate could take advantage

of to help protect his image, his likeness, his voice? Yes. I really appreciate the take on this. Kristin, fascinating talk. It's always a fascinating talk when you're on. You're one of my favorite legal guests for this reason. And it's just... Oh, thank you.

There's a lot... It's fun, isn't it? Yep. There's a lot at stake here. It's a lot of big money. And of course, people who create intellectual property need to be paid, including you being an intellectual property attorney. And it's TresselLaw.com. I'll put this all up on KMAD.com.

Kristen Roberts, once again, intellectual property attorney. Thank you for the stimulating analysis on this. You'll be well. Thank you so much for having me. All right. And keep us on the room for this. It is in the room rather. 855. Need a roof that performs and lasts? Stephen Westfall Roofing. Installs the Amed this. It is in the room rather, 855. Need a roof that performs and lasts?

Stephen Westfall Roofing. Install stiamedford.com. All righty, 858 and change. And thank you so much for having listened this morning. Tomorrow is going to be Conspiracy Theory Thursday. And we got some big stuff. Going to be talking about some more legal issues this time around Epstein. Got to do a little bit of Epstein stuff. I know that we're all supposed to focus on Obama right now, but I think we can rub our tummy and pat our heads at the same time, all right? Now, breaking news, the United Nations top court has just announced that failing to protect

planet from climate change violates international law. So they're doubling down. This is from the United Nations courts. We're going to talk about that tomorrow because this is going up right against what President Trump is saying. Nope, we don't want to do that here. Should be interesting.