Pablo Torre Finds Out - The Sporting Class: Inside the Risky Business of Streaming Games Illegally

Episode Date: October 18, 2024

Welcome to The Sporting Class! Meadowlark Media CEO John Skipper and Nothing Personal's David Samson are back with another episode with host of Pablo Torre Finds Out ... Pablo Torre! Today we to you to the deep sea. The water world of the unjust. The streaming land of treacherous souls. We’re talking about the world of online pirates. Streaming Piracy has cost major sports leagues billions of dollars; so they say. Is there a way to put a stop to this? Are the pirates always going to win in the end? How angry are these major sports leagues about this issue? It’s time to find out. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Pablo Torre finds out. I am Pablo Torre, and today we're going to find out what this sound is. Thinking that it's a nipple when it was an elbow, we've all been there right after this ad. You're listening to Giraff Kings Network. You're being recorded. Whatever you were about to say interests me greatly, except you clammed up so fast. Normally it's the opposite. When they say a recording, we're supposed to snap in and do something. Great. Are we recording? Coc is saying that. That was for Skipper. Was that recording? Can the listener hear what Koki just told us reminding us that we were being recorded right now?

Only if we release it, I think. I do think we're still, since we're not, I do not think we're broadcasting live, are we? We have a safety net that is full of holes. I think somebody's likely listening now live. Really? We just don't know who they are, where they are. They're probably in their skivies. I think Lebitard watches us, just from Miami.

I think he has like a control panel and he spies on us. I spent some time with him this past week. And yes, he is shockingly in tune with what's happening in his networks and with his shows in weird times of day in weird ways with different. He has some IT issues. So it'll be on an iPad but also a phone. But then when the phone rings, it rings like in four different rooms in the apartment. Right, right.

His AOL address will send me a photograph of a security camera of me reading a book and I'm like, what? I'm not joking. I'm not either. Yeah. Fortunately, I live the kind of life, and it just doesn't matter if anybody's spying on me all the time.

I've always felt that way. I always do everything based on as my dead grandfather watching. How's that gone? Not great. I can't imagine he's calling his friends over and saying, look at my grandson. I'm so proud.

He's washing his hands for the 49th time today. Oh, that's not even when I was referring to, but that's very nice from you. It's not relevant. What do you mean it's not relevant? All of this is relevant. This is a show about David Samson and John Skipper and me trying to, you know, punch and Judy, you guys.

Is that a reference that kids know? I don't believe so. I don't believe so. I think it's more whack-a-mole is what you do when you're with us. I think punching Judy is in the undercard, right, of the next Logan Paul fight. Logan Paul, what a brilliant, brilliant marketer. We're not going to do that right now. I'm just saying that I think about them all the time.

The topic that I bring you guys together to discuss is a topic that I have received more inquiries about quietly, privately, more than any other. Because streaming illegally, piracy in sports viewership, John, I want to throw some numbers at you as the former president of ESPN, a guy who ran, zone, a sports streaming company. The claim is, and this is now from a combined NFL, NBA, and UFC statement from last year, that live piracy has been costing the global sports industry up to $28 billion, with a B, in potential additional revenue annually. And of course, any young person knows that this is happening all the time everywhere, and we'll talk about that too. But what is your knee-jerk response to just the scope of the problem? And that number.

Well, that number is bull-h-h-h-it. And far overstates the issue, which is not trivial, but according to a study from CNAMedia, which sells anti-piracy tools, so they have nothing but incentive to make you believe there is an enormous economic benefit to buying their tools. Now, it was and the media research firm Amper analysis. They, my guess is they are calculating this number by looking at the number of illegal streams consumed

and calculating that if every one of those people actually paid the money they were supposed to pay to receive that legally, that would add up a $28 billion. Most people sourcing illegal streams are not deciding, hmm, Do I pay $100 for that fight? Because I'm thinking about it, but I could get it for free. Most of those are people who would not pay $100 for the fight, though it is pay-per-view UFC fights, boxing fights, for which this is the biggest problem.

And it is a big problem. They do lose money. I do not believe, and who did you say the three, it was the NFL, UFC. It was the NBA, the NFL, and the UFC. I don't really believe on a Sunday that there are a whole lot of people sourcing through their computer and illegal streaming an NFL game because it's too ubiquitously available and ubiquitous for 800 bucks on YouTube for the price of for a $7 stine of beer in your local tavern or by the way free in your friend's home. I just don't believe. I'm not trivializing the theft of intellectual property. I worked at the Walt Disney Company.

We took that very seriously. I worked at DeZone. We clearly leaked revenue because people... Exactly. I'll give you a fun example. We had the several Anthony Joshua fights. We put one of them on pay-per-view in Nigeria. He is the arguably the most popular...

athlete in Nigeria, we expected to get, I think we actually had quite an inexpensive price, two or three dollars, which, however, is not trivial for many Nigerians. But we, I remember looking every hour to see how many people from Nigeria has subscribed. I don't think we hit 100. I'm not even sure. A hundred people. People. I'm not even sure we hit 25.

And more than a million people did watch it illegally. Now, how many of those people do I believe would have bought even a $2 or $3 subscription? Almost none of them. And so I don't believe there's this $28 billion pool of money that is going to somebody else or is available for these leagues to scoop up if they could simply find and stop this piracy. I favor finding and stopping this piracy. In the language of the day, they should be found and say they should walk the gangplank

after being drawn and quartered. Pirate maritime justice. It's good to talk the way John talks because when he's doing his financials for Zone, you have to look at are you budgeting revenue from Nigeria in order to make it work what you're paying the fighters and paying your overhead, et cetera. And my guess is what John will tell you,

is that from a Nigerian revenue standpoint, that it was not a huge part of their P&L. If, however, a large part of their P&L, which is, let's say, European revenue or American revenue, that there was leakage to the point where they were no longer comfortable with the amount of leakage, you can bet your bips that you'd have a different view. Now, I recognize that you don't necessarily want to budget at DeZone, but at Disney, the budget that you had to protect against piracy was huge. Would you, and this is anecdotal, but do you agree that there were a lot of people at Disney

who were focused on people who are stealing both from licensed products to streaming to everything? There were significant resources put against piracy, which was most acute in those days in DVDs, which would show up just from the low technology application, of somebody's phone in a theater where... I remember those days. No.

And it was acute, for instance, in China. In China, you could buy The Little Mermaid. Oh, in the Philippines, I would go over there to visit my relatives, and I'd go to the mall, and there would be entire cases of DVDs of every movie. So you can't fight at every front. And so when you're a company and you're deciding who are you going after, you're not going after the stores. It's like fending not going after the people on Canal Street.

Street here in New York. They don't love it. They're not happy with Canal Street, but they've got a lot bigger fish to fry. And the Nigerian stealing of revenue, it's the sort of the Rolex is on Canal Street. We're going to leave it be, and we're going to write it off like retail shops, write off as a cost of goods sold. They write off stuff that gets walked out the door. But I want to point out that streaming, as it is pertaining to young people, is omnipresent. And there are a bunch of websites that have been named in the news. Dana White has gone to war against at least one of them. Stream East being one of the most popular platforms.

This is from September. Dana White's saying, trust me, we know exactly how to combat piracy. I won't tell you extensively what we do every event, but we go after piracy hard and threaten prosecutions, all of this stuff. And so I just want to point out that this seems like a very difficult problem to comprehensively address.

And so, David, if you're running a team, before working for a league, what is the appropriate approach then? Well, I'm spending money. And I want to just segue to Wall Street. They spend billions of dollars of their P&L every year is against, protecting against hackers because they want people to feel safe when they are going online and doing all their online banking. It's a business that 25 years ago, they were spending 20 million on.

And now it's billions per year is the budget to try to be one step ahead of hackers, which, as you know, is hard to do. when you go down to leagues, it's been 50 years of leagues having boots on the ground at the World Series going around and shutting down the people selling stuff across the street that's unlicensed apparel. The merch. You literally walk up to them, you take all their stuff, and you send them away. You sometimes can use the police to corral them. They never get charged, but at least they're gone for that particular game.

You've got people who are doing it. The reason why you can't bring water and food into many arenas, or into a movie theater is we want you to buy your stuff from us. So it naturally will have people selling water and candy and popcorn outside of an arena. You can't stop everything. Piracy of streaming, you say it's not $28 billion. Okay. I will take the over on $20 billion.

And the reason I will take the over is that your Nigerian example is a good one. But let's talk about here. Let's talk about where the rights fees happen. And there's so many young people stealing what they have no right to have, and they can't go the route of just letting it go, because it is way too much money. I didn't suggest that, but I did suggest that to me for the NFL, it's the equivalent of Canal Street. Most people are watching on a television set at home, in a bar, in a friend's house, that has a legal signal for their game.

They do care a lot about it, but it's not easy to find. I do find it interesting that Dana White is among the most vocal about this, because I do think proportionally he has a lot more to lose than the NFL, because a pay-per-view event is probably in sports the most pirated thing. The NFL thinks that it's Canal Street. I would only point out that if Canal Street, that people who are selling those fake bags and watches, if they relocated out of Canal Street

and were doing what they're doing in front of big box retail stores, I believe that all of a sudden Fendi would be far more interested in shutting that down. So the NFL, they may not be worried today, but they are. I really do believe it because it's not as big a percentage, but I think that they've got to very much invest in protecting that it doesn't get worse. And my view is streaming is getting worse, piracy, not better, which is why they're spending money to stop it now.

It certainly is getting worse. Now, are you suggesting there's potentially $20 billion of incremental revenue? Let's say you shut it all down tomorrow, just somehow magically. You got Aladdin's lap and the genie could grant your wish to shut it all down. It wouldn't even be my fourth wish, but anyway. I don't think the NFL would see a billion dollars. Every bit of streaming would add up to over $20 billion because it's everything. bit of stream would be movies, it would be music, it would be sports pay-per-view.

It theoretically adds up to $28 billion of hypothetical revenue. How much of that revenue do you think would actually convert if you could not stream? 50%. So here's some, here's some just surrounding bits of data, right, to inform this parlor game, which is that Stream East reportedly, as of August 2024, when it was seen. seized, and again, it's hard to whack them all these places because of VPNs and because they can go to countries that have, of course, more legal protection or at least are far more hidden from American authorities. But Stream East had over 15 million monthly visitors. They have a strong

focus on American sports in particular. In the Harvard Business Review, just another piece of information here. And again, this is a privacy tracking firm, VFT, as aforementioned. They estimated that 17 million viewers watched the Super Bowl this year on illegal pirate streams. And a 2023 survey of 3,200 NFL fans, so again, just 3,200 of them, found that 35% reported that they regularly watch NFL games on pirate streams. Are you worried yet? No. Am I worried? I think it's all heinous. Don't misunderstand me, but do I believe 35% have used a stream?

So when you had 18 million people watch a game on Sunday, do I believe if there was no piracy, suddenly that number would become 24 million? It would not. The question of, like, would these people be converted into paying customers? It speaks also to the heart of just young people and their expectations for what it means to be a sports fan at this point. Right? It's just so easy. There's no friction. You just Google or go to a Reddit or a Discord and you'll find the link. but which of the companies today takes this the most seriously when it comes to leagues or broadcasters or distributors? Well, I think we agree. It's likely Dana White because he has an entire system in place, but he's also just more public about it. There's a huge budget within Major League Baseball to protect against piracy and illegal licensing. It's millions of dollars. And if you add it up,

it becomes all the leagues, all the different people, all the different studios. And I just, it's reprehensible to me that people have an expectation to get something for free. There is no reason in the world and John is laughing because it's his dream. His dream somehow is to pay people

to perform a service but then the people who engage with the service don't have to pay for it. That's how you get crushed or bankrupt. I'm not amused by that pirating activity. I'm amused at your

umbrage that anybody should expect to get anything for free. I agree. So like people who jump turnstiles? No, I think it's wrong. I think it is unethical, and they should, if it were possible, be called and punished. When you suggested that baseball's budget was millions of dollars, I believe that. But is it tens of millions of dollars? It's going to be.

That's the whole point. Is it? It's growing because they can't stop it. But it's an interesting question, though, right? When you say turnstile jumping, of course, yes, that's wrong. But the question then becomes, well, how much do you put towards the theater of stopping those people? Or is it the actual attempt to stop them? It's theater.

It's theater. It's hard to do. But the money that's lost, though, John, and this is what I'd like to think about, it's to upkeep trains. It's to keep you safer. It's to have more trains on time. They need money. Leagues need money. Again, my amusement is not because I've found.

it to be acceptable behavior. I do not. I was, I personally found it extraordinary reprehensible when many, many of my friends thought logging on to Napster and stealing music, and that's what it was. And when I would say to them, you know you're stealing music. It's the same as walking into a store and putting three CDs in your coat pocket. Would you do that? They're like, no, that's bulls done. It's not stealing. And they're charging me too much money anyway for a CD, so I'm just getting back. Right.

But where I was going to go with the money baseball spins is if indeed NFL fans on a regular basis, a third of them were stealing, that would be worth billions and billions of dollars. If that was the case and it was a doable activity, their budget would not be millions. it would be hundreds of millions of dollars to recover that money if they could get it. I'm suggesting they know that they're spending an appropriate amount to try to keep it from appearing to be just a trivial activity, to set an example, but they're not doing it. Roger Goodell didn't get from $10 billion to $25 billion by shutting down piracy. And he's not going to get, in my opinion, he's not going to get from $25 to $30,000.

by shutting down piracy. I want to give a shout-out for once to Dana White. He is right. He is every, I am, despite my smile, just as unhappy, and it hurt us at his own that people were stealing our signal. It was detrimental to our actual bottom line. But that is where it matters. It's a $100 event.

People, that gives them pause. I don't think anybody has any trouble figuring out where to appropriately watching NFL game on Sunday. The reason why you go to a dermatologist once a year is to find something before it becomes stage four cancer. And so the investment that companies are making, while it may not be the end of your revenue model today, you can see it from here, just like you can see a spot that can all of a sudden become a real problem.

And that's why all these firms are investing and why all these firms are popping up that selling their wares is, hey, we can help protect you. This is a real now area of business and an area of concern, and it's not too early to be not panicked, but diligent is what I would say. I don't think you're wrong. And if we think back, I use the Napster example of something that bothered me that didn't bother lots of my peers and friends. I illegally download a lot of music in college.

Shameful. I never did. People would say, why don't you just download Napster? I never did it. And by the way, your point is correct. Napster ended up destroying billions of dollars of value in the music business. Because what was the solution to Napster? The solution to Napster was a very, very, very inexpensive streaming service from Apple

that gave you all the music you could steal for, I don't know what Apple music was when it came out. It started as 99 cents a song. The newer songs like $1.99. but now they've made it if you just buy for 12 bucks a month, you can get any song you want and frankly now you don't even need to download songs if you have Wi-Fi, you can just listen to songs and there's so many different places

but it has crushed the music industry. Apple Music now 1099 a month for individual subscription. And if you could have, the problem too, we can move to nothing, is just the difficulty of finding and prosecuting these people. It is really, really hard. And if the music business could have found them, stop them, they would have. Instead, they had to change their entire business model.

So your point's well made. The sports leagues do not want to find themselves in the same position the music companies did, and they're investing to try to find ways to catch them. They should catch them. Again, Dana White has it dead right. I would happily watch a pay-per-view special with Dana White. marching pirated pirates to the gangplank and into the shark-infested waters, I think is a good idea for a Netflix live show.

Very Austin Powers of You. So just legally speaking, it's worth noting, 2020, the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act came to be, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, signed into law on December 27, 2020, increasing criminal penalty significantly for those who do these things. Previously, notably, illegal streaming was treated as a misdemeanor. Under the new law, the DOJ, Department of Justice, can bring felony charges against providers as opposed to users of such illegal services. And the question, of course, is, well, who are the kingpins here who are actually organizing all of this stuff?

Good luck finding them. I mean, there are documentaries about people who are overseas and in countries and they're sitting. in their basements and they're doing a lot of things to disrupt. We are in the age of disruption where people are able to hide behind keyboards and hide behind their technical skills. And my view is that you have to keep going after them, even if you know it's one finger in the dike of piracy. And, of course, there are bigger actions that could be taken and there are companies that

are culpable. You could go right now onto Amazon and buy yourself. a fire stick which which can help you steal signals and they will not discuss why those should be taken out of their available things to buy.

Can't you build a bomb with stuff you buy off Amazon? I mean, well, wait, okay, the philosophy of this, right, is an interesting one. It's the question of, in this part of the tech company ethics, philosophy course we're teaching, what responsibility does Amazon as the proprietor of the biggest store in the world have, to regulate products that in this case are a one-stop shop

for a jailbroken fire stick with all the software you need to stream illegal content. I'm not gonna blame a company as much as I'd like to for people who misuse the products. There is a thing for, you can go to a drug store and buy certain, for example, can you imagine if you couldn't sell cough syrup anymore because there are people who drink it when they're alcoholics? Now, notably, they do lock it

it behind glass now. They do make it harder to attain. It is one of the more difficult discussions in our culture right now, which is are you as a distributor of content through

some kind of technology, do you have any responsibility to make sure that content is accurate, is not inflammatory, cannot be used to defame people, and the big tech companies have hidden for many years behind the, I don't do anything wrong.

The fact may be that people are doing very bad things with this technology. By the way, the greatest, I'll give Dana White a shout out and give Elon Musk the middle finger, thinks it doesn't matter what he puts on his own personal social media site that he has up and running. He thinks he has no responsibility for shutting down information, which is patently false, inflammatory, and being used against people, including those poor folks in Ohio who are not eating cats and dogs. Do the people who build highways have responsibilities because people speed on the highways and there are crashes? Absolutely. If you have an accident on a highway and you want to sue, you want to because if you want to sue because you run into a pothole, you can sue. you can sue the city of New York. I meant the DOT with going too fast

and you get into an accident like Jack Dougherty, who exactly was texting and driving? The YouTuber. Do I have the name wrong? Yeah, Jack Doherty, point taken in terms of that. I just, you're going to blame, listen, I'm not a fan of Elon Musk. Don't get me wrong, and I'm tired of him in my timeline

when I don't follow him. But I'm not going to blame someone who provides a place where people are conversing. Threads was started, but then sort of disappeared, because people on Twitter or X are looking for news, we could stop Twitter right now. All of us could, except we're all on it. We're all complicit, and we're all getting information from us.

So the question of content moderation and the question of responsibility as, again, an online store or an auto manufacturer, which has been beholden to lawsuits in terms of safety, right? and also just to get the full scope of the American experience, the immunity that gun manufacturers have in terms of what their customers do once they obtain them. All of this stuff is a hot zone in terms of legal scholarship. And you could argue in the latter case that I mentioned, incredibly incomprehensible as to why they are immune, except for lobbying efforts that I imagine brings us back to the power that certain tech companies have

when it comes to what's happening. The gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers of any product in our country who cannot be sued. Can you imagine that? It is the most dangerous thing you can buy. Placa is the law that we did an episode about this with Jason Kander, and I recommend to anybody. But to John's point, yeah, this was government legislation that protected gun manufacturers in a way that continues to haunt America. but I now officially digress from all of this. David, I want to bring his back, though, to like something that I want our listeners to understand,

which is the people who run sports, okay? Are they trying to put the person at home, the fan, or what they believe themselves to be, under a new definition, a non-paying, pirating a stream fan in jail? right? No. What do they have to fear here?

Here, they have to fear that the platform they're using is going to disappear. If I'm a league, I'm going after the platform. It's like when you're going in the mafia, you're going, you're trying to get people to turn and because you're trying to go higher up the chain. That's when you give immunity to people lower on the chain. The end consumer who's stealing, you know, sitting in their skivies watching, watching pirated stuff, they're not going to jail. But the websites and the URLs where, which is the,

platform they're using, that is really what you're focused on. And of course, that's the whack-a-mole where you're done with one platform, you go to another. I agree with that. It's worth mentioning that, to my knowledge, the most successful company at protecting their sports streaming from piracy is NBC Comcast during the Olympics. They have a very active, very well-resourced effort to immediately get an army of lawyers to get platforms

to immediately cease and deceased bring down those illegal streams because right now they all have the obligation to take the stream down but if you see something you think is wrong and you're at a small minor league baseball team

and you try to figure out how to get that taken down, you will not get a reaction before the game is over. The NBC guys, and somehow it bears studying and looking at what they do. It's resources. It's resources, and it's also the hard intent that we're going to go after. It also helps, of course, that it is an enormous audience for 17 days, really hard on a pay-per-view fight where your actual window might be. a minute, might be 11 minutes, might be an hour and 15 minutes, because that's the duration. But under that theory, it would be okay for the NFL and leagues to do it because you could pirate week one through three, but weeks four through 17 or 18, you would lose the right.

Because you're saying that the 17 days for a pay-per-view fight, it's three hours. By the time you get to it, the fight's over? No, no. It's because it has to be done exactly at that moment. Right. So they resource for the 17 days a large number of people who are finding those sites, a large number of lawyers who are firing off cease and desist letters. I'm sure they've been in conversations before the 17 days start with lots of people to say, you're going to get this, and we expect you to act upon. I think the NFL is in the same position, though.

Well, they are in the same position, but what you do on day one doesn't stop somebody from stealing on day two, three, four, five, six, seven. Because this is, as you point out, Wackamo. They just keep coming, and this concerted effort does make a dent. And I probably, I guess, I do not know this, that the people who do engage in this activity may not find it worth their while to spend a lot of time trying to disrupt the Olympics

because they have made it clear. They're going to find you. I don't think they prosecute a lot of people. So it's a deterrent. So now we're talking about something even more interesting to me. Well, I also want to ask... I don't know that, but your implication that it might be is probably accurate. So just some more surrounding detail here, right?

So, of course, yes, UFC, NBA, NFL, their shared experience per this reporting is that many of these service providers, the Internet service providers, take frequently hours or even days to remove content in response to these takedown notices. And of course, for a fight, only have so much time. First-round knockout, maybe you've already also therefore been knocked out yourself. Comcast, though, when you talk about NBC, it's not merely their media company. They're also Comcast, right? So how does that affect what they are able to do? I'm not sure I understand that.

I would assume it's pretty easy to get it taken down. They're calling themselves. Yeah. It's one department calling its own other department in the same company. But remember, companies as big as that, you never have any privity to certain parts of your own company. It's so huge. But in this case, it's far easier. But the question is, are they getting things taken down Comcast in a better rate than optimum

or spectrum or other such platforms? I obviously, there's no numbers on that that I've seen. I've not either, but I would assume that the major streamers, the ones you just mentioned, are the best at this. I would assume that a lot of this activity happens on secondary and tertiary Internet providers i don't believe that because there's an existence of the dark web that that puts into jeopardy what we do in the regular web there's always going to be a a nefarious action by people whenever there's anything and this didn't start with the internet this was going on with satellite

tv when you could get a fake car can you explain the days of stealing cable for for the people who may not remember what that meant this is a real thing there was uh it used to be this is how it all started where you only had a few channels. Then cable happened, and you could get, like, HBO after dark, which was of great interest to people. Your grandfather, very. SkinnerMax, great interest to people. Channel 35 in New York, Channel J, for those New Yorkers out there.

What was Channel J? Al Goldstein, Robin Bird. Curious George. You're going to pretend you've never heard of Channel J. Ugly George? It was not Curious George. That's the monkey. That's a monkey.

I like that you're pretending you don't know. real weird. So you've never heard of Channel J. No. No, Channel J on midnight. Oh, this is the public access. Yeah, public access. Midnight Blue.

Midnight Blue, you would see Robin Bird naked. Not that exciting, by the way. And there was a guy, what was his name? Ugly George. Ugly George. Ugly George, who would troll the city with a camera on his back and invite women to accompany him to what he, I believe referred to as the Polish penthouse.

And, shockingly enough, I feel so uneducated. Shockingly enough, the old ridiculous college theory that, oh, if you just ask enough people at a bar, someone will say yes. Ugly George actually put to the test. He also was ugly, and he wore a little short pants, jump shoot without sleeves.

Yes. It kind of had hairy underarms, a bad Richard Simmons. It's amazing how much you know about Midnight Blue. I'm loving this. He wore, it seems. Everybody knew about this. It seems a backpack with like a dish on it of some kind. That's how you had a roll.

You didn't have your phone with you. There were no phones. And not only were you accompanying this very unattractive man in very bad clothing to a mediocre apartment, but you were being filmed and then having, the action distributed. It was not hardcore pornography. I will say that it sounds like a lot of what

YouTubers are doing now. It sounds like it is the spiritual forefather of the aforementioned people who may or may not be crashing their luxury vehicles in a rainy... All of these shows that we're talking about that were a long time ago that many of which were watched through squiggly lines when you did not

have the channel. Color bars retreating to give you a sense of what of what part of the body it is, and thinking that it's a nipple when it was an elbow. We've all been there. And, well, I've been there. I don't want to speak for everybody else, and I'm fine with that.

Think about what that has led to. It was a huge business then. I had a kid drop out of... I get the sense that you didn't care if it was an elbow. There's a lot of the... There's no reason. That's the whole point, is that nowadays, I care greatly. But back then, you have to work with what you got.

I want to read this. New York Post headline and bring us back to what I was actually asking about. Because the headline is just to validate your collective memories. New York's public access TV was a cesspool of softcore porn. And it goes on to explain in great detail. All of this stuff, the nascent days of cable television, giving rise to access to people to make shows. And of course, this sounds a lot like the internet, the more we talk about it.

stealing cable though this was john for you at ESPN did you guys worry about this at ESPN at ESPN not much why not first of all even if people were stealing signals 100 million households were paying for okay it just it was a calculation as david said before it was a calculation that putting resources against stopping people from pirated's from pirated signals was not potentially material. Now, there was another precursor, which also people kid themselves if they're not stealing, and they'll be offended when I say it is stealing. Sharing your password inappropriately is stealing. So this is now... It's 100% stealing, and they're shutting it down. That Netflix, and of course, all the streamers are... So this is the perfect example. I don't know why it took so many minutes for my brain to get there. Netflix, in the beginning, hey, it's fine.

We know people are sharing passwords. It's not costing us too much. We're going to let it go. And then there was the inflection point. The inflection point was, wait a minute, we're going to change it. And it made a lot of people angry, feeling that though they deserve to be able to get Netflix everywhere. And you're talking to a Hulu customer who has to have two different accounts in various places because you cannot share amongst locations, even yourself. So that inflection point, you say ESPN didn't worry. And I would argue Disney was worrying while you were not.

Probably were. And by the fact, I am slightly wrong. in that there was a colleague of mine named Sean Bratchez, who was prescient about this and said, we should be worried about this. We could drive some incremental revenue. He was somewhat shouted down, and I bet it happened in Netflix as well,

with, look, we're actually better off that more people are watching. And it's okay. We did introduce a college program where you could get an inexpensive ESPN because one of the greatest abuses of it was, as your kids went off to college, you just let them keep using your password for your cable television.

So it had come up. So I stand a little bit corrected. My memory has been a little bit stimulated. The color bars are also. And indeed, There was some discussion about it, but it wasn't viewed as an acute problem, right? You can only prioritize so many things. I think it was right, by the way.

And I do think you will note that it has helped Netflix and its relationship with Wall Street. They were happy to see this. I think it has been cited at earnings calls as one of the reasons that their revenue is going up. I'm shocked into silence. Charging people for a service. It's outrageous. So this was earlier this year, yeah, and this was about... Well, nobody's going to quarrel with you, David,

that charging for a service is an appropriate thing to do. I'm just going to slightly refocus the issue. The issue are the number of people who think gaming that system is okay. There's always going to be people who think gaming the system's okay, but it's our job in it to figure out when the point is that it's too much. I do want to express what I think is a populist. sports fan view on this, which is sports is making more money than it ever has, right? This is the equivalent of taking the pennies out of your sofa cushions, you guys being the

people who run sports. And what they're saying is, isn't it also what you want to go to what you alluded to there, John, right? The reason why it is smart for, and leagues have had varying policies on this, why it's smart for leagues to not crack down on posting short clips that people post online of your product is because this is advertising for your product. And of course, some leagues have been better at that than others. Some leagues are more litigious at that than others. But doesn't it also amount to some marketing argument of like more people are consuming your thing? You're more important.

This is all going to bounce back to your sofa cushions in the end. No, it's the Canal Street argument. The people on YouTube or TikTok who are using the little things and getting, you know, 20,000 views or whatever they're getting, that's the Canal Street Fendi. But you all of a sudden get someone, the reason why CBS Sports HQ cannot do certain things, they don't have the rights to it because the NFL, as an example, has very significant rules of when you can show highlights, when you can't. And CBS obviously has NFL, but with MLB, they don't.

So there are times when you can show a highlight, times you can't. There's the number of seconds you can show a highlight. Oh, just so people understand, every. bit of video licensing is negotiated. And it's a huge business for the provider of the content. You are a provider of content, Pablo. If no one thought that your content was worth anything other than free, that's what you'd be paid.

Zero. You need people to value what you do three to four times a week depending on us. I do believe Pablo was accurate, though. In many cases, there were leagues, which were... less interested in trying to suppress highlights being distributed because they believed that it would create interest in the league. I could have this wrong, but I don't think so. When House of Highlights started, they did not have a license to show NBA highlights.

They were just an Instagram account. Can you find a guy named, I'm going to give him attention here? I want to say his name was Bob Menary. Why do I know that name? He's someone who had millions of people when he would talk about highlights and he would do it in a very funny way. And guess what? When it was growing, he was stealing it and all the leagues, everybody was fine. Then he got too big and now look. Well, by the way, as a side note, right? So the person who ran House of Highlights is Omar Raja, young guy,

I've gotten to know him. He now is the person at ESPN who they hired to run their social channels. So they just brought him in-house. He joined the man. Well, yeah, because at a certain point, and this speaks to like the larger sort of arms race here. Right? And I think about this with the government. It's like, do you have more faith in the young person who is independently and creatively scheming fluent to this language and this internet culture? Or do you trust the policemen who are older to keep up with them? It's a great question.

And I would only ask you, being a content provider who monetizes the content, it's a bit like being a professional athlete. there are a lot of people out there who play basketball, very few get paid to play. There are a lot of people making content. There's a lot of people everywhere, podcasts and all on down, and they're not making money. Establishing that you are making something that is worth paying dollars and cents for is something that, of course, it's why I do have a residual shame at having illegally downloaded so much music in college. Sometimes resulting incidentally in songs that were viruses or in something. In some cases, just like movies, I didn't... There was a lot of weird shit on my laptop computer in college.

I do think that the Internet has done many wonderful things, but one thing it has done is convince people that they should get stuff for free. Why should they pay for it? Or that they're famous. Yeah. There's a lot of that. I do want to point out that the DOJ, the Party Justice website, has this update from now...

A Minnesota man was sentenced to three years in prison for his scheme to commit computer intrusion and illegally stream content from four major professional sports leagues. This is a guy named Joshua Strite, S-T-R-E-I-T, aka Josh Brody, sentenced in federal court for intrusions into MLB's computer systems, illegally streaming copyrighted content from MLB, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, and he offered this streaming content to the public for profit, and he obtained it by gaining unauthorized access to the website, for those sports leagues via misappropriated login credentials from legitimate users of those websites.

And then what happened was because this guy was doing David's favorite thing, illicitly streaming copyrighted content from MLB. He attempted to extort approximately $150,000 from MLB in exchange for his knowledge of the vulnerabilities in MLB's internet infrastructure. Well, they did that because MLB was famous for people. paying people like with the biogenesis and A-Rod. Sometimes they'll pay people in order to get them on their side. But what you just read, that's the opposite of Canal Street.

That is someone who was taking piracy to a level of profitability where it was having a negative impact on revenue. That's a good example of a dumbass. Right? That's a dumb ass. Because he got caught? Yeah, well, because he had a ridiculous scheme to, to... He put up a store for him. it seems, not just was carrying around the knapsack full of watches.

While you can turn a blind eye to House of Highlights, you can't turn a blind eye to a guy who has hacked into your internal system and now try to extort money from you. That sort of invites a harsh response. I would consider that a dumb ass. The metaphor works perfectly, and we're going to keep using it for non-New Yorkers, If you're going to do something illegal, if you get too big, you're going to catch the attention of those trying to stop illegal piracy

or anything that you're doing. If you keep it small and don't get greedy, we see it in all the mob movies. Don't steal money and then go buy a Ferrari and a fur coat. It's a good way to get whacked. If you're going to do a robbery and steal money, you know, buy a Camry and try to just lay low. So what this guy did, clearly, he got too big for his britches, and now he's behind bars, and I love it.

Though it doesn't sound like a big time, I guess it is a big time scheme to try to extort 150 large from Major League Baseball. I'd like to maybe extort you because you're saying that that's 150 isn't the number that gets your attention. I'm just saying it. What gets your attention? 150 million if I try to get that from you? No, no.

Apparently 150,000 got enough attention to land him in the Huskow for three years. I appreciate that we end this episode. episode with both of you throwing sharp elbows at each other, notably not quite the elbows previously mentioned. I thought it may have been his nipple I was going after for a little nerpy. Well, it has been a little purple here today. Thank you, John. Thank you, Pablo.

Look at this jacket, by the way. Can we disackage? It's lovely. You can't get that on Canal Street, John. No, no, you can actually. I think David stole it. Pablo Toray finds out is produced by Michael Antinucci, Walter Avaroma,

Ryan Cortez, Sam Daywig, Juan Galindo, Patrick Kim, Neely Loman, Rob McCrae, Rachel Miller-Howard, Ethan Schreier, Matt Sullivan, Chris Tumenello, and Juliet Warren. Our studio engineering by RG Systems, our sound design by NGW Post, our theme song, as always,

is by John Bravo, and all of us will talk to you on Tuesday.