The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 11.14 Goodbye Europe, Article 13 Youtube Ban, Serial Swatter GUILTY, Fox News Backs CNN, & More

Episode Date: November 14, 2018

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've been a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we need to talk about today is Article 13, aka the reason why those of you watching in Europe right now might in the very near future not be able to watch me, among many other things. Now over the last month, YouTube has been ramping up its opposition to the proposed Article 13 of the EUCD, the European Union Copyright Directive. We have also talked about it in the past and I'll link down below to that previous coverage, but the oversimplified version is Article 13, which is sometimes referred to as the upload filter,

would make platforms that host user uploaded content liable for copyright infringement by its users. What we saw on Monday is that YouTube posted an op-ed from their CEO titled, "'The Potential Unintended Consequences of Article 13." And in the post, she says that the creator economy is under threat from Article 13, and while YouTube supports the goal,

this specific proposal in its current form could have negative effects on creators and viewers. And she also provides an example like that of the video for Despacito, which is the most viewed video on YouTube, writing, this video contains multiple copyrights ranging from sound recording to publishing rights. Although YouTube has agreements with multiple entities

to license and pay for the video, some of the rights holders remain unknown. That uncertainty means we might have to block videos like this to avoid liability under Article 13. Multiply that risk with the scale of YouTube, where more than 400 hours of video are uploaded every minute. And the potential liabilities could be so large

that no company could take on such a financial risk. And so there lies the primary issue with Article 13 when the content is uploaded unless they know for sure who owns every single part of it. It wouldn't make sense for YouTube to allow for it to go up. And Susan pointed out that they've already been working on things to deal with copyright strikes.

Things like the Content ID Program, a program that she says has paid out more than 2.5 billion euros to copyright holders. And she also added that Article 13 will lead to EU residents not having access to some videos. Saying EU residents are at risk of being cut off from videos that in just the last month they viewed more than 90 billion times.

Those videos come from around the world, including more than 35 million EU channels, and they include language classes and science tutorials, as well as music videos. Also pointing out in the FAQ of their Article 13 site, that some of the content that would have to be blocked include fan music covers, mashups, parodies, and more. And adding, we ask policymakers to find a solution

that protects rights holders and creators alike, and listen to the growing number of EU voices, including some member countries who agree there's a better way forward. We all saw yesterday the official YouTube creators Twitter account saying, you know, ask us any questions about this. Regarding a question about creators in the UK,

YouTube responded, "'As of now, UK is still a part of the EU, "'so YouTube and other platforms may have no choice "'but to block your existing videos "'and prevent you from uploading new ones "'in the European Union unless you can prove "'you own everything in your videos.'" Then in a follow-up where a user asked

what that would mean for creators outside of Europe, YouTube replied, if current version of Article 13 goes into effect, your videos may be blocked from being seen by your viewers in the EU. We've also seen YouTube encouraging people to use the hashtag save your internet to raise awareness, for people to make videos about Article 13

to get the word out. Telling people to visit their site, youtube.com slash save your internet, or you can go to savevetheinternet.info or saveyourinternet.eu. If you want to check those out, I included links down below. We've also seen some creators speaking out.

Musical artists like Dodie and Sarah speaking up. And obviously they're in the world of music where you have covers, remixes, parodies. It's so much more than that. To kind of hit on this point, we'll talk about Felix, PewDiePie. If Article 13 goes in as is, I don't know how shows like Meme Review could exist.

There's no upload filter that can be put into place that's gonna be able to discern someone just blatantly stealing something and Felix just commenting and making fun of something, which he should have every right to do. What you're talking about there is fair use. It is transformative in nature. And plainly put, in pursuit of the bad guys,

you are hindering and hurting the innocent. Although I will add, once again, that there are people that disagree with YouTube here. For example, we saw Gail Anna Heard, the executive producer of Fear the Walking Dead and The Walking Dead tweeting out, "'YouTube addresses Article 13 says "'EU copyright plan may lead to blocked access.

"'Duh, because the content is stolen.'" And what I would personally say to Gail and others that have this mindset is that is a simplified view of the situation. I am not in support of piracy and stealing content and then posting it on YouTube, which is why I personally support, although not always, because I feel like sometimes it's abused,

the YouTube content ID system, which can be used by massive companies saying, "'Hey, look, there's our content online. "'Let's either block it or make money from it.'" And it's not just big companies. It's been a thing in the gaming world where a lot of people that are streaming over on Twitch, people are just ripping their gameplay,

posting the full thing on their own channel. Right, just things that aren't a commentary parody, it's in no way fair use. And it allows for a creative place that also addresses the copyright problems. But if the EU installs a system where a company is penalized upon upload, not pending review after the fact,

it's going to be impossible for any of the big players to allow user generated content at their scale. It will penalize tons of tons of people, both creators and viewers, in an attempt to thwart some of the bad guys. And I personally find the move with Article 13 in its current state to be batshit crazy. As YouTube mentioned, I think this is going to hurt

hundreds of thousands of jobs. People are going to lose massive audiences. There are gonna be a lot of people that no longer can access the content that they wanna get. Also, potentially you'll see a rise in VPN use. But ultimately, that is where we are right now. I wanted to get the word out. I wanted to share the story, also express my opinion.

And I guess also give a heads up to those of you in the EU where if this goes through and YouTube has to pull the trigger, it was nice having this connection with you. Then in an update to the Acosta Trump situation with CNN suing Donald Trump, well, we got the news today that Fox News is supporting CNN. Fox News President Jay Wallace saying in a statement,

Fox News supports CNN and its legal effort to regain its White House reporters press credential. Adding secret service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don't condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the president and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press access and open exchanges for the American people. So kind of hitting on the note that we've mentioned in the past, there are a lot of people that are like, cost is an asshole, but this shouldn't happen. Now, of course, the thing to keep in mind is that just because the president of Fox News said that, all the hosts on the channel probably don't feel that way.

Like I would say, if you're a betting man, don't put money on Sean Hannity echoing this statement. Sean Hannity, come on up. Sean Hannity. By the way, all those people in the back are fake news. I could be wrong, but the betting man in me says that's not the smart money. But seeing the president of Fox News say this, it brings me back to, and it really comes down, I think, to individuals. We often think of everything as just organization. But it makes me think back to times like in 2009, Jake Tapper, I think at the time was with ABC,

he called out the Obama administration during a press conference regarding the administration not considering Fox News a news organization. And looking back at that, looking at what we're seeing now, it's very easy in every place that you look to see something of a partisan nature happening. But even with that, it's nice in moments like this to see glimmers of partisanship being put aside. And actually there, it is important to know that it wasn't just Fox News. They're just one of 13 other news organizations showing support today.

With that said, we still have to wait to see what's gonna happen next with this situation. And then let's talk about a major development in a horrific swatting case that happened last year. For those that aren't familiar with that term, swatting is the practice of making a hoax phone call to police. This is an attempt to get police or a SWAT team to show up to a particular location. Unfortunately, we've covered several instances of these in the past. And the particular case we're talking about today involves 26 year old Los Angeles, California man Tyler Barris. On December 28th last year, Barris made a phone call to a Wichita, Kansas police dispatcher claiming that he had shot his father and is

holding the rest of his family hostage. Okay, tell me exactly what happened. They were arguing and I shot him in the head and he's not breathing anymore. Okay, do you have any weapons on you? Yeah, I do. What kind of weapons do you have? Um, a handgun. I'm just pointing the gun at them, making sure they stay in the closet, my mom and my little brother.

Okay, is there any way you can put the gun up? No. Are you guys sending someone over here? Because then I'm definitely not going to put it away. Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and stay on the phone with you, okay? That's fine. Until they get here, or? As long as you need me to, okay? Yeah, I'm thinking about thinking about um because i already poured gasoline all over the house i might just set it on fire okay well we don't need to do that okay in a little bit i might and so anticipating a hostage situation wichita police go to the

address that was given according to deputy chief troy livingston when officers got there a male opened the front screen door and stood in the doorway and according to livingston officers gave the man commands and he initially complied but then saying the man moved his hands down to his waist, started ignoring verbal commands. And at that point they say one of the officers, Justin Rapp, feared that the man had pulled a weapon from his waistband when he was about to shoot him. Officer Rapp then firing one round, striking the man.

They've also released body cam footage from this moment, but I won't be showing it in this video, but it'll be in the articles down below. The man was then taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. But of course that man wasn't Tyler Barris. Instead, it was a 28 year old father of two named Andrew Finch. And with this story, if you've never heard of the reported reason for this swatting, not that there is a normal reason for something so horrible, it is absurd.

Reportedly, two online gamers who were neither Barris nor Finch were feuding over a Call of Duty match. Those two players were later identified as Casey Viner of Ohio and Shane Gaskill of Kansas. Reportedly, these two began arguing about a $1.50 wager related to the game. At some point during this dispute, Viner reportedly reached out to Barris and asked him to swat Gaskill. Then Gaskill finds out what's happening

after Barris starts following him on Twitter, and Gaskill sends Barris taunting messages to his Twitter handle, swattistic. He then provides him with an old address where he no longer lived, and daring him to go through with the swatting, writing things like, you're gonna try and swap me?

It's hilarious. I'm waiting, buddy. And so of course that address that was provided was Andrew Finch's house, an innocent man who had no connection to anything involved with this dispute. Also as further evidence that the swatistic handle was Barris after the incident,

a tweet was later sent out from the handle saying, I didn't get anyone killed because I didn't discharge a weapon and being a SWAT member isn't my profession. But many, including the police, disagreed with that mindset. And the next day we saw Barris was arrested in connection to this incident.

And it turns out he has a long history of SWATing. In May of 2016, he was sentenced to two years and eight months for calling in fake threats to the ABC studios in Glendale, California and two Los Angeles schools. According to court records, he called one Los Angeles elementary school saying there are 10 backpacks that have bombs in them. The Glendale police department also confirmed

that Barris had about 20 other fake calls reporting threats or emergencies, not just in LA, but in locations like Illinois, New Hampshire. But to go back to that prison sentence we talked about, he ended up serving less than half of it. He was released January 20th, 2017, only to then be arrested a day later for violating a protective order against his grandmother.

Also before moving forward regarding the other people in this story, in April, the district attorney announced that Officer Justin Rapp would not be charged in Finch's shooting. And regarding the other people in this story, in April the District Attorney announced that Officer Justin Rapp would not be charged in Finch's shooting. Regarding the two gamers involved in the original dispute, they are also facing federal charges which are currently pending. But all of that brings us to this week, and that's because yesterday Barris reached a plea deal with prosecutors and pled guilty to 51 federal charges. Regarding these 51 charges, it wasn't just this Kansas situation. In fact, as part of the plea deal, he just pled guilty to three of the 12 charges with Finch's death, that being false information and hoaxes, cyber

stalking and conspiracy. The other nine charges here were dropped as part of the plea deal. But through this case, prosecutors uncovered that Barris was involved in far more. And we're talking bomb threats in DC to the FCC and the FBI. And these were threats made just days before Finch was killed. And as far as all the other charges, he called in threats saying that he was leaving bombs at shopping centers, schools, movie theaters, video game tournaments, an apartment complex, a museum, a television station, universities. Also in at least one case, he was paid $30

by another gamer to carry out a swatting. But with all that said, he has pleaded guilty. There is a plea deal. How much time is he going to spend in prison? Well, as of right now, the prosecutor in the case, Stephen McAllister, is saying they recommend that the judge sentence Barris to at least 20 years in prison.

But also adding the stipulation, only if Barris writes apology letters to Finch's family, police departments that he made contact with, 911 dispatchers. And if he doesn't write those letters, McAllister may ask for more years. Additionally, he will have to be supervised for five years after he is released and also pay for Finch's funeral costs. But as far as what his sentence will actually be, we won't know until at least January 30th. That is when it is currently scheduled. And also, a big note here, in addition to this, he's also facing state charges in Kansas on involuntary manslaughter charges related to Finch's death. And as far as my reaction to all of this, one, I'm glad they got him, and two, I say throw the book at him. Make an example of him.

As we just talked about, this wasn't a one-time thing. Not that it would even make it okay. That would still be incredibly wrong, horrible, should be punished, but also what we're looking at here is a serial swatter. Because of this asshole, an innocent man, a father of two, is no longer alive to look after his family. Barris created the whole situation. If Barris didn't exist, Finch would still be alive.

And this is a situation that I'm glad the authorities are taking seriously, that I think more people need to take seriously. It shouldn't be something, and it's something we've seen with gaming streamers a lot, it shouldn't be something that we're so numb to that we're like, oh yeah, so-and-so got swatted again. This is life and death, not only for the person you're sending the police to, but because important resources are being thrown at this nothing situation,

they could be out there saving lives elsewhere. But anyway, that is where I'm going to leave it. Hopefully this scumbag gets the book thrown at him. That's where I'm going to leave that one. That's where I'm going to end today's show. Remember, if you like this video, you wanna support this channel, hit that like button. If you're new here, hit that subscribe button. Also, if you haven't seen yesterday's show yet, you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch that.

Or if you wanna watch today's brand new bonus video, you can click or tap right there. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.