The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 11.20 Taylor Swift's Profit Play, Trump's Historic Saudi Arabia Response & More...

Episode Date: November 20, 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 Tuesday Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and a quick note before we get started due to things out of my control Tomorrow isn't gonna be the last Philip DeFranco show of the week This is going to be the last show of the week and know that this is equally if not more annoying for me But it is what it is and we have at least our time together today And so with that said let's just jump into it and the first thing we're gonna talk about today is some music news It doesn't actually have to do with Tekashi69 potentially facing 32 years to life in prison due to those charges we talked about yesterday. We had Taylor Swift in the news because she made a move in her career that also affects a lot of other musicians.

And that's because after being with Big Machine Records since 2005 and releasing six records with them, Taylor Swift's contract with them ended earlier this month. And with that being the case, there was a lot of anticipation, a lot of curiosity to see what Taylor Swift would do next. And yesterday, Taylor Swift announced on Instagram that she'd be signing with Universal Music Group for a worldwide deal with UMG's Republic Records as the US partner. And some of the big standout points from that announcement, it's also incredibly exciting to know that I'll own all of my master recordings that I make from now on. And adding, there was one condition that meant more to me than any other deal point. As part of my new contract with Universal Music Group, I asked that any sale of their Spotify shares result in a distribution of money to their artists non-recoupable.

And those are really the two main standouts, master recordings and Spotify. And we'll start with her ownership of the master recordings moving forward. And this part is actually highly unusual because when an artist has a label, which most artists do, the label usually owns the master rights to any song or album made under that deal.

And master rights are just incredibly important. And without getting too into the nitty gritty of music rights, I'll oversimplify it and say that owning the master rights to any song or album made under that deal. Master rights are just incredibly important and without getting too into the nitty-gritty of music rights, I'll oversimplify it and say that owning the master rights nets you far more income than just the publishing rights which is something that the artist usually has. Whoever owns the master rights has control over where the music is used and allows the owner to reap the benefits of any licensing deal. So that matters for things like using music in commercials and malls and movies. And if a label owns the master rights, they're gonna want to own it for a while to cash in on those deals. And for a label owns the master rights, they're gonna wanna own it for a while to cash in on those deals. And for example, in this situation,

Swift's previous label, Big Machine, currently owns the master rights for her first six records. And to really explain how big of a deal this is, not just in general, but specifically for Big Machine, in August, Variety reported they gained as much as 80% of their revenue just from Swift's catalog. And it's been reported that Big Machine has been flirting with being bought out,

and according to the Wall Street Journal, bids for Big Machine have actually gone as high as $300 million. And so if it's accurate that bids are coming in for $300 million plus, and 80% of their revenue that's coming in is Taylor Swift, then you get an idea of how big of a deal this is. And while this part is obviously a big deal,

it's the second part that's actually far more interesting for everybody else. Specifically, that UMG promised to give all artists on the label any proceeds from sales of its stake in Spotify on a non-recoupable basis. To which you may be wondering, what the hell does that mean? Well, UMG owns to give all artists on the label any proceeds from sales of its stake in Spotify on a non-recoupable basis. To which you may be wondering, what the hell does that mean? Well, UMG owns a portion of Spotify, reportedly around 3.5%, which comes to around $850 million worth. The other two major labels, Warner and Sony, also own portions of Spotify, but they've sold off parts of that ownership.

And after selling off those parts, which were valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, they provided some of that money to their artists in different ways. Warner reportedly paid out against something called the non-recoupable balance, whereas Sony paid out directly to the artist. And the big deal here is the non-recoupable part that Swift pushed for. When an artist signs a contract to record albums, the label will usually give a money advance to the artist. And that advance is kind of like the label saying that they think the contract will net a certain amount of money. So say an artist gets a one million dollar advance, that means the label believes that they will net at least one million dollars. But until the music makes a million dollars, the artist essentially owes the label the difference and won't start getting royalty checks above the

Advance until the label gets back its million dollars So what happens sometimes is an artist has a non-recoupable balance or a difference in the advance and actual money made from the contract So to bring it all back around if UMG decides to sell its stake in Spotify and say Rihanna has a non-recoupable balance of $500,000 any money from the proceed of the sale will go straight into Rihanna's pocket and not go against paying off the balance. In other words, no matter the Status of each artist's account with UMG, they will all get paid something if UMG decides to sell at Spotify's stage. And that's a big deal because in the cases of companies like Warner, they paid their artists against that non-recoupable balance. And so in general this move with Taylor Swift, while obviously very good PR, is also seen as a massive win for the artist. Although as musical lawyer Gregor Pryor has pointed out,

this isn't a radical move, saying Jay-Z did it with title. The way that artists are behaving in a way that is more directed towards furthering their returns versus what the traditional machine of labels and publishers might have been entitled to. It used to be the case that if you're an artist on a label, you took your advance and if you were lucky, you got paid. The world is changing very quickly and part of that

is artists taking control of their own business interests. But still, I think it's important not to completely discount Taylor Swift's move here. Yes, it is easy to be somewhat cynical about it and say, "'Well, obviously for Taylor Swift, this is great PR. "'Obviously Taylor Swift would also be a benefactor "'in any of these situations where she has taken a stand.'" Right, things like in 2015, independent labels

and Taylor Swift pushed against Apple Music when they weren't paying artists for users listening on a free trial. She of course famously staged a boycott of Spotify for three years over the royalty payouts from users on its free tier. But ultimately in these situations, I think it's important to look at the net results. And for things to happen in the industry, I think it has to happen from both ends. Small independent artists that were able to bypass the normal gatekeepers and be successful on their own, and on the other side having the top creators of an industry

make big moves that affect the rest of it. But with that said, I do pass the question off to you. What do you think about this move with Taylor Swift? Do you feel like she is a titan in an industry taking a stand, or do you see it as more good PR, goodwill grabbing from a thing that was already probably going to happen? Or maybe you're somewhere in between, but no matter what, I'd love to know

what you're thinking and why. And then let's talk about the massive update around the story of Chris Watts. And depending on when you last heard about this story, you are remembering one of two situations. The first being that back in early August, Christopher Watts' pregnant wife, Shanann, and two daughters, Celeste and Bella, disappeared.

Many people remember the now infamous video of Watts appearing on local television asking for their safe return. It was initially this local, heartbreaking story that then gained national attention with media outlets then showcasing dozens of photos and videos of a happy family. But then there was that update to the story where Chris Watts no longer appeared like the victim.

He was arrested for the murder of his wife and children, investigators saying they found the bodies of his family at an oil field where he worked. And what we ended up seeing was Chris Watts confessing to killing Shanann. But he said he did it in a rage after he walked in on her strangling their two girls, but he was too late to save them.

But also on that note, the investigation ended up proving that that was a lie and it was actually Watts who had smothered the girls. And there were also surveillance cameras that showed Chris loading up their corpses into his pickup with the prosecutor saying, He methodically and calmly loaded their bodies into his work truck, not in a hasty or disorganized way. And prosecutors say that Watts was having an affair and making plans for a whole new life. Which may have been the motive behind the murders, however Watts hasn't given a full confession or explained himself here. But with all of that said, the big update to the story is that Watts has now been sentenced. He pled guilty to nine felony charges as part of a deal that allowed him to avoid the death penalty and the judge ultimately

sentenced him to five life terms without the possibility of parole. A lot of gruesome details about the murders were revealed during sentencing that I don't, I don't even want to get into because it is just that bad, but just so you kind of understand, they were so horrifying that we saw the judge for this case say this. I could objectively say that this is perhaps the most inhumane and vicious crime that I have handled out of the thousands of cases that I have seen. And nothing less than a maximum sentence

would be appropriate. And when the judge asked if Watts had anything to say at the hearing, Watts just said, no, sir. Which I will say, I would expect nothing else from such a disgusting coward. But ultimately, that's where we are with this story. That is the end of this story. He was able to avoid the death penalty and he will be in prison for the rest of his life. And I will say it's stories like this

that do leave me torn on the death penalty. And I mean in this specific case of the death penalty being pursued, Watts' counsel would have fought for his life and this could have turned into a multiple years long battle for the family, the community who are just suffering. So with the plea deal there's probably the hope that this provides closure for the family and the community and then people can start to try and rebuild their life. But also when you have these these monstrous cowards like this that took life but get to live their own, although they will do so in prison, there's part of me that will always feel like justice hasn't been served there. While walls and fencing will contain and limit his life, ultimately he is still breathing the same air you and I are breathing.

He still wakes up and it is a new day and the same cannot be said for the children that he murdered and his pregnant wife I think there's this idea that he'll just have to suffer with what he did for the rest of his life But we see a man who is described as calm and collected when moving The bodies of the people that he just killed and betrayed So I guess the question that I want to pass off to you with this story is what is your opinion when it comes to capital punishment? Whether it be specifically to this case and in general. Why, why not?

Why in particular situations? Why not in others? And I'm really interested because this is something that if you've watched for a while, I have struggled with over the past decade. And the last thing we're gonna talk about today is President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka MBS.

And this of course is all centered around the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. And it's just been a ridiculously horrible situation since the first time we talked about it. More and more information has come out that is just incredibly damning. And in fact, just four days ago, a report came out saying

that the CIA concludes that Saudi Crown Prince ordered Khashoggi killed. This reportedly according to American officials. Reportedly, this conclusion came from two sets of crucial communication. Intercepts of the Crown Prince's calls in the days before the killing, and calls by the kill team to a senior aide to the Crown Prince. Reportedly, the agency passed that assessment on to lawmakers and Trump administration officials. And also, understand that this is the oversimplification of the issue. If you want to see the previous reporting, the constantly changing story coming out of Saudi Arabia

regarding Khashoggi, I highly recommend that you watch our last coverage. But the big update to this story today is that President Trump released a statement. It's titled, Statement from President Donald J. Trump on standing with Saudi Arabia. "'America first!''

The world is a very dangerous place!' And it starts off with him going after Iran, saying that among other things, they're responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Adding, Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. He then goes on to say that Saudi Arabia is investing what he calls a record amount of money into the United States, saying if we cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the benefactors. Then in the fourth paragraph, he addresses the murder of Khashoggi, saying the crime against Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible one, one that our country does not condone, saying we have already sanctioned 17 Saudis known to have been involved in the murder of Mr.

Khashoggi and the disposal of his body. He then goes on to what some people have described as muddying the water around Jamal Khashoggi by saying that representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an enemy of the state and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but my decision is in no way based on that. This is an unacceptable and horrible crime." Also, since the president didn't include this part, I just feel like I should insert this. The claim that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to his family, was something he consistently had to deny for several years. And around these allegations that have popped up,

we've seen people like Bruce Rydell, a former CIA official who's a scholar at the Brookings Institution, saying, this is character assassination added to premeditated murder. Keep in mind, Khashoggi is the same man man that according to the Saudi ambassador to the United States was a friend who dedicated a great Portion of his life to serve his country after he gets murdered all of a sudden people are saying but Trump goes on in his Statement to say King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of mr Khashoggi and saying our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information But I could very well be that the Crown Prince "'had knowledge of this tragic event.'"

But then adding, "'Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't.'" And then following that up with, "'We may never know all of the facts "'surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. "'In any case, our relationship is "'with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.'" And following this, he then targets Congress,

who of course he doesn't fully control now. "'I understand there are members of Congress "'who, for political or other reasons, "'would like to go in a different direction, "'and they are free to do so. "'I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America." And directly following that up with, After the United States, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producing nation in the world.

They have worked closely with us and have been very responsive to my request to keeping oil prices at reasonable levels so important for the world. And closing, As President of the United States, I intend to ensure that in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm. Very simply, it is called America first. And I will say following this, this is not surprising at all,

although how it was done was a little bit surprising. I feel like pretty much everyone that was paying even just the slightest bit of attention saw that Donald Trump was signaling that he really wasn't gonna do anything. Right, his past pointing out of US resident versus US citizen. Right, while being asked about the murder of a journalist, he's talked about how lucrative deals with Saudi Arabia are, of course mentioning that Saudi Arabia is a key ally in the region.

Actually, around the claims of the 450 billion, the 110 billion, the hundreds of thousands of jobs, I feel like I should comment on that real quick. That is a claim that is heavily contested with PolitiFact rating it a pants on fire claim. That's for a variety of reasons that'll make this video far too long. I'll link down below so you can look into it further. This is something I felt I needed to point out because he was making this claim again. With that said, back to the situation at hand. It's also important to remember that the the murder of Khashoggi and everything that's happened with Saudi Arabia, this is something that Donald Trump himself called the worst cover-up ever. They had a very bad original concept.

It was carried out poorly, and the cover-up was one of the worst in the history of cover-ups. It's very simple. And so I feel like it comes back to something we mentioned at the end of one of the first times we covered this. With Trump, when it comes to all things, especially with countries that do horrible things to their people, right, of course, North Korea and Kim Jong-un come to mind, a man who was previously described as Rocket Man, later Donald Trump, despite all the human rights violations, calling him a man who really cared about his people.

Loves his people, he loves his country, he wants a lot of good things. Saying, he wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters. We fell in love. It comes down to what is the net result, not the human result, and they're great letters. We fell in love. It comes down to what is the net result, not the human result, the net result for America. And then also separately, who's being nice to me.

But the thing that was surprising to me is how he did it in this statement. And that's because he played two separate cards. He played the net result card. Right, Saudi Arabia is our ally in the region, the world is a scary place, we need them. Think about the arms deals, the oil money. But then on the other hand,

we see him muddying the waters in several ways, seemingly as a way to provide some kind of distance for MBS. Throwing in that Muslim Brotherhood line, saying, you know, agencies are still looking into it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We may never know, although several days before this statement came out, we were seeing reports that said,

yes, it looks like he did it. But all of this time and all of those words can essentially be boiled down to this. You have the President of the United States going against and casting doubt on the assessment from the CIA in a statement that transparently echoes, smears against Khashoggi and then pulls back to maintain a relationship with a country that would order the murder of someone in a consulate in another country. And so when we talk about the net results of America, we have been talking about it from a standpoint of an economic standpoint,

a jobs standpoint. But what about the human element? What about the United States of America being a global leader when it comes to human rights? And it feels like every day that we march on, this country stands for less and less. Yeah, ultimately that is where we are today. It will be interesting to see who speaks up following this. And among those speaking up, it'll be interesting to see the Republican voices. Right, and it's the little things that you'll see,

the people kind of making these broad statements without mentioning Trump's name. Also for those who do mention his name, how soft or how hard are they? Is it just words? Are they saying that they're going to back it up by actions? Because remember, this country in multiple ways, whether it be morally or as a government,

we're not just one person. A lot of people like to put everything specifically on Trump, but we have a system that is meant to have checks and balances. When checks and balances are not utilized, the people not utilizing the checks and balances are complicit. All the words you have in the world, it doesn't matter. It ultimately comes down to actions. But yeah, that is where I'm gonna end today's show. And remember, if you're one of the three people that finished this video, hit that like button. If you're new here, hit that subscribe button. Make sure you get future episodes.

Although with the way YouTube's been acting up lately, it might just be best if you just come back to the channel. Which actually, on that note, if you missed either the last two Philip DeFranco shows you want to catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch those. 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.