The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.5 The Kylie Jenner Billion Dollar Controversy, Barstool Sports' "Idiot" Problem, & The EUCD

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, I'm not sleepy, you're sleepy. Welcome back to the Tuesday Philip DeFranco show My name is Philip DeFranco and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're to talk about today is actually an update to a story We've covered before it's a story that I'm personally interested in and it is also a story that I like to cover because the reactions Are so strong and the debate so interesting. The thing I'm talking about today is according to Forbes at 21 Kylie Jenner becomes the youngest self-made billionaire ever and I saw that Headline this morning and I was like, oh I can't wait for the hot take and the reason I say that is the last time That we talked about this it was when Forbes announced that she was on her way to becoming the youngest self-made billionaire ever and ooh A lot of people had a problem with that and I don't mean regarding, you know a person even having a billion dollars wealth disparity

Starting point is 00:00:43 Etc, etc We've seen that debate happen. But a lot of people had issue with the self-made part of self-made billionaire. With many people responding that she is not self-made in the slightest. People saying, how can you describe her as self-made when you have this young woman who was born into an incredibly rich family with an incredibly large following. Really all she had to do was pull a lever. And regarding that criticism in an interview with Paper, we saw Kylie Jenner Kylie Jenner defend herself reportedly saying the self-made thing is true. My parents told me I needed to make my own money It's time to learn how to save and spend your own money stuff like that

Starting point is 00:01:11 What I'm trying to say is I did have a platform but none of my money is inherited If you're not familiar with how according to Forbes she has become the youngest self-made billionaire ousting Mark Zuckerberg. It's her cosmetics line She has Kylie cosmetics according to the report. She has just seven full-time and five part-time employees. It was started in 2015, it was growing. She ended up signing an exclusive distribution deal with Ulta, which really added fuel to the fire. And reportedly, as of last year, Kylie Cosmetics brought in $360 million for that year, with Forbes also estimating that the company is worth $900 million. But, once again, one of the main reasons that people are talking about this is the self-made classifier. And so where I'll end this are with my thoughts on this because they have evolved since the last time we talked about it. So the last time we talked about this one of the thoughts in my head was you know you can say self-made because a lot of people can be given a certain position but not rise to the same level. For example out

Starting point is 00:01:58 of all of the Jenners and Kardashians who have been given this opportunity she obviously rose above. But even saying that doesn't really touch on the core problem that people have. And it's a problem that Jenner herself even highlighted in that paper interview. Right, she said, what I'm trying to say is I did have a platform, but none of my money is inherited. And so it appears that her kind of thinking

Starting point is 00:02:14 around what is self-made and what is not is based off of like, she's not a trust fund kid. But for her to completely discount the importance of the platform she was given, I mean, that really locked in. Oh yeah, she's definitely not self-made. Right, when you launch a new brand from scratch, you're talking millions and millions and millions of dollars of investment, right? You gotta make this a thing. Kylie Jenner inherited the fruits of Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner's labor, right? Kim Kardashian for doing the thing

Starting point is 00:02:37 that Kanye West would probably rather you not mention, and Kris Jenner for pulling the strings the entire time and turning that into this massive empire. And understand, I'm not discounting the amount of work and effort and expertise that goes into taking advantage of a good situation that you inherited. But the classifier of self-made here does feel hollow. That said, doesn't matter, right? When you have that much money, a classifier, ah, does it really matter to her?

Starting point is 00:02:59 And also, any and all of this controversy just gives her free marketing for that product. It's a win-win for her. But with that said, of course, like with every story, whether you agree or disagree, I'd love to know your thoughts on it. And then let's talk about this concerning copyright story that takes place in a place that you normally wouldn't consider. And when I say copyright, you probably think, oh, what happened on YouTube? But what we're talking about today is this Twitter controversy with Barstool Sports and comedian and content creator, Mielle.

Starting point is 00:03:21 Mielle claims that Barstool Sports, which is a popular sports, culture, and comedy site, posted one of her videos without credit. And yesterday, she tweeted a thread about this and the trouble she has gone through with Barstool Sports since they posted that video. I wasn't going to say anything because I am above drama, but actually completely 10,000% fuck Barstool Sports. If any legal people slash Twitter people want to help me out here, please hit me up.

Starting point is 00:03:40 In December, they, Barstool Sports, re-uploaded one of my videos without credit. I asked for credit, was ignored, and filed a DMCA takedown. Twitter quickly took it down, and immediately Barstool's social guy sends me an email. I don't respond. He emails again in early February.

Starting point is 00:03:53 I don't respond. And in those emails, it appears that Barstool offers to post the video again with full credit as long as she removes her strike against them. That said, the thread continues. Then a few weeks later, some new legal dude emails me and offers me a $50 gift card to the Barstool online store if I will simply lie and retract my fact-based DMCA report.

Starting point is 00:04:10 As tempted as I was to cop the merch of a historically racist and sexist company, I don't respond. And because she didn't respond, Miel says that she was then bombarded with direct messages, both on her personal accounts and accounts for her podcast, asking her to respond to Barstool Sports. And here she says that she's been blocking their accounts and deleting messages

Starting point is 00:04:26 but they still find ways to reach her. She also says Barstool Sports then upped their offer to $500 and promotions for her podcast, which she also ignored. Mielle then continues, I honestly thought it was finally over after two weeks of silence. Until this morning, I get another email from Legal Guy now offering me $2,000, which I would never take. 10,000% fuck Barstool Sports, but even I wanted to extortion like in what world then within hours I get this from Twitter unless I want to get a court order my video will go back up on their channel They win that's it read their full response below and tell me how this isn't blatant perjury allowed by Twitter supports lack of support and in The messages she receives Twitter says that they received a digital Millennium Copyright Act

Starting point is 00:05:03 counter-notice from barstool sports and adding that if she does not take legal action in the next 10 business days, the video that was posted back in December would go back up. And Miel closed her argument by saying, So that said, while the exact number of strikes needed to remove an account is not specifically stated on Twitter's site, Twitter's copyright policy does state that fraudulent behavior can result in an account being suspended. And according to Twitter's copyright policy, filing a counter notice is serious business and is, quote, the start of a legal process that has legal consequences. Twitter even recommends speaking to an attorney before filing a counter notice because once that counter notice is filed, it becomes a legal problem and is no longer in

Starting point is 00:05:45 Twitter's hands. Now as far as what's being said on the other side you had Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy responding to the incident in an email to Business Insider and there he said Where Barstool went wrong is that when she refused to respond and it became clear she had no intention of speaking with us we should have ended it. Unfortunately Barstool Sports has idiots in our company much like many other companies and those idiots acted like idiots I regret our lawyer offering a $50 gift card to our store, not because it's illegal in any manner, but it's just so moronic and makes us look like assholes. That's why lawyers should not be on social media.

Starting point is 00:06:14 But all of that said, as far as what happens next, Mielle has said that she currently doesn't have plans to pursue legal action, but feels that the situation speaks to the problem in the DMCA takedown process, saying, this is not the first time this has happened to me where a large account has stolen a piece of content feels that the situation speaks to the problem in the DMCA takedown process. Saying, And as far as my reaction to all of this, uh, 1. Portnoy's response is the most on-brand response I've ever seen in a controversy. 2. I'm amused by what appears to be Barstool Sports' own fans trolling them over this. Right now if you go to most of

Starting point is 00:06:46 their new tweets, you have people replying to them, see Barstool Sports DM. But also three, in a different way, this shines a light on the insanity that is the copyright problem we have on the internet. It is a system that largely gives the power to whoever is the biggest. Barstool Sports, massive company, there is a lot of money there. I don't see any way Barstool Sports could properly defend themselves just stealing a video from someone and not crediting them. But they still issued a counter notice which once again escalated this to a larger legal situation. But because they are a large company and they did this to an individual, the individual 99 out of 100 times is just going to back down. Right, so it's this question of how much time, how much money, how much sanity is this going to take from me?

Starting point is 00:07:22 Two, and I will say, properly fight for what is okay to do in the copyright system over a video that didn't make this woman any money in the first place. And I think a lot of people would quickly say, no, this woman, she has to fight. But ultimately the main point that I want to hit on is this isn't just a very small specific situation. This is a widespread multi-platform problem. It's a big issue now, and it's only getting bigger. And it's an issue that I think the people and governments know needs to be handled properly. And it actually is going to pertain to the last thing we talk about today.

Starting point is 00:07:48 But before that, I will say one, if you have any thoughts regarding this barstool sports situation, I'd love to hear them. And the last thing we're gonna talk about today is the European Union Copyright Directive, otherwise known as the EUCD. And then of course, specifically articles 11 and 13.

Starting point is 00:08:01 Now to bring you up to speed, we last talked about the EUCD back in January. And at that time, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU had voted for different versions of the law. And so a meeting was set up to allow different branches of the EU to get together and hash out a final version that could be voted on by the European Parliament. Then on February 13th, negotiators agreed on a final version of the bill, which actually brings us to this month, where the European Parliament is scheduled on March 25th to take a final vote on the EUCD. And if the vote passes,

Starting point is 00:08:25 then each of the 27 member states of the EU will have 24 months to implement the law, and if not, the bill will finally be dead. We've also seen people against the EUCD pushing for their representatives in Parliament to vote against this bill. In fact, it is so unpopular that it has what will likely become

Starting point is 00:08:39 the single most signed petition in history, with currently almost five million signatures against it. It also isn't an online only thing. This past weekend we saw 3,500 Germans march in Berlin against the bill. There's even a broad coalition of tech companies and tech related groups that are all against the bill. We've talked about YouTube speaking on the past.

Starting point is 00:08:55 In fact, they released a video yesterday explaining why they're against it. We've also seen groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation describing the law as a train wreck. Also, if at this point you're wondering why there's such a big reaction from people and these massive companies, and you haven't seen our previous coverage,

Starting point is 00:09:08 kind of a TLDR, regarding the EUCD, it has Article 11, which has been called the link tax. It would prohibit snippets of webpages and articles from being posted on other webpages without a license with some very limited exceptions. For example, think of news aggregators. They would need to stop showing snippets of news articles because it's believed that people would just read

Starting point is 00:09:23 the snippets instead of actually going to the article, thus the web page that made the article in the first place and while the link tax has been heavily criticized the Far more controversial provision is article 13, which is also known as the upload filter Here's what article 13 says sites like YouTube need to do an online content sharing service provider shall therefore obtain an authorization From the right holder for instance by concluding a licensing agreement in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter. So that's incredibly vague and some think that it's going to require websites to actively monitor and block copyrighted content from being uploaded

Starting point is 00:09:52 unless there's a license or it falls under the EUCD's version of fair use, otherwise they can be held liable. And this would essentially be the opposite of how YouTube operates right now under America's DMCA, which puts the responsibility to find copyrighted content on the copyright holder. And YouTube there just needs to remove it when notified. But with this being so vague, that ambiguity right now under America's DMCA, which puts the responsibility to find copyrighted content on the copyright holder. And YouTube there just needs to remove it when notified.

Starting point is 00:10:07 But with this being so vague, that ambiguity over what YouTube is supposed to do leaves them with no decision but to be overly cautious. And actually, here's how they put it in the video that they published yesterday. The final text leaves a lot of ambiguity on what happens to content before YouTube receives notice from rights holders.

Starting point is 00:10:22 This will result in online platforms like YouTube blocking content because they need to remain on the side of caution and reduce their legal risks. Also, in addition to being vague and forcing sites to be overly cautious and blocking content, there's practical limitations that lead to contradictions and unintended consequences. The largest practical limitation is how much content is uploaded online. Theoretically, an automated upload filter isn't even required by law. Everything could be done by person. But, I mean, just on YouTube alone, it would take an unimaginable army

Starting point is 00:10:49 to monitor all the content that is loaded to this site. And that's why, according to the German Data Privacy Commissioner, automated upload filters will be required and will lead to monopolies by larger sites. Saying, even though upload filters are not explicitly mandated by the bill, they will be employed as a practical effect.

Starting point is 00:11:02 Especially smaller platform operators and service providers will not be in a position to conclude license agreements with all copyright holders, nor will they be able to make the software development effort to create upload filters of their own. Instead, they will utilize offerings by large IT companies just the way it is already happening. For one example, in the field of analytics tools,

Starting point is 00:11:18 where the relevant components created by Facebook, Amazon, and Google are used by many apps, websites, and services. And so this is where Article 13 turns into what the electronic frontier Foundation described as a train wreck We'll have companies that are afraid of being sued for copyright infringement because the responsibility of finding copyrighted material and ensuring they have licenses is On them to monitor every single upload is not possible with just people it would require an automated system that cannot verify the validity of Licenses or fair use which is one of the big things So you have a situation where it will just block any content

Starting point is 00:11:46 with any copyrighted material regardless of use. And so by allowing fair use, but de facto requiring companies to implement massive systems to monitor content that can't account for fair use, then you have a massive contradiction in Article 13. However, it is also important to know that Article 13 does allow blocked content to be disputed and for YouTube or government agencies

Starting point is 00:12:03 to mediate those disputes. And so we've seen some argue that this is theoretically a huge pro for article 13 for many online creators and fans because those disputes over blocked content include things like fair use and it allows for disputes to be made out of court. Meaning that in this situation YouTube itself could mediate fair use, something it currently can't do because of restrictions with American law. But to that I would say unfortunately this brings us back to the practical limitations of the amount of content. How can YouTube, or let's say a government agency, for the sake of argument,

Starting point is 00:12:28 how likely is it that they're going to mediate fair use disputes on content if already it's known that there is too much content for people to go through? It's not practical or likely. The most likely of two scenarios, one, YouTube's gonna have to put into place something that is going to block a ton, ton, ton

Starting point is 00:12:44 of content from people in the EU. Or two, you're looking at a potential blackout situation for YouTube content in these areas. And the reason I say that isn't to be dramatic, it's just that no matter what system YouTube puts into place, there is going to be something somewhere that slips through the cracks. And at the end of the day, they are the ones that are going to be held liable. That is a massive, massive vulnerability. And so right now, we are looking at a very, very troubling

Starting point is 00:13:05 situation where I think that a lot of people, wherever you land, there is a similar goal. Protect things from just being outright stolen. But also something very important with that is not cracking down so much that you crack down on any sort of fair use or creative use. The current system is broken. It enables predators of all types,

Starting point is 00:13:22 but if we are going to change, it needs to be the right change. And I say we, not because I secretly reside in the EU, but when we're talking about a situation like this, this has far greater implications than just in the EU. This is an international issue because it deals with international distribution and international consumption.

Starting point is 00:13:39 And if all of this does go through, I think it will have a massively detrimental impact on creators and consumers. But that is where I'm going to end this one today. If you want to find out more about the stories we covered, if you want to find out how you can contact your representative, everything of course in the links down below. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And remember if you liked this video hit that like button.

Starting point is 00:13:57 Also if you're new here be sure to subscribe, definitely ring that bell to turn on notifications. Also if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show or this morning's Extra Morning News Deep Dive, you wanna 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.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.5 The Kylie Jenner Billion Dollar Controversy, Barstool Sports' "Idiot" Problem, & The EUCD

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.