The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.19 Youtube is Suing A Copyright Troll, Mulan Boycott, & China Ramps Up Misinformation Campaign

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Monday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're going to be talking about today is huge news around YouTube. And today's news has kind of small inklings of the last two times we talked about YouTube. One of those times we talked about a lawsuit, specifically LGBTQ creators suing YouTube and Google. And the other time was YouTube announcing a massive change to the manual copyright claim system. Notably not allowing copyright owners when they're making manual claims to monetize another creator's videos

Starting point is 00:00:27 based on quote short or unintentional uses of music. And today's news involves YouTube. It is a lawsuit. It is around the copyright claim system, but it is actually YouTube suing an individual. According to reports, YouTube is suing a man by the name of Christopher Brady using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's provisions

Starting point is 00:00:43 against fraudulent takedown claims, seeking compensatory damages, and an injunction against future fraudulent claims. And in the lawsuit, which I'll link down below, YouTube claims the defendant, Christopher L. Brady, has repeatedly attempted to harass and extort money from YouTube content creators through bogus allegations of copyright infringement, and adding,

Starting point is 00:01:00 this lawsuit seeks to hold him accountable for that misconduct and for the damage he has caused to YouTube. Also noting their ability to file this lawsuit seeks to hold him accountable for that misconduct and for the damage he has caused to YouTube. Also noting their ability to file this lawsuit saying, Congress also recognized that these takedown notices could be used maliciously to secure the removal of content that was not legitimately claimed to be infringing. Accordingly, it included a provision in the DMCA

Starting point is 00:01:16 authorizing those aggrieved by fraudulent notices to bring an action against the sender for damages. This is such an action. Regarding the fraudulent notices, you might remember a situation that was talked about a while back, it's some YouTubers by the name of Kenzo and Abhi Raids. Brady had made multiple copyright complaints

Starting point is 00:01:31 against their content, saying that they infringed on his copyright. YouTube ended up removing those videos at that time. And then this story blew up as the lawsuit explained, because Brady reportedly sent messages to these creators, essentially saying if those creators did not pay him, he would issue a third copyright strike, which would essentially just delete that person's channel.

Starting point is 00:01:48 Right, so these creators spoke up, this story blew up, but according to the lawsuit from YouTube, that is not where this ended. It goes on to claim, defendant Brady has gone to great lengths to hide his unlawful conduct using at least 15 different online identities, all of which YouTube traced back to him,

Starting point is 00:02:03 saying on at least two dozen occasions, defendant Brady sent YouTube notices of alleged copyright infringement pursuant to the DMCA that contained knowing and material misrepresentations that videos posted by third parties to the YouTube service infringed his supposed copyrights. Also adding that after YouTube investigated the matter with Kenzo and Avi Raids, restored the videos in question, and removed the strikes that have been assessed to their accounts. Between June 29th and July 3rd, defendant Brady submitted four more DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, this time targeting a different channel. Adding again, these notices were fraudulent. The videos did not infringe any copyright supposedly owned by Brady. Brady knew that at the time he sent the notices. Adding Brady also knew that he did not hold the copyright to the videos he identified as his own in the takedown notices, and noting his certifications under penalty of perjury in the notices were knowingly false. Also, interestingly enough, in this lawsuit, YouTube kind of burns Brady,

Starting point is 00:02:51 writing, Brady's extortionate and harassing activities described here may at least in part be motivated by his failings in his Minecraft interactions. Oof. Also, and it gets even crazier, they note that through the copyright claim and counter notification system, Brady got the home address of this creator.

Starting point is 00:03:07 That creator, just six days later after issuing the counter notification, was then swatted. And YouTube says, of the reported swatting incident, it appears Brady used the personal information gained through his abuse of the DMCA process to engage in swatting. And I will say, it's gonna be interesting to see what comes from this lawsuit.

Starting point is 00:03:22 And I say that because, you know, it's felt like for a long time that the copyright claim system has been weaponized. YouTube going after an individual and trying to make an example is a massive move on their part. But also because given the actions that YouTube attributes to Brady,

Starting point is 00:03:34 at the bottom in their prayer for relief, yes, they say YouTube prays for an award of compensatory damages, an award of its cost and reasonable attorney's fees, a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring defendant Brady and all those in active concert with him from submitting notices of alleged infringement to YouTube that misrepresent material on YouTube, but also for kind of a question mark saying they pray for such other further

Starting point is 00:03:54 indifferent relief as the court deems proper under the circumstances. So something even potentially bigger here. But it'll be interesting and of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around this? Are you happy to see YouTube taking these actions? Do you feel like it legitimizes the system that they're trying to modify? Yes, no, maybe so, any and all thoughts. I'd love to see of course in those comments down below. Then let's talk about this big and interesting story involving our Supreme Court. And the person at the center of this story is Amy Stevens, who had been working as a funeral director at Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan for six years. During that time she had presented as a man, but had not publicly come out as trans.

Starting point is 00:04:27 She said she struggled with being transgender her entire life to the point that she had thought about killing herself. So it was a big deal for her when she decided to come out to her boss, Thomas Rost, and in a letter she said that she would be dressing in a woman's uniform. That would include wearing a skirt and jacket,

Starting point is 00:04:40 and though she had hoped that her job performance over the years would help ease her transition, she was fired soon after. Following this, Stevens then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC then sued the funeral home for discrimination, and the case went to district court. And there, in court, the funeral home argued

Starting point is 00:04:54 that Stevens needed to wear a man's uniform, saying that, quote, maintaining a professional dress code that is not distracting to grieving families is an essential industry requirement that furthers their healing process. Ross, who is at about Christian, also saying that he doesn't believe

Starting point is 00:05:05 that people can change their gender. And there, the district ruled in favor of the funeral home on both points. With that decision concluding that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin, it does not extend to transgender discrimination.

Starting point is 00:05:21 And Title VII is important here because the case is all part of an argument on who is protected under the term sex. Because right now, some people argue it only includes biological sex and others argue it includes gender identity. But why are we talking about this today, right? Stevens was actually fired back in 2013, the case ended in 2016.

Starting point is 00:05:38 Well, it's because it's not actually over, the DOJ is now involved and this is a situation that could set a precedent for LGBTQ employment discrimination. So last year, Stevens and the EEOC appealed the case in Circuit Court and the Circuit Court actually ruled in their favor saying discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform

Starting point is 00:05:55 to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status is illegal under Title VII. The unrefuted facts show that the funeral home fired Stevens because she refused to abide by her employer's stereotypical conception of her sex. Right, so basically the court here ruled that the funeral home could not force Stevens to conform to its quote, notion of her sex.

Starting point is 00:06:13 Also striking down the district court's religious freedom ruling. Now this time the funeral home sought to overturn this decision arguing that the circuit court had overreached its authority. And saying particularly that it had expanded the definition of what it means to be a man or woman, and then asking the US Supreme Court to hear this case, and actually back in April,

Starting point is 00:06:29 the Supreme Court agreed to hold a hearing. Which brings us to now, because the Department of Justice has submitted a brief asking the Supreme Court to rule that Title VII does not protect trans people. The DOJ argues that the funeral home, quote, "'administers its dress code based on its employees' "'biological sex, not based on their subjective "'gender identity. Rost has stated that he believes that the bible teaches that a person's sex is an immutable god-given gift and he would quote violate god's commands by permitting one

Starting point is 00:06:54 of Harris Holmes's funeral directors to deny their sex while acting as a representative of the organization or by permitting a funeral director of either sex to wear the uniform for funeral directors of the opposite sex at work. And it goes on to say that Title VII simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual's gender identity or a disconnect between an individual's gender identity and the individual's sex. And instead, it argues that Title VII prohibits treating people differently if they are in a similar position and of the opposite biological sex. And so in part, what the DOJ is arguing here is that when Title VII went into law, it was only meant to cover biological sex, and to extend the definition of sex

Starting point is 00:07:29 would be to rewrite the law, which it says only Congress should have the power to do. And if any of this sounds familiar to you, it's because back in 2017, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed an Obama-era policy that said Title VII included gender-based discrimination, something that was brought into effect because federal law doesn't currently ban

Starting point is 00:07:44 anti-LGBTQ discrimination. And most of the laws that do protect LGBTQ workers are justified using the term sex. So there's a belief and concern that if the Supreme Court rules that sex doesn't protect LGBTQ workers, that could end up restricting the protections that people have in the workplace.

Starting point is 00:07:58 Yeah, ultimately that is where we are and we're gonna have to wait to see what happens from here. And also I will pass the question off to you. Do you feel like Stevens should be protected? And then let's talk about more big updates with the situation in Hong Kong. These protests, which are now entering their 11th week, of course originally started

Starting point is 00:08:13 over a proposed extradition bill. Something that would reportedly allow suspected criminals to be sent to mainland China to face trial. But of course the protests have since shifted to broader calls for democratic reforms and police accountability among other things. This also wasn't just in the streets like we talked about last Monday. Thousands of protesters flooded the Hong Kong airport causing officials to cancel all flights.

Starting point is 00:08:30 The situation at the airport also escalated on Tuesday when limited flights resumed and protesters began trying to block passengers from boarding planes. Then things got a lot worse after a group of demonstrators basically held a man from mainland China hostage for several hours. And that reportedly because they believed that he was an undercover police officer, even though they had no confirmation of his identity or employment. Reportedly, police and paramedics trying to enter the airport hours after the man became unconscious, prompting protesters

Starting point is 00:08:53 to go attack the police vans outside of the building. And after that standoff, another man who has been confirmed as a journalist for the Chinese newspaper, The Global Times, was also seized by protesters, who then tied him up with cable ties. It was also reported that at one point, a group of demonstrators overwhelmed a police officer and beat him with his own baton.

Starting point is 00:09:08 And reportedly, these instances led to police violently cracking down on the protesters Tuesday night, using pepper spray and batons to disperse the demonstrators. Flights then resumed normally on Wednesday after airport authorities filed a court order to limit the protests. And after the violence at the airport,

Starting point is 00:09:21 many protest leaders worried that the actions taken by a few demonstrators would deter others from continuing to protest. But it appeared that the opposite was true on Sunday when hundreds of thousands of protestors came out in the rain for one of the biggest peaceful protests in weeks. And I say hundreds of thousands

Starting point is 00:09:35 because the numbers are all over. Protest organizers estimated that around 1.7 million people came out, while the police claimed the number was closer to 128,000. And despite the fact that the authorities had not given the protestors permission to march, it reportedly remained peaceful the number was closer to 128,000. And despite the fact that the authorities had not given the protesters permission to march, it reportedly remained peaceful, there was limited police presence, and the police didn't try to stop the protesters.

Starting point is 00:09:51 And at this protest, reportedly protesters themselves encourage each other to avoid confrontation. Sunday's massive protest was meaningful not only because there was such a massive number out, but also because it seemed to indicate that the people of Hong Kong were not backing down. Which is huge amid what many have described as unprecedented use of force by police and escalating threats from mainland China. Mainland China has recently ramped up its efforts against the protesters in Hong Kong on two key fronts.

Starting point is 00:10:14 The first front is the growing threat that the mainland would use military action to stop the protesters. Like we talked about last time, Beijing has recently moved thousands of paramilitary troops to the mainland's border with Hong Kong, and those forces have since been seen running very public military exercises

Starting point is 00:10:26 over the last week or so, with many experts saying that this is a reminder to Hong Kong that the mainland has not ruled out the use of force. And the second front is the war of misinformation and the growing anti-protest propaganda that has been increasingly spread by the mainland. While China's state media has always portrayed Hong Kong protests in a very negative light,

Starting point is 00:10:42 they have recently ratcheted up their efforts to villainize the protesters. Like we talked about last time, both Chinese officials and state media have moved to argue that the protesters are engaging in terrorist-like activity. In general, the Chinese media have portrayed protesters as a small group of bad actors

Starting point is 00:10:56 who engage in extremely violent demonstrations. Also, the official narrative in China is that those demonstrations have been planned and incited by foreign forces, including Nancy Pelosi and the CIA, and saying that those foreign have been planned and incited by foreign forces, including Nancy Pelosi and the CIA, and saying that those foreign forces pay the protesters to engage in activities that are not supported by residents of Hong Kong. And that narrative obviously contrasts greatly with what we've seen, which is a popular demonstration and movement that at times has prompted two million people,

Starting point is 00:11:18 nearly one-third of Hong Kong's population, to take to the streets. The Chinese media has also been saying that protesters in Hong Kong are calling for independence from China which threatens the mainland sovereignty. But as many have noted none of the protesters demands include independence from China. Their media has also manipulated pictures and videos of protesters to make them seem more violent. There's this one recent example where a video showed a protester with a toy airsoft weapon used in a paintball like game that's popular in Hong Kong. The state-run newspaper the China Daily circulated that video claiming that it was evidence that the protestors had taken up arms, saying that this toy was a grenade launcher

Starting point is 00:11:48 used by the US Army. And in fact, just over the weekend, it was reported that China's largest state-run news agency bought ads on Facebook and Twitter to smear the protestors. And that is incredibly notable, not only because it's the continuation of a misinformation campaign, but because both Facebook and Twitter are banned in China,

Starting point is 00:12:04 so the ads seem to be an attempt to influence the outside world to China's favor. One of the ads run on Facebook indicates that the violence from the protest is hurting Hong Kong's economy and goes on to say, calls are mounting for immediate actions to restore order. Another ad specifically targets Pelosi, saying she should quote, fly to Hong Kong to see what the true facts are

Starting point is 00:12:20 instead of watching media coverage. Another ad on Twitter also pushed the idea that everyone in Hong Kong wants order, claiming, quote, all walks of life in Hong Kong called for a break to be put on the blatant violence and for order to be restored. And this is something a number of Chinese outlets are doing. Another Chinese state media outlet, CGTN,

Starting point is 00:12:36 posted an anti-democracy rap video to Twitter this weekend. And just today, we saw Twitter address the misinformation campaign in a Twitter safety blog post, where they said they found a significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong. And according to the post, Twitter located 936 accounts originating from within China

Starting point is 00:12:52 that were deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong, including undermining the legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement on the ground. With the post going on to say that Twitter had suspended all of the accounts for violating their platform manipulation policies, but also noting that those accounts were only the most active of the misinformation campaign Which they said consisted of around 200,000 accounts. So that's a massive part of what's happening right now

Starting point is 00:13:13 Of course, we'll continue to keep track of what's going on But also interestingly enough this situation has tied in the Disney movie Mulan as you may have seen over the weekend boycott Mulan was trending. And this is because Chinese-American actress Liu Yifei, who will be playing Mulan in the live-action remake, she posted to Weibo, a popular social media site in China, "'I support the Hong Kong police. "'You can all attack me now. "'What a shame for Hong Kong.'"

Starting point is 00:13:35 And so, of course, we saw people calling for the boycott of this movie. People saying things like, "'Disney's Mulan actress supports police brutality "'and oppression in Hong Kong. "'Liu is a naturalized American citizen. "'It must be nice Meanwhile, she pisses on people fighting for democracy as of right now

Starting point is 00:13:48 According to reports calls for a statement from Disney have been left unanswered Which it'll be interesting to see if they do or say anything I mean they just kind of got thrust into this international situation as far as if this boycott could damage the movie I don't know movie doesn't come out until the end of March, which is over seven months away So right there's the question of if this which is over seven months away, so right, there's the question of if this boycott will still be on top of everyone's mind that far down the road.

Starting point is 00:14:09 There are a lot of experts out there saying this boycott is unlikely to really hurt the movie, and actually, according to Stanley Rosen, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California, with the boycott originating through Hong Kong, people in China will deliberately go see the movie to protest the boycott.

Starting point is 00:14:23 All of this could actually benefit the film. Yeah, ultimately that's where we are with that as well. And of course, like with everything we talk about, I would love to know your thoughts on any and all of the situations today. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, if you liked today's video, be sure to hit that like button.

Starting point is 00:14:36 Also, if you're new here, be sure to subscribe and definitely click that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, if you wanna check out our last news deep dive, maybe last Philip DeFranco show that you might've missed, you can click or tap right there to watch that. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco.

Starting point is 00:14:50 You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.19 Youtube is Suing A Copyright Troll, Mulan Boycott, & China Ramps Up Misinformation Campaign

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