And now it's time for Joe Escalante live from Hollywood, if by Hollywood you mean Burbank across the street from a Wienerschnitzel that serves beer.
Good Evening, America. We're coming to you this week from Utah, Salt Lake City's X Games taking place here, and I'm here traveling with the band Sublime, of course, and you are in for two hours of the business end of show business as usual right here on KEIB eleven fifty on your AM dial. You can also hear us all over the world live on your iHeartRadio app. And to get the podcast, just search my name and whatever podcast thing you use and you'll find it a couple hour
hours after we finish here. Let's go to the movies this week. I've got my prediction for the top five movies of the weekend. I say will be number one and How to Train Your Dragon, followed by Megan two point zero twenty eight years later and Elio from Disney Pixar, which didn't do very well that last week, so that's kind of a problem for Disney and Pixar, but you know they're used to it, right. What do you need to know about Formula one? The movie f one. Are
you gonna go see it? I'm gonna go see it. It's an Apple original, so Apple movie. When Apple does anything, they just pour money into it. They don't care about the budget, they just don't care. So it hit the theaters this weekend. Earlier, it debuted in Europe. And this movie comes from a powerhouse team directed by Joseph Kazinski who brought us Top Gun Maverick, so you know it's gonna be the visuals are going to be good. And it's produced by Jerry Bruckhimer. He's a legend in action films.
And you have a kind of a significant layer of authenticity with seven time Formula one world champion Lewis Hamilton also as a producer on the film. He got Brad Pitt playing a guy named Sonny Hayes who sits around making up these names that one seems recycled. So he's a former Formula one driver from the nineteen nineties whose
career was cut short by an accident. Okay, Then you got Damson Idris as Joshua Pears, a hot shot rookie driver, and the film explores the dynamic between a veteran trying to make a comeback and a rising star as they team up for a struggling fictional Formula One team called APXGP. And we also got Javier Bardam in the cast and Carrie Condon. But what sets this movie apart, most people are saying, is their commitment to realism. But have we heard that before?
Yeah?
Maybe much of the action was actually filmed during a real Grand Prix or many Grand Prix weekends throughout the twenty three to twenty four Formula one seasons. Brad Pitt even drove a modified Formula two car on real tracks to capture that authentic racing feel. And they worked very closely with the Formula one organization to achieve an unprecedented level of access and authenticity, they say. And Formula one it was revived by a Netflix series, That's what I understand.
Like it was struggling Netflix series and then it got huge. Then my brother in law bought it. Oh sorry, my stepbrother. It's a long story, okay, So the story that's a story here. You know, I told the other story. So it's kind of like an underdog and redemption story set against a high stakes world of Formula One. You get it.
You've seen it before, not just another racing movie. Perhaps if it redelivers on this real world, real life stuff, you gotta go see it in the IMAX, right or the XD at Cinema, Cinema Belitaria.
You gotta.
Okay, I don't want to see you watching it on your phone, so I'll probably be doing that, I'm gonna say tomorrow. You know, everybody I talk to, like except for like, you know, my closest friends or guys in my band or people I work with, everything starts off. Every conversation nowadays starts off with something like or ends or somewhere they have to inject like wow these times, Wow, everything is so I mean, you know, everything's so crazy
or chaotic or oh everybody's suffering. And I don't know, just like, is anything worse than it's ever been? Hasn't it always been like this? I think the only thing different is the the media's ability to wind us up and get us to click on things or watch news on TV or Instagram or whatever. Or people are winding us up with their posts about how wound up they are.
But I really don't think the world is different. And thank god we have entertainment and for now entertainment seems to be doing pretty good.
The box office is civil.
I mean, it's okay, live music thriving, t shirts based on live music thriving.
But I don't know.
People always people trying to bring me down? Are they trying to do that to you? It's got a little like they say some little speech and they look at you like you hate Donald Trump, don't you? I mean that's how I'm getting from. Like everybody like, hey, you want to join this conversation. I'm like, I don't want to join any conversation. Hey, how about those bombs in Iran? And I'm like, guess what. Guess what, mister trying to convers have a conversation with me, and people just straight
up ask me, what's your opinion on that? Here's my opinion. I'll tell it to you. I don't have enough information to know whether dropping bombs on Iran is a great idea or the worst idea in the world. And if you have that information, wow, good for you. I don't have it.
I can't get it.
Because the news just tells you whatever they think you want to hear or whatever they want to tell you. It doesn't matter what side you're on. They don't. There's probably about eight people in the world that know whether that was the right decision or the wrong decision, but probably about eight everyone else is shut out. No one's getting the info. If you think you have all the info, many congratulations. I don't have it, so I don't know, so I don't have to worry about it.
I guess, you know.
When people ask me about this kind of stuff, I like to say, I'm just worried about who's going to be our next pope. And now we have Pope Leo from Chicago, first American pope. Of course, the jury is still out what kind of a pope will he be? But I have high hopes for him, and I'm always positive about the new pope. So this pope, he comforts me somewhat. I don't have to worry about the other stuff. But wow, here's a good one. I'm speaking of media.
President Trump is indicated an intent to pursue legal action against CNN and The New York Times. The basis for this threatened litigation stems from these outlets reporting regarding the recent US military strikes and I RAN's nuclear program. President
Trump stated that these strikes had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. However, both CNN and The New York Times published information reportedly from a preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the strikes resulted in a setback of only a few months. Trump's Legal council has formally notified The New York Times, meaning they wrote a letter demanding a retraction of its
reporting and an apology. It's so funny because he knows they're not going to retract or apologize, but he does it anyway. It's kind of like if you're his wife, he'd be like, oh, darling, don't do that. Don't do that. Just dunted them, don't do that. I'm going to do it, So he did it. The communication characterized the reporting as defamatory and unpatriotic. Additionally, President Trump publicly requested that CNN terminate the reporter responsible for the breaking the story, Natasha
Bertrand obviously a Russian spy. Of her name's Natasha right. Both CNN and The New York Times have issued statements affirming their reporting and expressing support for their journalists. Defense Secretary Pete hegsith what I bardied with true story. I acknowledged the existence of the preliminary intelligence report. So he said, yeah, we have a there's a report, but he didn't say it was in it. So do you know, do I know, I'm back to the same thing. I don't know was it,
did it obliterate the stuff or not? I don't know who knows. All I know is CNN is running around trying to find as many stories as they can to make the president look bad. And then other people on YouTube are running around trying to find any story that makes President Trump look good.
So what can you do?
All right, I'll continue with this after the traffic Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood.
Hello, this is Crispinglover dot com and you're listening to Joe Escalante.
We are back Joe Escalante Live from Hollywood by Hollywood and Member Bank. Okay, now we just we're talking about President Trump threatening some kind of litigation against the New York Times and CNN for being the New York Times and being CNN.
So it's interesting.
There's obviously something more to this, and some might say, and a cynical person would say, well, this is pretty bad because it chills the free speech and these news outlets have a right to report on whatever they find and if they are, do they have a right to mischaracterize it. Well, they have a right to make their opinions known. So a cynical person would say that's this
is chilling free speech. So he shouldn't do it. Like I said before, his wife after right before, he was about to do this, or go dialing, don't do that. Don't do that dialing. Just don't just leave it alone. You can't tell them how to think. Everybody knows CNN and New York Times hate you, and they come to sit by things. How about you, But you don't.
I don't have to play their game. Don't don't sink to the level. Honey.
That's what goes on behind closed doors. And this is the only show that will that will tell you this. I tell you the truth. So okay, legally, can he do this threatened litigation? I mean he wins these things. Sometimes I would say no, but then he's suing these people like and he's getting settlements out of these news organizations, and so he's what he's doing is he's softening them up.
He's making them be a little more careful because when you go and you know, I've worked for Fox News before, and you know, if they get sued for something or they get a lot of grief for something, it sticks with them. And then when I make my TV shows sometimes I run across it and I get pushback on something something that's silly. But they got sued once, so there was an embarrassment one. So they tell me, hey,
you can't say that. Don't say this, and don't say that, And I'm like, I have a legal right to say. We all have a legal right to say this. Yeah, but you know, or they'll or sometimes they ask they would ask me my legal opinion, Hey Joe, do you think something will have if we say this about this guy that saw the monster? And I'm talking about monsters and aliens, so it's not that big a deal. But they might say to me, hey, Joe, if we show this guy's gravestone, could be something like that. If we
show this guy's gravestone, I mean, can we can? We can we show it his name and stuff? And I'm like, Yeah, what are you talking about? Why are you asking me that opinion? Shouldn't you know? Now they're asking me as a lawyer, I could say, yeah, this is totally legal to show somebody's gravestone in a story we're talking about. The worst thing that's going to happen is someone might go on Facebook and say, how dare you exploit that person's death? You know, and then you might get yeah,
that's what I'm talking about, don't do it. So this kind of stuff where the president is, it's going after him, you know, I think it does kind of do something where it creates a headache in the newsroom, one more headache for them, so they're gonna think twice, be a little gun shy, and maybe just maybe they might want to report objectively instead of one of the time trying to find a way to make him look bad. So that's a reality. He can't do anything about it, but
he could soften him up a little bit. I think that's what he might be doing. And he's kind of bulletproof because people are gonna make fun of him, of course, because I mean, these people have a first AMENMA right
to do this stuff. If they are lying, then there would be like and if it's lying in a way that would hurt the military, then it would be maybe the Sedition Act or something they could be accused of being a trader or for an agent trying to because if you you were a foreign agent and you wanted to hurt the US. You might have infiltrators in the media making reports that tell the American citizens that all
is lost. Your leader is a buffoon. And he came on TV and said he obliterated something, and you want to tell the people that he didn't. Now, if they have evidence of that, then they could go that route. But if it's just, hey, we hate Trump. So this is our spin on it. And we found a guy that said this, and so here's what the guy said. He said, it might only be a couple months setback. They're allowed to do that.
So it's a.
Hard one to win, But I don't know, maybe you get a settlement. Also, here's another thing that happens. What's CNN doing. It'll look at their business background or what's going on in the big picture of CNN and Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times. You know, maybe they're trying to merge with someone and they're going to be needing federal approval from the FTC or the Department of Justice or whoever in charge of the antitrust department. To prevent monopolies.
They got to get some government approval for certain things.
They do.
And if you push back on these things and say I hate these things, you're hurting the administration, and you want favors out of the administration, it might pay to bring it to their attention that we want to sue you over this. We're not just complaining, We're going to take you to court. Then they might behave better because
they need favors from the government. I don't know what's going on over if there's anything like that going on over at the La Times, but there certainly is something going on like that at CNN because CNN is part of Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers is part of Discovery. So Discovery wants to spin off this one all their cale their invaluable cable channels, and then keep HBO somewhere else.
You know, they're trying to re structure their business and they might need government approval for some.
One of the things they want to do. I don't know.
So they might be scared of him, So if you say that, then they might just soften up and just go easy on me. Guys, go easy. But could he go into a court and win this argument. No, I don't think so, unless he has proof that there is like a spy, and that they're actually working for a foreign government and they're trying to bring down the United States. Otherwise there's no way to win this. And I'm not saying they're not trying to bring down the United States.
They could be, but they that could be any proof anywhere. But he doesn't care. He's just playing his game. They're playing a game against him, He's playing a game against them. On Thursday, I was sitting at the Beach House restaurant Seal Beach, and I look up the TV and it's all kinds of P Diddy news going on.
So what happened with P Diddy this week?
Well, they wrapped up things, say, they wrapped up The defense wrapped up their case and uh, prosecutors already wrapped their case. So now it goes to the journey. So we'll see what happens. That'll it's going to be a while. I think, what do you think will happen to Diddy? I think he could I think a hard time getting
a conviction out of it. It won't be automatic, but sometimes, I mean, I think of all things were equal, but sometimes if the the tipping point comes where people just hate this guy, they're not afraid of him, and they just have already said he's bad. He's bad, he's bad, he's bad. There's nothing that you can do. But if you just looked at the elements of the crime and said, did the prosecutor prove these beyond a reasonable doubt? It starts to get crazy, Like, I don't know if you
can do that. Can you prove the existence of an enterprise that he used to facilitate and cover up his criminal activities? That means he has to you know, there had to be like a board of directors or other employees they were helping him do this. That's hard and I don't know if he can and a pattern of racketeering activity. They have to prove that Combs agreed to participate in an enterprise in the enterprise affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity. This means proving he or members of the enterprise committed at least two predicate acts of specific illegal activities. So at least two to do sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arts and bribery, drug distribution, obstruction of justice. So if you can put two of those together, I guess you got some racketeering and there has to be
these agreements. You have to prove that they agreed to do this, Like what if they just you know, people did it and then they if they did it because they were afraid of Diddy and they followed his instructions. You know, is that different than agreeing than someone coming up to Diddy and saying, I agree, this is a good idea to traffic With these people, it's different anyway, we'll see, jury will be out.
But sometimes they don't care.
They don't follow the law or anything. They just said we hate the guy. Anybody, I dare anybody here to vote not guilty, And then you get kind of stuff like that. All right, Joe Scalante live from Hollywood. Stick a break, We'll come. Oh, all air breathers, this is SpongeBob square Pants and you are filling your ear holes with Joe Escalante.
Joe Escalante live from Hollywood. We are back.
Okay, KiB eleven fifty on your AM dial here in the fine state of Utah, coming to you as we do from remote locations every now and then. So, what's going on in the Disney World, Disneyland specifically, because this is a show about southern California. First, and foremost big news for parkgoers in anahuh. Just in the last couple of days, Disneyland has announced plans for a brand new transportation hub on the east side of the resort. This is like you know, Harbor Area. It's a massive project.
It's part of this larger Disneyland Forward expansion they keep talking about, and it's designed to supposedly improve parking and traffic flow. The new hub will feature around six thousand parking spaces, plus indicated areas for shuttles and ride sharers, with direct access off Disney Way. Concept art that's over by the five Freeway. Concept art that I've seen hints at a pedestrian bridge over Harbor Boulevard.
That'd be nice.
Have you Have you ever seen that Harbor and Catella that that intersection. Wow, there's a lot of families waiting to get run over there. But now there will be a you know, some kind of civilized bridge. How do you like that? I went to Disneyland on Tuesday, actually went on Thursday.
Also, what did I do? Yeah, I'm on Thursday and Tuesday. I'm a grown up.
But you know, every once in a while, it's it's more friends that say Hey, you want to go, and then I go with them. It's not like I'm just like I got to go to do the live Little Walk a Round.
It's my Disneyland voice. All right, Oh, I got some.
Some sports news I don't usually have. This is a new thing. It's a significant legal move in the sports world. University of Wisconsin, the Badgers, that's where my niece just graduated from, issuing University of Miami alleging that Miami, that Miami University intentionally induced a star athlete to break breaches, record breaking name image and likeness contracts and transfer to Miami,
costing the University of Wisconsin millions. Now, this is a direct legal challenge to the burgeoning nil landscape, that's name, image, and likeness. We've talked about this a little bit in college sports. It goes down to high school too. It suggests that institutions are willing to sue each other over alleged poaching and contract interference in this new and lucrative and often loosely regulated environment of name, image and likeness. Deals are deals that allow amateur players to make money.
You know, for a.
While, it was like this is amateur sports and this is professional sports. It was like it was illegal, like you go to jail if you're making any money off of your amateur sports career. But then as time went on and people started realizing how many billions of dollars are made by the universities with their football broadcasts, chiefly, the tide turned and people said, well, I shouldn't the students athletes make some money. But then it gets weird. They're all making a lot of money.
I got.
I mean, I see him around my town in Los Alamitos, be some senior with a one hundred thousand dollars car because they made a deal with them and they're going to control for rights to his name, image and likeness. They're going to give him money, and they're making commercials, or they could promise to make commercials in the future. And now they just got a whole lot more litigious because people are saying saying, hey, they have these portals
where people can leave their school and go into a portal. Now, if you convince somebody if someone has a contract with one what's the legalities Someone has a contract with a name, image and likeness deal attached to a school and they breach it, you know there's going to be some contract law will come in and say, okay, you breach something. You know, it's not a crime to breach a contract, but someone might have to be made whole. You can't go to jail for breaching a contract. It's just a
civil case that would happen. And they would say, I lost ten million dollars when you breach this contract because I anticipated this, this, and this, I didn't draft other players, I only drafted you, and now we were going to make all this money. And now I'm not because you breach the agreement, and which you can, but you have to make me whole. So you have to pay some kind of penalty to make me whole because you're obviously leaving this contract because you think you're going to make
more money somewhere else. Okay, give me some of that money, you know, and next time come to see me, and maybe I'll just to let you go if you tell me how much money you're gonna give me. But if you leave, you know, people get mad. So the legal theory that they usually use is something called a tortious interference with contract, meaning you got a contract, someone interferes
to get you to breach it for their benefit. Okay, that's a torte, a civil case tortious and they take you to court and the jury deliberates and decides whether you breach the contract, whether the person in question breached the contract, and whether someone induced him to. Did someone say hey, I will give you this if you breach that contract, and then you got your damages. You got to prove your damages basically, I mean it's more than just saying, well, you promised them a million dollars, give
me that million dollars. Now you got you approve your damages and you might get them.
But now these are kids that are breaching these agreements.
Now, if a kid has a tantrum, he doesn't really understand the legal ramifications. He talks to his lawyers, and his lawyers say, yeah, you can go. Well, I mean, we're gonna have to just defend this lawsuit, but yeah, we got that. We'll make a few million dollars out of that. You'll see it on your bill, and we'll get you out of it. Yeah, it'll be ten million in legal fees, but you'll be able to leave and go play at the school that you want to play. And the kid's gonna think, well, if I play at
this other school. I'm gonna get have a better career going to protein. I'm gonna make hundreds of millions of dollars. So ten million dollars in litigation costs, that's nothing. I don't care. But are these kids really equipped to make those decisions or you know, they're little league parents. There's a question I don't have an answer to. All Right, I got another lawsuit for you. I'm gonna blow your mind today with this one. Well, maybe not. Maybe it's
kind of boring though. Okay, there's a couple of lawsuits involving intellectual property that are in the news this week. One of them is there's a small one and a big one. Let's start with the small one. Okay, the music publishers, a group of seventeen publishing companies. We're suing X for copyright infringement because they said, we're not gonna let you use our songs anymore unless you make a
new deal. And then they, you know, keep using them and then they say, okay, it's copyright infringement, and then they assue them. And now the judge has granted the case in ninety days stay that means a pause so they can work out a settlement, meaning they are talking and probably gonna make a settlement, and then they will create a new licensing agreement between the major music right
holders and the massive social media platform. The outcome could set a precedent for how music is used and licensed another social media platforms impacting revenue streams for artists and publishers. And they are real and I kind of live off them right now. So is Elon Musk finally ready to settle this case? Or is this just a pause for round two? We'll see, you know, they pause and try to settle, and if they can, they do, and if they can't, they go back to their corners and get
ready to continue the fight. But it's a rather expensive fight, so they you know, they should set up anyway. Let's take a break on and when I come back, I'm going to tell you about this an AI case that actually went before a judge and it's been a substantive law has come out of this that will govern how AI models are allowed to continue the training models. Can they use copyrighted works in these training models? Well, we have a case.
Now.
Joe'scalante live from Hollywood.
Hello, this is John Crier from two and a half men, and you're listening to Joe Escalante.
Joe Scalante, here's my lawyer. You don't want money.
Joe Scalante live from Hollywood, coming to you from the X Games out here in Salt Lake City, And.
I got a case for you. Man.
This is this is a good one. This is major landmark. It will govern the creation of AI models for some time to come. The if you're using AI, I usually use mostly Google Gemini, but Chat, GBT or other ones. You know, this kind of depends on what you're comfortable with. What do I use them for everything? Okay, there's a company called Anthropic AI, and we have a verdict. They sued a group of authors sued Anthropic and it said
they copyrighted their books without permission. So here's what they're doing. They have to train their AI robots to know stuff. So they got to feed them everything. Like if I come into my Google Gemini right now and say, hey, what's the difference between the Tom Sawyer book and the Huckleberry Finn book. Now it's going to go through, it's gonna read it's already read them, or it's gonna read them real fast. And then it's gonna tell me, it's gonna give me an analysis. Okay, those books are in
the public domain. What if it says, what if I say, hey, give me a comparison of the novelization of What's Upon a Time in Hollywood and the Beastie Boys book. So got to read both of them. Where does it get them? Can it do that? And then it spits out an answer to me, is it allowed to use those copywriting materials to tell me an answer? What kind of world do we want to live in? Is kind of how I usually phrase these things. Do we want to live in a world where the AI is allowed to do that?
Or do we want to say they can't? And so the AI companies have to make a deal with every single author on Earth, every single thing on Wikipedia, every single thing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, every single thing in the Harry Potter encyclopedia. I use Harry Potter because she's in the news. I don't know if you heard about that. There's a bookstore in San Francisco that has refused to sell any more HK. Rowling books because of her stance
on transgenders or whatever. So that's in the news this week.
Too.
That's a brief digression. Should they be allowed to ban her books a San Francisco bookstore? Is that illegal? No, it's just book banning. Book banning is not illegal. So they're banning books in San Francisco, perfectly legal. It's a private company. They don't want to sell JK. Rowling books. They don't have to, Okay, Anthropic, Where do they get their books? Well, that's why we have a split decision in this case, and it has to do with where
they got this stuff. Can they let's start with this one. Can they use their books to train their AI models? They argue that training on copyrighted material these authors did without a license constituted unauthorized copying. So are they copying or are they just reading? I guess they copy it to go in one part of the computer to the other or is it just reading.
Well, the judge said.
That anthropics use of copyrighted books to train its large language models LMS, that's what they are, does qualify as a fair use under the US copyright law. Okay, before we do this, I want to give you a little brief recap on the fair use doctor, because we have talked to that many times. But you know, there's four major prongs, and we got to keep them in mind. This is the fair use doctrine. People are always coming to me and say, I can do this because it's
a fair use. I can do that. It's a fair use. Oh, I can do a parody. It's a parody, So I can do whatever I want. That's not true and fitting. But if you do qualify for the fair use doctrine, you can use other people's copyrighted work. You don't have to give them credit, you don't have to pay them any money, and you don't need their permission. Okay, So that's the holy grail where people want to get to so they can use all this stuff and make mashups
and derivative works, et cetera. It's not that easy to get there. To get there, you have to satisfy these prongs or you just have to be You're going to be judged on whether you've satisfied any of those prongs, or some of those prongs, or all of those prongs. Here are the prongs. The number one prong when trying if you're trying to take something and use parts of it for some other project without paying or getting permission. This is what the courts will look at when you
get sued. The look at the nature, the purpose and character of the work, like the why and how. They tend to favor things that are transformative. Remember that word transformative meaning the new work adds new meaning, expression, or a message to the original, like criticism. If you have criticism, they're transforming the work into criticism of the work, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or parody. Now that's when parody
comes in. If Weird Al Yankovic takes a song and changes the lyrics and makes it funny, how transformative is that? I think you could argue with it. All it's doing is transforming it. It's not transforming it at all. Really, it's just changing the words. So that's a derivative work. You got to get permission. Now, what if you take a song and mock that song with some other words that that don't just mock something else like oh I'm fat,
or like a surgeon like weird A Yankovic songs. But what if you mocked a song by saying, okay, this song by Taylor Swift, shake it off. If you change the words, I'm gonna be really bad now because I'm making this up at the top of my head, and you said fake it off, okay, fake it off, and then you went through and criticize this song as being a fake pop song. It's not really good. It's fake. It has no value, and she knows it and she's pretending,
so she's gonna fake it off. Okay, Now you're making fun of the you're doing it, and I don't believe that.
I think it's it's an amazing song.
But but if that was your position, you could record that, you could use her work, and I think you may have a good chance of prevailing in court saying, look, I have a right to comment on this song, and the best way to comment on the song. The way I do it is I have to steal from the song. I have to use parts of the song.
Okay.
The second prong the nature of the copyrighted work. Is it facts? If it's factual, Generally, courts are more likely to consider fair use. If it's highly creative, fictional or imaginative, very low chance of getting a fair use, And if it's unpublished, forget it.
Okay.
Number three the amount that you use and substantiality did you have to use the whole song. Well maybe it did because you had a beginning, middle, and an end and the effect of what you did on the original work, did it ruin the market for it?
That kind of thing. Okay.
So anyways, in this AI course case, it said that, okay, this is the crux of the whole case.
Then I'll let you go.
By copying books and putting them in this AI model. It's a transformative use, okay, because it trained. These AI models are trained upon works, not to race ahead and replicate them or supplant them, like ruining the market for them, but they are there to create something new and different out of them otherwise. So it's a machine to create transformative work. So she said, you can do that, But where do they get these books? They got them from pirated libraries, a lot of them. They just they like
these people that are putting them in. They go, where are we going to get the books to put in this thing? Oh, here's a website that steals books and puts them up online and they use that. Okay, you can't. So the court said, you can't use that. You can do it, but you can't get them from pirated sites because then that's not fair. So I think what the court is trying to say is is if you're going
to do these models, you got to buy the books. Okay, you pay for them, or you get a license for them, and then it's legal, or you can because you can buy a book and then you can do whatever you want with it, like at first use kind of a doctrine. But so just go ahead and do this. Don't steal the books. So that's the law now, and that's the show. Joe's Goance live from Hollywood, Hollywood can be Burbank. And I now leave you with just the taste of the greatest song ever written.