- Comedian Miel Bredouw tweeted a thread about the problems she encountered with Barstool Sports when they posted her content on their account without crediting her.
- Bredouw filed a DMCA copyright claim with Twitter over the matter, which Barstool Sports repeatedly tried to bribe her to remove.
- After no response, the website launched a counter-notice, which would mean that Berdouw would have to take them to court if she wanted to stop them from posting her content.
- The founder of Barstool Sports has responded to the incident, saying the company has “idiots” working for it and acted “moronically” in this matter.
Comedian Miel Bredouw is firing back at Barstool Sports and Twitter after she claims the sports site tweeted her content without credit, and mishandled the situation with Twitter’s Copyright policy.
The story starts back in December 2018, when Barstool Sports tweeted a video Bredouw posted in 2016 of her singing a short parody song. Bredouw said she asked Barstool Sports to credit her, but received no response. She then filed a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown with Twitter, and Twitter removed the content, but not without backlash from Barstool Sports.
Bredouw tweeted a thread explaining the incident.
She then said that Barstool Sports offered her a $50 gift card to their online store if she would retract her DMCA takedown. And when she did not respond to this offer, she received multiple direct messages on several of her personal social media accounts, as well as accounts associated with her podcast, to respond to Barstool Sports. She claimed that she blocked accounts and deleted messages, but they still found ways to contact her.
After this, Barstool Sports raised their offer to $500 and promotion for Bredouw’s podcast. When she didn’t respond they upped it further to $2,000.
Soon after that offer, Twitter contacted her saying that Barstool Sports filed a counter-notice Which means that she has ten days to pursue legal action against the company, or the video posted back in December would go back on their feed.
Twitter’s Copyright Policy
While Berdouw claimed that six strikes would close Barstool Sports’ account, the number of strikes it would take for Twitter to suspend them is unclear. Twitter’s Copyright policy does not specifically state the number of violations or strikes an account needs to suspend them. However, the company does state that fraudulent behavior can result in an account’s suspension.
According to Twitter’s Copyright policy, filing a counter-notice and serious business and “is the start of a legal process that has legal consequences.” The social media site even recommends speaking to an attorney before filing a counter-notice, as once the notice is filed, it becomes a legal matter that is no longer in Twitter’s hands.
Barstool Sports has over one million followers on their Twitter account, so any consequences they face could severely impact their brand. The company’s founder, Dave Portnoy, said in an e-mail to Business Insider saying that Barstool Sports should have ended their communication with Berdouw earlier.
“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,” he said. “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 dollar 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.”
Berdouw spoke to The Verge, and told them that she would likely not pursue legal action, as it is too much trouble to go through. However, she does believe that her situation speaks on a larger scale about Twitter’s Copyright policy, and the problems within it.
“This is not the first time this has happened to me where a large account has stolen a piece of content and I filed a DMCA and they filed a counter-notice,” said Berdouw. “There’s just this glaring loophole when a counter-DMCA is filed where you have to get a court order.”
See What Others Are Saying: (Business Insider) (The Verge) (Mashable)
Florida Shootout Involving Hijacked UPS Truck Ends With 4 Dead
- Two armed robbers hijacked a UPS truck and held the driver hostage in an attempt to escape police on Thursday.
- The police chase ended with a shootout that left both suspects, the UPS driver, and another civilian dead.
- Many are condemning the police officers for their actions and blaming them for the death of the innocent victims.
Armed Robbery Leads to Shootout
Two suspects and two civilians were killed in gunfire on Thursday after an armed robbery attempt led to a violent shootout.
The suspects, identified as Lamar Alexander and Ronnie Jerome Hill, held up a jewelry store in Coral Gables, Florida yesterday afternoon. Gunfire was exchanged between the thieves and a store employee, and police arrived shortly after.
One female store employee was injured and taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital, NBC Miami reported.
The suspects escaped in a van but ditched their getaway vehicle about a mile away from the jewelry store. They then hijacked a UPS truck, holding the driver hostage at gunpoint, local authorities said at a press conference Thursday night.
Police chased the robbers across two counties. Approximately an hour after the UPS driver was abducted, the pursuit ended with a shootout at a crowded intersection in Miramar. A total of 19 officers from five different agencies were firing at the UPS truck.
Videos from the deadly exchange have been posted on Twitter, showing police officers crouching behind civilian vehicles in standstill traffic as they shot at the truck. The gunfire is thundering and consistent.
The two suspects were fatally shot in the crossfire. The UPS driver was also killed, as well as another innocent bystander sitting in her car.
When George Piro, the special agent who heads the FBI’s Miami Field Office, was asked if it’s possible that the civilians were killed by bullets fired by police officers, he remained vague.
“As I mentioned earlier, it is very very early on in the investigation and it would be completely inappropriate to discuss that,” Piro said. “We have just began to process the crime scene. As you can imagine this is going to be a very complicated crime scene.”
The UPS driver has been identified by his family as Frank Ordoñez, a 27-year-old father of two young girls. According to his sister, Sara Ordoñez, he had just been promoted at work for the holiday season.
“He was excited because he was saving up to buy an apartment, a home,” Sara Ordoñez told the New York Times. “We didn’t have it so easy, so he wanted to give the best for his daughters. Everything he would do was for his daughters.”
A GoFundMe has been created for Ordoñez’s family.
UPS released a statement on their official Twitter page addressing the loss of their employee.
“We are deeply saddened to learn a UPS service provider was a victim of this senseless act of violence,” it said.
The second slain civilian has not yet been publicly identified.
Criticism of Police Action
An interview with Joe Merino, Frank Ordoñez’s stepfather, revealed that he blames the death of his son on the police’s “negligence” and “disregard for life for a victim.”
“We’ve all seen hostage situations where local police surround the house, SWAT comes in, there’s a negotiator… and everyone walks away alive,” Merino said. “They didn’t give Frank that opportunity.”
Many others condemned the decisions made by law enforcement, calling for the officers to be held responsible for the civilian deaths.
See what others are saying: (CBS) (NPR) (Washington Post)
Nearly 700,000 People to Lose Food Stamp Aid Under New Policy
- A new rule was finalized on Wednesday that tightens work restrictions for the federal food stamp program.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 688,000 people will be cut from the program when the rule takes effect next year.
- Those in favor of the change argue that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs, while critics say it will hurt them more than it will help them.
Trump administration finalized a new rule that could remove almost 700,000 people from the federal food stamp program. The rule, announced in a press release on Wednesday, creates stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule promotes work for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents,” the press release said.
Under current regulations, this demographic can receive three months of SNAP benefits throughout a three year period, unless they work or undergo professional training for at least 20 hours a week.
States have had the ability to waive this time limit to account for economic turbulence, and counties with unemployment rates as low as 2.5% were eligible for these remissions. The new rule will make 6% the minimum unemployment rate to qualify for these waivers, according to the Washington Post.
It will take effect on April 1, 2020.
Impact on Americans
While the USDA originally estimated that up to 750,000 people would be cut from SNAP with this change, now they have adjusted that number to 688,000.
The finalized regulation is the first of three proposed measures to limit access to the federal food stamp program. A new study by the Urban Institute found that if the other two rules are approved, nearly 4 million people would lose access to food benefits.
After the new rule was proposed in February, there was an abundance of public comments imploring the administration not to go through with it.
But the USDA was not swayed and held strong in their argument that SNAP should be a form of temporary assistance instead of a long-term lifestyle.
“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream,” said Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture. “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”
Those who support the rule are optimistic that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs.
“The changes reflect the belief that more Americans can enter and reenter the workforce,” Brandon Lipps, the USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary, told the Washington Post. “So they can know the dignity of work.”
Critics of the change were extremely disappointed upon the news of the rule’s finalization, deeming it a step in the wrong direction.
“The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Wednesday. “It is heartless. It is cruel. It exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration.”
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on nutrition, released a press statement on Wednesday after hearing the news.
“The Administration refuses to take an honest look at the people they are targeting with this rule and what challenges they face that contribute to their hunger…” she said. “…Instead of considering hungry individuals and their unique struggles and needs, the Department has chosen to paint them with the broadest brush, demonizing them as lazy and undeserving.”
See what others are saying: (New York Times) (NPR) (NBC)
Melania Trump Blasts Law Professor for Dropping Son’s Name in Impeachment Testimony Joke
- Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan made a joke referencing President Donald Trump’s son in her impeachment hearing testimony on Wednesday.
- Melania Trump criticized Karlan on Twitter for bringing her child into a political matter.
- Some condemned Karlan while others thought her wordplay was harmless.
- Many Twitter users called the FLOTUS hypocritical for defending her child but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experiencing inhumane treatment at the border.
Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, dropped a controversial joke while testifying in the ongoing impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
While explaining the difference between the POTUS and a king, she used a play on words with the name of his teenage son, Barron.
“The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility,” Karlan said. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
Karlan’s joke received a scattering of laughter around the room, including a chuckle from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who posed the question of how the president compares to royalty.
Melania Trump took to Twitter to defend her son, condemning Karlan’s name-dropping comment.
“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics,” the first lady wrote. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
Karlan was put on blast by other prominent figures for her mention of the president’s son. Vice President Mike Pence called her joke a “new low.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida who strongly supports the president, chastised her directly on the floor Wednesday.
“Let me also suggest that when you invoke the President’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument,” he said. “It makes you look mean.”
The Trump campaign released an official statement on the topic.
“Only in the mind of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old into the impeachment nonsense,” National Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Later in the day, Prof. Karlan apologized for her remarks, but not without mentioning that she wishes Donald Trump would also admit to his faults.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” she said during her testimony. “I wish the president would apologize obviously for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”
Defense of the Professor
While some were outraged by Karlan’s play on words, others spoke up to defend her, deeming the joke harmless.
It was NOT the minor child she was referencing.— Linda Kemp (@LindaLarsonKemp) December 5, 2019
It was INSTEAD the father’s delusions of royal grandeur in his naming of the child—the monarchical mindset & legacy the Framers were establishing specific guardrails against.
Barron you’re not the issue. Your dad’s the issue.
Some Twitter users criticized the FLOTUS for being quick to defend her own son but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experience inhumane treatment at the border.
Your husband attacked a 16 year old climate activist for her views on climate change. Your husband separates children from their parents at the border and locks them in cages. #BeBestMyAss #shutupmelania— PitStainPeter (@PitStainPeter) December 5, 2019
Hey @FLOTUS nothing negative was said about your son, I watched every minute. If you are so concerned with minor children then why haven’t you done anything about #KidsInCages! This rule applies to all kids everywhere not just your son!— FloridaDem (@MarilouGeorge) December 5, 2019