I suspected it wasn't a great deal. When I was a new podcaster, I got myself in a bad situation with a network because I didn't know any better. We grew a lot and it wasn't the best place for us to stay, it was holding us back. It was a disaster getting out of it. All of that to say, Crowder's point about how newer creators could be taken advantage of, may be true.
I guess critiquing your critique is awfully meta, but the following sounds like hyperbole: "The obvious explanation is that they are there, scary as they are, to fully terrorize the creators into complying with the superset of all 'terms of service' the various major platforms impose over time."
A common definition of "fair market value" is "the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts." So Crowder didn't think the proposed terms approximated fair market value for his services and intangible property. That is his prerogative. I think The Daily Wire suggested they would have welcomed negotiations, and this was just a starting point. I have no connection to either party, and I am agnostic about the good and bad here. I do appreciate freedom of contract. You allude to one of the biggest downsides to litigation over contract terms, which is simply the cost in professional fees of such litigation. So one party may be at a significant disadvantage for that reason alone.
You are right to point out the pitfalls of term sheets. Books are written about term sheets. Even without the express covenant to negotiate in "good faith," in some jurisdictions courts will impose such a good faith requirement on contracts, including, term sheets. I don't know about the law in Tennessee, but seeing that clause in a term sheet doesn't shock the conscience. Take a look at this article which suggests Tennessee does recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. https://www.nashvillebusinesslitigationlawyersblog.com/supreme-court-of-tennessee-dut/
Perhaps that covenant is limited and somehow not applicable to term sheets. But you can see courts will read it into an agreement.
I wouldn't let a client sign the term sheet with that covenant, in part because the state I am in doesn't impose the covenant in all cases, but the provision is not egregious. Both sides represented by counsel would be able to satisfy the "good faith" standard if no definitive agreement was signed. But we're ahead of ourselves. An offer was made and rejected, and here we are perseverating over the intricacies of the offer.
To be clear, I'm not implying anything illegal was done. Only that DW is deceptive about how it represents the terms offered, and that Crowder is right about the implications.
Thanks for the insights about good faith, that's super interesting. Please do share any other commentary, I was hoping a legal professional might show up.
Alexandros, I am largely in agreement with Jim Marlowe who commented 6 hours before I did. The DW/Crowder encounter seems like a reasonable attempt to do business with one side pulling out before a term sheet was signed. It really was just a term sheet. Agreements to negotiate in good faith are not unusual. I am glad that both Crowder and the DW are on the scene and doing what they do.
This is a mind f%$k. You hear about controlled opposition and limited hangouts. This is a business. The controllers really got this game sussed but every revelation steels my resolve. Not scared of death. Not scared or surprised by anything anymore. Great work Alex thank you for sharing...
I love Crowder but haven't paid any attention to any of these dealings. I was glad to receive an email saying he was on Rumble. I probably still have my subscription to the Blaze, which I'll keep to. I like their content as well. Lots of good stuff out there. Don't drink much any more or spend money as freely as I used to. I'm happy to give it directly to content creators on Substack, Blaze, Rumble, Daily Wire, etc. I don't care about the backside drama. The adults will figure it out. This is interesting though and I'm grateful you posted this.
Thank you sir
I have been following this because I watch Mr. Crowder
I believed what he was saying and understood his posistion which I agreed with but I also know there are two sides to every story.
Thank you for putting the time in so I now have a full picture about this issue and caan feel confident that Crowder was truthful.
I would say that signing this would not be good for business
I suspected it wasn't a great deal. When I was a new podcaster, I got myself in a bad situation with a network because I didn't know any better. We grew a lot and it wasn't the best place for us to stay, it was holding us back. It was a disaster getting out of it. All of that to say, Crowder's point about how newer creators could be taken advantage of, may be true.
I guess critiquing your critique is awfully meta, but the following sounds like hyperbole: "The obvious explanation is that they are there, scary as they are, to fully terrorize the creators into complying with the superset of all 'terms of service' the various major platforms impose over time."
A common definition of "fair market value" is "the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts." So Crowder didn't think the proposed terms approximated fair market value for his services and intangible property. That is his prerogative. I think The Daily Wire suggested they would have welcomed negotiations, and this was just a starting point. I have no connection to either party, and I am agnostic about the good and bad here. I do appreciate freedom of contract. You allude to one of the biggest downsides to litigation over contract terms, which is simply the cost in professional fees of such litigation. So one party may be at a significant disadvantage for that reason alone.
You are right to point out the pitfalls of term sheets. Books are written about term sheets. Even without the express covenant to negotiate in "good faith," in some jurisdictions courts will impose such a good faith requirement on contracts, including, term sheets. I don't know about the law in Tennessee, but seeing that clause in a term sheet doesn't shock the conscience. Take a look at this article which suggests Tennessee does recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. https://www.nashvillebusinesslitigationlawyersblog.com/supreme-court-of-tennessee-dut/
Perhaps that covenant is limited and somehow not applicable to term sheets. But you can see courts will read it into an agreement.
I wouldn't let a client sign the term sheet with that covenant, in part because the state I am in doesn't impose the covenant in all cases, but the provision is not egregious. Both sides represented by counsel would be able to satisfy the "good faith" standard if no definitive agreement was signed. But we're ahead of ourselves. An offer was made and rejected, and here we are perseverating over the intricacies of the offer.
To be clear, I'm not implying anything illegal was done. Only that DW is deceptive about how it represents the terms offered, and that Crowder is right about the implications.
Thanks for the insights about good faith, that's super interesting. Please do share any other commentary, I was hoping a legal professional might show up.
Alexandros, I am largely in agreement with Jim Marlowe who commented 6 hours before I did. The DW/Crowder encounter seems like a reasonable attempt to do business with one side pulling out before a term sheet was signed. It really was just a term sheet. Agreements to negotiate in good faith are not unusual. I am glad that both Crowder and the DW are on the scene and doing what they do.
This is a mind f%$k. You hear about controlled opposition and limited hangouts. This is a business. The controllers really got this game sussed but every revelation steels my resolve. Not scared of death. Not scared or surprised by anything anymore. Great work Alex thank you for sharing...
Sneaky slavery…OMG
also the fact that nowadays..
These entities are moving completely away from solid documentation…NO paperwork…
These “terms” can change electronically??😱
With "friends" like the parasites running the daily wire, who needs enemies?
Jack Nicolaus signed a deal like this and they stole his life's work. When he tried to take it to court, he found that their in-group controlled the courts as well. Ref: https://culturewars.com/news/how-jack-nicklaus-became-a-dishonored-employee-in-the-company-he-founded
Thank you. Sums up a lot. A cautionary tale
No wonder he inked a deal with Rumble...
I’m happy with anything that takes Crowder out of the public. I can’t stand his bloviation and know-nothing style. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I love Crowder but haven't paid any attention to any of these dealings. I was glad to receive an email saying he was on Rumble. I probably still have my subscription to the Blaze, which I'll keep to. I like their content as well. Lots of good stuff out there. Don't drink much any more or spend money as freely as I used to. I'm happy to give it directly to content creators on Substack, Blaze, Rumble, Daily Wire, etc. I don't care about the backside drama. The adults will figure it out. This is interesting though and I'm grateful you posted this.