The bigger question is with all the legal expertise he pretends to espouse; why does he think the right to play something, automatically carriers over the right to broadcast it to an audience. I'm not much of those "Where's the fair use" types, but I'm willing to say that due to how the environment is changing, videogames companies that may want to show good graces, is work acceptable streaming stuff into their games. You have companies that get Twitch and YouTube to enforce embargo dates, you have companies like Atlus that say "Don't show past this point of game," but you also have companies like Square-Enix/Disney who put very strict streaming regulations into their game, to the point where you can actually read their requirements by choosing an option in game. I don't have a side in this fight, but can see that streaming being what it is and how it's growing; real solutions are something to look into.
All that aside, Phil should know that contracts tend to be very specific. He tried to play off the whole Laveria/Pultavi thing like "They didn't have my name listed, so they had no right to my stuff." Nevermind, he was earlier talking about jerking off them for everything he could, even if they had paperwork messed up; thinking he'd be able to get things his way if things went south. Him not understanding the difference is more of his "My business" talk, but also trying to have it be "DSP Gaming is just a YouTube channel." Like any other greedy child, he's trying to have shit both ways.
That pathetic begging netted exactly $1.
