Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/1/22558292/police-officer-video-taylor-swift-youtube-copyright
325 comments
I wonder if a cop playing a song in public constitutes a public performance. BMI[0] seems to think so:
> A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place.
[0]: https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
> A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place.
[0]: https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
[deleted]
There is something very poetic to being brutalized with tear gas to the tune of "A Whole New World."
Is global broadcasting a 1AR? You have the video and can play it back to your friends, lawyers, mayor, etc. In all likelihood you could stand on the street corner and play to passersby without a problem. Where’s the 1AR violation?
The intent of the officers, combined with the fact that they are agents of the government matter a great deal here.
If this was a regular citizen with intent to cause copyright strikes it would not be an issue.
The fact that these officers are acting on behalf of the government means that it is arguably the government acting to restrict the distribution of these videos.
In the US, there are strong restrictions on officers acting in a way that could have a 'chilling effect' (legal term) free speech.
If this was a regular citizen with intent to cause copyright strikes it would not be an issue.
The fact that these officers are acting on behalf of the government means that it is arguably the government acting to restrict the distribution of these videos.
In the US, there are strong restrictions on officers acting in a way that could have a 'chilling effect' (legal term) free speech.
The idea predates the web.
It doesn't work now, just like it didn't with the old urban legend. (You can view this video)
Amendments or rights are irrelevant to this. They don't protect you from being so lazy you can't be bother to subtitle something to put it on your favourite media host. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't design the constitution for that.
In fact it feels like people want the right to easily harass other.
It doesn't work now, just like it didn't with the old urban legend. (You can view this video)
Amendments or rights are irrelevant to this. They don't protect you from being so lazy you can't be bother to subtitle something to put it on your favourite media host. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't design the constitution for that.
In fact it feels like people want the right to easily harass other.
"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right "
I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming.
There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming.
There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering with their body camera.
And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter.
I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit.
Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible.
People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.
Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible.
People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.
YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be denied.
Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.
Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.
30 Rock was ahead of the curve on this one!
Some of the episode Operation Righteous Cowboy Lightning[1] has the central characters singing an argument to each other to the tune of 'Uptown Girl' by Billy Joel, to stop a reality tv show that's following them from being able to air the footage, due to the copyright burden it would cause on them.
Of course reality is far more tragic.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Righteous_Cowboy_Lig...
Some of the episode Operation Righteous Cowboy Lightning[1] has the central characters singing an argument to each other to the tune of 'Uptown Girl' by Billy Joel, to stop a reality tv show that's following them from being able to air the footage, due to the copyright burden it would cause on them.
Of course reality is far more tragic.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Righteous_Cowboy_Lig...
The actual video is available on YouTube if you want to watch for yourself, Taylor Swift music included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc
Apparently the strategy doesn't work.
Apparently the strategy doesn't work.
Good example of the Streisand Effect. This YouTube channel currently has 89 subscribers. Most of their videos have less than a hundred views. Without this attempt by the officer likely nobody would have seen, heard, or cared about some argument over where a banner should or should not be placed.
> Apparently the strategy doesn't work.
Yet. Take-downs are carried out somewhat arbitrarily. The point is that there's no guarantee it will continue to be available.
Yet. Take-downs are carried out somewhat arbitrarily. The point is that there's no guarantee it will continue to be available.
You can upload it to YouTube, but you can't monetize it.
I've seen some videos of people following officers around with a camera and harassing them trying to get some sort of response, so they can post the video on their Instagram/YouTube and make money from ads.
I've seen some videos of people following officers around with a camera and harassing them trying to get some sort of response, so they can post the video on their Instagram/YouTube and make money from ads.
Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?
> Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?
Yes, but under current law, states can ignore the royalty requirement with impunity: "[C]opyright owners suffering infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies provided by the Copyright Act." [0]
Police departments are almost certain to be held to be state entities, I'd think, and therefore immune from individual personal liability for copyright infringement liability.
And the doctrine of "qualified immunity" might shield the police officer from personal liability for infringement as well.
But I haven't looked into this specific issue.
(Usual disclaimer: I'm an IP lawyer but not your lawyer.)
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/
Yes, but under current law, states can ignore the royalty requirement with impunity: "[C]opyright owners suffering infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies provided by the Copyright Act." [0]
Police departments are almost certain to be held to be state entities, I'd think, and therefore immune from individual personal liability for copyright infringement liability.
And the doctrine of "qualified immunity" might shield the police officer from personal liability for infringement as well.
But I haven't looked into this specific issue.
(Usual disclaimer: I'm an IP lawyer but not your lawyer.)
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/
I know the purpose of this is really to avoid the clip going viral but I’m curious whether there have been any cases addressing whether this situation could fall under fair use with respect to the person recording? Videos like this are usually newsworthy (and not made for commercial purposes) and the copyrighted material is incidental to the purpose of the recording.
I suppose I’m wondering whether this is an actual potential legal issue for the people making/posting these videos or whether the only issue is the headache of YouTube’s takedown process? If someone posts a video like this how likely is it they’ve infringed on someone else’s copyright? Being careful not solicit legal advice maybe a better question is, what factors would be relevant to weighing whether or not the video infringes on the copyright?
I guess it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around how there could be infringement without the (intentional?) misappropriation of the work.
I suppose I’m wondering whether this is an actual potential legal issue for the people making/posting these videos or whether the only issue is the headache of YouTube’s takedown process? If someone posts a video like this how likely is it they’ve infringed on someone else’s copyright? Being careful not solicit legal advice maybe a better question is, what factors would be relevant to weighing whether or not the video infringes on the copyright?
I guess it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around how there could be infringement without the (intentional?) misappropriation of the work.
> whether this situation could fall under fair use with respect to the person recording?
IMHO the person posting the YouTube video with the Taylor Swift song in background would have an excellent shot at a fair-use defense against any claim of infringement of the copyright in the song or the recording (which could be two different things). See, e.g., https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
I also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s) in question would think very hard before making an infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the adverse publicity.
IMHO the person posting the YouTube video with the Taylor Swift song in background would have an excellent shot at a fair-use defense against any claim of infringement of the copyright in the song or the recording (which could be two different things). See, e.g., https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
I also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s) in question would think very hard before making an infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the adverse publicity.
> I also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s) in question would think very hard before making an infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the adverse publicity.
Except the entity that would make an infringement claim is an algorithm, not a person
Except the entity that would make an infringement claim is an algorithm, not a person
> what factors would be relevant to weighing whether or not the video infringes on the copyright?
"As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
See also a useful FAQ-style article, especially Myth #4: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...
------
> I guess it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around how there could be infringement without the (intentional?) misappropriation of the work.
Intent isn't a factor in determining whether infringement exists (as opposed to whether a fair-use defense is available). "The U.S. Copyright Act is a strict liability statute. In other words, following a “rule” that you believe to be true but which turns out to be a myth will not excuse you from liability for infringement. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to plead “innocent infringement,” but even that only serves to reduce the amount of damages you may owe and does not excuse your infringement." (From the ABA "Myths" article cited above.)
"As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
See also a useful FAQ-style article, especially Myth #4: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...
------
> I guess it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around how there could be infringement without the (intentional?) misappropriation of the work.
Intent isn't a factor in determining whether infringement exists (as opposed to whether a fair-use defense is available). "The U.S. Copyright Act is a strict liability statute. In other words, following a “rule” that you believe to be true but which turns out to be a myth will not excuse you from liability for infringement. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to plead “innocent infringement,” but even that only serves to reduce the amount of damages you may owe and does not excuse your infringement." (From the ABA "Myths" article cited above.)
I thought a state entity referred to the State government. Police departments are run by the local city or county government.
> I thought a state entity referred to the State government. Police departments are run by the local city or county government.
For this purpose, city- and county governments and their various departments are regarded as subdivisions of the state.
For this purpose, city- and county governments and their various departments are regarded as subdivisions of the state.
In this case the definition of state that applies is "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory". In other words, any government generally.
From the point of view of federal Constitutional law (except provisions designating powers or obligations to particular state bodies, of course) all elements and administrative subdivisions of states are part of the state government, even though each has its own separate legal personality.
I don't want to argue the case on the video, but I am curious. If I have legally obtained copy of a song and I play it so that people I do not know hear it is it considered illegal.
Some scenarios:
A) like here, I just play on my phone. Idea is that it is for myself, say I left my earphones at home, but I just need my tunes.
B) I have my open headphones on, so the music is clearly audible to anyone near by me
C) I have earbuds (no sound for people near by), but they get disconnected and my phone goes on speaker
Some scenarios:
A) like here, I just play on my phone. Idea is that it is for myself, say I left my earphones at home, but I just need my tunes.
B) I have my open headphones on, so the music is clearly audible to anyone near by me
C) I have earbuds (no sound for people near by), but they get disconnected and my phone goes on speaker
Intent matters in these cases.
I guess there hasn't been a court decision on "playing music publicly with intention of blocking someone from uploading to Youtube"
Could the copyright owner, like Taylor Swift, also waive the usage of her song?
Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.
Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement.
This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say there's definitely a market.
This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say there's definitely a market.
There is "Mute song only(beta)" in YouTube which says
"Remove the claimed song only, keeping the rest of the sound. This option usually takes longer and might not work if the song is hard to remove"
I've tried it on a short clip that's under a minute long and it never actually processed the file when I tried. The beta flag is definitely warranted and you really don't want to rely on it.
It'd probably be better to do a vocal boost to the max and try to silence the music part as much as you can.
Although I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess on a YouTube video.
Although I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess on a YouTube video.
A straight vocal boost would change the audio profile of the overall scene pretty significantly, so I'm thinking some tool that has less impact would be desirable.
> I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess
I don't know how it'd fare in this instance but continuous improvements to the Shazam-esque algorithms used by copyright-flagging bots might make this less and less likely to go undetected.
> I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess
I don't know how it'd fare in this instance but continuous improvements to the Shazam-esque algorithms used by copyright-flagging bots might make this less and less likely to go undetected.
But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.
Stupid question: How do you know that the video isn't "edited"?
It clearly has been edited to add the subtitles and the watermark to the top left corner and it has fade to black and then fade in their logo and donation link at the end.
It clearly has been edited to add the subtitles and the watermark to the top left corner and it has fade to black and then fade in their logo and donation link at the end.
There's a reasonable argument that deepfakes are challenging our ability to rely on video evidence in general, but saying any editing at all removes credibility is pretty out there. Almost every video on the internet has been edited in some way.
Are there deepfakes out there that can withstand even a cursory technical interrogation? Most of them are extremely obvious once you've seen two or three.
Depends what you mean by "technical".
There are deep fakes that are good enough to fool some humans. There are deep fakes that are good enough to pass by some AI detection. Then there are some deep fakes that can not pass either.
By definition this is unquatifiable problem since you won't know how many deep fakes you aren't detecting since you aren't detecting them.
There are deep fakes that are good enough to fool some humans. There are deep fakes that are good enough to pass by some AI detection. Then there are some deep fakes that can not pass either.
By definition this is unquatifiable problem since you won't know how many deep fakes you aren't detecting since you aren't detecting them.
While it's blatantly obvious from the context and subject matter that they're fake, I did find quite a few of the Sassy Justice[0] series' examples to be quite convincing from a technical standpoint (I imagine they could have been undetectable given more subtle context & subject matter)
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
So post the video with the copyright-material-subtracted audio, plus a link to the unedited audio.
Or just use mask/obfuscate the audio, and face while your at it.
In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred.
After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force.
There are also many other contributing factors to policing issues in the US. But the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me. And if it's not just a few bad apples, then why do we need to publicly shame individual officers who are just doing their job as they were trained to do, in line with department policies? (Doesn't such public shaming just create opposition and resentment, distracting from the issue at hand)
Just saying... in other countries media don't go around posting/shaming people publicly if there is no conviction. (Sure, there is a balance, a few exceptions, and lots of nuance)
In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred.
After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force.
There are also many other contributing factors to policing issues in the US. But the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me. And if it's not just a few bad apples, then why do we need to publicly shame individual officers who are just doing their job as they were trained to do, in line with department policies? (Doesn't such public shaming just create opposition and resentment, distracting from the issue at hand)
Just saying... in other countries media don't go around posting/shaming people publicly if there is no conviction. (Sure, there is a balance, a few exceptions, and lots of nuance)
> In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred.
Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should stop doing such things or think really hard about their chosen career path.
> After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force.
At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. Mayhaps if they like the lack of it and with less bodily risk, they could pursue politics instead.
Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should stop doing such things or think really hard about their chosen career path.
> After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force.
At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability. Mayhaps if they like the lack of it and with less bodily risk, they could pursue politics instead.
> Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties...
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to escalate to the point of publicly shaming officers. Or at-least maybe we don't always need to, sometimes it's definitely called for.
> At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability.
I don't think any actions by any individual police officer is likely to scale far.
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to escalate to the point of publicly shaming officers. Or at-least maybe we don't always need to, sometimes it's definitely called for.
> At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability.
I don't think any actions by any individual police officer is likely to scale far.
> the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me
That "defense" never really uses the full saying, does it? "A few bad apples spoil the barrel" is the full phrase. Without removing the few bad apples, what happens to the remaining apples in the barrel?
That's why we need to bring these "few bad apples" to the forefront. If they're left alone, or treated as part of the group, they'll either spoil the rest of the department, or the entire department will take the heat for just a few of their coworkers abusing their power.
Holding all officers accountable for the actions of few seems in poor form to me, though I have no data to back this up. To me though, it feels like we'll end up polarizing the LEOs that just want to do good work, much like how "Not all men" began.
That "defense" never really uses the full saying, does it? "A few bad apples spoil the barrel" is the full phrase. Without removing the few bad apples, what happens to the remaining apples in the barrel?
That's why we need to bring these "few bad apples" to the forefront. If they're left alone, or treated as part of the group, they'll either spoil the rest of the department, or the entire department will take the heat for just a few of their coworkers abusing their power.
Holding all officers accountable for the actions of few seems in poor form to me, though I have no data to back this up. To me though, it feels like we'll end up polarizing the LEOs that just want to do good work, much like how "Not all men" began.
> That's why we need to bring these "few bad apples" to the forefront.
But can you un-spoil all the other apples of the barrel, by only removing the bad ones?
I think not... once police stands idle by their bad apple co-workers, they are spoiled.
I don't think you can unspoil the culture by just removing a few individual apples.
Culture is hard to change.
But can you un-spoil all the other apples of the barrel, by only removing the bad ones?
I think not... once police stands idle by their bad apple co-workers, they are spoiled.
I don't think you can unspoil the culture by just removing a few individual apples.
Culture is hard to change.
Yeah this seems like an easy way around it. Post the video with subtitles and no audio, and a link to the original video hosted on a PeerTube instance or something.
Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating the copyright?
It would be hilarious (and also poetic justice) if Taylor Swift (or whomever the copyright holder is) sued the Alameda County Sheriff's department for copyright violation and demanded maximum statutory penalties.
EDIT: Bummer, it looks like this route is not available to the copyright holder, since states have sovereign immunity against copyright infringement claims. See _Allen v. Cooper_, 589 U.S. ____ (2020).
EDIT: Bummer, it looks like this route is not available to the copyright holder, since states have sovereign immunity against copyright infringement claims. See _Allen v. Cooper_, 589 U.S. ____ (2020).
Then how is Disney suing school boards for showing the Lion King?
They're not. Their licensing agency sent them a bill; they didn't file a lawsuit. Also, it was a PTA, not a school board.
Also, they're not trying to collect anymore:
Disney C.E.O. Apologizes to P.T.A. Asked to Pay After ‘Lion King’ Screening - link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/lion-king-berkeley-mov...
Also, they're not trying to collect anymore:
Disney C.E.O. Apologizes to P.T.A. Asked to Pay After ‘Lion King’ Screening - link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/lion-king-berkeley-mov...
The subhead of the NYT article specifically describes the demand as against the school. I can re-ask the question with the distinction: if there's sovereign immunity, what gives Disney's licensing agent the authority to demand the school pay a fee?
I think that's unclear after _Allen v. Cooper_. I believe the demand predated this decision.
It would be poetic justice of a kind, because I'll bet that they find a cop playing music for himself, even while interacting with others is probably not breaking copyright, whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is, i.e. an attempt to 'press' the police would end up more than likely just affirming the situation with a specific judicial ruling. It'd be interesting to see how a judge ruled however.
It might be considered a public performance. In contrast to playing the radio in your backyard.
He didn't play it for himself.
He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely.
That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
> He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely.
IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
Just the opposite.
The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material.
There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself.
This thread is full of absurd arguments.
The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material.
There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself.
This thread is full of absurd arguments.
The recording isn't what made it public performance.
The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd.
The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
Replace enjoyment with listening if you like.
Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park?
They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.
He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to be considered some kind of violation.
He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.
That's not a public performance.
Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal.
Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance.
Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance.
If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it.
So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1]
None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal.
Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance.
Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance.
If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it.
So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1]
None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder.
OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
When I wrote radio - I meant generally 'something with a speaker' because irrespective of what 'radio stations' do - playing music on 'something with a speaker' from CD, iTunes, MP3s etc. on your lawn, in your car, on the beach, while at work - is extremely common - and does not constitute a 'public performance'.
You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you.
You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you.
You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this discussion that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
You're confused because you believe that the courts would find 'non public performance' only in the most narrow interpretation 'performance only to a small group of friends or family'.
Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute.
The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.
Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute.
The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.
I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this thread that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers. You keep ignoring that fact.
The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]
More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.
My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]
More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.
My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
"He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers."
1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.
2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.
3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.
Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.
This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.
It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.
It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.
2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.
3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.
Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.
This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.
It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.
It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
You’re really going off the rails and should stop. If you want to argue the law, that’s fine (to a point). But you’re starting to question others’ motivations and that’s not acceptable.
Totally disagree.
The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about.
1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion.
2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material.
But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording.
This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really.
There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side.
HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.
The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about.
1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion.
2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material.
But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording.
This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really.
There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side.
HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.
"...whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is..."
I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument.
Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...
I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument.
Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...
The cop has no idea if someone is recording, video or even audio. They have no idea what the filmer's intentions are. They have no knowledge or awareness of how the person might edit, alter, or distribute the content.
It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright.
Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.
It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright.
Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.
There is no such exception for publicly playing a copyrighted work "for oneself"
Yes there is. You can play music for yourself and close family. That you happen to 'be in public' or 'be at work' isn't relevant.
Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..
Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..
The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.")
The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.
The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.
I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights.
But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect
Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...
Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...
Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.
You're wrong. I assure you, I know this stuff. If the owner can't demonstrate harm, they have no case. "The other three factors" don't cause harm to the owner, so they have no case.
You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.
You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.
> I assure you, I know this stuff
Where did you go to law school, exactly?
Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c).
And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.
Where did you go to law school, exactly?
Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c).
And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.
Copyright infringement is a statutory tort. But you're right the law makes the infringement itself a violation. And fair use is just a defense.
No, that is video evidence of a police officer admitting to one count of willfully concealing a video recording during an investigation with the intent to prevent its content from being discovered which, if I am reading California Penal Code 135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence [1] correctly, qualifies as a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail.
[1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/
[1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/
Not sure I agree with you, reading the opening lines of the code, "that you know to be relevant to a trial, police investigation or other legal proceedings." No trail or police investigation happening means interfering with the video isnt illegal.
I agree that is the weakest element. Applicability largely hinges on what qualifies as a “police investigation” or “legal proceeding” which I have been unable to get a clear answer on. But, from a layman’s perspective, it seems like a police interaction which may lead to a use of police powers either should count or our legislative bodies should change the law to make it count as that appears to be in line with the spirit law to guarantee that all pertinent evidence to a crime be discoverable.
It's simpler than that. Even intent to get youtube to censor/not publish it is not concealing it from anyone, and especially not concealing it from an investigation/ the justice system, which is the clear intent of the law.
If not being published on YouTube were the criteria for concealment, then wouldn't the person making the recording also be guilty if they simply decided not to post/share it?
Preventing publishing or distribution isn't concealment.
If not being published on YouTube were the criteria for concealment, then wouldn't the person making the recording also be guilty if they simply decided not to post/share it?
Preventing publishing or distribution isn't concealment.
The level of bizarre mental gymnastics employed by the otherwise intelligent but obviously cop-hating HN crowd is disturbing.
The cop isn't hiding anything.
YouTube, may decide not to publish something, and that's not 'concealing' anything either.
There's almost a 0% chance that if this went to court on copyright claims, that someone playing music while on the job i.e. cop, insurance adjuster, home appraiser etc. is going to be found in copyright violation.
There's almost a 100% chance that if you film people who are listening to music - and that copyrighted music is in your production ... that's it's going to be in violation.
It's not a perfect civil rights situation, because these laws were not designed for that.
It just is what it is.
Probably they will have to make some policy change for this issue.
The cop isn't hiding anything.
YouTube, may decide not to publish something, and that's not 'concealing' anything either.
There's almost a 0% chance that if this went to court on copyright claims, that someone playing music while on the job i.e. cop, insurance adjuster, home appraiser etc. is going to be found in copyright violation.
There's almost a 100% chance that if you film people who are listening to music - and that copyrighted music is in your production ... that's it's going to be in violation.
It's not a perfect civil rights situation, because these laws were not designed for that.
It just is what it is.
Probably they will have to make some policy change for this issue.
This would constitute a public performance of a song, I doubt he paid for a license.
He's certainly wearing the uniform, on the job and using the music for work purposes in a deliberate way. Sounds feasible as a public performance but I'd prefer a legal type's opinion.
You don't need a public performance license to personally consume music in public. Public performance licenses would be for things like playing a song in a restaurant you run, or in a retail store.
He's not personally consuming - he's playing the music in public for the purposes of performance (the audience) and broadcast (he knows it is being recorded)! This is willful and flagrant infringement.
No. It is being filmed without his consent. He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance.
By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
He should be fired for other reasons (making the department look bad by attempting to avoid accountability), but he is not violating copyright. Nor would the person filming it be, since "courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work", and this isn't. No one is going to say "I'm not going to pay for Taylor Swift's version because I can just watch this video of a cop playing it on his phone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
He should be fired for other reasons (making the department look bad by attempting to avoid accountability), but he is not violating copyright. Nor would the person filming it be, since "courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work", and this isn't. No one is going to say "I'm not going to pay for Taylor Swift's version because I can just watch this video of a cop playing it on his phone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
> He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance
That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends.
> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression.
The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance.
I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.
That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends.
> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression.
The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance.
I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.
No, you're not looking at it like a prosecutor/RIAA goon would, because they have not sued anyone ever for merely playing music on their phone while standing in public.
What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the individual words of the phrase based on their common usage, and then saying that your new understanding based on the individual words is how copyright law actually works.
If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're doing here with "public performance"
What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the individual words of the phrase based on their common usage, and then saying that your new understanding based on the individual words is how copyright law actually works.
If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're doing here with "public performance"
> because they have not sued anyone ever for merely playing music on their phone while standing in public.
But that's not (just) what the officer was doing - he was playing music as background to his business operation, which RIAA have definitely sued establishments over[0]. If you're playing music as a soundtrack for your business (in this case, the business of law enforcement), you need a license. Even in a non-business context, if they had a chance to sue you for playing music in public, they would. There just haven't been any prominent/worthwhile cases for them to do so. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that isn't what the law allows.
[0]: https://www.frantzward.com/news-blog/june-2017/let-the-music...
But that's not (just) what the officer was doing - he was playing music as background to his business operation, which RIAA have definitely sued establishments over[0]. If you're playing music as a soundtrack for your business (in this case, the business of law enforcement), you need a license. Even in a non-business context, if they had a chance to sue you for playing music in public, they would. There just haven't been any prominent/worthwhile cases for them to do so. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that isn't what the law allows.
[0]: https://www.frantzward.com/news-blog/june-2017/let-the-music...
So by your expert understanding of the law, no person is ever allowed to listen to music while working if someone else happens to be near them. Gotcha.
It is permissible to rebroadcast Radio and Television broadcasts for small businesses with certain limitations, but anything else requires paying for licensing: https://www.nfib.com/content/news/legal/you-might-need-a-lic...
This is obviously very different from playing it in a business where the music is used to attract or entertain customers.
It's mind blowing to me that people on Hacker News don't see the absurdity of enforcing copyright law as you are suggesting. This article sums it up well:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml
"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
Is that really the world you want? Geez.
It's mind blowing to me that people on Hacker News don't see the absurdity of enforcing copyright law as you are suggesting. This article sums it up well:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml
"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
Is that really the world you want? Geez.
https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
> A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place.
This is a quote from a RIAA member explaining their interpretation of public performance.
> A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place.
This is a quote from a RIAA member explaining their interpretation of public performance.
Show me a single case where an award has been granted for this sort of thing. This is not a restaurant/bar playing it for the entertainment of their guests.
> He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance.
Yes, it does; most public performances other than radio/TV broadcast are, by nature, only for those in the immediate vincinity.
> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off.
No, because asserting that this case, independent of how other Fair Use factors might apply to it, doesn't fall into Fair Use because its purpose is to suppress commentary does not indicate that your counterfactual would not.
Yes, it does; most public performances other than radio/TV broadcast are, by nature, only for those in the immediate vincinity.
> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off.
No, because asserting that this case, independent of how other Fair Use factors might apply to it, doesn't fall into Fair Use because its purpose is to suppress commentary does not indicate that your counterfactual would not.
He consented to recording when he became a police officer.
Market effect is 1 of several factors courts consider for fair use.
Market effect is 1 of several factors courts consider for fair use.
Eh, knowing that something is being recorded is not broadcasting.
That might be hard to prove unless there is an unofficial department email going around on tips and tricks to avoid pesky recorders. Sorry for the cynicism.
I'm not sure how it being recorded makes a difference. If I'm listening to a CD and someone walks up and starts filming me, would I need to stop listening to it because the filmer might post it on youtube?
But thats not what happened.
If you knew you were being recorded, had reason to be believed it would be broadcasted and your stated intention was to turn that otherwise normal and non-infringing broadcast into copyright infringement, ya, you might have an issue with the courts.
If you knew you were being recorded, had reason to be believed it would be broadcasted and your stated intention was to turn that otherwise normal and non-infringing broadcast into copyright infringement, ya, you might have an issue with the courts.
Taylor Swift and her record company would be the plaintiff in a copyright case. They cannot claim harm here.
It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The public is harmed, not the owner of the content.
Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing something that is clearly against the public's interest, making the department look bad.
But this is not a copyright case.
It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The public is harmed, not the owner of the content.
Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing something that is clearly against the public's interest, making the department look bad.
But this is not a copyright case.
No its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever be brought to court because they played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that a police officer "deserves" it.
This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool.
The law is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go to jail.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine someone, or send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone.
The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that a police officer "deserves" it.
This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool.
The law is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go to jail.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine someone, or send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone.
The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
You are probably right, but let's play it from the other angle to see why people are suggesting that they try to pursue a copyright claim against the police, using your post but turning it the other way:
----
Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever have a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube because the police played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that the recorder "deserves" it.
This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool.
The youtube moderation is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go get their video removed.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to remove a video that is attempting to keep the police accountable because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone.
The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the youtube algorithm simply do not matter.
----
Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out, citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and this is why you were downvoted.
----
Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever have a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube because the police played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that the recorder "deserves" it.
This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool.
The youtube moderation is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go get their video removed.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to remove a video that is attempting to keep the police accountable because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone.
The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the youtube algorithm simply do not matter.
----
Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out, citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and this is why you were downvoted.
"...send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone."
No one is saying this. You are leaving out a lot of crucial details that have been brought up.
No one is saying this. You are leaving out a lot of crucial details that have been brought up.
> No one is saying this
Call it whatever you want, I am talking about any form of major copyright consequence on that person, because they played a couple seconds of a song, in the street.
Its just not going to happen. No judge will ever cause any significant consequence on someone doing that, solely as a result of a copyright issue.
Call it whatever you want, I am talking about any form of major copyright consequence on that person, because they played a couple seconds of a song, in the street.
Its just not going to happen. No judge will ever cause any significant consequence on someone doing that, solely as a result of a copyright issue.
Cops are bad, so you are wrong.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don’t think so because the officer isn’t posting the video online. Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces.
> Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces.
Generally, yes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
---begin quote---
17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
---end quote---
There are some exceptions to this regarding specific permitted performances at 17 USC § 110 as well as the general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC § 107, but I don’t see an obvious argument that these or any other copyright exceptions apply to this use for this purpose. (I can see an argument that the police use would render the recording and reuse by the person recording the officer fair use, but that's not an issue here, because we already know that copyright protection schemes by platforms are hostile to fair use.)
Generally, yes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
---begin quote---
17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
---end quote---
There are some exceptions to this regarding specific permitted performances at 17 USC § 110 as well as the general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC § 107, but I don’t see an obvious argument that these or any other copyright exceptions apply to this use for this purpose. (I can see an argument that the police use would render the recording and reuse by the person recording the officer fair use, but that's not an issue here, because we already know that copyright protection schemes by platforms are hostile to fair use.)
Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.
Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed.
Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.
Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed.
Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.
> Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.
Because purpose is an element of Fair Use analysis, and because fair use is an exception to copyright, and because the purpose differs radically between the two cases, there are a whole lot of other assumptions you need to make for this “if...then...” statement to hold.
Because purpose is an element of Fair Use analysis, and because fair use is an exception to copyright, and because the purpose differs radically between the two cases, there are a whole lot of other assumptions you need to make for this “if...then...” statement to hold.
> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.
I believe this is the case, yes.
I believe this is the case, yes.
> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.
It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it.
Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.
It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it.
Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.
He had the express intent that he didn't want others to hear it.
You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.
You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.
Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video.
Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.
Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.
His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public.
The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there.
Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is.
"The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights."
They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
"Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."
Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is.
"The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights."
They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
"Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."
Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."
I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.
There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.
I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."
I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.
There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.
I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
This discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying):
"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
You mean this TechDirt article?[1] It's advocacy. Not legal scholarship.
Their hypotheticals don't fit this case. And some of them are settled questions in the US. Courts consider intent all the time. Fair use factors include purpose and character. 17 USC 110 has an exception for receiving broadcasts. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate said hotel rooms are private. Apartments are at least as private. And driving means not staying in the same place for long usually.
It wasn't a few seconds. The recording shows the officer played over 2 minutes of the song. It ends with the song still playing.
Kwik-Fit settled out of court apparently.[2]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml
[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/be-kwik-its-time-fo...
Their hypotheticals don't fit this case. And some of them are settled questions in the US. Courts consider intent all the time. Fair use factors include purpose and character. 17 USC 110 has an exception for receiving broadcasts. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate said hotel rooms are private. Apartments are at least as private. And driving means not staying in the same place for long usually.
It wasn't a few seconds. The recording shows the officer played over 2 minutes of the song. It ends with the song still playing.
Kwik-Fit settled out of court apparently.[2]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml
[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/be-kwik-its-time-fo...
IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.
The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it, is he not?
The officer is playing the music knowing that an attempt will be made to distribute the video, while hoping but not knowing for sure that the video will be blocked from distribution. The video could appear on one of many other sites that do a poorer job of screening media or that don't even attempt to do so.
Intent doesn't require knowing for sure. Intent is just hope associated with an action.
If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.
If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.
Broadcasting the music performance live in public to prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.
Public performances violate copyright.
You need a license to play or perform music and other types of copyrighted media in public.
Is this true? I play music on the street sometimes. Am I violating the law?
Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.
Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.
Talk to a lawyer about it. I have a musician in the family who performs at venues and also likes to busk, and they pay some subscription fee for access to a library of music they're allowed to legally perform.
I don't know about the US but I remember a story where a garage got sued for copyright violation because its employees had the radio playing loudly (as expected in a noisy shop) and it could be heard outside, and therefore, it was considered a public performance. I think it was in France, or maybe Germany, where the right performance rights collecting society (SACEM for France, GEMA for Germany) is particularly aggressive.
It probably wouldn't have passed judgment, but it was enough to scare the shop into forbidding its employees to play music at work.
It probably wouldn't have passed judgment, but it was enough to scare the shop into forbidding its employees to play music at work.
No it's not.
Nobody is going to be charged for playing a song on their phone in public.
That's just not going to happen.
Nobody is going to be charged for playing a song on their phone in public.
That's just not going to happen.
I really have no clue. Playing music in public isn't considered copyright violation. Otherwise playing the radio would be unlawful.
Edit: Wow, it really is considered unlawful. I reflexively hate the idea that playing a song can be considered violating copyright. Yes, I know there's more to it than just that, but wow.
Edit: Wow, it really is considered unlawful. I reflexively hate the idea that playing a song can be considered violating copyright. Yes, I know there's more to it than just that, but wow.
If you're intentionally playing other peoples' recorded music for the public, then ASCAP and BMI are going to want their money.
I think there should be a distinction between 'for the public' and 'in public'.
Wrong. One of the rights in the "copyright bundle" is public performance rights, which are reserved exclusively to the copyright holder and their licensees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights
Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
More likely the opposite.
Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not going to be in violation - unless the music were played as part of entertainment for customers/patrons.
The cop will unlikely be found to be in violation.
The person filming in uploading, that production would probably be in violation under the 'Transmission Clause'.
Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not going to be in violation - unless the music were played as part of entertainment for customers/patrons.
The cop will unlikely be found to be in violation.
The person filming in uploading, that production would probably be in violation under the 'Transmission Clause'.
> like a taxi
Taxi drivers do have to pay license fees in some countries.
> or even in the office
According to the RIAA, you need to license music in order to play it in the office.
Taxi drivers do have to pay license fees in some countries.
> or even in the office
According to the RIAA, you need to license music in order to play it in the office.
The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of copyright law, is a separate thing.
It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of course, this then proves nothing.
That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
If I play it at my desk it seems very different than the office piping it out to everyone as 'background music.'
> Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not going to be in violation
Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers, not primarily for public customers) entertainment use might be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit First Amendment protected public monitoring and distribution of recordings of police activity would seem unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to the First Amendment.)
[0] a quite controversial position itself.
Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers, not primarily for public customers) entertainment use might be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit First Amendment protected public monitoring and distribution of recordings of police activity would seem unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to the First Amendment.)
[0] a quite controversial position itself.
I don't see how secondary motivations that have nothing to do with entertainment or copyright (aka for the purpose of supposedly suppressing someone's rights) would be relevant? Either it's a 'public performance' or it's not.
If it is a well known song - maybe the audio coudl be subtracted - noise cancellation style to remove the rogue song.
If it was recorded by a microphone in a space, then that won't work. Time and frequency inaccuracy in playback by speaker, sound reflections, and inaccuracies in recording by microphone all contribute to a signal. The original can be recognized, but simple subtraction will never remove it.
But keep in mind the goal isn’t perfect removal. You only need to disrupt the audio hashing algorithm.
This is untrue, things like Fourier transforms can account for those variables.
I'd love to see a demonstration of this. (not of a FFT, but use of one to remove one signal from another)
They might have done this to extract instruments, and if you can extract one then maybe you can just subtract it from the main recording. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030201607.h...
Identifying the fundamental pitches of notes in a chord is a far cry from subtracting them out of a recording.
Is there some kind of centralized review system for police departments in the US? I try to be cognizant of confirmation bias, but the amount of news I read about this particular force makes me think it's particularly bad even among US forces.
As a Canadian the most prominent in my memory is when the Alameda county sheriff's office outright lied about circumstances involving Masai Ujiri (president of the Toronto Raptors) and one of their deputies at the 2019 NBA Final.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masai_Ujiri#2019_NBA_Finals_in...
As a Canadian the most prominent in my memory is when the Alameda county sheriff's office outright lied about circumstances involving Masai Ujiri (president of the Toronto Raptors) and one of their deputies at the 2019 NBA Final.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masai_Ujiri#2019_NBA_Finals_in...
Nope, and it’s why police regularly get away with abuses of power that would have (rightfully) landed me in prison if I tried it while deployed in Afghanistan.
This country was founded on checks and balances. And currently the people who have the most control over whether we are allowed to live and how we do that have zero checks whatsoever. This needs to change.
Would be simpler to simply play 4’33” on a continuous loop.
For those who’d not know the song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
For those who’d not know the song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
I don't think it would be possible to verify this when making a copyright claim. But along these lines, if you could play a loop of audio that would not be recognized by people around you or not recognized as music but could be recognized by an algorithm, then you could use this strategy without anyone knowing.
verification doesn't seem to be very high on the priority list of copyright claims
YouTube striked white noise with a copyright claim: https://www.neowin.net/news/youtubes-algorithms-strike-white...
Maybe this kind of thing will finally force some preventative measures for DMCA-trolling
A Barbara Streisand track would have been more appropriate!
I love that the article mentions a different cop who played a Sublime track. Whoever was making the video should have put on "April 29, 1992".
In my job I would be warned if I listened to music whilst I am supposed to be working, and if I failed to heed the warnings I would eventually be dismissed. Why do police offers in the USA get given so much leeway when they are supposed to be the pinnacle of upstanding members of society?
IIRC, a while back that the MPAA was pushing for a law that would require video cameras to stop recording if they detected a specific trigger. The intent was to prevent people from filming in movie theaters, similar to the EURion watermarking constellation found on most bank notes. I can't imagine how things would have turned out if that technology had become standard and inevitably abused.
In many Android phones you can't record calls and call recording apps don't work.
When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident happened."
When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident happened."
Google just broke call recording again on my Pixel 4 with their latest Android update. They've done this multiple times in the last few years. Truly deplorable..
The reason is mostly technical. Depending on the phone, call audio isn't implemented as much in software as wired directly (in some variable degree) to the radio hardware.
This is why the quality and success rate of call recording apps varies - it depends how many kinds of configurations the app authors managed to implement support / workarounds for.
This is why the quality and success rate of call recording apps varies - it depends how many kinds of configurations the app authors managed to implement support / workarounds for.
Is there any android app you would recommend for call recording?
Is that so? I can make phone calls with my iPhone on wireless Bluetooth headphones. Does the radio hardware directly stream to whatever headphones my iPhone is paired with? I suppose it’s possible, but it strikes me as unlikely.
Judging from that call recording apps apparently need to implement support for recording calls over Bluetooth separately, I would conclude that this does go over a different path, but still needs to be handled explicitly.
No, I am sure it is intentional. I have call recording working on my phone, but I know for a fact the pending software update I have disables that functionality.
The success rate varies, because of the cat and mouse game with manufacturers.
The success rate varies, because of the cat and mouse game with manufacturers.
As some who tinkers phones, this is very true, especially with phones equipped with Qualcomm chipsets (note that VoLTE and VoWiFi are decoded in software though).
[deleted]
Bullshit. They break it with updates on phones where it worked just fine. They also removed access to root folders on a whim. This sucked for those of us with locked bootloaders, without root we now lost access to those folders and the contents therein.
> They also removed access to root folders on a whim.
I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but from the manufacturer's view, any method of allowing the modification of the operating system software is a vulnerability (because the same could be done to e.g. install rootkits). This is why many devices allow unlocking the bootloader (as the official way to modify the OS) but announce this loudly on boot.
I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but from the manufacturer's view, any method of allowing the modification of the operating system software is a vulnerability (because the same could be done to e.g. install rootkits). This is why many devices allow unlocking the bootloader (as the official way to modify the OS) but announce this loudly on boot.
What is you country (of your SIM card)? If it's Asia, I'm definitely sure that circumventing that restriction (even analog means) will get you to jail.
Edit: also some parts of the US!
Edit: also some parts of the US!
Sadly, the HN can't handle valid concerns.
Is there any app on playstore / apk out there that reliably fulfills the job for both phone and VoIP calls?
that more or less happened. all BD players required to implement audio fingerprinting
I'd lean towards "less", a unique fingerprint provides completely different functionality than a kill sound. The only connection is the MPAA liked both.
What is BD in this context?
I assume blu-ray disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
I am surprised I never heard of this before. It's a watermark not a fingerprint. The audio would have a watermark embedded in it, and if the player finds the watermark it requires the disk to have encryption. That would be pretty neat if it wasn't awful.
[deleted]
The irony being . . . I just watched it on YouTube.
Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!
Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes?
It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US, according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the problem here, he would use another loophole if this one wasn't available.
Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
I think both are fair readings here.
There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP.
Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other.
The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP.
Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other.
The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
The video, including Taylor Swift music, is available on YouTube and has not been removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc
I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.
I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.
Right, the mistake was not playing Hotel California instead.
I mean, I do take issue with that. But police officers behaving inappropriately is a MUCH larger problem, and so the focus on my concern.
I think you're reaching a little here. There are many, many things wrong with YouTube but just because someone found a hack on attempting to stop things from going viral doesn't mean they are really to blame here.
Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not give YouTube that power.
Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not give YouTube that power.
It's copyright law that's broken. Youtube and etc are just an ugly stack of mismatched patterned band-aids covering a large infected wound that really needs antibiotics and not just bandaids.
I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?
Can't a person be upset about both? Why do you need to present a distraction here?
I have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism, maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too.
On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
[deleted]
Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced.
You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
Laws don't force YouTube to preemptively detect and demonetize or remove anything. They chose to do that.
> Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse).
I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
Well, it was a way to be charitable in my rhetoric. Giving the hypothetical police officer the benefit of the doubt that they might be worthy of the powers they are being given. Which, might not actually be powers humans can handle without abuse.
I don't think it's always cause and effect. People who want power, specifically so they can abuse it, seek it out. If society offers a position of power that lets acting like a spoiled brat go unchecked, spoiled brats will gravitate towards that position.
I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?
I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?
It's almost like there is a systemic problem within the department...
It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."
It seems like signing up for a job like being a police officer, and receiving a gun, riot training, interrogation and arrest techniques means that they should be able to handle this without escalating.
Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
I’ve seen bus drivers treated worse. It’s just a part of working with the public, which is part of being cop. If an adult armed with a gun can’t deal with this, they should seek a desk job.
Ever heard of the first amendment?
They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
Not entirely true. Disturbing the Peace is an offense that police can respond to.
Let’s be clear, there was no retaliation. You’re making up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people online from raging on him and his family while he attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally protected speech isn't retaliation?
It’s unclear to me how recording something is a first amendment issue at all, let alone a speech issue. TheVerge makes this unsubstantiated claim and many people here accept it, but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something.
::Edit::
I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here:
The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment.
The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch.
They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment.
Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob
::Edit::
I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here:
The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment.
The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch.
They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment.
Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob
> but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something.
The public's right to record the police is well established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional wisdom.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...
[2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-do...
The public's right to record the police is well established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional wisdom.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...
[2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-do...
> I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment.
The EFF link itself links to:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case law to explore.
The ACLU article links directly to:
https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20...
Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is repeatedly cited).
This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"? Lots of reading.
The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
The EFF link itself links to:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case law to explore.
The ACLU article links directly to:
https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20...
Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is repeatedly cited).
This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"? Lots of reading.
The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
'woodruffw beat me to it, but I'll quote from the EFF's page that he links:
"""Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right"""
They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that they link to in the text that I was quoting [0].
0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
"""Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right"""
They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that they link to in the text that I was quoting [0].
0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
The state is very broadly not allowed to suppress speech. “People might harass me online if you post a video” is not a very good argument for abridging peoples’ constitutional rights.
I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
That’s not really true tho right? they mock him, they hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he has no life… I understand that we’re now entering a phase of cognitive dissonance, but it’s always surprising to see it so starkly represented.
Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity.
If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
>If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors
It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble.
Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded.
Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble.
Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded.
Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
Cops are paid by public and public has a right to know how they are doing their job, so yes, it’s very different
Yes you have the right to know what they are doing, but again pushing right up to their face with a camera is just being a huge dick
[deleted]
[deleted]
This particular police officer should unequivocally be fired and barred from any law enforcement work for the rest of their lives…
Corrupt and destructive individuals should just simply not be admitted into positions of authority. Any position where they can enact their hate and evil onto people, is a disgrace to all of us.
Corrupt and destructive individuals should just simply not be admitted into positions of authority. Any position where they can enact their hate and evil onto people, is a disgrace to all of us.
This is the action of someone who has already planned in advance how to suppress the evidence of their abuse of authority.
Do people not remember that you can post copyrighted music on youtube?
it’s generally allowed. They just get any money from it.
it’s generally allowed. They just get any money from it.
Rights holders have automated the DMCA take down process on platforms like YouTube.
Depends on the rights holder. I have a random 43-second clip from Cyberpunk 2077 with some jazz playing in the background uploaded to YouTube. Within minutes of uploading, UMG made a copyright claim on it, meaning that YouTube can show ads on my video despite my channel not being monetized and UMG will get that ad revenue. However, it doesn't actually impact my channel's standing in any way. And I guess a side benefit is that you can actually listen to the full track by clicking the automatically added link in the description.
It does allow me to either mute or replace the song if I don't want UMG claiming my video, but most likely it will just completely destroy the audio in the entire video.
(https://youtu.be/7_C14lT4Tzw if anyone's actually curious)
It does allow me to either mute or replace the song if I don't want UMG claiming my video, but most likely it will just completely destroy the audio in the entire video.
(https://youtu.be/7_C14lT4Tzw if anyone's actually curious)
I've been seeing videos on TikTok and such of cops using tape to cover up people's security cameras at their homes when approaching the front door. I don't care why the cop is there, that should be at least a firable offense on the first occurance.
The irony is that body cameras for police are sold to departments as devices that keep the "lying public" from accusing cops of doing things they didn't do. They have no problem shoving cameras in other people's faces, but if someone records cops, then it's the end of the world.
If you can't see the difference either you are naive or you are pushing agenda.
One is a random guy recording the cops then being able to cut it and edit it how he pleases to spread any info they want. Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.
One is a random guy recording the cops then being able to cut it and edit it how he pleases to spread any info they want. Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.
> Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.
Ironically, the security cameras on people's private property that cops are choosing to put tape over before possibly committing crimes are closer to "full recordings" than what body cameras offer.
Body cameras are sold with features that cops and their bosses like, like features that exist for the purpose of keeping the public from accusing cops of violating their rights or worse.
That means that many body cameras are designed to only record short 30 to 60 second segments of video after a cop feels that "something bad" might happen to them. Many of the cameras also come with convenient on and off switches, too, and some come with features that allow cops to delete videos.
Ironically, the security cameras on people's private property that cops are choosing to put tape over before possibly committing crimes are closer to "full recordings" than what body cameras offer.
Body cameras are sold with features that cops and their bosses like, like features that exist for the purpose of keeping the public from accusing cops of violating their rights or worse.
That means that many body cameras are designed to only record short 30 to 60 second segments of video after a cop feels that "something bad" might happen to them. Many of the cameras also come with convenient on and off switches, too, and some come with features that allow cops to delete videos.
I completely agree that it should be illegal for body camera footage to be deleted or tampered. In an ideal world it would be uploaded to some central server with hashes to confirm it is the original footage, but I've said my piece on the US police force recruitment, training, and up keep so many times I'm not going to go into this anymore.
In most of the cases I've seen of police misconduct, a brief clip of the actual offending act is all that is necessary to establish that misconduct, making them valuable documentation for any court case. Edited footage between the beginning and end of the clip is easily detected.
Taking an egregious example of the murder of George Floyd, there is no context that could have preceded the footage of his murder that would have justified kneeling on a man's neck for over 9 minutes. It also would have been trivial to detect if someone had extended the video to make it appear that he knelt longer than he did.
What are some examples of situations where you imagine that footage taken by a regular citizen could be edited to make an officer's reasonable actions look like police brutality or other major forms of police misconduct?
Taking an egregious example of the murder of George Floyd, there is no context that could have preceded the footage of his murder that would have justified kneeling on a man's neck for over 9 minutes. It also would have been trivial to detect if someone had extended the video to make it appear that he knelt longer than he did.
What are some examples of situations where you imagine that footage taken by a regular citizen could be edited to make an officer's reasonable actions look like police brutality or other major forms of police misconduct?
Taking the most extreme case to justify everything else is the most American thing I can think about.
OBVIOUSLY if police officer is committing a CRIME the footage of that crime is evidence enough, but I've seen many times cut up security footage of "cops harassing someone" only to see the full footage of the "someone" in question being the aggressor the whole time and then yelling about police brutality when he is apprehended and escorted into the police van.
We've witnessed this US LARP in my country just recently where protestors were nicely carried into police vans by the cops, but some intentionally went completely limb to hinder the operation and footage of these limb people getting dragged into the van was used as evidence of how brutal our police force is even though there was dozens of removals where people were carried without even touching the ground.
OBVIOUSLY if police officer is committing a CRIME the footage of that crime is evidence enough, but I've seen many times cut up security footage of "cops harassing someone" only to see the full footage of the "someone" in question being the aggressor the whole time and then yelling about police brutality when he is apprehended and escorted into the police van.
We've witnessed this US LARP in my country just recently where protestors were nicely carried into police vans by the cops, but some intentionally went completely limb to hinder the operation and footage of these limb people getting dragged into the van was used as evidence of how brutal our police force is even though there was dozens of removals where people were carried without even touching the ground.
There are no checks and balances.
> keep video off YouTube
That, and it also trips up algorithms that scan live feeds (e.g. Facebook Live, Instagram Live) to make live streaming the encounter more difficult.
(citation: my virtual fitness instructor who gets booted off of Facebook Live mid-workout when certain songs are playing)
That, and it also trips up algorithms that scan live feeds (e.g. Facebook Live, Instagram Live) to make live streaming the encounter more difficult.
(citation: my virtual fitness instructor who gets booted off of Facebook Live mid-workout when certain songs are playing)
Quite funny that this ends up making the video more popular because of the Streisand effect. Would be scary if police always had this technique though when recording as maybe it would end up becoming more normalised so the Streisand effect wouldn't happen.
Would adding some other instrument (shittyflute?) playing while the cop doesn't talk qualify as creative work, or render the video different enough for their algorithms, so that it has more chances not to be flagged?
Anyway, a possible solution would be to swap the audio with a fsk encoding of a timecode plus decentralized hard to take down p2p address in which the users can find the original audio. A browser plugin could automate everything by finding the audio track then play it in sync with no apparent difference from the original.
Anyway, a possible solution would be to swap the audio with a fsk encoding of a timecode plus decentralized hard to take down p2p address in which the users can find the original audio. A browser plugin could automate everything by finding the audio track then play it in sync with no apparent difference from the original.
I'm not aware of a specific ml model for this, but I know there is some adjacent ones that pull just the lyrics. Perhaps someone needs to publicly release one to counter this type of behaviour.
Calm down people. A while back the headline was music weaponized to prevent broadcast.
It’s not a weapon. The officer is using music to prevent videos from being put online. I really don’t see the problem in this.
It’s not a weapon. The officer is using music to prevent videos from being put online. I really don’t see the problem in this.
The problem is less about the specific act of stifling the virality of police recordings and more about what this says about the mindset of this cop and police culture in general.
The mindset is not isolated to police culture. It is also present in construction inspection and pretty much anywhere the job is enforcement of policies.
You do the little you can to enforce rules in the most effective way possible with the least opinions being raised at the methods you used to get there. “How do I do my job and create the least amount of fuss?”
You do the little you can to enforce rules in the most effective way possible with the least opinions being raised at the methods you used to get there. “How do I do my job and create the least amount of fuss?”
This isn’t a very apt comparison. Construction inspectors don’t generally engage in practices which directly fly in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings. They also aren’t trusted with the power to legally murder you if you don’t do what they say. There also hasn’t been a recent nation-wide uproar over the behavior of construction inspectors, so I wouldn’t expect them to be more introspective than usual of how their actions will be interpreted with regard to recent current events.
I think those are social justice warrior points blind to the actual tasks and responsibilities of an officer. It’s a list of all the things they should not be allowed to do.
Enforcers of policy in any field have some commonalities. One of them is I will check on another but I won’t like someone checking on me. Unless they are just like me ie responsible for doing checks.
There is an understandable amount of leeway put into these things. Inspectors try not to be total jerks. And try not to push rules to extremes. And when they do, they do it with a camaraderie, like if you improve on the following I will let go everything else. Similar to police officers.
But the average joe who is not versed in such things like young unseasoned citizens have stranger expectations.
Enforcers of policy in any field have some commonalities. One of them is I will check on another but I won’t like someone checking on me. Unless they are just like me ie responsible for doing checks.
There is an understandable amount of leeway put into these things. Inspectors try not to be total jerks. And try not to push rules to extremes. And when they do, they do it with a camaraderie, like if you improve on the following I will let go everything else. Similar to police officers.
But the average joe who is not versed in such things like young unseasoned citizens have stranger expectations.
I do wonder if there could be some nifty filtering tech that would allow the two voices to be isolated and the higher-pitch one (Taylor Swift) and music be removed.
Maybe the officer will have a great YC application answer for the time he hacked a system.
Lots of people here upset with the officer’s tactic, but he didn’t interfere with any right to record. If anyone is at fault it is YouTube for preemptively taking down videos containing copyright that fall within the Fair Use Doctrine…of course that is YouTube’s legal right also, they don’t have to host anything.
If it were my video, and if it were actually important to share online for one reason or another, I would look at it like an opportunity to request a limited license from the copyright holder to post the video…then they would have a great YC application also.
Lots of people here upset with the officer’s tactic, but he didn’t interfere with any right to record. If anyone is at fault it is YouTube for preemptively taking down videos containing copyright that fall within the Fair Use Doctrine…of course that is YouTube’s legal right also, they don’t have to host anything.
If it were my video, and if it were actually important to share online for one reason or another, I would look at it like an opportunity to request a limited license from the copyright holder to post the video…then they would have a great YC application also.
Its not that the tactic is scummy.
Its that police officers use tactics to prevent recordings of themselves being uploaded and spread. The fact that they explicitly go out of their way to avoid accountability is bad. It is bad because, given the privileges we give police, a strong force of accountability is needed.
This situation is worsened by the fact that this happened at a hearing where police conduct was the subject. There already are doubts in that community about police conduct. If they close ranks, that suggests there is indeed something wrong. Certainly, it means the relationship between police and the community is becoming more and more adversarial, and police aren't trying to bridge that gap. That is simply bad.
Its that police officers use tactics to prevent recordings of themselves being uploaded and spread. The fact that they explicitly go out of their way to avoid accountability is bad. It is bad because, given the privileges we give police, a strong force of accountability is needed.
This situation is worsened by the fact that this happened at a hearing where police conduct was the subject. There already are doubts in that community about police conduct. If they close ranks, that suggests there is indeed something wrong. Certainly, it means the relationship between police and the community is becoming more and more adversarial, and police aren't trying to bridge that gap. That is simply bad.
I completely disagree. Police are people too and as much as you are allowed to film them I can't imagine another country where people are shoving their phones into the faces of the officers. Just take couple steps back and there is no problem.
I won't argue about the police actions in US. I've said my piece on the matter.
I won't argue about the police actions in US. I've said my piece on the matter.
He _did_ interfere with their ability to share the video.
This sounds like a great ml app idea: Remove music from audio while keeping the other voices. I wonder how hard it would be to keep them separate.
Spleeter [1] does a really good job of it. It can separate out the vocals, accompaniment, drums, bass, and piano. It does a really phenomenal job at it, though there can be a bit of reverb in the vocals if there's a lot of reverb in the base. Splitting out individual vocalists is a lot harder, and I haven't found any pre-trained models that manage it. There's a lot of speaker separation [2] models, but they are trained on separate sentences overlapping.
[1] https://github.com/deezer/spleeter/releases [2] https://paperswithcode.com/task/speaker-separation
[1] https://github.com/deezer/spleeter/releases [2] https://paperswithcode.com/task/speaker-separation
I immediately thought of spleeter too as I've had great success in experiments to strip out unwanted music overlays (eg podcasts that insist on adding their end of show theme tune whilst guests are still speaking!)
I haven't tried speaker separation, but it seems there are some models from SpeechBrain on HuggingFace that seem to handle this:
https://huggingface.co/models?filter=Speech%20Separation
I haven't tried speaker separation, but it seems there are some models from SpeechBrain on HuggingFace that seem to handle this:
https://huggingface.co/models?filter=Speech%20Separation
If you know what song is playing, then it's somewhat trivial to remove it from the audio, no ML needed.
[deleted]
This seems like a great use case for a mobile app that can use ML to "clean" content from video like that
They police and federal law enforcement did this in Portland during the BLM protests last summer.
Preventing mostly peaceful reparations with free music. Police is improving, I'd say.
[deleted]
Should have played a Prince song..gone in 3,2,1...
Then you upload it somewhere else and share that.
all the DMCA technicalities aside this is a completely bad faith move by police.
Imagine reflexes of small criminals on the streets when they hear somewhere around Taylor Swift music :)
Hrm. Upgrades.
[deleted]
Keep psychologically abusing police (getting in their face and antagonizing them) instead of holding legislators and officials accountable and see if society gets better or worse.
> instead of holding legislators and officials accountable
or perps.
A good idea for an experiment. We could try different things in different places (states?) and see what is what.
I suppose the cops playing Taylor Swift could pay the ASCAP mafia or whoever and be above board.
Generally, I'd say that if the public wants to watch all police activity, they'll have to get used to sausage being made. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, life isn't as clean and sanitary as you might think from a cubicle.
or perps.
A good idea for an experiment. We could try different things in different places (states?) and see what is what.
I suppose the cops playing Taylor Swift could pay the ASCAP mafia or whoever and be above board.
Generally, I'd say that if the public wants to watch all police activity, they'll have to get used to sausage being made. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, life isn't as clean and sanitary as you might think from a cubicle.
That's pretty clever, they know that an individual with a video can be dealt with a lot easier than a viral video where the whole public gets to see the behavior.
I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD
I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD
>"I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD"
Be careful what you wish for.....
Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?
Be careful what you wish for.....
Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?
> Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?
Considering cops currently face accountability that approaches 0, yes.
Considering cops currently face accountability that approaches 0, yes.
I just don't how see burning down precinct buildings leads to anything better. A controversial opinion, it seems.
It's not the burning that directly leads to something better. It's more like a natural consequence caused by failing to adequately address people's need for something better; people who feel powerless in their quest for justice will treasure morsels of that justice whereever they can get it, such as direct attacks on the public institutions suppressing them.
The good that can come from it is motivation: it's more clear than ever that gradual reform is not occurring, and something has to change at a fundamental level. Enabling people to get justice civilly will sharply reduce the number of people resorting to incivility.
The good that can come from it is motivation: it's more clear than ever that gradual reform is not occurring, and something has to change at a fundamental level. Enabling people to get justice civilly will sharply reduce the number of people resorting to incivility.
Well, it may not be the most constructive way of dealing with police abuses, but it's one of the vanishingly few consequences police have faced for their malfeasance and unfettered violence.
I don't follow; what need the gp be careful of?
(I do see the post is now flagged but presume that's users disagreeing & abusing the flag button as it's within guidelines; I see what users may disagree with but still don't see what they should be "careful" about)
(I do see the post is now flagged but presume that's users disagreeing & abusing the flag button as it's within guidelines; I see what users may disagree with but still don't see what they should be "careful" about)
I copied/quoted the part from the GP that stood out to me. I was just gobsmacked that the GP was glad precincts were burned down. I'm weary of mob and vigilante "justice".
Ah; the edit makes more sense.
We're each entitled to our own perspective, but fwiw, I think you'll struggle to find any cohort less accountable than the police. Whereas "the mob", being traditionally a phrase used broadly by established powers to derogate the opposition, is almost by definition always the cohort held most to account in any given situation.
Furthermore, perhaps one of the biggest false assumptions many seem to have about abolition movements is that there isn't reasoned proposals for (existing or new) accountable institutions to fill potential voids left by abolition.
We're each entitled to our own perspective, but fwiw, I think you'll struggle to find any cohort less accountable than the police. Whereas "the mob", being traditionally a phrase used broadly by established powers to derogate the opposition, is almost by definition always the cohort held most to account in any given situation.
Furthermore, perhaps one of the biggest false assumptions many seem to have about abolition movements is that there isn't reasoned proposals for (existing or new) accountable institutions to fill potential voids left by abolition.
Understandable. I'm coming at this from a "violence begets violence" perspective and my fear is escalation.
I agree. I've just seen evidence of police being the primary source of escalation too many times.
> You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?
To the currently politically powerful who disproportionately control what is done by government, no.
To people on the other side of that power imbalance? Well, who do you think the mobs are, and why do they use that mechanism instead of the formal political system to attempt to impose accountability?
Obviously, not a desirable durable state of affairs, the desirable condition is to resolve the power imbalance in the formal systems. But if you can't convince those who control those systems that the systems they control will be forcibly rendered irrelevant if the imbalance in them persists, that is unlikely.
To the currently politically powerful who disproportionately control what is done by government, no.
To people on the other side of that power imbalance? Well, who do you think the mobs are, and why do they use that mechanism instead of the formal political system to attempt to impose accountability?
Obviously, not a desirable durable state of affairs, the desirable condition is to resolve the power imbalance in the formal systems. But if you can't convince those who control those systems that the systems they control will be forcibly rendered irrelevant if the imbalance in them persists, that is unlikely.
But those who are powerless can also suffer at the hands of the mob. In fact, they're more likely to do so than the powerful are.
USA police have shot and killed roughly a thousand people a year for many decades. Over that time period three police have been convicted of murder. [0] I can't imagine a less accountable mob. If nothing else, a greater percentage of any mobile vulgus would feel guilty and turn themselves in.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-officers-convicte...
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-officers-convicte...
To some degree I understand the cop's position. The internet is an insanely dangerous echo chamber. The vast, VAST majority of police interactions are not that. The vast majority of police interactions are well-meaning officers maintaining public order. This doesn't excuse the interactions which are unrighteous and deserve to be exposed, possibly including the interaction that these people were protesting.
The officer here was, to my view, the more sane one. He said you could record. If something happened bad enough to justify publishing the video to expose the interaction, a little Taylor Swift music shouldn't stop that dissemination of information. What it can do is dampen Ambient Outrage; a citizen surveillance state of uploading every police interaction out there to social media for Internet Crazies to get angry about because Cops Are Just Evil, where there is no nuance, no context, just outrage and ad dollars for the protestors behind the uploads.
Its memey and sad that this is the lengths officers have to go to. That's it. But if it works, especially in a situation when the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's fine" (good on him!); I think their underlying rationale is perfectly sound.
The officer here was, to my view, the more sane one. He said you could record. If something happened bad enough to justify publishing the video to expose the interaction, a little Taylor Swift music shouldn't stop that dissemination of information. What it can do is dampen Ambient Outrage; a citizen surveillance state of uploading every police interaction out there to social media for Internet Crazies to get angry about because Cops Are Just Evil, where there is no nuance, no context, just outrage and ad dollars for the protestors behind the uploads.
Its memey and sad that this is the lengths officers have to go to. That's it. But if it works, especially in a situation when the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's fine" (good on him!); I think their underlying rationale is perfectly sound.
> when the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's fine" (good on him!);
The fact that he plays the copyrighted track is evidence that his statement about "oh, sure, of course you can record ;)" was not made in good faith. I give the officer zero benefit of the doubt here. Transparency is necessary in all police interactions in public, not just the ones that are "bad enough to excuse a little Taylor Swift." Cops can cry me a river about the internet outrage machine.
The fact that he plays the copyrighted track is evidence that his statement about "oh, sure, of course you can record ;)" was not made in good faith. I give the officer zero benefit of the doubt here. Transparency is necessary in all police interactions in public, not just the ones that are "bad enough to excuse a little Taylor Swift." Cops can cry me a river about the internet outrage machine.
You are conflating the Court of Public Opinion with the Court of Law.
The Court of Public Opinion is the court that drives teens to suicide through internet bullying, that accused the wrong man of bombing the Boston Marathon, and killing students at Sandy Hook, even suggesting Sandy Hook didn't happen. That's the internet.
The standards for evidence on the internet are low, and tempers are high. Transparency in "all" public police interactions isn't necessary, just like transparency in "all" doctor interactions isn't necessary in order to judge doctor competency. Its an infuriating distraction; it gives you an excuse to be angry about everything. And moreover; media outlets fuel this outrage machine by purposefully omitting context and nuance in order to drive clicks.
You believe you're using a critical eye to analyze these situations. You're not. This is undeniable, because it is difficult even for the people there, at the scene, to analyze a complex situation like these critically, to have all the information, and understand if the right call was or was not made, let alone someone sitting in a dark room in their basement a thousand miles away getting all of their information from Buzzfeed and The Verge.
Its the job of the Court of Law to look past the Taylor Swift; they're held to a higher standard, just as officers themselves are. That doesn't mean mistakes aren't made. But those mistakes are not an excuse to break the system and raise tensions in every police interaction. This will only lead to more violence.
The Court of Public Opinion is the court that drives teens to suicide through internet bullying, that accused the wrong man of bombing the Boston Marathon, and killing students at Sandy Hook, even suggesting Sandy Hook didn't happen. That's the internet.
The standards for evidence on the internet are low, and tempers are high. Transparency in "all" public police interactions isn't necessary, just like transparency in "all" doctor interactions isn't necessary in order to judge doctor competency. Its an infuriating distraction; it gives you an excuse to be angry about everything. And moreover; media outlets fuel this outrage machine by purposefully omitting context and nuance in order to drive clicks.
You believe you're using a critical eye to analyze these situations. You're not. This is undeniable, because it is difficult even for the people there, at the scene, to analyze a complex situation like these critically, to have all the information, and understand if the right call was or was not made, let alone someone sitting in a dark room in their basement a thousand miles away getting all of their information from Buzzfeed and The Verge.
Its the job of the Court of Law to look past the Taylor Swift; they're held to a higher standard, just as officers themselves are. That doesn't mean mistakes aren't made. But those mistakes are not an excuse to break the system and raise tensions in every police interaction. This will only lead to more violence.
If the goal is to reduce the violence level to the point that only the police are committing violence, then that is not a good goal.
The issue here is that people have justifiable reason to think that the police themselves are breaking the law, in very brazen ways because the system that should hold them to account has broken down. When the system that maintains order breaks down, there is going to be violence, and trying to contain that violence to just the ones with the badges and guns is not a better outcome.
Reducing tensions at this point must begin with police not supporting every single police act of violence, no matter how obvious. Until that happens, anything that people do will be considered "raising tensions". Since the situation is lose-lose for them, you're the one who's going to have to reconsider what outcome you want.
The issue here is that people have justifiable reason to think that the police themselves are breaking the law, in very brazen ways because the system that should hold them to account has broken down. When the system that maintains order breaks down, there is going to be violence, and trying to contain that violence to just the ones with the badges and guns is not a better outcome.
Reducing tensions at this point must begin with police not supporting every single police act of violence, no matter how obvious. Until that happens, anything that people do will be considered "raising tensions". Since the situation is lose-lose for them, you're the one who's going to have to reconsider what outcome you want.
the playing of the song doesn't make the recording of the video any less factual or truthful.
it would just be harder to publish on youtube itself and there are other social medias
it would just be harder to publish on youtube itself and there are other social medias
I think it’s a little misguided to praise the officer for allowing them to film. It would be illegal for him to prevent them from filming him performing his duties in a public place. I also find it slightly ridiculous for you to characterize citizens recording their interactions with police for their own protection as a “citizen surveillance state.” The citizens are not the state. The police here are representatives of the state and must be held to account in every interaction with civilians.
I don’t deny that it’s a high-pressure situation for an individual to be in, and like you I find it hard to personally fault him for his strategy to prevent going viral. AFAIK it’s legally fine, and ethically grey depending on his exact intentions, which we can’t really know. In this case however, it’s more likely to result in a Streisand effect.
Edit: on reading the rest of this thread I’m more convinced of the dubious legality of the cop’s playing music with the expectation that the recording will be made public
Edit: on reading the rest of this thread I’m more convinced of the dubious legality of the cop’s playing music with the expectation that the recording will be made public
> on reading the rest of this thread I’m more convinced of the dubious legality of the cop’s playing music with the expectation that the recording will be made public
You're convinced by angry internet hobby-lawyers sitting in their Aerons taking a quick break from writing HTML? This is precisely the very low standard of evidence that the officer involved here is trying to short circuit.
You're convinced by angry internet hobby-lawyers sitting in their Aerons taking a quick break from writing HTML? This is precisely the very low standard of evidence that the officer involved here is trying to short circuit.
Note that I said dubious legality. I was just qualifying my earlier statement that it was legally fine. Hopefully we’ll get a legal ruling on this sooner rather than later.
Bad take is bad.
It's not the cop's job to do prevent this video from getting onto YoutTube. We have a whole SLEW of legislative channels that could be used to "protect" cops from people recording them. Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law.
Also, in an environment in which trust with the police has been eroded to the point of rioting because people feel the cops are dishonest and hiding bad behavior, admitting on camera "I'm trying to hide my behavior from scrutiny" is about the worst thing you can do, and will get a national publication to pick you up.
The cop has a police union, qualified immunity, and the entire law enforcement segment of the government to protect him. It's assumed that whatever his report said happened is what happened. Protesters only have cameras to prove their side of the story.
(edited for spelling/grammar mistake)
It's not the cop's job to do prevent this video from getting onto YoutTube. We have a whole SLEW of legislative channels that could be used to "protect" cops from people recording them. Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law.
Also, in an environment in which trust with the police has been eroded to the point of rioting because people feel the cops are dishonest and hiding bad behavior, admitting on camera "I'm trying to hide my behavior from scrutiny" is about the worst thing you can do, and will get a national publication to pick you up.
The cop has a police union, qualified immunity, and the entire law enforcement segment of the government to protect him. It's assumed that whatever his report said happened is what happened. Protesters only have cameras to prove their side of the story.
(edited for spelling/grammar mistake)
No one is suggesting that recording the police should be disallowed. I'd argue its a critically important piece of balance between the police and citizens; at worst, it can tell a different angle of the same story, and at best it can fight against corruption which does exist (e.g. not wearing body cams, lying, computer glitch lost the bodycam footage, etc).
The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used. Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy, impossible to legislate boundary.
A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at fault.
A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality or corruption, which does happen (especially outside developed nations).
YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the single place for all internet video. Stop letting the algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos. Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry? Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world better", but destruction never ends this way.
You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can take it". Its still escalation, and they can take it. Do you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War? Do you enjoy the fact that officers approach cars pulled over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred pounds on each side breaks.
The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used. Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy, impossible to legislate boundary.
A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at fault.
A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality or corruption, which does happen (especially outside developed nations).
YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the single place for all internet video. Stop letting the algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos. Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry? Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world better", but destruction never ends this way.
You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can take it". Its still escalation, and they can take it. Do you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War? Do you enjoy the fact that officers approach cars pulled over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred pounds on each side breaks.
> Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law.
What would a law look like that would prevent people from posting videos of police officers on the internet while also complying with the First Amendment?
What would a law look like that would prevent people from posting videos of police officers on the internet while also complying with the First Amendment?
It wouldn't. It's impossible. People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose.
But you can do it.
But you can do it.
> People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose.
And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down, well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push through another law next month.
And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down, well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push through another law next month.
My personal "favorites" have been some of the abortion ban laws that know they're unconstitutional but are passed and sit there "pending the overturning of Roe v. Wade".
Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it because you said "this law is illegal...for now."
Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it because you said "this law is illegal...for now."
Yeah, I get that cops aren't very popular these days, but this is a very clever hack, and I like to think that the HN crowd is logical enough to appreciate it, regardless of the perpetrator.
It wasn't his idea. We've known about this for months.
And it didn't work. So it was neither original nor effective. There's nothing to laud.
There were people who noted the cleverness of it months ago. This is merely script-kiddie stuff... and ineffective at that.
And it didn't work. So it was neither original nor effective. There's nothing to laud.
There were people who noted the cleverness of it months ago. This is merely script-kiddie stuff... and ineffective at that.
It is a clever hack, and like other zero days we need to implement a patch immediately. It is simply unacceptable that police can start playing music and prevent their (mis)conduct from being distributed on the most popular distribution channels.
What misconduct?
None in this case, but it's a tactic that can be employed in conjunction with misconduct.
The practice seems to be somewhat wide spread (in the distance between departments case). That might be because it came from a Facebook group or forum where Law Enforcement officers exchange tips. The second is the choice of artist (Swift) who has been in a pretty visible battle with ownership of her music. I suspect that if the officers who use this technique thought about it, they might find that using Disney tunes would be more effective in terms of triggering DMCA takedowns.
What it implies, and is explicitly stated in the referenced video, is that a law enforcement officer is explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right (as adjudicated by the courts). While the doctrine of qualified immunity would likely shield them from prosecution, it is still a violation of your civil rights and should certainly merit disciplinary action on the part of the police department.