Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 256 posts

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#31

Post by BEEdwards »

minitoar wrote: post #25
tzs wrote: post #23

I wonder if the copyright owners could do something to stop the officers? What the officers are doing is probably a public performance and those generally requires permission of the copyright owner. There are some exceptions, such as for playing a radio or TV broadcast at businesses that are under certain sizes specified in square feet. I think the officers were probably playing recording from their phones or using a…

I really don’t think this is the right approach. Plenty of motorcycles have speakers built in, and they’re blasting Creedence all the time. They should be allowed to.

No one wants to hear your shitty music, get headphones.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#33

Post by [deleted] »

acd wrote: post #5
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to me that the discussion appears focused on copyright issues, rather than what seems like a potential First Amendment violation by the police.

But people should have the right to work peace. It should also be a basic human right not to be constantly monitored.

[deleted]

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#34

Post by tzs »

minitoar wrote: post #25
tzs wrote: post #23

I wonder if the copyright owners could do something to stop the officers? What the officers are doing is probably a public performance and those generally requires permission of the copyright owner. There are some exceptions, such as for playing a radio or TV broadcast at businesses that are under certain sizes specified in square feet. I think the officers were probably playing recording from their phones or using a…

I really don’t think this is the right approach. Plenty of motorcycles have speakers built in, and they’re blasting Creedence all the time. They should be allowed to.

The law is quite capable of distinguishing between someone listening to music for their own enjoyment that happens to be overheard by others, and someone intentionally directing music at strangers for purposes of furthering their own business interests.

What the officers are doing seems more akin to a business use to me, since they are doing it to affect how they can perform their job, so I'm curious if they need to license the songs.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#35

Post by PragmaticPulp »

SilasX wrote: post #29
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know everyone is looking for a loophole to prosecute these officers But let’s not rush to make listening to music on the job illegal. That wasn’t the intent of copyright laws that prohibit public performance.

Agreed, but I think it's at least a defensible case if you activate the music specifically and only when you know you're being recorded for a mass audience.

So the officers just claim they always listen to music?

Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly.

Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online?

I know everyone wants to stick it to these cops, but let’s be realistic. Normally HN is very against weaponizing copyright law, but the second it feels useful for their purposes we’re flooded with comments from people who want to misuse copyright law as a weapon.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#36

Post by hedora »

jlgaddis wrote: post #4

Hmm, would the playing of music by the police constitute a "public performance" (per copyright law)?

The facts in this case make it clear the officer intends for it to be a public performance. The officer should be fired, and the copyright holder should pursue maximum financial damages.

Neither of those things will happen. The system is too corrupt for that.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#37

Post by spoonjim »

tzs wrote: post #23

I wonder if the copyright owners could do something to stop the officers? What the officers are doing is probably a public performance and those generally requires permission of the copyright owner. There are some exceptions, such as for playing a radio or TV broadcast at businesses that are under certain sizes specified in square feet. I think the officers were probably playing recording from their phones or using a…

Except no record executives are going to sue the Beverly Hills PD because they all live in Beverly Hills and those cops can and will make their lives a living hell.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#38

Post by matthewdgreen »

tzs wrote: post #34
minitoar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t think this is the right approach. Plenty of motorcycles have speakers built in, and they’re blasting Creedence all the time. They should be allowed to.

The law is quite capable of distinguishing between someone listening to music for their own enjoyment that happens to be overheard by others, and someone intentionally directing music at strangers for purposes of furthering their own business interests. What the officers are doing seems more akin to a business use to me, since they are doing it to affect how they can perform their job, so I'm curious if they need to…

The problem is that the law is not all that capable of distinguishing this. It requires making a determination of intent, which is always blurry. Moreover, police officers will almost certainly claim that they were listening to music for personal reasons rather than trying to intimidate constitutionally protected filming -- and the courts will give them enormous amounts of deference because of their position.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#39

Post by sevenf0ur »

xxpor wrote: post #26
sevenf0ur wrote: post #22

In all these videos, I see entitled live streamers who think it's the duty of the police to answer every silly question they ask. Borderline harassment. Playing copyrighted music doesn't prevent you from recording but it does get the annoying streamers to bugger off so mission accomplished.

Then write them a ticket. Don't be passive aggressive.

Would you rather the police be aggressive? I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone showed up at your place of work and harassed you for no good reason other than Internet clout.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#40

Post by bmicraft »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35
SilasX wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but I think it's at least a defensible case if you activate the music specifically and only when you know you're being recorded for a mass audience.

So the officers just claim they always listen to music? Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly. Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online? I know everyone wants to stick it to…

Maybe they should turn it down a bit while on the job? There is no reason the music should to be heard outside their car.
Post reply on HN