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

41–50 of 256 posts

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

#41

Post by me_me_me »

analognoise wrote: post #28
dahart wrote: post #18

I’m suddenly interested in making a neural network that can mute a known reference audio from a stream while leaving the surrounding audio in tact. Doesn’t something like this already exist? It seems like Instagram and YouTube could pretty easily leave audio-edited videos online while addressing the copyright violation, without resorting to takedowns or account bans.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

That's what I was thinking too. It doesnt even have to be perfect. All it needs to do is mask/distort music to make the algo matching content id not identify it.

Hmmm.... would playing another song at the same time not have similar effect?

This might be fun weekend project :)

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

#42

Post by anaerobicover »

analognoise wrote: post #28
dahart wrote: post #18

I’m suddenly interested in making a neural network that can mute a known reference audio from a stream while leaving the surrounding audio in tact. Doesn’t something like this already exist? It seems like Instagram and YouTube could pretty easily leave audio-edited videos online while addressing the copyright violation, without resorting to takedowns or account bans.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

This won't magically make other audio sources that were present when the recording was made easier to hear, though. Once the recording is made, they're not independent any more. They'll still be masked, maybe even more.

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

#43

Post by PragmaticPulp »

ceejayoz wrote: post #3
booleanbetrayal wrote: post #2

This is an evolution of the story that first appeared on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082303

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.

It’s also strange that HN is so eager to weaponize copyright for their own agenda.

It’s strange that so many people are arguing for using copyright law against the cop, instead of realizing that it’s absurd that we have to think about having videos taken down for background music.

That said, I’m not even convinced that background music can get the videos taken down, since we’ve all been watching these videos on social media platforms for the past few days.

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

#44

Post by gspr »

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…

> There was also a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that state governments were not liable for copyright violations because they have sovereign immunity.

What, what? Does this mean that state governments can freely pirate software for example?

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

#45

Post by analognoise »

anaerobicover wrote: post #42
analognoise wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

This won't magically make other audio sources that were present when the recording was made easier to hear, though. Once the recording is made, they're not independent any more. They'll still be masked, maybe even more.

No, but it will preserve them online for later filtering/post processing.

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

#46

Post by ngngngng »

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…

Let's not throw a bandaid on a flesh wound.

What we need is strong, fast acting civilian oversight over the police to punish any that get up to shenanigans like this.

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

#47

Post by bmicraft »

analognoise wrote: post #28
dahart wrote: post #18

I’m suddenly interested in making a neural network that can mute a known reference audio from a stream while leaving the surrounding audio in tact. Doesn’t something like this already exist? It seems like Instagram and YouTube could pretty easily leave audio-edited videos online while addressing the copyright violation, without resorting to takedowns or account bans.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

I don't think this is realistically achievable when you have all kinds of distortion and echoes. You'd also need a way to identify the exact position on the song and correct that if it was wrong because it was in the refrain.

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

#48

Post by rriepe »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #43
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.

It’s also strange that HN is so eager to weaponize copyright for their own agenda. It’s strange that so many people are arguing for using copyright law against the cop, instead of realizing that it’s absurd that we have to think about having videos taken down for background music. That said, I’m not even convinced that background music can get the videos taken down, since we’ve all been watching these videos on socia…

What purpose would realizing the absurdity serve, again?

It might be absurd that someone is shooting bullets at you but you should shoot back if that's the case.

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

#49

Post by anaerobicover »

analognoise wrote: post #45
anaerobicover wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't magically make other audio sources that were present when the recording was made easier to hear, though. Once the recording is made, they're not independent any more. They'll still be masked, maybe even more.

No, but it will preserve them online for later filtering/post processing.

Maybe, depending on the details of your scheme, I guess? If you subtract data, that data is gone, and there's no separate stream of data in the recording for the cops' voices vs. the phone.
Post reply on HN