Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

Post by klyrs » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #54

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #30

I think Betteridge’s law of headlines is relevant here; If these videos were being removed by social media, we’d be hearing about the removals. Instead, we have journalists asking “Are cops playing music to use copyright law to have the videos removed?” We then watch the non-removed videos. I’m not thrilled about this, but I’m not entirely convinced that police officers are trying to get videos taken down by playing…

Can you propose some other legitimate purpose for their actions? I don't regularly see police officers playing music on their cell phones during the course of their official duties, nor do I see any reason why they should. Edit: To response to your edited comment, I don't think the problem with this conduct hinges on whether YouTube or other video-streaming services actually do flag them as copyright infringement and…

Post by RIMR » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:27 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #24

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 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.

Post by RIMR » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #38

tzs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by carlob » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

BEEdwards wrote: post #31

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.

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

Post by BitwiseFool » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #44

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?