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

71–80 of 256 posts

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

#71

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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 would rather have police playing music and have our lawmakers cleanup the cesspooll that is current copyright law.

There is no reason a poloce department could not actually purchise right to some random tune, and play it publically and ligitimately, and that would still get your videos banned.

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

#72

Post by 1MoreThing »

RIMR wrote: post #63
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.

I think it's more important to focus on is the rationality of enforcing copyright law against music captured in the background of a video. Fair use should be much more broad. So long as the video isn't produced for profit, the producer isn't unfairly benefitting off the presence of the music in the video, and the quality of the audio doesn't compete with that of a commercial recording, I don't see the issue.

These rules were created specifically because so many people were profiting off the ad revenue of music in videos. There's not a simple way to determine if the audio just happens to be in the background or if the content producer is benefiting from the inclusion of music they don't have rights to.

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

#73

Post by mindslight »

ceejayoz wrote: post #57
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's less "copyright law is good" than "copyright law is already being used against us so it might as well be turned around on them a bit".

... which is a terrible approach, because it validates the cudgel while not actually addressing the dynamic of unaccountable power.

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

#74

Post by jschwartzi »

sevenf0ur wrote: post #39
xxpor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's disingenuous to say we, as the public, have no interest in what the police do while discharging their duties. It is a public office, after all.

And I think the activities of the police should be scrutinized heavily because they have an incredible amount of power and are accorded a very wide latitude. The police are the only people who can legally shoot you and not be tried. They can arrest you and throw you in jail. They can charge you with crimes, invade your house, and smear your reputation with the public. A police officer with a vendetta can absolutely ruin your life if not outright take it from you.

So yes, I think it should be okay for people to video the police going about their business.

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

#76

Post by PragmaticPulp »

sjg007 wrote: post #58
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's probably against policy to listen to music while on the beat and definitely when interacting with the public.

On the contrary, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a de-escalation tactic for dealing with stalkers.

If you watch the video (which is available in the previous article and all over social media, contrary to the narrative) it’s clear that the person is trying to get a rise out of the police officers by following them around and badgering them for content on his social media channels. He even went so far as to watermark the video with his social media handles. It’s clear that the officers are tired of dealing with him and being followed around while trying to do their jobs.

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

#77

Post by PragmaticPulp »

tpmx wrote: post #68
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…

Betteridge’s law of headlines ìs probably not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9232419 (The way you invoked this is kinda reaching.)

I brought it up to highlight the contradiction, not because it’s literally a law:

They are reporting speculation.

If this was happening, they’d be reporting on the takedowns rather than the speculation.

Instead, the video is still up and available on social media.

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

#79

Post by ClumsyPilot »

hedora wrote: post #36
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.

What non-fictional financial damages did the copyright holder suffer in this case?

Is he going to come after me when i listen to music with an ipen window, or have friends over?

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

#80

Post by tpmx »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77
tpmx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betteridge’s law of headlines ìs probably not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9232419 (The way you invoked this is kinda reaching.)

I brought it up to highlight the contradiction, not because it’s literally a law: They are reporting speculation. If this was happening, they’d be reporting on the takedowns rather than the speculation. Instead, the video is still up and available on social media.

That's a better way to put it, IMO.
Post reply on HN