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

81–90 of 256 posts

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

#81

Post by anaerobicover »

analognoise wrote: post #52
anaerobicover wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We just "play" the song - so it's a spotify call. Ideally anything not aligned with the song meant to induce takedown and the inverted playing of it will still be maintained. To clarify, we don't want to subtract the data from the feed, we can just nullify it near the microphone. I think it would be harder to filter on an instagram feed directly, not sure how their api looks or if it's possible?

I see, you're saying play the inverse at the recording time. So I misunderstood, I thought you were meaning doing it to the recording.

This is also complicated, because you need to factor in the relative locations of the original source, your source, and the pickup to make sure the phase is correct.

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

#82

Post by monocasa »

mc32 wrote: post #56
bmicraft wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmmm, I’d like to see this applied to many a teenager eager to have me listen to their choice of music for free from afar.

I hold police to a higher professional standard than I do lackadaisical teenagers.

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

#84

Post by anaerobicover »

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…

Don't exclude the middle: they could be trying to get them filtered, and failing at doing so.

I can easily see a coworker having a "brilliant" idea about copyright mumbo jumbo and a bunch of people buying into it. People try things that don't work all the time.

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

#85

Post by Mountain_Skies »

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?

Sure but with more and more software becoming cloud based, pirating wouldn't help them much with their most commonly used software such as Microsoft Office. Might become an issue for specialty software that has a high price tag due to being useful for only a handful of users.

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

#87

Post by pbourke »

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.

  Early in the evenin' just about supper time
  Over by the courthouse they're starting to unwind
  Four kids on the corner trying to bring you up
  “Headphones, please” you shout at them “and kindly shut the fuck up”

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

#88

Post by mc32 »

monocasa wrote: post #82
mc32 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I’d like to see this applied to many a teenager eager to have me listen to their choice of music for free from afar.

I hold police to a higher professional standard than I do lackadaisical teenagers.

Both are playing music loudly and projecting it openly. Either it’s allowed for all or allowed for none. I’m good with either decision as long as it’s consistent.

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

#90

Post by dehrmann »

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?

It also has interesting implications for programs like government-run healthcare where you have zero power if you agree with a decision. At least in theory you can sue a private insurer for breach of contract if they don't cover what they promised.
Post reply on HN