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

91–100 of 256 posts

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

#91

Post by elil17 »

toast0 wrote: post #70
tzs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now it appears so [1][2]. [1] https://itsartlaw.org/2020/05/11/case-review-allen-v-cooper-... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf

What about if you're a company doing that Nevada company town thing? Hmmm

Cities and counties don’t have sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a holdover from Britain, where you couldn’t sue the ruler or any of their assets. Because states started out viewing themselves as independent countries, sovereign immunity was extended to them by courts. Smaller governments have never had sovereign immunity.

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

#92

Post by medium_burrito »

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.

You could always offer stalking as a service a la William Gibson's "Followr". Police are sick of streamers, hire someone via app to stream the streamer!

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

#93

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?

This is from my American Constitutional History memory from 10+ years ago, so it could be very wrong, but I remember something about if they government sues you, they waive sovereign immunity for a counter suit. If that's the case, just withhold taxes owed in that state and see what happens.

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

#94

Post by rootusrootus »

mc32 wrote: post #88
monocasa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My employer expects me to keep my music quiet (preferably confined to my ears only) when I am at the office. At home I can play it loud enough that the neighbors can hear it, and that's okay. I'm fine with professional officers being held to different standards when they are on duty.

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

#95

Post by ceejayoz »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #76
sjg007 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 waterm…

It would be a very dangerous precedent to deem this stalking.

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

#96

Post by josephpmay »

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.

In many states that is illegal

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

#97

Post by mc32 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #94
mc32 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My employer expects me to keep my music quiet (preferably confined to my ears only) when I am at the office. At home I can play it loud enough that the neighbors can hear it, and that's okay. I'm fine with professional officers being held to different standards when they are on duty.

What about a job site? Can they play loudly if the company or the foreman or forewoman allows it? Is it unprofessional if they play it loudly?

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

#98

Post by sprayk »

ceejayoz wrote: post #95
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 waterm…

It would be a very dangerous precedent to deem this stalking.

How would it be dangerous?

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

#99

Post by burkaman »

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…

It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, I don't think anybody is going to get them on copyright infringement.

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

#100

Post by diggan »

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…

Isn't this how balanced audio cables work effectively? Have two signals, one hot and one cold, invert them against each other and noise would be cancelled out. Replace noise with the song that got identified, and you can cancel it out.
Post reply on HN