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

111–120 of 256 posts

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

#111

Post by mc32 »

renewiltord wrote: post #105
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.

I think that’s fair. So all you have to do is make it fair for everyone. We should allow the teenager to arrest the policeman.

You can if the offender, police or not, is on the commission of a crime. You do not however have the wiggle room of reasonable suspicion. If you wish to arrest based on reasonable suspicion, all you need to is attend the academy pass whatever they need you to pass and voila, a newly minted officer who can make arrests based reasonable suspicion.

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

#112

Post by mc32 »

monocasa wrote: post #110
mc32 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A jobsite has different and looser standards of professional conduct than what the police should be generally held to, yes.

I don’t think the cruiser is subject to your elevated standards.

This is a classic case of double standards. We want one set of standards god people we agree with and another set of standards for people we disagree with.

To avoid this, we institute a standard across the board for everyone, like them or dislike them.

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

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35
SilasX wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but I think it's at least a defensible case if you activate the music specifically and only when you know you're being recorded for a mass audience.

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…

> 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?

They can claim those things, sure. But liability (especially civil liability, which is need only be established by preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal liability) doesn't go away just because you can present a narrative which is possibly true which would provide an innocent explanation.

Moreover, if a department pays the cost of litigating a couple cases where officers actions in this regard are challenged, they'll have a strong incentive to adopt policies which prevent the dispute from occurring.

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

#114

Post by renewiltord »

mc32 wrote: post #111
renewiltord wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s fair. So all you have to do is make it fair for everyone. We should allow the teenager to arrest the policeman.

You can if the offender, police or not, is on the commission of a crime. You do not however have the wiggle room of reasonable suspicion. If you wish to arrest based on reasonable suspicion, all you need to is attend the academy pass whatever they need you to pass and voila, a newly minted officer who can make arrests based reasonable suspicion.

Right, and if all the officer wants to do is play music, he just has to take off his gun, uniform, and badge. Seems like it’s fair to me. He could even dress like the teenager if he likes.

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

#115

Post by monocasa »

mc32 wrote: post #111
renewiltord wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s fair. So all you have to do is make it fair for everyone. We should allow the teenager to arrest the policeman.

You can if the offender, police or not, is on the commission of a crime. You do not however have the wiggle room of reasonable suspicion. If you wish to arrest based on reasonable suspicion, all you need to is attend the academy pass whatever they need you to pass and voila, a newly minted officer who can make arrests based reasonable suspicion.

You practically cannot make a citizen's arrest against a police officer in the states.

Also, you need more than having passed the academy to become an officer of the law that can make standard, non-citizen's arrests.

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

#116

Post by sevenf0ur »

jschwartzi wrote: post #74
sevenf0ur wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

A cop playing a Beatles song in the background does not prevent you from recording. These live streamers are not recording the police to hold them accountable. They antagonize officers who can't do anything about it, then upload that interaction online for monetization.

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

#117

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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.

Yeah, because I know that when I am trying to speak clearly to another human being in an emotionally heightened situation, I always do it while listening to my favorite jams.

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

#118

Post by ceejayoz »

sprayk wrote: post #98
ceejayoz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How would it be dangerous?

I wouldn't have thought it'd require explanation.

"I am filming you, a public official, doing something bad in your official capacity."

"You are now under arrest for stalking."

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

#119

Post by floor2 »

rriepe wrote: post #48
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…

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.

Your analogy is perfect... for showing why this is wrong.

The "shooting back" solution just ends up with a bunch of people injured (likely including random bystanders). The better solution is to get the shooting to stop entirely.

We don't need to find a new interpretation of copyright law to attack the cop, we need to remove the dysfunctional copyright system that started this. Or in your metaphor, I want no-one to get shot rather than wanting to shoot back.

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

#120

Post by ceejayoz »

monkmartinez wrote: post #101
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…

I totally agree with you. There are lots of people that do this to EMS as well. Fortunately, I have HIPPA to get these people away from scenes. Unfortunately, there are a ton of people that have nothing better to do than film/jibe/harangue police and fire/EMS in the course of their duties. We know a lot of them on a first name basis including bday, medical history and how many times we have given them narcan... as we…

> Fortunately, I have HIPPA to get these people away from scenes.

HIPAA, and you don't. (I'm sure the claim works on people, though.)

https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/cameras-video/articles/pho...

> Your basic HIPAA obligation when it comes to the press is very simple. Don't divulge any patient medical information to a journalist. Don’t discuss patient specifics within hearing or recording distance, at least not in great detail. Don’t write notes where they can be read. If you have a clipboard with medical information, turn it over so it can’t be seen in a photograph.

> Your HIPAA obligation does not, however, require you to stop me or others from taking images at the scene.

Can you keep them at a somewhat reasonable distance? Yes. Out of the scene entirely? Generally no, barring a hazmat incident or something where you'd need to be getting out too.

Post reply on HN