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

131–140 of 256 posts

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

#131

Post by tppiotrowski »

There are many posts on HN about invasion of privacy and surveillance. Even if you’re “not doing anything wrong” you should strongly oppose any data collection that could be used against you in the future.

On the other hand we also seem to permit recording in other situations like law enforcement.

Eager to hear how people distinguish these two scenarios. Is it that if you’re a public figure or tax funded then your actions should be open to public scrutiny? I know companies operate in private but still need to make some data publicly available. Is there a balance? What is a good heuristic for how much data we should collect on cops, politicians, companies etc while still respecting privacy.

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

#133

Post by munk-a »

dehrmann wrote: post #93
gspr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Please consult an accountant, lawyer and your local clergy before trying. Withholding taxes can result in some nasty penalties.

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

#134

Post by pseudalopex »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #79
hedora wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Copyright laws have statutory damages.

Having friends over isn't public performance. Having a window open incidentally isn't public performance.

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

#135

Post by exporectomy »

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".

What are they fighting for if they don't stand up for any principles and are willing to do the same bad things their enemies do? Even if they win, they've become a new baddy.

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

#136

Post by tonyg »

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…

> Normally HN is very against weaponizing copyright law

I mean, a good chunk of the people here are GPL fans, and if that's not a weaponization of copyright law, I don't know what is.

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

#137

Post by tppiotrowski »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #131

There are many posts on HN about invasion of privacy and surveillance. Even if you’re “not doing anything wrong” you should strongly oppose any data collection that could be used against you in the future. On the other hand we also seem to permit recording in other situations like law enforcement. Eager to hear how people distinguish these two scenarios. Is it that if you’re a public figure or tax funded then your ac…

Not sure why I got downvoted for this? I’m just trying to learn.

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

#138

Post by jawns »

sevenf0ur wrote: post #116
jschwartzi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They antagonize officers who can't do anything about it

The officers can't do anything about it because it's not illegal to film police officers in public while carrying out their official duties. It's a constitutionally protected activity.

Is it at times obnoxious? Sure. (Although in many cases, these videos capture police officers behaving badly, rather than live-streamers behaving badly.)

A lot of First Amendment protected activity is irritating to at least some people. Cursing at police is, in general, a First Amendment protected activity, and I don't suspect a lot of officers appreciate that, either. But the entire point of the First Amendment is to protect activity that other people might not like.

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

#139

Post by rriepe »

floor2 wrote: post #119
rriepe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

You're conflating outcomes and solutions. You've offered no solution.

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

#140

Post by hellohello1 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #109
burkaman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, That's because criminal prosecution is limited to people who have a professional dependency on cooperation by LEOs. Civil prosecution does not, and while individual officers may have qualified immunity, state/local government agencies, including police departments, have no legal privilege to disregard copyright.

Very true! I bet the RRIA is going to get right on filing a suit against that officer.
Post reply on HN