I wonder if a band pass filter would suffice to defeat this attack?
Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
151–160 of 256 posts
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#152Why are these people even filming cops in the first place?
Because it's generally a good idea to hold people accountable for their actions, especially when those people have a long and well-documented history of abusing the general public at every opportunity.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. If we can't see what police are doing, then under what pretext can we even remotely trust them to serve our interests?
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#153I’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.
Sounds like the Cocktail party problem.
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/have-you-heard-about-the-cockta...
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#154I 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…
Invoking copyright law is unnecessary. It is far simpler and more narrow to claim that they are engaging in the willful destruction or concealment of evidence which is a violation of California Penal Code 135 PC [1][2].
How so?
1. There is a video recording. This is specifically mentioned as a protected category.
2. The video recording of officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes material evidence. Recordings of officer conduct have been entered into evidence previously, so this fulfills the requirement that it be evidence.
3. Officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes an inquiry or investigation. This article indicates that actions prior to an arrest constitute pre-arrest investigation [3] and thus fulfills that requirement.
4. Copyrighted music in the video recording reduces the discoverability of the evidence possibly to the degree of non-discoverability when it previously would have been discoverable. This appears to be at least concealment.
5. The accusation that the officers are deliberately playing copyrighted music resulting in the reduced discoverability. This fulfills the willfulness requirement.
1-4 establish that the specific outcomes observed constitute the hiding of evidence. It should be uncontroversial that the evidence has become less discoverable. 5 is then the only material question, which is whether it was done with the intent to cause the concealment of evidence.
Based on the above logic, I think it is fairly safe to say that, if they are doing as claimed, then they are violating California Penal Code 135 PC. The only part in the above logic that seems weak is point 3 as I am not sure if it is actually an inquiry or investigation. If point 3 is invalid, then I think the best thing to do would be to amend it to include officer conduct during pre-arrest investigation with respect to the eventually arrested party. This is a far better option than invoking copyright law as it would be narrowly defined to only target the specific willful action that seems unethical which is intentionally playing copyrighted music to prevent the posting of video recordings.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/#:~:text....
[3] https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5498-what-are-some-common-s....
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#155Pretty funny :D (Ready for the downvotes)
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even sure what you're going off about. But yes, I hold the police to higher standards of professional conduct than I do common criminals.
I guess I'm triggered by people who feel the need to get in officers faces and video them when they are trying to do their jobs. I'm sure my privilege is showing, but cops don't hassle me because I don't do stupid stuff. I don't deal or use drugs, beat my significant other, steal cars, etc. My last interaction with a cop was getting pulled for not having a front tag on my car. "No prob officer, I'll take care of it."…
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're white and present as middle class or above?
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#157The thing that kills me is this just goes to prove beyomd a shadow of a doubt, that punishment for breaking law is more a function of who you are, and your usefulness to those with the power to levy suit. Here you have police officers flaunting the law, and yet, record labels have destroyed lives through punitive damages of regular citizens over unintentional sharing. It just completely undermines and lays bare the h…
A nitpick: "flouting the law".
Always after the edit period. Internal mental hash table updated. I knew it was an fl-. Picked the wrong one.
Point otherwise clearly communicated though right?
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law is quite capable of distinguishing between someone listening to music for their own enjoyment that happens to be overheard by others, and someone intentionally directing music at strangers for purposes of furthering their own business interests. What the officers are doing seems more akin to a business use to me, since they are doing it to affect how they can perform their job, so I'm curious if they need to…
The problem is that the law is not all that capable of distinguishing this. It requires making a determination of intent, which is always blurry. Moreover, police officers will almost certainly claim that they were listening to music for personal reasons rather than trying to intimidate constitutionally protected filming -- and the courts will give them enormous amounts of deference because of their position.
A finder of fact under the law is totally capable of distinguishing this, though you're right that police get lots of deference from both judge and jury. That said, in this case I just don't think the "I was just listening for personal reasons" defense is at all plausible.
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#159Axel Foley would be proud. Banana in the tailpipe...
Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
#160Anyone suggesting that this tactic can be stopped with copyright law is hilariously missing the point. The cops will just find a pro-cop artist and record label to play. The problem here is much deeper.
The idea that it's forbidden to publish what your eyes can see and ears can hear, in public, is completely insane.
What is freedom of the press if not this?