161–170 of 256 posts
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…
Anyone 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 problem is YouTube celebrities being dicks for likes. The cops are clearly just annoyed at this guy who keeps trying to wind them up to video their reaction. He's not filming them potentially beating anyone up, they're just standing there while he complains about random drivers going past who they're not stopping. Just because the victim is a cop doesn't mean the bully isn't wrong. If he was honestly trying to re…
So it's mostly about the take-down system and it's abusiveness.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone.
People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed.
I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As a potential neighbor: no, it's not ok. If I can hear your music, you are intruding in my space. I need at least one place on the planet where I can get some actual quiet without earplugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is YouTube celebrities being dicks for likes. The cops are clearly just annoyed at this guy who keeps trying to wind them up to video their reaction. He's not filming them potentially beating anyone up, they're just standing there while he complains about random drivers going past who they're not stopping. Just because the victim is a cop doesn't mean the bully isn't wrong. If he was honestly trying to re…
No. The question isn't "is a cop allowed be annoyed with a youtuber?" or "is this youtuber causing net harm to the public good?". The question is: "can a cop interfere with a youtuber's ability to record and publish their actions?".
This doesn't interfere with the youtubers ability to record and publish the cop's actions. It only prevents them from profiting from it.
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.
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…