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

191–200 of 256 posts

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

#191

Post by dahart »

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.

> let’s not rush to make listening to music on the job illegal.

I’m wondering if it already is illegal for police officers who wear body cams, even when their routine video is not public record. They are recordings intended for other people, and they also can become public record when use of force is involved, as I understand it.

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

#192

Post by antisthenes »

This is a general reminder to everyone when engaging in thought and conversation about policy and laws.

Always consider the possible second and third-order effects of your proposal. There will always be people who use (or at least attempt to use) the new policy to their own maximum benefit, possibly not in the intended way at all.

Consider that behavior does not necessarily make them bad or evil, merely agents acting in their own self-interest. Consider then, also, not simply making a list of "if then else" exceptions and bans for these behaviors, but rethinking the entire policy in the first place.

I strongly believe we could all be in a better place civically if we adhere to these simple guidelines before we slap down policies left and right and get trapped in vicious feedback loops where we can't repeal certain laws because they are "grandfathered in".

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

#193

Post by PragmaticPulp »

jawns wrote: post #104
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they’re trying to send a signal that they’re not interested in engaging in any more conversation. Feels like a de-escalation tactic. Whether you like them or not, these cops have people obsessively following them around, filming them, and trying to engage them for social media clout. I suspect if the filters had more of a legitimate purpose, we’d be hearing about it in these articles.

It feels like a de-escalation tactic? This is pretty classic passive-aggressive behavior. And aggressive behavior, whether in the form of overt aggression or passive-aggressive tactics, does not contribute to de-escalation. Recording police in public as they perform their official duties is a constitutionally protected activity, upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers California. The p…

In the video (which hadn’t been taken down, contrary to the headlines) the officer does what you suggest: He calmly states that he can’t continue to engage the person recording in the same conversation over and over again.

This doesn’t appear to be a simple case of the police ignoring someone’s first question. The person recording the police appears to be following them around, recording them, badgering them with accusations and taunts, and posting the videos for social media clout.

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

#194

Post by minitoar »

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.

That sir is illegal. I have to blast Creedence or I can't hear it over the wind noise. I think there are laws about how you shouldn't be able to hear music above a certain volume at a certain distance from a vehicle, but I haven't heard of it being applied to motorcycles.

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

#195

Post by josefresco »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #188
josefresco wrote: post #55

Publicizing this probably does more harm than keeping it something unique to Beverly Hills PD (aka the Streisand effect). We'll now see officers across the United States employing this same tactic. Hopefully this will finally force some sort of sanity when it comes to automated copyright enforcement online.

If anything, the fact that we’ve all been watching this supposedly forbidden video across social media sites shows that the technique doesn’t actually work.

They're just making it harder (not impossible) to share recorded videos of police actions on social media. This video being publicized by an experienced activist is not sufficient evidence in and of itself that the technique isn't working.

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

#196

Post by PragmaticPulp »

dahart wrote: post #191
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> let’s not rush to make listening to music on the job illegal. I’m wondering if it already is illegal for police officers who wear body cams, even when their routine video is not public record. They are recordings intended for other people, and they also can become public record when use of force is involved, as I understand it.

As far as I can tell, these recordings are from an uninvolved 3rd party who has several social media accounts dedicated to recording the police, from which he sells merchandise.

This isn’t a case of victims being drowned out of rightful conversations during arrests. This is a 3rd party trying to insert themselves into police duties and provoke a response while recording.

His Instagram accounts for these videos promote his anti-cop merchandise. It appears the videos haven’t actually been taken down. I’m sure he’s loving the attention, though.

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

#197

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

They're not weaponizing copyright, they're weaponizing Instagram's copyright-infringement-avoidance filter. HN really should look into their headline editing policy, because it really does change the context of the conversation in this instance.

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

#198

Post by PragmaticPulp »

woah wrote: post #172
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you serious? You’re telling me you think police officers should go around blasting tunes on a boom box? Seems like a serious lack of professionalism. What a straw man

No, I did not say that at all.

The videos in question are still online. They haven’t been removed. It’s clear that the person filming is following police around, trying to provoke a reaction for his Instagram accounts where he sells anti-cop merchandise.

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

#199

Post by PragmaticPulp »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #117
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The person doing the recording operates multiple Instagram accounts where he tries to provoke reactions from cops who are trying to do their job. He sells anti-police merchandise through these accounts.

It’s not correct to suggest that this was a routine interaction with police.

Despite the headline, the videos are still up on his social media accounts.

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

#200

Post by blendergeek »

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 believe that the state has sovereign immunity and can commit copyright infringement without any repercussions. [0]

[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/

Post reply on HN