Punish police from playing music? Seriously, a flesh wound? Let's call this a catastrophic decapitation that demands immediate jail time without possibility for parole like human trafficking and serial-arson.
The "flesh wound" in question is complete lack of accountability and oversight of police officers, not this one instance of them playing music.
The subject literally is about two police officers in Beverly Hills who played music. There is no mention of brutality, any violation, or any history of violations.
Totally incorrect. The courts didn't and can't grant the States sovereignty. They were sovereign states before entering the union and they relinquished some of their sovereign powers by signing the constitution, but certainly not all of them, or indeed any at all that aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.
> Totally incorrect. The courts didn't and can't grant the States sovereignty. They were sovereign states before entering the union and they relinquished some of their sovereign powers by signing the constitution The original 13 colonies, Vermont and Texas were all independent sovereign states before joining the United States as states. However, the other 35 states were federal territories to which Congress granted s…
I wondered if we'd see this quibble. The constitution explicitly says that the newly created states are "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever" which obviously means they must have the same sovereignty. Yes, nearly all of the subsequent states after the first thirteen came into existence as sovereign states and joined the union simultaneously as part of a single process, but those remain distinct events.
> 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.
Police and corporations have a special relationship. The corporations sell things and concentrate wealth, the police prevent other people from breaking the rules and redistributing it. This is one reason why the right talks up respecting the police and the sanctity of private property. Suffice it to say, corporations are happy when the police find ways to let them exercise additional power that doesn't directly threa…
Do police and Paul McCartney have a special relationship? He owns the copyright to one of the songs the police played.
(For those who remember that Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog a few years ago and are wondering how McCartney has the rights, Jackson later sold it to Sony. When the songs became old enough, McCartney attempted to use the recapture provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 [1], 17 USC 203 [2]. Sony fought this, but in mid-2017 they settled and the rights went back to McCartney).
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…
Journalists and provocateur's have nothing in common. Journalists, in my experience, are very easy to work with. They understand and appreciate the stress of the situations first responders deal with 24/7 and are keen to keep their jobs generally. That is, filming and then posting someone bleeding out to Instagram is a quick way to get sued. Journalists, in my experience have a common sense of decency that provocateur's lack. There is a massive gap between professionals working a scene and bystanders provoking first responders to get likes.
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…
It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, I don't think anybody is going to get them on copyright infringement.
The issue is a failure to pay for something. The cops are deliberately causing the music to be broadcast without paying for the right to do so.
I don't see an argument that cops shouldn't have to pay for things working in court.
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.
Why doesn't YouTube do this to their videos, instead of muting all audio, or removing the video entirely? It'd be a far preferable user experience.
They don't get anything out of it except complaints when it doesn't work right.
From the videos (which have not been removed, despite what the headline suggests) it appears the person is following police officers around on the street, trying to provoke reactions while he films, and posting the videos with police names to his Instagram accounts where he sells anti-police merch. I don’t condone the police behavior, but it’s clear that the person recording is not a hero or even blameless. He’s runn…
All of what you have described is entirely legal.
So what you are saying is, the police officer should start following that provocateur around on his day off with a camera? Film the guy who is filming the police officers! I like it!
> 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…
Journalists and provocateur's have nothing in common. Journalists, in my experience, are very easy to work with. They understand and appreciate the stress of the situations first responders deal with 24/7 and are keen to keep their jobs generally. That is, filming and then posting someone bleeding out to Instagram is a quick way to get sued. Journalists, in my experience have a common sense of decency that provocateu…
That you like some of the people exercising their First Amendment rights more than others is irrelevant.
Like it or not, I believe that the "expectation of privacy" argument has been settled in courts. The answer is that if you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. People have dashcams, cameras pointing out the front of their homes and businesses, and people may be recording random TikTok videos with you in the background. Police definitely have zero "expectation of privacy" when out on the job and it's a fa…
> Like it or not, I believe that the "expectation of privacy" argument has been settled in courts. The answer is that if you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. That sounds awful. Everybody needs to go out even if it is to buy groceries. What that means is that you can be recorded and there is nothing you can do about it.
The alternative is I'm not legally allowed to operate a camera outside unless I get a signed consent release form from everyone who may potentially be in the view of the camera. That doesn't really sound like a better world to me.