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

231–240 of 256 posts

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

#231

Post by _underfl0w_ »

dahart wrote: post #18

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.

No the exact thing you're after, but you may be interested in Spleeter[0] which can pick out individual instruments from a given track with surprising accuracy. Deezer uses it to aid in song recognition. In this case, you could theoretically pick out the whole track and leave everything else or something.

[0] https://github.com/deezer/spleeter

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

#232

Post by fuzxi »

mc32 wrote: post #88
monocasa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hold police to a higher professional standard than I do lackadaisical teenagers.

Both are playing music loudly and projecting it openly. Either it’s allowed for all or allowed for none. I’m good with either decision as long as it’s consistent.

I weep for the world that measures cops and teenagers with the same ruler. Cops should be held to a higher standard.

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

#233

Post by testesttest »

ceejayoz wrote: post #230
testesttest wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cops didn't take down the videos based on copyright. A company did, but, that is apparently acceptable because companies can sensor whoever they please (or at least that is the common view on hacker news).

The cops are abusing copyright law in order to violate a citizen’s First Amendment rights. They’ve outsourced the censoring. Censoring is indeed legal if companies do it, but this is functionally State censorship.

Yea, censorship is great if it aligns with your message. Politics have forced big tech to censor a lot as of late.

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

#234

Post by fuzxi »

austincheney wrote: post #211
ngngngng wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two police officers in Beverly Hills who played music for the express purpose of masking lawful recordings of them, such that they're extremely difficult to post online unmuted.

Recording an on-duty peace officer is protected by the First Amendment. Officers intentionally making it difficult to disseminate those recordings should not be taken lightly.

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

#235

Post by ceejayoz »

testesttest wrote: post #233
ceejayoz wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cops are abusing copyright law in order to violate a citizen’s First Amendment rights. They’ve outsourced the censoring. Censoring is indeed legal if companies do it, but this is functionally State censorship.

Yea, censorship is great if it aligns with your message. Politics have forced big tech to censor a lot as of late.

It’s not the message that matters. It’s the fact that one is a First Amendment violation, and the other is not.

I don’t think a “websites can’t moderate their content” is a good road to go down.

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

#237

Post by monkmartinez »

ceejayoz wrote: post #219
monkmartinez wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok buddy... not worth arguing anymore. Walk a mile in another persons shoes before you cast stones.

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

#238

Post by monkmartinez »

ceejayoz wrote: post #221
monkmartinez wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

No, that's a complete misunderstanding of the law on this. If you antagonize and film a police officer while they are off-duty , that is inappropriate; potentially stalking and harassment. Same in the other direction. The courts have thus far determined there are specific rights to filming police while engaged in their duties ; not just for press, but for citizens in general. Filming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl…

Do those "specific rights" include antagonizing a police officer while he/she is performing his or her official duties? I don't think the majority of society will agree with that, just my opinion. At the end of the day, we need to see a few cities that let their entire police force resign due to "woke" culture and watch what happens. People will vote with their feet and wallets.

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

#239

Post by testesttest »

ceejayoz wrote: post #235
testesttest wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, censorship is great if it aligns with your message. Politics have forced big tech to censor a lot as of late.

It’s not the message that matters. It’s the fact that one is a First Amendment violation, and the other is not. I don’t think a “websites can’t moderate their content” is a good road to go down.

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter are not just "websites" they are where much of our public discussion happens. If they weren't you would not care that these videos were censored.

This story, fake news, the shenanigans around the election, etc has shown they are bad stewards of this responsibility.

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

#240

Post by LocalH »

kordlessagain wrote: post #165
hellohello1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The officer didn't do anything wrong and just because police are sometimes unreasonable or unethical, it doesn't mean this officer was either. The officer has a right to do whatever he wants with his phone as well. He could be recording with it, or he can play music with it, without recourse. It's his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that protects him, not the constitution or being an officer. If s…

The officer absolutely did something wrong. They intentionally abused copyright to prevent lawful free expression. They should be strung up on First Amendment charges, and the RIAA should come down hard.
Post reply on HN