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

241–250 of 256 posts

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

#241

Post by craftinator »

rodone wrote: post #225
kordlessagain wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the dumbest possible take.

Just gonna go out on a limb and say that a cop wrote it. Seems like the kind of ignorant, entitled bullshit you always here from them.

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

#242

Post by tehjoker »

tzs wrote: post #213
tehjoker wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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].…

The preferences of individuals are more idiosyncratic, but certainly a wealthy man like Mr. McCartney would have had many more experiences where the police or security protected him vs. commoners that are treated with suspicion.

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

#243

Post by jb775 »

yellowapple wrote: post #152
jb775 wrote: post #144

Why 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?

> have a long and well-documented history of abusing the general public at every opportunity

The macro level statistics do not back this up. I agree with holding people accountable, but this issue has been over-sensationalized strategically by the media for political purposes.

I feel a much more impactful use of energy would be to focus on getting complete transparency from politicians for every decision they make, irrespective of political party. Just look at the mess Cuomo caused in NY...there should be people recording politicians like that all day.

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

#244

Post by defterGoose »

anaerobicover wrote: post #42
analognoise wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

This won't magically make other audio sources that were present when the recording was made easier to hear, though. Once the recording is made, they're not independent any more. They'll still be masked, maybe even more.

Level-wise they are separate though. It should be easy enough to find the proper gain for the reference recording (how loud does it sound in the video?), and then subtracted, leaving any residual energy in that band from desired sources. Yeah, there will be some gain-matching and spatial artifacts, but probably not enough to make things (voices for instance) unintelligible.

Thats actually where any ML component would naturally sit. It would try to basically determine a "close-enough" deconvolution envelope for the reference recording.

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

#245

Post by austincheney »

fuzxi wrote: post #234
austincheney wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then tell Instagram how offensive you find them.

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

#246

Post by slowmovintarget »

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.

The police are not abusing law. The bots that do the automatic take-downs are abusing the law.

This is not State censorship, because the police are not censoring the videos. People still get to record them, and still get to share them. If they can't be bothered to post somewhere other than Instagram (which is abusing their rights), then the failure to share is on the people doing the posting.

There's nothing stopping the people who recorded the videos from sending them to the news media. The recordings are still getting made.

They're just being removed by some bot from the Instagram feeds. Shame on Instagram.

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

#247

Post by fuzxi »

austincheney wrote: post #245
fuzxi wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then tell Instagram how offensive you find them.

What?

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

#248

Post by o-__-o »

eznzt wrote: post #209
joncrane wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing preventing you from hiring someone to buy groceries for you. Instacart and the like just lowered the entry barrier for the masses.

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

#249

Post by true_religion »

monkmartinez wrote: post #238
ceejayoz wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The police don’t really need help defending themselves.

If they feel the least bit threatened, they can simply arrest someone who is “stalking” them.

That they are resorting to clever tactics like playing copyrighted music, shows that legally speaking they can’t do anything else.

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

#250

Post by narrator »

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.

Watch the cops just pay the ASCAP fee. That's the fee the music industry makes bar owners pay if they want to play music in their bar.
Post reply on HN