101–110 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."
Ever heard of the first amendment?
Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.
Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement. This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say ther…
Although I don't really know how often it's going to be necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some garbled mess on a YouTube video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s a little misguided to praise the officer for allowing them to film. It would be illegal for him to prevent them from filming him performing his duties in a public place. I also find it slightly ridiculous for you to characterize citizens recording their interactions with police for their own protection as a “citizen surveillance state.” The citizens are not the state. The police here are representatives…
> on reading the rest of this thread I’m more convinced of the dubious legality of the cop’s playing music with the expectation that the recording will be made public You're convinced by angry internet hobby-lawyers sitting in their Aerons taking a quick break from writing HTML? This is precisely the very low standard of evidence that the officer involved here is trying to short circuit.
To some degree I understand the cop's position. The internet is an insanely dangerous echo chamber. The vast, VAST majority of police interactions are not that. The vast majority of police interactions are well-meaning officers maintaining public order. This doesn't excuse the interactions which are unrighteous and deserve to be exposed, possibly including the interaction that these people were protesting. The office…
Yeah, I get that cops aren't very popular these days, but this is a very clever hack, and I like to think that the HN crowd is logical enough to appreciate it, regardless of the perpetrator.
Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?
> Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties? Yes, but under current law, states can ignore the royalty requirement with impunity: "[C]opyright owners suffering infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies provided by the Copyright Act." [0] Police departments are almost certain to be held to be state entities, I'd think, and therefore immune from individual per…
IIRC, a while back that the MPAA was pushing for a law that would require video cameras to stop recording if they detected a specific trigger. The intent was to prevent people from filming in movie theaters, similar to the EURion watermarking constellation found on most bank notes. I can't imagine how things would have turned out if that technology had become standard and inevitably abused.
that more or less happened. all BD players required to implement audio fingerprinting
This sounds like a great ml app idea: Remove music from audio while keeping the other voices. I wonder how hard it would be to keep them separate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need a public performance license to personally consume music in public. Public performance licenses would be for things like playing a song in a restaurant you run, or in a retail store.
He's not personally consuming - he's playing the music in public for the purposes of performance (the audience) and broadcast (he knows it is being recorded)! This is willful and flagrant infringement.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that a police officer "deserves" it.
This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool.
The law is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go to jail.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine someone, or send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone.
The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of copyright law, is a separate thing.
It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of course, this then proves nothing. That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement. This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say ther…
But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.