121–130 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is BD in this context?
I assume blu-ray disc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that is video evidence of a police officer admitting to one count of willfully concealing a video recording during an investigation with the intent to prevent its content from being discovered which, if I am reading California Penal Code 135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence [1] correctly, qualifies as a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail. [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/
Not sure I agree with you, reading the opening lines of the code, "that you know to be relevant to a trial, police investigation or other legal proceedings." No trail or police investigation happening means interfering with the video isnt illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how it being recorded makes a difference. If I'm listening to a CD and someone walks up and starts filming me, would I need to stop listening to it because the filmer might post it on youtube?
But thats not what happened. If you knew you were being recorded, had reason to be believed it would be broadcasted and your stated intention was to turn that otherwise normal and non-infringing broadcast into copyright infringement, ya, you might have an issue with the courts.
It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The public is harmed, not the owner of the content.
Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing something that is clearly against the public's interest, making the department look bad.
But this is not a copyright case.
Do people not remember that you can post copyrighted music on youtube? it’s generally allowed. They just get any money from it.
Rights holders have automated the DMCA take down process on platforms like YouTube.
It does allow me to either mute or replace the song if I don't want UMG claiming my video, but most likely it will just completely destroy the audio in the entire video.
(https://youtu.be/7_C14lT4Tzw if anyone's actually curious)
Would it be possible do make an AI that would mute or remove the song, while preserving the rest the sounds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be hilarious (and also poetic justice) if Taylor Swift (or whomever the copyright holder is) sued the Alameda County Sheriff's department for copyright violation and demanded maximum statutory penalties. EDIT: Bummer, it looks like this route is not available to the copyright holder, since states have sovereign immunity against copyright infringement claims. See _Allen v. Cooper_, 589 U.S. ____ (2020).
It would be poetic justice of a kind, because I'll bet that they find a cop playing music for himself, even while interacting with others is probably not breaking copyright, whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is, i.e. an attempt to 'press' the police would end up more than likely just affirming the situation with a specific judicial ruling. It'd be interesting to see how a judge ruled ho…
I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument.
Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...
Would be simpler to simply play 4’33” on a continuous loop. For those who’d not know the song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″
I don't think it would be possible to verify this when making a copyright claim. But along these lines, if you could play a loop of audio that would not be recognized by people around you or not recognized as music but could be recognized by an algorithm, then you could use this strategy without anyone knowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of the first amendment?
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think so because the officer isn’t posting the video online. Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces.
> Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces. Generally, yes: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 ---begin quote--- 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonoreco…
Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed.
Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't. It's impossible. People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. But you can do it.
> People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down, well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push throu…
Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it because you said "this law is illegal...for now."