141–150 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
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.
When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident happened."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not "calm".
Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!
It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."
Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
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.
In many Android phones you can't record calls and call recording apps don't work. When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident happened."
Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!
Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!
Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No. It is being filmed without his consent. He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance. By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous. He should be fired for other reasons (making the department look bad by attempting to avoid accountability), but he is not v…
That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends.
> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression.
The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance.
I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.