161–170 of 326 posts
If it is a well known song - maybe the audio coudl be subtracted - noise cancellation style to remove the rogue song.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. 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 c…
I believe this is the case, yes.
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.
I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah; the edit makes more sense. We're each entitled to our own perspective, but fwiw, I think you'll struggle to find any cohort less accountable than the police. Whereas "the mob", being traditionally a phrase used broadly by established powers to derogate the opposition, is almost by definition always the cohort held most to account in any given situation. Furthermore, perhaps one of the biggest false assumptions ma…
Understandable. I'm coming at this from a "violence begets violence" perspective and my fear is escalation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Let’s be clear, there was no retaliation. You’re making up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people online from raging on him and his family while he attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
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."
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!
> Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?
The actual video is available on YouTube if you want to watch for yourself, Taylor Swift music included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc Apparently the strategy doesn't work.
Yet. Take-downs are carried out somewhat arbitrarily. The point is that there's no guarantee it will continue to be available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.
There's a reasonable argument that deepfakes are challenging our ability to rely on video evidence in general, but saying any editing at all removes credibility is pretty out there. Almost every video on the internet has been edited in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s be clear, there was no retaliation. You’re making up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people online from raging on him and his family while he attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally protected speech isn't retaliation?
::Edit::
I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here:
The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment.
The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch.
They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment.
Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob