171–180 of 326 posts
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.
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."
Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity. If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn…
It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble.
Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded.
Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The video, including Taylor Swift music, is available on YouTube and has not been removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc 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.
Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity. If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn…
>If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble. Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti po…
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."
This is why the quality and success rate of call recording apps varies - it depends how many kinds of configurations the app authors managed to implement support / workarounds for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't play it for himself.
He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism, maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too. 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 aw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance 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 perfor…
What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the individual words of the phrase based on their common usage, and then saying that your new understanding based on the individual words is how copyright law actually works.
If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're doing here with "public performance"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
The reason is mostly technical. Depending on the phone, call audio isn't implemented as much in software as wired directly (in some variable degree) to the radio hardware. This is why the quality and success rate of call recording apps varies - it depends how many kinds of configurations the app authors managed to implement support / workarounds for.