221–230 of 326 posts
If it is a well known song - maybe the audio coudl be subtracted - noise cancellation style to remove the rogue song.
If it was recorded by a microphone in a space, then that won't work. Time and frequency inaccuracy in playback by speaker, sound reflections, and inaccuracies in recording by microphone all contribute to a signal. The original can be recognized, but simple subtraction will never remove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally protected speech isn't retaliation?
It’s unclear to me how recording something is a first amendment issue at all, let alone a speech issue. TheVerge makes this unsubstantiated claim and many people here accept it, but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something. ::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 actua…
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…
Market effect is 1 of several factors courts consider for fair use.
Calm down people. A while back the headline was music weaponized to prevent broadcast. It’s not a weapon. The officer is using music to prevent videos from being put online. I really don’t see the problem in this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are there deepfakes out there that can withstand even a cursory technical interrogation? Most of them are extremely obvious once you've seen two or three.
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…
Yes, it does; most public performances other than radio/TV broadcast are, by nature, only for those in the immediate vincinity.
> 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.
No, because asserting that this case, independent of how other Fair Use factors might apply to it, doesn't fall into Fair Use because its purpose is to suppress commentary does not indicate that your counterfactual would not.
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 its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever be brought to court because they played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. 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 soun…
----
Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever have a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube because the police played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street.
Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that the recorder "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 youtube moderation 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 get their video removed.
Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
And any actual normal human being, is not going to remove a video that is attempting to keep the police accountable 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 youtube algorithm simply do not matter.
----
Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out, citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and this is why you were downvoted.
Interesting article for two reasons, how the practice originated and what it implies. The practice seems to be somewhat wide spread (in the distance between departments case). That might be because it came from a Facebook group or forum where Law Enforcement officers exchange tips. The second is the choice of artist (Swift) who has been in a pretty visible battle with ownership of her music. I suspect that if the off…
"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right " I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming. There is explicit, and there is reality, and this ju…
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 its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever be brought to court because they played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. 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 soun…
No one is saying this. You are leaving out a lot of crucial details that have been brought up.