Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming • Hacker News Board

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#251

Post by true_religion » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 7:04 AM UTC

sawjet wrote: post #167

blt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The question isn't "is a cop allowed be annoyed with a youtuber?" or "is this youtuber causing net harm to the public good?". The question is: "can a cop interfere with a youtuber's ability to record and publish their actions?".

> No. The question isn't "is a cop allowed be annoyed with a youtuber?" or "is this youtuber causing net harm to the public good?". The question is: "can a cop interfere with a youtuber's ability to record and publish their actions?". This doesn't interfere with the youtubers ability to record and publish the cop's actions. It only prevents them from profiting from it.

It sort of feels worse to think that the police are interfering with a business simply because that business is anti-establishment.

Sure they can be annoyed by this guy, but they lose respectability by trying to harm his business. The additional powers that police have, must come with some additional responsibility.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#252

Post by pixelface » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

diggan wrote: post #100

analognoise wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a neural network for this - after song identification, you might be able to stream the right song at the right location, then simply play the song "inverted" - you'll increase background noise but the song won't be identifiable. It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually. The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but p…

Isn't this how balanced audio cables work effectively? Have two signals, one hot and one cold, invert them against each other and noise would be cancelled out. Replace noise with the song that got identified, and you can cancel it out.

I think if you time your destructive interference to the source of the audio perfectly and cancel out the sound, you haven't gotten the whole picture. As sound travels away from the source it reflects off surfaces and some of those reflections also reach the microphone. Those sounds have traveled a different distance than the original source and are no longer timed with your interfering element. Imagine holding your hand to block your direct view of a person in a house of mirrors but you can still see them in the mirrors. On top of that these reflections won't contain identical audio as the surfaces will absorb different spectral content, so now even if you had infinite perfectly timed anti-signals for each reflection, your anti-signal has spectral content that is missing from the incoming reflected audio and now your anti-signal is a signal unto itself. In order to create a signal that perfectly cancels out all of the copyrighted audio you would have to have knowledge about the form and materials of the physical environment as well as the position of the microphone within that environment.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#253

Post by diggan » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 10:54 AM UTC

pixelface wrote: post #252

diggan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this how balanced audio cables work effectively? Have two signals, one hot and one cold, invert them against each other and noise would be cancelled out. Replace noise with the song that got identified, and you can cancel it out.

I think if you time your destructive interference to the source of the audio perfectly and cancel out the sound, you haven't gotten the whole picture. As sound travels away from the source it reflects off surfaces and some of those reflections also reach the microphone. Those sounds have traveled a different distance than the original source and are no longer timed with your interfering element. Imagine holding your…

This was already mentioned and answered to before here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26115933

In the end, the solution does not have to be perfect. Just have to hide the song well enough so the content ID cannot be made. As you say, the sound that will manage to bypass the "inverted balanced-like filter" will be distorted and hopefully content ID is not accurate enough to recognize it.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#254

Post by User23 » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #226

User23 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wondered if we'd see this quibble. The constitution explicitly says that the newly created states are "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever" which obviously means they must have the same sovereignty. Yes, nearly all of the subsequent states after the first thirteen came into existence as sovereign states and joined the union simultaneously as part of a single process, but those rema…

Are they really sovereign though? Consider Brexit. When the UK wanted to leave, the EU said "we are sad to see you go, please reconsider, but if you really want out, we can't stop you". There was some negotiation over the terms of leaving, but there was never any doubt that the UK had the right to do so. And it was always made clear that if agreement could not be reached on the terms of leaving, the UK would leave an…

It certainly looks as though the United States constituted as a federation of sovereign States is slowly de-facto transitioning to a centralized bureaucratic empire. I don't believe that's happened yet, but using the institutions of the old order to institute the new one is a very old trick, just look at the Roman Principate. So if and when that transition does occur[1] I wouldn't be surprised if the courts will be part of the fig leaf used to hide it.

[1] Perhaps it already has, the average Roman had no idea he no longer lived in a Republic.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#255

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #111

renewiltord wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s fair. So all you have to do is make it fair for everyone. We should allow the teenager to arrest the policeman.

You can if the offender, police or not, is on the commission of a crime. You do not however have the wiggle room of reasonable suspicion. If you wish to arrest based on reasonable suspicion, all you need to is attend the academy pass whatever they need you to pass and voila, a newly minted officer who can make arrests based reasonable suspicion.

I believe you can only perform a citizens arrest in the case of felonies, not misdemeanors.

Re: Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming

#256

Post by kcolford » Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

I'm going to go against the grain here and say I actually quite like this. It's totally non violent. People can still record cops doing their job. They just face challenges posting and sharing such footage on social media. Honestly I'm of the opinion that social media is a net detriment to society, giving social media more fuel for the fire is not a good thing. If there is truly something wrong, then mute the video and it becomes like watching security footage, you can clearly see something wrong and if there's important words then subtitles fill it in, but it's no longer a viral smear campaign and it circulates on the merits of there being something wrong. The original footage can still be published, there's just a higher barrier to publishing it. The cops are also less afraid of being video taped so it's safer for the person recording the footage. All in all it's quite clever and I hope it catches on.

On the other side, I do hope that this eventually leads to reforming the broken copyright fingerprinting systems in place.