Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 326 posts

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#271

Post by beerandt »

wedn3sday wrote: post #66
Veserv wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is video evidence of a police officer admitting to one count of willfully concealing a video recording during an investigation with the intent to prevent its content from being discovered which, if I am reading California Penal Code 135 PC - Destroying or Concealing Evidence [1] correctly, qualifies as a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail. [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/

Not sure I agree with you, reading the opening lines of the code, "that you know to be relevant to a trial, police investigation or other legal proceedings." No trail or police investigation happening means interfering with the video isnt illegal.

It's simpler than that. Even intent to get youtube to censor/not publish it is not concealing it from anyone, and especially not concealing it from an investigation/ the justice system, which is the clear intent of the law.

If not being published on YouTube were the criteria for concealment, then wouldn't the person making the recording also be guilty if they simply decided not to post/share it?

Preventing publishing or distribution isn't concealment.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#272

Post by beerandt »

jcranmer wrote: post #209
robbrown451 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it. Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.

He had the express intent that he didn't want others to hear it.

You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#273

Post by 29083011397778 »

jopsen wrote: post #217
LinuxBender wrote: post #24

Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.

Or just use mask/obfuscate the audio, and face while your at it. In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable force. There are also many other contributing factors to policing issues in the…

> the argument that it's just "a few bad apples" seems like deflection to me

That "defense" never really uses the full saying, does it? "A few bad apples spoil the barrel" is the full phrase. Without removing the few bad apples, what happens to the remaining apples in the barrel?

That's why we need to bring these "few bad apples" to the forefront. If they're left alone, or treated as part of the group, they'll either spoil the rest of the department, or the entire department will take the heat for just a few of their coworkers abusing their power.

Holding all officers accountable for the actions of few seems in poor form to me, though I have no data to back this up. To me though, it feels like we'll end up polarizing the LEOs that just want to do good work, much like how "Not all men" began.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#274

Post by beerandt »

throaway3141593 wrote: post #249
parineum wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it, is he not?

The officer is playing the music knowing that an attempt will be made to distribute the video, while hoping but not knowing for sure that the video will be blocked from distribution. The video could appear on one of many other sites that do a poorer job of screening media or that don't even attempt to do so.

Intent doesn't require knowing for sure. Intent is just hope associated with an action.

If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#275

Post by jollybean »

otterley wrote: post #261
jollybean wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a public performance. Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal. Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance. Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance. If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you shoul…

Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder. OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.

When I wrote radio - I meant generally 'something with a speaker' because irrespective of what 'radio stations' do - playing music on 'something with a speaker' from CD, iTunes, MP3s etc. on your lawn, in your car, on the beach, while at work - is extremely common - and does not constitute a 'public performance'.

You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you.

You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#276

Post by cellularmitosis »

nashashmi wrote: post #247
cellularmitosis wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is less about the specific act of stifling the virality of police recordings and more about what this says about the mindset of this cop and police culture in general.

The mindset is not isolated to police culture. It is also present in construction inspection and pretty much anywhere the job is enforcement of policies. You do the little you can to enforce rules in the most effective way possible with the least opinions being raised at the methods you used to get there. “How do I do my job and create the least amount of fuss?”

This isn’t a very apt comparison. Construction inspectors don’t generally engage in practices which directly fly in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings. They also aren’t trusted with the power to legally murder you if you don’t do what they say. There also hasn’t been a recent nation-wide uproar over the behavior of construction inspectors, so I wouldn’t expect them to be more introspective than usual of how their actions will be interpreted with regard to recent current events.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#278

Post by robbrown451 »

scotuswroteus wrote: post #241
robbrown451 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.") The only thing it is doi…

Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect

Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...

Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.

Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube

#280

Post by recursive »

netr0ute wrote: post #253
recursive wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see a demonstration of this. (not of a FFT, but use of one to remove one signal from another)

They might have done this to extract instruments, and if you can extract one then maybe you can just subtract it from the main recording. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030201607.h...

Identifying the fundamental pitches of notes in a chord is a far cry from subtracting them out of a recording.
Post reply on HN