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

281–290 of 326 posts

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

#281

Post by KeytarHero »

dctoedt wrote: post #237
elliekelly wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the purpose of this is really to avoid the clip going viral but I’m curious whether there have been any cases addressing whether this situation could fall under fair use with respect to the person recording? Videos like this are usually newsworthy (and not made for commercial purposes) and the copyrighted material is incidental to the purpose of the recording. I suppose I’m wondering whether this is an actual…

> whether this situation could fall under fair use with respect to the person recording? IMHO the person posting the YouTube video with the Taylor Swift song in background would have an excellent shot at a fair-use defense against any claim of infringement of the copyright in the song or the recording (which could be two different things). See, e.g., https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ I also…

> I also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s) in question would think very hard before making an infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the adverse publicity.

Except the entity that would make an infringement claim is an algorithm, not a person

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

#282

Post by otterley »

jollybean wrote: post #275
otterley wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this thread that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.

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

#283

Post by otterley »

jollybean wrote: post #275
otterley wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this discussion that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.

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

#284

Post by pseudalopex »

jollybean wrote: post #257
pseudalopex wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.

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…

He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers. You keep ignoring that fact.

The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]

More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.

My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

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

#285

Post by pseudalopex »

robbrown451 wrote: post #264
pseudalopex wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recording isn't what made it public performance. 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.

That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.

Replace enjoyment with listening if you like.

Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.

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

#286

Post by pseudalopex »

robbrown451 wrote: post #278
scotuswroteus wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.

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

#287

Post by pseudalopex »

robbrown451 wrote: post #262
jcranmer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.

His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public.

The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.

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

#288

Post by Hamuko »

eqtn wrote: post #187
lucideer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/ deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source available for song-replacement. This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or rerecord sections during editing after realising there was copyrighted background noise. So I'd say ther…

There is "Mute song only(beta)" in YouTube which says "Remove the claimed song only, keeping the rest of the sound. This option usually takes longer and might not work if the song is hard to remove"

I've tried it on a short clip that's under a minute long and it never actually processed the file when I tried. The beta flag is definitely warranted and you really don't want to rely on it.

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

#289

Post by robbrown451 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #287
robbrown451 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.

His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public. The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder…

Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there.

Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is.

"The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights."

They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version.

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

"Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."

Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.

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

#290

Post by robbrown451 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #285
robbrown451 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.

Replace enjoyment with listening if you like. Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.

So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park?

They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.

Post reply on HN