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

291–300 of 326 posts

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

#291

Post by nextlevelwizard »

heavyset_go wrote: post #232
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to argue the case on the video, but I am curious. If I have legally obtained copy of a song and I play it so that people I do not know hear it is it considered illegal. Some scenarios: A) like here, I just play on my phone. Idea is that it is for myself, say I left my earphones at home, but I just need my tunes. B) I have my open headphones on, so the music is clearly audible to anyone near by me C) I ha…

Intent matters in these cases.

I guess there hasn't been a court decision on "playing music publicly with intention of blocking someone from uploading to Youtube"

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

#292

Post by nextlevelwizard »

Muromec wrote: post #186
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Cops are paid by public and public has a right to know how they are doing their job, so yes, it’s very different

Yes you have the right to know what they are doing, but again pushing right up to their face with a camera is just being a huge dick

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

#293

Post by nextlevelwizard »

heavyset_go wrote: post #231
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't see the difference either you are naive or you are pushing agenda. One is a random guy recording the cops then being able to cut it and edit it how he pleases to spread any info they want. Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.

> Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view. Ironically, the security cameras on people's private property that cops are choosing to put tape over before possibly committing crimes are closer to "full recordings" than what body cameras offer. Body cameras are sold with features that cops and their bosses like, like features that exist for the purpose of keeping the public from accusing…

I completely agree that it should be illegal for body camera footage to be deleted or tampered. In an ideal world it would be uploaded to some central server with hashes to confirm it is the original footage, but I've said my piece on the US police force recruitment, training, and up keep so many times I'm not going to go into this anymore.

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

#294

Post by nextlevelwizard »

cforrester wrote: post #234
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't see the difference either you are naive or you are pushing agenda. One is a random guy recording the cops then being able to cut it and edit it how he pleases to spread any info they want. Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's point of view.

In most of the cases I've seen of police misconduct, a brief clip of the actual offending act is all that is necessary to establish that misconduct, making them valuable documentation for any court case. Edited footage between the beginning and end of the clip is easily detected. Taking an egregious example of the murder of George Floyd, there is no context that could have preceded the footage of his murder that woul…

Taking the most extreme case to justify everything else is the most American thing I can think about.

OBVIOUSLY if police officer is committing a CRIME the footage of that crime is evidence enough, but I've seen many times cut up security footage of "cops harassing someone" only to see the full footage of the "someone" in question being the aggressor the whole time and then yelling about police brutality when he is apprehended and escorted into the police van.

We've witnessed this US LARP in my country just recently where protestors were nicely carried into police vans by the cops, but some intentionally went completely limb to hinder the operation and footage of these limb people getting dragged into the van was used as evidence of how brutal our police force is even though there was dozens of removals where people were carried without even touching the ground.

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

#295

Post by robbrown451 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #286
robbrown451 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're wrong. I assure you, I know this stuff. If the owner can't demonstrate harm, they have no case. "The other three factors" don't cause harm to the owner, so they have no case.

You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.

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

#296

Post by moistly »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #191

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…

Is global broadcasting a 1AR? You have the video and can play it back to your friends, lawyers, mayor, etc. In all likelihood you could stand on the street corner and play to passersby without a problem. Where’s the 1AR violation?

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

#297

Post by chaz6 »

In my job I would be warned if I listened to music whilst I am supposed to be working, and if I failed to heed the warnings I would eventually be dismissed. Why do police offers in the USA get given so much leeway when they are supposed to be the pinnacle of upstanding members of society?

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

#298

Post by A-Train »

cforrester wrote: post #229
Simulacra wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering…

And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter.

I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.

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

#300

Post by jollybean »

pseudalopex wrote: post #284
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…

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…

"He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers."

1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.

2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.

3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.

Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.

This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.

It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.

It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.

Post reply on HN