Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by jollybean » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

otterley wrote: post #283

jollybean wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're confused because you believe that the courts would find 'non public performance' only in the most narrow interpretation 'performance only to a small group of friends or family'.

Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute.

The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.

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

#302

Post by jollybean » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 10:42 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #126

jollybean wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be poetic justice of a kind, because I'll bet that they find a cop playing music for himself, even while interacting with others is probably not breaking copyright, whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is, i.e. an attempt to 'press' the police would end up more than likely just affirming the situation with a specific judicial ruling. It'd be interesting to see how a judge ruled ho…

" ...whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is... " I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument. Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...

The cop has no idea if someone is recording, video or even audio. They have no idea what the filmer's intentions are. They have no knowledge or awareness of how the person might edit, alter, or distribute the content.

It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright.

Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.

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

#303

Post by jollybean » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 10:46 AM UTC

scotuswroteus wrote: post #240

jollybean wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be poetic justice of a kind, because I'll bet that they find a cop playing music for himself, even while interacting with others is probably not breaking copyright, whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is, i.e. an attempt to 'press' the police would end up more than likely just affirming the situation with a specific judicial ruling. It'd be interesting to see how a judge ruled ho…

There is no such exception for publicly playing a copyrighted work "for oneself"

Yes there is. You can play music for yourself and close family. That you happen to 'be in public' or 'be at work' isn't relevant.

Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..

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

#304

Post by jollybean » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 10:52 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #62

jollybean wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely the opposite. Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not going to be in violation - unless the music were played as part of entertainment for customers/patrons. The cop will unlikely be found to be in violation. The person filming in uploading, that production would probably be in violation under the 'Transmission Clause'.

> Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not going to be in violation Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers, not primarily for public customers) entertainment use might be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit First Amendment protected public monitoring and distribution of…

I don't see how secondary motivations that have nothing to do with entertainment or copyright (aka for the purpose of supposedly suppressing someone's rights) would be relevant? Either it's a 'public performance' or it's not.

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

#305

Post by chucksta » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 12:54 PM UTC

A-Train wrote: post #298

cforrester wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit.

Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible.

People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.

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

#306

Post by cannabis_sam » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

This particular police officer should unequivocally be fired and barred from any law enforcement work for the rest of their lives…

Corrupt and destructive individuals should just simply not be admitted into positions of authority. Any position where they can enact their hate and evil onto people, is a disgrace to all of us.

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

#307

Post by jopsen » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

29083011397778 wrote: post #273

jopsen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's why we need to bring these "few bad apples" to the forefront.

But can you un-spoil all the other apples of the barrel, by only removing the bad ones?

I think not... once police stands idle by their bad apple co-workers, they are spoiled.

I don't think you can unspoil the culture by just removing a few individual apples.

Culture is hard to change.

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

#308

Post by jopsen » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 3:12 PM UTC

kemonocode wrote: post #246

jopsen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers faces and voices were blurred. Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should stop doing such things or think really hard about their chosen career path. > After all, i…

> Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their official duties...

True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to escalate to the point of publicly shaming officers. Or at-least maybe we don't always need to, sometimes it's definitely called for.

> At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there needs to be individual accountability.

I don't think any actions by any individual police officer is likely to scale far.

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

#309

Post by nashashmi » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

cellularmitosis wrote: post #276

nashashmi wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I think those are social justice warrior points blind to the actual tasks and responsibilities of an officer. It’s a list of all the things they should not be allowed to do.

Enforcers of policy in any field have some commonalities. One of them is I will check on another but I won’t like someone checking on me. Unless they are just like me ie responsible for doing checks.

There is an understandable amount of leeway put into these things. Inspectors try not to be total jerks. And try not to push rules to extremes. And when they do, they do it with a camaraderie, like if you improve on the following I will let go everything else. Similar to police officers.

But the average joe who is not versed in such things like young unseasoned citizens have stranger expectations.

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

#310

Post by otterley » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #300

pseudalopex wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You’re really going off the rails and should stop. If you want to argue the law, that’s fine (to a point). But you’re starting to question others’ motivations and that’s not acceptable.