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

311–320 of 326 posts

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

#311

Post by dghlsakjg »

moistly wrote: post #296
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?

The intent of the officers, combined with the fact that they are agents of the government matter a great deal here.

If this was a regular citizen with intent to cause copyright strikes it would not be an issue.

The fact that these officers are acting on behalf of the government means that it is arguably the government acting to restrict the distribution of these videos.

In the US, there are strong restrictions on officers acting in a way that could have a 'chilling effect' (legal term) free speech.

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

#313

Post by pseudalopex »

robbrown451 wrote: post #289
pseudalopex wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.

What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."

I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.

There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.

I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.

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

#314

Post by pseudalopex »

robbrown451 wrote: post #290
pseudalopex wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.

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

#316

Post by robbrown451 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #313
robbrown451 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case. What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair u…

This discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying):

"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."

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

#317

Post by robbrown451 »

posguy wrote: post #269
googlryas wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your expert understanding of the law, no person is ever allowed to listen to music while working if someone else happens to be near them. Gotcha.

It is permissible to rebroadcast Radio and Television broadcasts for small businesses with certain limitations, but anything else requires paying for licensing: https://www.nfib.com/content/news/legal/you-might-need-a-lic...

This is obviously very different from playing it in a business where the music is used to attract or entertain customers.

It's mind blowing to me that people on Hacker News don't see the absurdity of enforcing copyright law as you are suggesting. This article sums it up well:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml

"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."

Is that really the world you want? Geez.

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

#318

Post by scotuswroteus »

otterley wrote: post #259
scotuswroteus wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how is Disney suing school boards for showing the Lion King?

They're not. Their licensing agency sent them a bill; they didn't file a lawsuit. Also, it was a PTA, not a school board. Also, they're not trying to collect anymore: Disney C.E.O. Apologizes to P.T.A. Asked to Pay After ‘Lion King’ Screening - link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/lion-king-berkeley-mov...

The subhead of the NYT article specifically describes the demand as against the school. I can re-ask the question with the distinction: if there's sovereign immunity, what gives Disney's licensing agent the authority to demand the school pay a fee?

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

#319

Post by otterley »

robbrown451 wrote: post #295
pseudalopex wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I assure you, I know this stuff

Where did you go to law school, exactly?

Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c).

And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.

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

#320

Post by Rams95 »

varispeed wrote: post #142
ortusdux wrote: post #54

IIRC, a while back that the MPAA was pushing for a law that would require video cameras to stop recording if they detected a specific trigger. The intent was to prevent people from filming in movie theaters, similar to the EURion watermarking constellation found on most bank notes. I can't imagine how things would have turned out if that technology had become standard and inevitably abused.

In many Android phones you can't record calls and call recording apps don't work. When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident happened."

Is there any app on playstore / apk out there that reliably fulfills the job for both phone and VoIP calls?
Post reply on HN