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

51–60 of 326 posts

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

#51

Post by brewdad »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #4
pope_meat wrote: post #2

That's pretty clever, they know that an individual with a video can be dealt with a lot easier than a viral video where the whole public gets to see the behavior. I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD

>"I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD" Be careful what you wish for..... Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?

> Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?

Considering cops currently face accountability that approaches 0, yes.

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

#52

Post by parineum »

lucideer wrote: post #27
DevKoala wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so because the officer isn’t posting the video online. Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces.

IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.

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

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

#53

Post by sjg007 »

jollybean wrote: post #22
otterley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be hilarious (and also poetic justice) if Taylor Swift (or whomever the copyright holder is) sued the Alameda County Sheriff's department for copyright violation and demanded maximum statutory penalties. EDIT: Bummer, it looks like this route is not available to the copyright holder, since states have sovereign immunity against copyright infringement claims. See _Allen v. Cooper_, 589 U.S. ____ (2020).

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…

It might be considered a public performance. In contrast to playing the radio in your backyard.

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

#54

Post by ortusdux »

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.

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

#55

Post by 015a »

akersten wrote: post #23
015a wrote: post #20

To some degree I understand the cop's position. The internet is an insanely dangerous echo chamber. The vast, VAST majority of police interactions are not that. The vast majority of police interactions are well-meaning officers maintaining public order. This doesn't excuse the interactions which are unrighteous and deserve to be exposed, possibly including the interaction that these people were protesting. The office…

> when the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's fine" (good on him!); The fact that he plays the copyrighted track is evidence that his statement about "oh, sure, of course you can record ;)" was not made in good faith. I give the officer zero benefit of the doubt here. Transparency is necessary in all police interactions in public, not just the ones that are "bad enough to excuse a little Taylor Swift.…

You are conflating the Court of Public Opinion with the Court of Law.

The Court of Public Opinion is the court that drives teens to suicide through internet bullying, that accused the wrong man of bombing the Boston Marathon, and killing students at Sandy Hook, even suggesting Sandy Hook didn't happen. That's the internet.

The standards for evidence on the internet are low, and tempers are high. Transparency in "all" public police interactions isn't necessary, just like transparency in "all" doctor interactions isn't necessary in order to judge doctor competency. Its an infuriating distraction; it gives you an excuse to be angry about everything. And moreover; media outlets fuel this outrage machine by purposefully omitting context and nuance in order to drive clicks.

You believe you're using a critical eye to analyze these situations. You're not. This is undeniable, because it is difficult even for the people there, at the scene, to analyze a complex situation like these critically, to have all the information, and understand if the right call was or was not made, let alone someone sitting in a dark room in their basement a thousand miles away getting all of their information from Buzzfeed and The Verge.

Its the job of the Court of Law to look past the Taylor Swift; they're held to a higher standard, just as officers themselves are. That doesn't mean mistakes aren't made. But those mistakes are not an excuse to break the system and raise tensions in every police interaction. This will only lead to more violence.

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

#57

Post by Veserv »

scotuswroteus wrote: post #5

Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating the copyright?

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/

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

#58

Post by jazzyjackson »

parineum wrote: post #52
lucideer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.

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

Broadcasting the music performance live in public to prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.

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

#59

Post by BitwiseFool »

brewdad wrote: post #51
BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD" Be careful what you wish for..... Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police?

> Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs will be more accountable than the police? Considering cops currently face accountability that approaches 0, yes.

I just don't how see burning down precinct buildings leads to anything better. A controversial opinion, it seems.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

mannerheim wrote: post #32
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be hard to prove unless there is an unofficial department email going around on tips and tricks to avoid pesky recorders. Sorry for the cynicism.

He explicitly states his motive for playing the music on tape.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN