Do people not remember that you can post copyrighted music on youtube?
it’s generally allowed. They just get any money from it.
Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
61–70 of 326 posts
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. One of the rights in the "copyright bundle" is public performance rights, which are reserved exclusively to the copyright holder and their licensees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
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 recordings of police activity would seem unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to the First Amendment.)
[0] a quite controversial position itself.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#63Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#64Isn'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/
The level of bizarre mental gymnastics employed by the otherwise intelligent but obviously cop-hating HN crowd is disturbing.
The cop isn't hiding anything.
YouTube, may decide not to publish something, and that's not 'concealing' anything either.
There's almost a 0% chance that if this went to court on copyright claims, that someone playing music while on the job i.e. cop, insurance adjuster, home appraiser etc. is going to be found in copyright violation.
There's almost a 100% chance that if you film people who are listening to music - and that copyrighted music is in your production ... that's it's going to be in violation.
It's not a perfect civil rights situation, because these laws were not designed for that.
It just is what it is.
Probably they will have to make some policy change for this issue.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#65Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!
It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#66Isn'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/
Not sure I agree with you, reading the opening lines of the code, "that you know to be relevant to a trial, police investigation or other legal proceedings." No trail or police investigation happening means interfering with the video isnt illegal.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like a taxi Taxi drivers do have to pay license fees in some countries. > or even in the office According to the RIAA, you need to license music in order to play it in the office.
The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of copyright law, is a separate thing.
It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of course, this then proves nothing.
That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#68Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating the copyright?
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.
You need a license to play or perform music and other types of copyrighted media in public.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not personally consuming - he's playing the music in public for the purposes of performance (the audience) and broadcast (he knows it is being recorded)! This is willful and flagrant infringement.
I'm not sure how it being recorded makes a difference. If I'm listening to a CD and someone walks up and starts filming me, would I need to stop listening to it because the filmer might post it on youtube?
But thats not what happened.
If you knew you were being recorded, had reason to be believed it would be broadcasted and your stated intention was to turn that otherwise normal and non-infringing broadcast into copyright infringement, ya, you might have an issue with the courts.
Re: Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
#70Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are wearing masks, the captions could turn into bad lipreading memes.
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…
But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now edited, and loses all credibility.