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

91–100 of 326 posts

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

#91

Post by dctoedt »

marsdepinski wrote: post #63

Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?

> Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police dept to pay royalties?

Yes, but under current law, states can ignore the royalty requirement with impunity: "[C]opyright owners suffering infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies provided by the Copyright Act." [0]

Police departments are almost certain to be held to be state entities, I'd think, and therefore immune from individual personal liability for copyright infringement liability.

And the doctrine of "qualified immunity" might shield the police officer from personal liability for infringement as well.

But I haven't looked into this specific issue.

(Usual disclaimer: I'm an IP lawyer but not your lawyer.)

[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/

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

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

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

To the currently politically powerful who disproportionately control what is done by government, no.

To people on the other side of that power imbalance? Well, who do you think the mobs are, and why do they use that mechanism instead of the formal political system to attempt to impose accountability?

Obviously, not a desirable durable state of affairs, the desirable condition is to resolve the power imbalance in the formal systems. But if you can't convince those who control those systems that the systems they control will be forcibly rendered irrelevant if the imbalance in them persists, that is unlikely.

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

#95

Post by LegitShady »

cwkoss wrote: post #89
jiveturkey wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that more or less happened. all BD players required to implement audio fingerprinting

What is BD in this context?

I assume blu-ray disc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia

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

#97

Post by SauciestGNU »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #59
brewdad wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, it may not be the most constructive way of dealing with police abuses, but it's one of the vanishingly few consequences police have faced for their malfeasance and unfettered violence.

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

#98

Post by heavyset_go »

moron4hire wrote: post #74

I've been seeing videos on TikTok and such of cops using tape to cover up people's security cameras at their homes when approaching the front door. I don't care why the cop is there, that should be at least a firable offense on the first occurance .

The irony is that body cameras for police are sold to departments as devices that keep the "lying public" from accusing cops of doing things they didn't do. They have no problem shoving cameras in other people's faces, but if someone records cops, then it's the end of the world.

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

#99

Post by robbrown451 »

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…

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.")

The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.

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

#100

Post by lucideer »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #49
lucideer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow; what need the gp be careful of? (I do see the post is now flagged but presume that's users disagreeing & abusing the flag button as it's within guidelines; I see what users may disagree with but still don't see what they should be "careful" about)

I copied/quoted the part from the GP that stood out to me. I was just gobsmacked that the GP was glad precincts were burned down. I'm weary of mob and vigilante "justice".

Ah; the edit makes more sense.

We're each entitled to our own perspective, but fwiw, I think you'll struggle to find any cohort less accountable than the police. Whereas "the mob", being traditionally a phrase used broadly by established powers to derogate the opposition, is almost by definition always the cohort held most to account in any given situation.

Furthermore, perhaps one of the biggest false assumptions many seem to have about abolition movements is that there isn't reasoned proposals for (existing or new) accountable institutions to fill potential voids left by abolition.

Post reply on HN