34 ms·
Police playing music while being filmed, seemingly to trigger copyright filters
- meowface 6y agoDiabolical, but I'd be lying if I didn't say this is a clever hack.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 1-6 6y agoTime for a technology company to come in to create a service that emits some form of A/V and trigger DRM enforcement procedures. Imagine when sporting events start to implement this to jam social media sharing.
- imtyler 6y agoApple patented a system to do this in 2016[1] but has yet to implement it afaik. [1]https://m.dpreview.com/news/0190365065/apple-patents-system-for-disabling-cameras-in-no-photography-areas https://m.dpreview.com/news/0190365065/apple-patents-system-...
- bitwize 6y agoLaw enforcement can break the law.
- wtallis 6y agoDo you mean that law enforcement can get away with breaking the law, or do you mean that the law permits law enforcement to break the law? Either way, your comment seems overbroad and comes across as uselessly snarky.
- bitwize 6y agoThe law permits law enforcement to break laws (e.g., buying or selling drugs) if it serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Breaking copyright law would almost certainly be covered.
- 23iofj 6y ago> if it serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose What legitimate law enforcement purpose is being served here?
- Wistar 6y agoBut do the police have the proper BMI/ASCAP license for public performance?
- eftychis 6y agoWill be interesting if they pick the wrong company and get sued for that in the process.
- sneak 6y agoLarge businesses do not generally seek to enforce their rights against the police as the police are responsible for breaking the law to keep those businesses humming away. Indeed, many businesses large and small give free goods and services to the police for exactly this reason.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago*Laughs manically in UK*. In UK playing commercial radio at work is a breach of copyright if anyone else can hear. Police departments were notably targeted by copyright associations. They similarly targeted people like solo garage mechanics: they work alone with commercial radio playing in their private workshop ... but if a customer comes up then they're technically breaching public broadcast provisions. So, you find solo workers and send a copyright association enforcer to see them ... if they can hear a radio (or other music, even on a properly licensed TV) from a publicly accessible area then they can successfully sue! I used to work in a shop, the copyright people would ring, there'd be 10s of silence on the line presumably as they try and catch us listening to music. We used CC0 and other similar music but the repeated suggestions 'you have to have a license to play any music' made us fear being sued, so we stopped.
- lhorie 6y agoSo what happens if the person filming starts playing a different song? I don't imagine the filter would be smart enough to make out the two different songs playing at the same time?
- account-5 6y agoI'm glad someone said it this is genius if that was the intent.
- Deestan 6y agoThis is one of infinitely many ways to act without responsibility and obstruct justice for police brutality victims. It should not be praised.
- austincheney 6y agoThe article indicated no such thing.
- sschueller 6y agoWhy is it not possible for individuals to just pay a fee like a radio station to not get copyright striked? There are so many solutions for industry like listening devices for venues that figure out what was played so that licensing can be processed. I see this yet as another failure of the RIAA to get a leg up and provide a win-win solution. Instead these idiots are stuck in their old thinking until it's too late and someone else will once again "steal" a huge part of their profit. Apple is one that took such a chunk from them because they sat around.
- thephyber 6y agoIt still shouldn't be needed. This situation is a great example of Fair Use Doctrine.
- ARandomerDude 6y agoI would assume radio stations have contracts that allow them to, quite literally, pay to play.
- monocasa 6y agoThey pay the songwriters, but interestingly enough don't have to pay the artists for broadcast rights at least in the US. https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties
- michael1999 6y agoSome media in some jurisdictions have compulsory licensing, but music recordings in the USA do not. Licenses are discretionary. I.e. must be negotiated from the owner. Part of that negotiation is about leverage and bundling (you can buy our hits but not without also buying all the crap) and gives a whole industry of middlemen jobs. A-la-cart licensing would be a disaster for some of the goons in RIAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
- zimpenfish 6y ago> Why is it not possible for individuals to just pay a fee like a radio station to not get copyright striked? Worked for some people trying to get that kind of thing going with the record companies but they were beyond ambivalent about it. (As well they might be given that money rolls in without much effort on their part.)
- miguelmota 6y agoDoes the cop playing the music qualify as a public performance if the citizens are the audience?
- filoleg 6y agoI think the idea is not to get hit with a "public performance" charge, but to have the video get automatically taken down on Youtube/Twitch/Instagram once it gets uploaded (due to the algorithm detecting copyright-infringing material). And for that purpose, it doesn't matter whether it was a public performance or not. I can make a video of me sitting in a chair with a copyrighted song playing in the background, and it will get taken down. Hardly what I would call a "public performance".
- jedberg 6y agoThe point is people should turn around and try to nail the cops for illegal public performances.
- mgkimsal 6y agothanks - came here to say the same thing. does the police department pay the appropriate BMI license to be able to blast out those tunes in public?
- postalrat 6y agoYou can try. I'm sure the cops will just start playing songs by artists who approve of cops playing but don't approve of the songs appearing in the background of social media posts.
- airhead969 6y agoDo the labels and/or RIAA police that over the objection or permission of the artists?
- 6y ago
- tehwebguy 6y agoArticle says they are playing Santeria by Sublime. Perhaps they should be playing April 29th 1992 by the same band, or does their cognitive dissonance actually have a limit?
- barbs 6y agoThe tweet is mostly just a link to this article: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxb94/is-this-beverly-hills-cop-playing-sublimes-santeria-to-avoid-being-livestreamed https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxb94/is-this-beverly-hills...
- alex_young 6y agoThis really should be the article link.
- 99_00 6y agoCitizens aren't prevented from filming. They are prevented from uploading video to social media. There is an important difference. In this case I suspect the person filming is well known to the police for filming and has a long history of interaction with them.
- saagarjha 6y agoI don't think anyone is claiming that playing music is preventing people from filming?
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThere have been proposals to have hardware refuse to record copyrighted works. Though of course if that was the context then "citizens aren't prevented from filming" wouldn't be true anyway.
- jedberg 6y agoAn argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. If they put their hand in front of the lens, are they preventing recording? If they take the phone and put it in a box but leave it on, are they preventing recording?
- 99_00 6y ago>An argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. I'd be interested in hearing that argument. Please go ahead and make it.
- jedberg 6y agoThe act of recording is making a record of an event. The recording isn't complete until the record is made permanent. If you're live-streaming to social media, the record is being created on the social media site. The recording is not complete until it is saved on that site.
- soheil 6y agoHow hard is it to mute the mic when streaming?
- detaro 6y agoWhat's being said is often kind of important too.
- kgwxd 6y agoWhat they're saying matters too much
- ARandomerDude 6y agoEspecially with masks. You can't even guess what's being said by lip reading obvious mouth movements.
- dfxm12 6y agoSgt. Billy Fair is silent, and only starts speaking after we’re a good way through Sublime’s “Santeria.” Isn't this Fair use? :)
- detaro 6y agoautomated "copyright enforcement" mechanisms don't make that distinction, and appeals against them have the same success rate you can expect against any other big-tech automated moderation - not good.
- chris_wot 6y agoWell in that case I think the cops should be sued for copyright infringement.
- montebicyclelo 6y agoI guess at some point platforms will stop removing media that contains copyrighted audio, and instead just remove the copyrighted audio from the media. (?)
- Ansil849 6y agoYoutube already does or did this. I remember multiple videos that had no audio and a notification that the audio has been removed owing to a copyright complaint.
- montebicyclelo 6y agoAh, I meant extracting the copyrighted audio signal from the remaining audio signal, and leaving the remaining signal.
- Ansil849 6y agoI'm not sure how feasible that would be if someone is talking over a song playing...
- tenebrisalietum 6y agoIf human beings can tell the difference between speech and background audio while both are playing simultaneously, it has to be possible somehow for a machine to do it.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThis is certainly something that humans do, but they do have a significant error rate.
- Udik 6y agoGiven that copyrighted audio is- more or less by definition- available as a separate track without interference, it shouldn't be too difficult to subtract it from the video's track.
- jMyles 6y agoIs this at all surprising? The same thing will happen in places that are trying to restrict filming of children without their parents consent. Cops will find a kid, make sure they're in frame, and use that as their pretext. All anti-filming laws are subject to abuse by police. Police and cameras (or more broadly, executive power and documentary vision) have a very special relationship in society, and if the latter isn't given absolute latitude, the former will take the offered inch and subsume the right entirely.
- zeruch 6y agoSounds like a great use case for an upsurge in bittorrent traffic again...
- jedberg 6y agoThe real problem here is that there is no consequence for incorrect takedowns. If content is taken down and then it turns out to be fair use, no one suffers a penalty. The DMCA and similar laws provide protection to the platform if they act quickly on takedown notices, but the law needs to be updated to provide penalties for the reporter for inappropriate takedowns. This would allow Google/Facebook/et al to change their tools from automatic takedown to reporting the violation to the copyright holder, and then it is up to the copyright holder to file a claim. If perhaps the copyright holder makes too many erroneous claims, they lose their copyright altogether. Let the platforms be neutral, put the liability on the copyright violators and copyright holders equally, so both have a reason to act fairly.
- theelous3 6y ago> they lose their copyright altogether Big no to this, as that can and would be abused by scavengers, but the rest is sane and broadly agreed to be the way. What tou want instead is fines by revenue / income.
- jedberg 6y ago> Big no to this, as that can and would be abused by scavengers How would scavengers abuse this?
- theelous3 6y agoYou hold a copyright I want. I fraudulently pose as you and make dcma claims until you lose your copyright.
- joshuaissac 6y agoA solution is to require that the DMCA notice contains proof of ownership of the copyright (or proof that you are acting as an agent of the verified copyright holder).
- jedberg 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Ansil849 6y agoJust another of the myriad examples of how the DMCA is abused with no repercussions to the abusers at all. Remember when Youtube removed a video of someone in their garden with the rationale that the sounds of birds chirping infringed on some company's copyright [1]? And then they upheld the removal even following manual review, so the tired refrain that it was just an automated bot was not even applicable. [1] https://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ https://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/
- eftychis 6y agoI am amazed I am going to say this, but the issue is not with the DMCA but with Google/YouTube allowing a bypass of DMCA. If you read carefully, you will see they refer in the cited case to the Content Id system. In that case Google allows the claimants to verify that it is indeed their content and takes their word for it with no repercussions. If the company above had made a false DMCA claim they would be in rough water, as DMCA provides the tooling for damages etc and "countersueing." Essentially Google found a way to produce something worse than DMCA in all aspects besides automation and angering their product (that is the users and content creators).
- Ansil849 6y agoI think what you say is technically true (technically speaking in the cited case the issue is indeed with the Content ID system), but the broader issue is absolutely with the DMCA because the whole reason Google/Youtube implemented Content ID is to cut down on the number of actual DMCA requests they receive. In other words, without DMCA there would very likely be no Content ID.
- eftychis 6y agoYes of course; the source is the music copyright spirit that has been assumed by legislation over years.
- flycaliguy 6y agoBypassing the DMCA doesn’t make life harder for owners of publishing rights. It makes life easier and I assume is a consequence of a negotiation with major publishers.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y agoThe real problem is that the cops face no recourse for blatantly defying a law they're suppose to follow - these are people that are, after all, suppose to enforce the law.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoWhat law are they defying by playing music? Motives aside, in principle, if people should be allowed to film why should they not be allowed to play music?
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y agoIn 12 states, you are NOT allowed to film cops. This implies that in the other 38 states, the public has decided you are allowed. Law is subjective by spirit, and playing music so that anyone filming you cannot legally share the film seems like a violation of the spirit of the law.
- dogsgobork 6y agoThere are 12 states where you can't secretly record the police, or at least audio record the police, due to wiretap consent laws. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...
- SoylentYellow 6y agoThe two/all party consent laws are unconstitutional when applied to filming police in public. Unfortunately, not all Federal Appellate Courts have had cases to made that ruling.
- ScoobleDoodle 6y agoIn the US the above is not correct. Excerpts from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police#:~:text=Although%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20has,have%20directly%20upheld%20this%20right https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme.... > You have a First Amendment right to record the police. Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right. EFF has advocated for this right in many amicus briefs. > The right to record the police unequivocally includes the right to take pictures and record video. There is an added legal wrinkle when recording audio—whether with or without video. Some police officers have argued that recording audio without their consent violates wiretap laws. Courts have generally rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that the Illinois wiretap statute violated the First Amendment as applied to audio recording on-duty police officers. > There are two kinds of wiretaps laws: those that require “all parties” to a conversation to consent to audio recording (12 states), and those that only require “one party” to consent (38 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal statute). Thus, if you’re in a one-party consent state, and you’re involved in an incident with the police (that is, you’re a party to the conversation) and you want to record audio of that interaction, you are the one party consenting to the recording and you don’t also need the officer’s consent. If you’re in an all-party consent state, and your cell phone or recording device is in plain view, your open audio recording puts the officer on notice and thus their consent might be implied. > Additionally, wiretap laws in both all-party consent states and one-party consent states typically only prohibit audio recording of private conversations—that is, when the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Police officers exercising their official duties in public do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to police officers in a manner audible to passersby. Thus, if you’re a bystander and want to audio record an officer’s interaction with another person in a public space, regardless of whether you’re in a state with an all-party or one-party consent wiretap statute, you may audio record the encounter.
- xwdv 6y agoCan’t you just delete the audio
- LinuxBender 6y agoThis is just a suggestion and I am not a lawyer and this is probably in the gray area and a bad idea, but one could upload the videos their own site (server) then embed links to the files on your social media platforms. Each platform could censor your post, but the video would remain. If you are truly violating copyrights, then you could of course lose your domain or face legal repercussions, but if this is a case of a bot being overly aggressive, then it might avoid the problem. The only reason I could see hosting a video on platforms like Youtube would be if you wanted to monetize it or expected a significantly large number of simultaneous viewers. Even then, you can downsize/optimize it for mobile viewers and then link to a full size version for media outlets to use.
- adolph 6y agoWouldn't the copyright holder just DCMA the hosting provider for the entire domain?
- LinuxBender 6y agoThat was one points I called out. If this is really a copyright holder sending notifications, then yes you could lose your domain. I suspect that is not what is happening though. I suspect these are bots that detect what music is in a video and automatically pull it down. It might be people clicking a button to "report" a video and then the bot listens to it. Well, the bots can't do that if the file is not under their control. But yes, you could lose your domain or worse if you are in fact intentionally violating copyrights.
- Hiopl 6y agoDMCA is ironically fairer towards end users and actually recognizes fair use and provides avenues to appeal. YT is draconian and unfair by comparison and fair use doesn't exist to them.
- idownvoted 6y agoWow. Two things: 1) That, of all police departments in the world, this is done by Beverly Hills Cops is a sign, that we're living in a simulation 2) How broken must a society be, if all of the outrage is directed towards police officers playing filter-triggering music and not towards the environment in wich this becomes a thing in the first place. Assuming that Beverly Hills is not the economically worst-off part of the US, I wonder if this is again another example of class-war in disguise (i.e. upper class kids pretending to be civil rights leaders by forcing working class officers to be their youtube material).
- apozem 6y agoWhat are you talking about? They're providing accountability for the actions of armed agents of the state, people with a literal license to kill. They're not forcing officers to do unboxing videos.
- leereeves 6y agoHow does one person have enough interesting interactions with the police to build a channel about that? They must be actively trying to create entertaining encounters. That's quite different from someone who posts a single bad encounter to be held accountable. He seems to be provoking the police for profit.
- tclancy 6y ago>How does one person have enough interesting interactions with the police to build a channel about that? By having a different background and life experience from yours. Stretch a little.
- leereeves 6y agoHe's a white guy from Santa Monica. The only clear difference in our life experience is that he's built a business out of posting videos about the police. His YouTube channel is full of interesting examples of manufactured content. For example, he has videos of feeding expired meters after "meter maids" have already seen the meter, then arguing with them; filing multiple complaints at police stations; and refusing to take DUI tests at checkpoints. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzSRcnANzs5BourVavBoe9A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzSRcnANzs5BourVavBoe9A He also sells daily lists of DUI checkpoints. https://mrcheckpoint.com/alerts/checkpoints/ https://mrcheckpoint.com/alerts/checkpoints/ I'm absolutely in favor of holding bad cops accountable, but he doesn't seem to be targeting bad cops, just whatever cop is unlucky enough to be assigned to the area where he's working that day.
- tqi 6y agoEveryone here seems to be focused on the copyright laws, and not the behavior of this officer, which to me feels misplaced blame.
- interestica 6y ago> just trying to share his love of ’90s stoner music with the citizens of Beverly Hills I take offense to that. Also, I fully expected the officer to be playing Inner Circle's "Bad Boys" on a loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4MRmEPNUxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4MRmEPNUxY
- bradly 6y agoSlightly related, but the only way I was able to get a site taken down for a fraudulent listing of my rental property was to file a Trademark/Copyright claim on the photos and description. The fact that had my property with them listed as the owner and their own phone number was not enough.
- eftychis 6y agoThat is really interesting and surprising.
- seiferteric 6y agoGiven the original source song, I would think it should be possible to make some software to strip the song from a video while leaving behind the other sounds no? Maybe using some sort of correlation function or something?
- ghastmaster 6y agoI think a better approach to outright blocking the infringing, or presume to be infringing content, would be developing software that identifies the infringing audio and removes it using sound cancellation. This would require the claimant to submit a sample of the infringed content and an algorithm to add a layer of opposite polarity audio or alteration of the actual original layer. The same would be more difficult with video, but could be done eventually.: This approach would require a great amount of initial investment. It would have to be designed to deal with frequency shifted audio as well.
- GoodJokes 6y agoDefund the police.
- Tenoke 6y agoSo for the next step we need an easy to use ML service for removing protected (or all) music but not speech from videos.
- rzzzt 6y agoNVIDIA has ML-based noise suppression functionality in the form of RTX Voice. There is also Krisp.ai, a similar product for noise canceling; they have written up an overview of the difficulties involved on the NVIDIA Developer Blog, interestingly enough (it seems they were called 2hz.ai back then): - https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/nvidia-rtx-voice-setup-guide/#RTX-Voice https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/guides/nvidia-rtx-voice... - https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-real-time-noise-suppression-deep-learning/ https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-real-time-noise-sup... - https://krisp.ai/blog/nvidia-rtx-voice-krisp/ https://krisp.ai/blog/nvidia-rtx-voice-krisp/
- JadoJodo 6y agoI am 100% for accountability in policing, but I find it telling the number of these kinds of videos that don't show the full context and are instead 30s clips of the middle/worst part of the interaction.
- katsura 6y agoHe actually has a 5 minutes long video about the first interaction: https://www.instagram.com/p/CLCpHBQjX8r/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CLCpHBQjX8r/
- tclancy 6y agoWhat is the point of this comment if you don't back it with receipts? The videos are available, you could make the effort to find out but chose to post this instead.
- stale2002 6y agoWell his point was probably to reference these videos, so you can go look it up yourself if you are interested. Not every comment has to be a multi page long essay. Instead, merely telling people that something exists is useful, so people can search for it later. If you really care so much, then you should feel free to find then yourself.
- account42 6y agoThe police can always release the full recording from their side if they think there is context that is missing.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoThe 30 second clip is to provoke outrage and I guess clicks; the full recording is evidence in a court of law. DMCA will not apply then. I think it's perfectly acceptable to collect your own evidence when it comes to interactions with the police or anything that may end up in a court of law. Which is why it's kinda weird that where I live, you can't use security camera footage from inside your own house if you haven't clearly warned about security cameras being present. Even burglars get privacy protection, apparently.
- Taniwha 6y agoSurely it's the cop performing an unlicensed public performance of a copyrighted work who should be being DCMA'd here .... this video is just evidence of the crime
- floatingatoll 6y agoNo for that scenario the rights owner, Sublime or whomever, must sue for payment and damages for the unauthorized use of their work. Is enough of Sublime still alive to comment?
- tehjoker 6y agoIf only we paid artists from a generous public support of the arts instead of making them scrimp and appeal to rich people or get pennies from individual streamers we could do away with copyright and such filters completely. Musicians would be paid fairly and culture would flourish from not being confined by private entities that buy up the rights to how people express themselves.
- missedthecue 6y agoCould myself and everyone else quit our careers, open a SoundCloud, and start living off the public purse?
- tehjoker 6y agoWhen the Beetles were forming, they lived off the dole in the UK. The dole is credited with creating the music culture of the UK back in the 60s. I imagine that the way the system would work would be some kind of minimum disbursement for everyone, a higher level arts disbursment for people that are recognized to be working or emeritus musicians by their peers, and public contracts worth more money for particular projects. The ceiling of financial success might be lower, but many fewer musicians would be living on ramen for decades or speculating on GameStop out of frustration. The idea is create a system that is explicitly not winner-takes-all.
- bluefirebrand 6y agoThe dole is just welfare bud. The idea that fewer artists would be living the ramen lifestyle on welfare is goofy.
- tehjoker 6y agoI'm not saying we should exactly replicate this system, I'm saying that a more basic version of it produced a cultural boom.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
- pgreenwood 6y agoCould be countered with active noise cancellation paired with Shazam type audio track identication.
- jjk166 6y agoI feel like if you know the song being played (which could also be automatically identified with an algorithm like shazam's) it would be pretty easy to generate an inverse waveform to remove it from a video's audio. It wouldn't be perfect, obviously, but it should screw up the song enough to not set off the copyright filter while leaving the conversation intelligible. On a more general note, respect for the law requires respectable laws. Short sighted laws meant to benefit some special interests implemented without clear and effective safeguards are a would-be tyrant's wet dream. How fortunate we are that these officers blew their load trying to shut down some random guy's interview rather than saving this hack for a special occasion like suppressing a major protest or worse. Imagine the danger of someone more ambitious manipulating the system in analogous ways but on a much larger scale. Who knows what sorts of law-hacks the next wannabe despot is already sitting on? Constant vigilance is the only defense.
- phs318u 6y agoSo, the police in these instances are breaching copyright, specifically "performance rights", which prohibit the public playing of music outside of a circle of family and friends, unless they have received permission from the copyright holders. I'll hold my breath while the individual police officers are pursued for these egregious copyright violations with as much vigour as those receiving take-down notices. https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_of_music_and_what_is_the_performing_right1 https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
- netsharc 6y agoNext time, bring an RIAA lawyer to any cop encounter... Hah, it'll be like the joke of bringing a predator to get rid of some insects in your home, and a predator to get rid of the first predator, and ending up with an apex predator...
- Judgmentality 6y ago> and ending up with an apex predator... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator
- soVeryTired 6y ago“When winter rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.”
- SilasX 6y agoOr the "joke" of arming mujahideen to fight your communist enemy, and then they turn the guns the wrong way.
- magicalhippo 6y agoWhat's preventing them from making their own tune, put it on cdbaby or whatever it was to get it into the content id system, and then issue copyright takedowns? Similar to this[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w
- bentcorner 6y agoI like to think I came up with this idea first and posed the question to the legaladviceofftopic subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/8zpudx/play_copywrited_music_in_public_to_ensure_videos/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/8zpudx... IANAL so I can't claim the top answers are correct but it was an interesting discussion so take away what you will. Edit: If the police played a song that they had the rights to it would mean that they themselves could issue the takedown requests, but it means the uploader could file a counter-notice and the rightsholder needs to a) Show Google they filed a lawsuit to defend their copyright within 10 days, and b) Prove that the infringement is not fair use
- Jkvngt 6y agoWhy do people still put things on services which follow takedown requests? It's kind of silly to rely on these gigantic oppressive corporations to get your message out when we have, say Bittorrent over i2p which is practically censorship proof. There is a technical barrier to freedom these days. And if you can't overcome it, the societal equivalent to the laws of physics mean that you don't DESERVE freedom.
- judge2020 6y agoEvery big service has to honor DMCA takedown requests. In fact, every service in the US needs to honor them lest they want to become a party in a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoMost of them are far more aggressive about taking things down than the DMCA requires and they also don't allow counter-claims that would be allowed if they were actually following the DMCA. If it was just a DMCA takedown request, then the uploader would basically just have to say that it's not copyright infringement and then the only recourse for the takedown requester would be to take the uploader to court.
- guerrilla 6y agoBecause most people don't know how to use anything else or it's not easy enough. It's that simple.
- Jkvngt 6y agoThen these people do not deserve privacy or freedom in the current age we live in.
- paulmd 6y ago> Why do people still put things on services which follow takedown requests? It's kind of silly to rely on these gigantic oppressive corporations to get your message out when we have, say Bittorrent over i2p which is practically censorship proof. and yet you are here, posting on a non-free (as in speech) corporate service where your views might be censored. you're not helping! why is that, leon? > if you can't overcome it, the societal equivalent to the laws of physics mean that you don't DESERVE freedom big yikes, capital-L libertarian here. hey guys just bootstrap your way into not being oppressed by police! I guess the Libertarian answer here is to start a competing police force that could prevent the police from oppressing you by force of arms? Let me know when you get around to it, I'll file the FBI tip, they aren't too keen on that stuff after last month.
- salawat 6y agoSolution: Any arrest, detainment, or evidence collected with copyrighted music in the background originating from officer controlled equipment becomes inadmissible in court. Repeated infractions stand as grounds for dismissal of an officer for conduct unbecoming. Sit back, bust out the popcorn, and settle in for the hilarity that ensues. Apologies to any forensics specialists whose habit is to do their work with music on. I mean. If we're going for passive aggression, let's do it right. Your move lawman. Also, screw the absurdity of our legal system in this regard.
- refurb 6y agoYou didn't think this through did you?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- blitz_skull 6y agoAll politics aside, this is clever as hell.
- riknos314 6y agoI believe that under copyright law playing music in this manner constitutes a "public performance" which, unless explicitly authorized by the copyright holder, is a copyright infringement by the officer. Couldn't this backfire with copyright cases against the police?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gowld 6y agoNo, playing music for yourself and a person standing next to you is not a public performance.
- bustin 6y agoIt only took a few months! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24372036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24372036 Should have seen who would be the main benefactors of this trick though...
- lurker2021 6y agoRegardless of legality i find it very rude to have someone I am speaking to all of a sudden turn on loud music. I think there is room to post a behavior complaint against the officers who do this.
- yarg 6y agoThen google needs to add the ability to detect and remove that background content.
- Havoc 6y agoUS cops seem pretty actively malicious frankly. Must suck for citizens
- lobf 6y agoIt's terrifying
- vmception 6y agoThat’s actually hilarious. Repelling livestreamers with licensed music, like they are vampires and it works! Cops are about to start wearing JBL Clip 3’s on their utility belt.
- lobf 6y agoUgh, this isn't funny in the least bit, and it's just an extension of this apathy towards our society and the other people in it. This is an extreme version of people lying about their pet's support animal status. The police are supposed to defend the law. When you see a uniformed officer, on duty, behind the desk AND on camera, use what he KNOWS to be a cheap abuse of the intent of one law in order to break some other law, you should be really sad about where we've landed as a country. Shouldn't this officer be helping the man behind the camera?
- vmception 6y agoYes, and its also hilarious. Cops in motion picture land use motion picture law to thwart motion picturers. I think there is enough consensus to see that this should be fixed.
- ryanmarsh 6y ago(A cop)
- devlopr 6y agoI'll point out while mostly working youtube has a tool to mute background music while keeping other sounds. If this happens to you not all is lost. A next step could be for the artist to sue the police department for unliceased music. Create a story and it might become a national story.
- saul_goodman 6y agoDoes no one appreciate this as a clever life hack? Well done.
- BlahGod420 6y agoImagine getting your ass kicked to "We will rock you."
- SMAAART 6y ago1. you had to admit, it's pretty creative 2. just mute the audio and post the video with "Audio available upon request" caption.
- shmerl 6y agoCopyright as censorship in action.
- almost_usual 6y agoHow long until a cop does this while playing NWA’s Fuck The Police.
- aaron695 6y agoYour right to record the police is not the right to livestream, it's also not the right to put it on 'Insta' or whatever you want to be cool on. The police are not your 'toys'. They haven't agreed to be a actor in your live performance or 'it's just a prank bro' You record it on your phone for your security. You can back it up to the cloud. This is what adults do. This thread is mostly hysterical awful people. You don't have distal ownership of other human beings.
- TwoBit 6y agoYouTube should provide a service to subtract copyrighted audio from posted content.
- tardismechanic 6y agoOr, you know, someone should
- beaner 6y agoWhat would constitute an "inappropriate takedown"? Just one month ago the popular opinion seemed to be that there is no such thing. Even if the content is benign, it's private companies making private decisions - completely within their right. What's changed, in so little time?
- account42 6y ago> the popular opinion There is no "the" popular opinion.
- xnx 6y agoWith a known song identified, is it feasible for YouTube to silence (subtract) only that song from the audio of recorded video? Seems like that would be within the realm of similar actions they take to blur faces and license plates in streetview images.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoUrl changed from https://twitter.com/jason_koebler/status/1359213426740895744 https://twitter.com/jason_koebler/status/1359213426740895744, which point to this. Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jonathanstrange 6y agoJust a side note, but automatic removal of music would be a good application for AI based DSP processing. There are already companies offering VSTs and hardware for the removal of street noise, dogs barking, etc., but I'm not aware of products for removing background music. Such a product would be interesting for every Youtuber, not just broadcasters. I've seen them literally flee scenes in travel videos because of some music in the background.
- dusted 6y agoEthics aside, that's a clever hack, an elegant way for one broken system to exploit another broken system.
- speeder 6y agoMy wife is a belly dancer. Because Covid, she and her team (yep, those exist!) are practicing remotely using various streaming software. Last training session this saturday, suddenly the teacher stopped everything, and said they would need to change what music they are practicing, after lots of dancers with confused faces, she then said: "Well, Facebook just threatened banning my account permanently if I keep streaming this music, because copyright violation."
- jariel 6y agoThis is a good point, and very sad. I think the DCMA people may want to change their tune on this (pun intended). Playing music among a small group even if they are disparate, is probably actually legal, or it should be.
- matthewmcg 6y agoIf this happens, the artist or record label should sue the police for publicly performing musical compositions and sound recordings without permission!
- davidg109 6y agoI have empathy for not wanting to be filmed, but then why be a member serving the public if this is the case? There is zero expectation of privacy if I’m performing an act in public on the government’s dime.
- rad_gruchalski 6y agoAha, and do these cops pay the license for playing the music in public?
- AngryAboutALot 6y agoFuck that's genius. It's still admissible in court, but cannot be used for "views" on Instagram and social media. Absolutely video tape officers, but the video can only be used for evidence, not for views. Show it to lawyers, not social media. Let the court case results get the views, not the video!