11 ms·

No, the police are not breaching copyright by playing music, it's very obviously the person doing the filming and posting to public channels that is breaking co

by jariel 6y ago

No, the police are not breaching copyright by playing music, it's very obviously the person doing the filming and posting to public channels that is breaking copyright if anything is being broken. Playing music to yourself is 100% legal. Making videos of content of said music, and posting to YouTube, is not. "I'll hold my breath while the individual police officers are pursued for these egregious copyright violations" So given that it's the person filming that is breaking the law, and not the cop, I'll assume you'd point the same disdain for those individuals egregious breaking the law?

vixen99 6y ago
No copyright broken if the music is filtered out prior to upload to a public platform. At the same time, deliberately playing music while conducting an activity that entails conversational interchange is clearly a ploy to prevent that which I understand to be (perhaps incorrectly) a lawful activity in the US. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-a...
sunderw 6y ago
Considering the police officer is on duty and inside the precinct - which is aimed at serving the public, I wouldn't consider this "playing music to yourself". Otherwise, every employee in bars and restaurants could "play music to themselves", without paying anything and without infringing copyrights ?
- jariel 6y ago
  That he is on duty is irrelevant. If he's playing music for himself - even one other person, it's not a public performance. The arguments being made here are infantile, and embarrassing. Because people 'hate cops' (shameful), they use magical thinking to twist even common sense upside down. The person making a video public is the person making something public, not the cop.
mannerheim 6y ago
> What is a public performance? > A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances). https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing > Generally speaking, public performances are very broadly interpreted under the law and are defined as performing “at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” This has been interpreted to mean that most performances at so-called private clubs and fraternal organizations are “public” under the copyright law. https://www.bbb.org/council/for-businesses/toolkits/bbb-brochure-music-in-the-market-place https://www.bbb.org/council/for-businesses/toolkits/bbb-broc... It's a place open to the public, so it is a public performance.
- jariel 6y ago
  "It's a place open to the public, so it is a public performance. " No, that's not a rational inference. Care to take a moment and search the case law for this? Given that millions of people play music in public every day, can you find even a single instance of case law that supports the absurd claims in this thread? No? Nobody ever charged for listening to music themselves? This comment really helps to highlight how badly HN melts down in the face of facts they don't like. By your argument, playing music at the beach or at the office, even to yourself is a against the law. It's a false argument based on a magical reading of the code. It is 100% legal for someone to play music for themselves, full stop. This is not one of those issues that IP lawyers just don't pursue because it's not worth it, rather, they don't pursue it because they cannot. Just because you are 'in public' does not mean you are giving a public performance. Otherwise every radio everywhere would be banned, or come with a warning label. If you are playing music in your store, for customers, you may be breaking IP law. If you play it for a large number of employees, maybe. If you play it as part of a performance intended for the public and have a public audience, then probably. And of course, if you film someone listening to music - real or rehearsed (like a cop) - and put it up on YouTube you're probably breaking copyright. Maybe.
  - mannerheim 6y ago

by jariel 6y ago

vixen99 6y ago

No copyright broken if the music is filtered out prior to upload to a public platform. At the same time, deliberately playing music while conducting an activity that entails conversational interchange is clearly a ploy to prevent that which I understand to be (perhaps incorrectly) a lawful activity in the US. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-a...

sunderw 6y ago

Considering the police officer is on duty and inside the precinct - which is aimed at serving the public, I wouldn't consider this "playing music to yourself". Otherwise, every employee in bars and restaurants could "play music to themselves", without paying anything and without infringing copyrights ?

jariel 6y ago
That he is on duty is irrelevant. If he's playing music for himself - even one other person, it's not a public performance. The arguments being made here are infantile, and embarrassing. Because people 'hate cops' (shameful), they use magical thinking to twist even common sense upside down. The person making a video public is the person making something public, not the cop.

mannerheim 6y ago

> What is a public performance? > A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances). https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-licensing > Generally speaking, public performances are very broadly interpreted under the law and are defined as performing “at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” This has been interpreted to mean that most performances at so-called private clubs and fraternal organizations are “public” under the copyright law. https://www.bbb.org/council/for-businesses/toolkits/bbb-brochure-music-in-the-market-place https://www.bbb.org/council/for-businesses/toolkits/bbb-broc... It's a place open to the public, so it is a public performance.

jariel 6y ago
"It's a place open to the public, so it is a public performance. " No, that's not a rational inference. Care to take a moment and search the case law for this? Given that millions of people play music in public every day, can you find even a single instance of case law that supports the absurd claims in this thread? No? Nobody ever charged for listening to music themselves? This comment really helps to highlight how badly HN melts down in the face of facts they don't like. By your argument, playing music at the beach or at the office, even to yourself is a against the law. It's a false argument based on a magical reading of the code. It is 100% legal for someone to play music for themselves, full stop. This is not one of those issues that IP lawyers just don't pursue because it's not worth it, rather, they don't pursue it because they cannot. Just because you are 'in public' does not mean you are giving a public performance. Otherwise every radio everywhere would be banned, or come with a warning label. If you are playing music in your store, for customers, you may be breaking IP law. If you play it for a large number of employees, maybe. If you play it as part of a performance intended for the public and have a public audience, then probably. And of course, if you film someone listening to music - real or rehearsed (like a cop) - and put it up on YouTube you're probably breaking copyright. Maybe.
- mannerheim 6y ago