4 ms·

It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, I don't think anybody is going to get them on copyright infringement.

justaguy88 6y ago
It might be easier with copyright, since it wont rely on the local prosecutor to do anything, the artist can sue
- retrac 6y ago
  The copyright holder could sue, which is rarely the artist. In this case it would be Sony.
  - tzs 6y ago
    Paul McCartney got the Beatles catalog back from Sony in mid-2017 [1]. [1] https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rights-win/ https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rig...
  - bogomipz 6y ago
    This would actually fall under a "sync license" which requires approval by both the master rights holder as well as the composition owner which is the artist although it cold be the artist and their publishing company if they have sold shares to them. See "permissions needed" here: https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-synchronization-license/ https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-sy...
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, That's because criminal prosecution is limited to people who have a professional dependency on cooperation by LEOs. Civil prosecution does not, and while individual officers may have qualified immunity, state/local government agencies, including police departments, have no legal privilege to disregard copyright.
- hellohello1 6y ago
  Very true! I bet the RRIA is going to get right on filing a suit against that officer.
  - kordlessagain 6y ago
    The officer didn't do anything wrong and just because police are sometimes unreasonable or unethical, it doesn't mean this officer was either. The officer has a right to do whatever he wants with his phone as well. He could be recording with it, or he can play music with it, without recourse. It's his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that protects him, not the constitution or being an officer. If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone. People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed. I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      If he's on duty he does not have that right. A 16 year old working at McDonald's does not have the right to ignore the boss and play a gameboy (I was 16 in the 90's). Banning music outside cop cars, or over the loud speaker, or on mobile devices while on duty does seem like something they definitely could do and would be within the law.
    - rodone 6y ago
      This is the dumbest possible take.
      - craftinator 6y ago
nipponese 6y ago
Can the state actually prosecute copyright infringement? I thought the suit needs to be brought forward by a private plaintiff .
mobilemidget 6y ago
Don't underestimate Hollywood and alike :) But I can imagine that playing certain music for a large crowd requires a specific license? Something like a radio station?
nitwit005 6y ago
The issue is a failure to pay for something. The cops are deliberately causing the music to be broadcast without paying for the right to do so. I don't see an argument that cops shouldn't have to pay for things working in court.

justaguy88 6y ago

It might be easier with copyright, since it wont rely on the local prosecutor to do anything, the artist can sue

retrac 6y ago
The copyright holder could sue, which is rarely the artist. In this case it would be Sony.
- tzs 6y ago
  Paul McCartney got the Beatles catalog back from Sony in mid-2017 [1]. [1] https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rights-win/ https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rig...
- bogomipz 6y ago
  This would actually fall under a "sync license" which requires approval by both the master rights holder as well as the composition owner which is the artist although it cold be the artist and their publishing company if they have sold shares to them. See "permissions needed" here: https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-synchronization-license/ https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-sy...

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes, That's because criminal prosecution is limited to people who have a professional dependency on cooperation by LEOs. Civil prosecution does not, and while individual officers may have qualified immunity, state/local government agencies, including police departments, have no legal privilege to disregard copyright.

hellohello1 6y ago
Very true! I bet the RRIA is going to get right on filing a suit against that officer.
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  The officer didn't do anything wrong and just because police are sometimes unreasonable or unethical, it doesn't mean this officer was either. The officer has a right to do whatever he wants with his phone as well. He could be recording with it, or he can play music with it, without recourse. It's his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that protects him, not the constitution or being an officer. If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone. People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed. I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    If he's on duty he does not have that right. A 16 year old working at McDonald's does not have the right to ignore the boss and play a gameboy (I was 16 in the 90's). Banning music outside cop cars, or over the loud speaker, or on mobile devices while on duty does seem like something they definitely could do and would be within the law.
  - rodone 6y ago
    This is the dumbest possible take.
    - craftinator 6y ago

nipponese 6y ago

Can the state actually prosecute copyright infringement? I thought the suit needs to be brought forward by a private plaintiff .

mobilemidget 6y ago

Don't underestimate Hollywood and alike :) But I can imagine that playing certain music for a large crowd requires a specific license? Something like a radio station?

nitwit005 6y ago

The issue is a failure to pay for something. The cops are deliberately causing the music to be broadcast without paying for the right to do so. I don't see an argument that cops shouldn't have to pay for things working in court.