15 ms·

Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating the copyright?

by scotuswroteus 5y ago

posguy 5y ago
This would constitute a public performance of a song, I doubt he paid for a license.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  You don't need a public performance license to personally consume music in public. Public performance licenses would be for things like playing a song in a restaurant you run, or in a retail store.
  - tnel77 5y ago
    Cops are bad, so you are wrong.
  - akersten 5y ago
    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.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Eh, knowing that something is being recorded is not broadcasting.
    - SpaceManNabs 5y ago
      That might be hard to prove unless there is an unofficial department email going around on tips and tricks to avoid pesky recorders. Sorry for the cynicism.
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        He explicitly states his motive for playing the music on tape.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      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?
      - MrStonedOne 5y ago
        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.
        robbrown451 5y ago
        Taylor Swift and her record company would be the plaintiff in a copyright case. They cannot claim harm here. It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The public is harmed, not the owner of the content. Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing something that is clearly against the public's interest, making the department look bad. But this is not a copyright case.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      No its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever be brought to court because they played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that a police officer "deserves" it. This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool. The law is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go to jail. Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings. And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine someone, or send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone. The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
      - clucas 5y ago
        You are probably right, but let's play it from the other angle to see why people are suggesting that they try to pursue a copyright claim against the police, using your post but turning it the other way: ---- Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever have a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube because the police played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that the recorder "deserves" it. This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool. The youtube moderation is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go get their video removed. Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings. And any actual normal human being, is not going to remove a video that is attempting to keep the police accountable because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone. The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the youtube algorithm simply do not matter. ---- Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out, citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and this is why you were downvoted.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      No. It is being filmed without his consent. He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance. By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous. He should be fired for other reasons (making the department look bad by attempting to avoid accountability), but he is not violating copyright. Nor would the person filming it be, since "courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work", and this isn't. No one is going to say "I'm not going to pay for Taylor Swift's version because I can just watch this video of a cop playing it on his phone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
      - akersten 5y ago
        > He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends. > By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous. You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression. The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance. I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.
        oh_sigh 5y ago
        No, you're not looking at it like a prosecutor/RIAA goon would, because they have not sued anyone ever for merely playing music on their phone while standing in public. What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the individual words of the phrase based on their common usage, and then saying that your new understanding based on the individual words is how copyright law actually works. If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're doing here with "public performance"
- nkssy 5y ago
  He's certainly wearing the uniform, on the job and using the music for work purposes in a deliberate way. Sounds feasible as a public performance but I'd prefer a legal type's opinion.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I really have no clue. Playing music in public isn't considered copyright violation. Otherwise playing the radio would be unlawful. Edit: Wow, it really is considered unlawful. I reflexively hate the idea that playing a song can be considered violating copyright. Yes, I know there's more to it than just that, but wow.
- otterley 5y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    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'.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > 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.
      - whiddershins 5y ago
        The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of copyright law, is a separate thing.
otterley 5y ago
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).
- jollybean 5y ago
  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 however.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    It might be considered a public performance. In contrast to playing the radio in your backyard.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    He didn't play it for himself.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
      - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
        > He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
DevKoala 5y ago
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.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Public performances violate copyright.
- lucideer 5y ago
  IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.
  - parineum 5y ago
    The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it, is he not?
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      Broadcasting the music performance live in public to prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.
    - throaway3141593 5y ago
      The officer is playing the music knowing that an attempt will be made to distribute the video, while hoping but not knowing for sure that the video will be blocked from distribution. The video could appear on one of many other sites that do a poorer job of screening media or that don't even attempt to do so.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        Intent doesn't require knowing for sure. Intent is just hope associated with an action. If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.
Veserv 5y ago
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/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/
- jollybean 5y ago
  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.
- wedn3sday 5y ago
  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.
  - Veserv 5y ago
    I agree that is the weakest element. Applicability largely hinges on what qualifies as a “police investigation” or “legal proceeding” which I have been unable to get a clear answer on. But, from a layman’s perspective, it seems like a police interaction which may lead to a use of police powers either should count or our legislative bodies should change the law to make it count as that appears to be in line with the spirit law to guarantee that all pertinent evidence to a crime be discoverable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stale2002 5y ago
No it's not. Nobody is going to be charged for playing a song on their phone in public. That's just not going to happen.

Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating the copyright?

posguy 5y ago

This would constitute a public performance of a song, I doubt he paid for a license.

oh_sigh 5y ago
You don't need a public performance license to personally consume music in public. Public performance licenses would be for things like playing a song in a restaurant you run, or in a retail store.
- tnel77 5y ago
  Cops are bad, so you are wrong.
- akersten 5y ago
  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.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Eh, knowing that something is being recorded is not broadcasting.
  - SpaceManNabs 5y ago
    That might be hard to prove unless there is an unofficial department email going around on tips and tricks to avoid pesky recorders. Sorry for the cynicism.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      He explicitly states his motive for playing the music on tape.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    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?
    - MrStonedOne 5y ago
      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.
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        Taylor Swift and her record company would be the plaintiff in a copyright case. They cannot claim harm here. It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The public is harmed, not the owner of the content. Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing something that is clearly against the public's interest, making the department look bad. But this is not a copyright case.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    No its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever be brought to court because they played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that a police officer "deserves" it. This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool. The law is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go to jail. Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings. And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine someone, or send someone to jail because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone. The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
    - clucas 5y ago
      You are probably right, but let's play it from the other angle to see why people are suggesting that they try to pursue a copyright claim against the police, using your post but turning it the other way: ---- Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever have a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube because the police played a couple seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the street. Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because you think that the recorder "deserves" it. This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And people are lying to themselves that something like that would happen, because it sounds cool. The youtube moderation is not a piece of code that is run through your computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is going to go get their video removed. Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings. And any actual normal human being, is not going to remove a video that is attempting to keep the police accountable because they played a couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone. The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you think that you found in the youtube algorithm simply do not matter. ---- Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out, citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and this is why you were downvoted.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    No. It is being filmed without his consent. He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance. By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous. He should be fired for other reasons (making the department look bad by attempting to avoid accountability), but he is not violating copyright. Nor would the person filming it be, since "courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work", and this isn't. No one is going to say "I'm not going to pay for Taylor Swift's version because I can just watch this video of a cop playing it on his phone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
    - akersten 5y ago
      > He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends. > By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous. You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression. The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance. I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.
      - oh_sigh 5y ago
        No, you're not looking at it like a prosecutor/RIAA goon would, because they have not sued anyone ever for merely playing music on their phone while standing in public. What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the individual words of the phrase based on their common usage, and then saying that your new understanding based on the individual words is how copyright law actually works. If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're doing here with "public performance"
nkssy 5y ago
He's certainly wearing the uniform, on the job and using the music for work purposes in a deliberate way. Sounds feasible as a public performance but I'd prefer a legal type's opinion.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I really have no clue. Playing music in public isn't considered copyright violation. Otherwise playing the radio would be unlawful. Edit: Wow, it really is considered unlawful. I reflexively hate the idea that playing a song can be considered violating copyright. Yes, I know there's more to it than just that, but wow.

otterley 5y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
- jollybean 5y ago
  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'.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > 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.
    - whiddershins 5y ago
      The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of copyright law, is a separate thing.

otterley 5y ago

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).

jollybean 5y ago
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 however.
- sjg007 5y ago
  It might be considered a public performance. In contrast to playing the radio in your backyard.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  He didn't play it for himself.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
    - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
      > He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."

DevKoala 5y ago

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.

mannerheim 5y ago
Public performances violate copyright.
lucideer 5y ago
IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.
- parineum 5y ago
  The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it, is he not?
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Broadcasting the music performance live in public to prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.
  - throaway3141593 5y ago
    The officer is playing the music knowing that an attempt will be made to distribute the video, while hoping but not knowing for sure that the video will be blocked from distribution. The video could appear on one of many other sites that do a poorer job of screening media or that don't even attempt to do so.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Intent doesn't require knowing for sure. Intent is just hope associated with an action. If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.

Veserv 5y ago

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/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/

jollybean 5y ago
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.
wedn3sday 5y ago
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.
- Veserv 5y ago
  I agree that is the weakest element. Applicability largely hinges on what qualifies as a “police investigation” or “legal proceeding” which I have been unable to get a clear answer on. But, from a layman’s perspective, it seems like a police interaction which may lead to a use of police powers either should count or our legislative bodies should change the law to make it count as that appears to be in line with the spirit law to guarantee that all pertinent evidence to a crime be discoverable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

stale2002 5y ago

No it's not. Nobody is going to be charged for playing a song on their phone in public. That's just not going to happen.