5 ms·

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

by posguy 5y ago

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.

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

by posguy 5y ago

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

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.