5 ms·

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.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces. Generally, yes: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 ---begin quote--- 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. ---end quote--- There are some exceptions to this regarding specific permitted performances at 17 USC § 110 as well as the general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC § 107, but I don’t see an obvious argument that these or any other copyright exceptions apply to this use for this purpose. (I can see an argument that the police use would render the recording and reuse by the person recording the officer fair use, but that's not an issue here, because we already know that copyright protection schemes by platforms are hostile to fair use.)
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed. Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. I believe this is the case, yes.
heavyset_go 5y ago
You need a license to play or perform music and other types of copyrighted media in public.
- DevKoala 5y ago
  Is this true? I play music on the street sometimes. Am I violating the law? Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Talk to a lawyer about it. I have a musician in the family who performs at venues and also likes to busk, and they pay some subscription fee for access to a library of music they're allowed to legally perform.
GuB-42 5y ago
I don't know about the US but I remember a story where a garage got sued for copyright violation because its employees had the radio playing loudly (as expected in a noisy shop) and it could be heard outside, and therefore, it was considered a public performance. I think it was in France, or maybe Germany, where the right performance rights collecting society (SACEM for France, GEMA for Germany) is particularly aggressive. It probably wouldn't have passed judgment, but it was enough to scare the shop into forbidding its employees to play music at work.

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.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces. Generally, yes: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 ---begin quote--- 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. ---end quote--- There are some exceptions to this regarding specific permitted performances at 17 USC § 110 as well as the general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC § 107, but I don’t see an obvious argument that these or any other copyright exceptions apply to this use for this purpose. (I can see an argument that the police use would render the recording and reuse by the person recording the officer fair use, but that's not an issue here, because we already know that copyright protection schemes by platforms are hostile to fair use.)

robbrown451 5y ago
Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed. Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. I believe this is the case, yes.

heavyset_go 5y ago

You need a license to play or perform music and other types of copyrighted media in public.

DevKoala 5y ago
Is this true? I play music on the street sometimes. Am I violating the law? Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Talk to a lawyer about it. I have a musician in the family who performs at venues and also likes to busk, and they pay some subscription fee for access to a library of music they're allowed to legally perform.

GuB-42 5y ago

I don't know about the US but I remember a story where a garage got sued for copyright violation because its employees had the radio playing loudly (as expected in a noisy shop) and it could be heard outside, and therefore, it was considered a public performance. I think it was in France, or maybe Germany, where the right performance rights collecting society (SACEM for France, GEMA for Germany) is particularly aggressive. It probably wouldn't have passed judgment, but it was enough to scare the shop into forbidding its employees to play music at work.