3 ms·

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 -

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.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of course, this then proves nothing. That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
    - whiddershins 5y ago
      If I play it at my desk it seems very different than the office piping it out to everyone as 'background music.'
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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 Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers, not primarily for public customers) entertainment use might be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit First Amendment protected public monitoring and distribution of recordings of police activity would seem unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to the First Amendment.) [0] a quite controversial position itself.
- jollybean 5y ago
  I don't see how secondary motivations that have nothing to do with entertainment or copyright (aka for the purpose of supposedly suppressing someone's rights) would be relevant? Either it's a 'public performance' or it's not.

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.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of course, this then proves nothing. That being said, I would say they're probably right, because it doesn't seem that different from a store or restaurant playing music.
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    If I play it at my desk it seems very different than the office piping it out to everyone as 'background music.'

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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 Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers, not primarily for public customers) entertainment use might be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit First Amendment protected public monitoring and distribution of recordings of police activity would seem unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to the First Amendment.) [0] a quite controversial position itself.

jollybean 5y ago
I don't see how secondary motivations that have nothing to do with entertainment or copyright (aka for the purpose of supposedly suppressing someone's rights) would be relevant? Either it's a 'public performance' or it's not.