7 ms·

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 breaki

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."
    - jollybean 5y ago
      Just the opposite. The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material. There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself. This thread is full of absurd arguments.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    The recording isn't what made it public performance. The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Replace enjoyment with listening if you like. Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
        robbrown451 5y ago
        So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park? They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.
- jollybean 5y ago
  He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to be considered some kind of violation. He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      That's not a public performance. Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal. Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance. Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance. If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it. So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1] None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
      - otterley 5y ago
        Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder. OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
        jollybean 5y ago
robbrown451 5y ago
The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See 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... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.") The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.
- mcguire 5y ago
  I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights. But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
- scotuswroteus 5y ago
  Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan... Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.
mcguire 5y ago
"...whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is..." I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument. Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...
- jollybean 5y ago
  The cop has no idea if someone is recording, video or even audio. They have no idea what the filmer's intentions are. They have no knowledge or awareness of how the person might edit, alter, or distribute the content. It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright. Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.
scotuswroteus 5y ago
There is no such exception for publicly playing a copyrighted work "for oneself"
- jollybean 5y ago
  Yes there is. You can play music for yourself and close family. That you happen to 'be in public' or 'be at work' isn't relevant. Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..

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."
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Just the opposite. The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material. There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself. This thread is full of absurd arguments.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  The recording isn't what made it public performance. The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Replace enjoyment with listening if you like. Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park? They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.
jollybean 5y ago
He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to be considered some kind of violation. He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    That's not a public performance. Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal. Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance. Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance. If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it. So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1] None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
    - otterley 5y ago
      Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder. OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
      - jollybean 5y ago

robbrown451 5y ago

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See 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... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.") The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.

mcguire 5y ago
I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights. But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
scotuswroteus 5y ago
Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan... Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.

mcguire 5y ago

"...whereas the person filming and publishing the situation probably is..." I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument. Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...

jollybean 5y ago
The cop has no idea if someone is recording, video or even audio. They have no idea what the filmer's intentions are. They have no knowledge or awareness of how the person might edit, alter, or distribute the content. It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright. Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.

scotuswroteus 5y ago

There is no such exception for publicly playing a copyrighted work "for oneself"

jollybean 5y ago
Yes there is. You can play music for yourself and close family. That you happen to 'be in public' or 'be at work' isn't relevant. Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..