4 ms·

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

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
      When I wrote radio - I meant generally 'something with a speaker' because irrespective of what 'radio stations' do - playing music on 'something with a speaker' from CD, iTunes, MP3s etc. on your lawn, in your car, on the beach, while at work - is extremely common - and does not constitute a 'public performance'. You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you. You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
      - otterley 5y ago
        I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this thread that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
      - otterley 5y ago
        I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this discussion that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
        jollybean 5y ago
        You're confused because you believe that the courts would find 'non public performance' only in the most narrow interpretation 'performance only to a small group of friends or family'. Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute. The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers. You keep ignoring that fact. The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1] More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use. My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
    - jollybean 5y ago
      "He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers." 1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself. 2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others. 3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights. Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law. This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out. It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'. It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
      - otterley 5y ago
        You’re really going off the rails and should stop. If you want to argue the law, that’s fine (to a point). But you’re starting to question others’ motivations and that’s not acceptable.
        jollybean 5y ago
        Totally disagree. The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about. 1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion. 2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material. But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording. This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really. There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side. HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.

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
    When I wrote radio - I meant generally 'something with a speaker' because irrespective of what 'radio stations' do - playing music on 'something with a speaker' from CD, iTunes, MP3s etc. on your lawn, in your car, on the beach, while at work - is extremely common - and does not constitute a 'public performance'. You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you. You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
    - otterley 5y ago
      I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this thread that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
    - otterley 5y ago
      I think you’re confused. I have said elsewhere in this discussion that public performance excludes performance only to a small group of friends or family.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        You're confused because you believe that the courts would find 'non public performance' only in the most narrow interpretation 'performance only to a small group of friends or family'. Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute. The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers. You keep ignoring that fact. The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1] More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use. My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers." 1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself. 2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others. 3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights. Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law. This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out. It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'. It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
    - otterley 5y ago
      You’re really going off the rails and should stop. If you want to argue the law, that’s fine (to a point). But you’re starting to question others’ motivations and that’s not acceptable.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        Totally disagree. The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about. 1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion. 2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material. But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording. This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really. There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side. HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.