4 ms·

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. Co

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.
jcranmer 5y ago
> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it. Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public. The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there. Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is. "The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights." They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html "Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread." Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case. What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry." I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any. There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already. I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
- beerandt 5y ago
  He had the express intent that he didn't want others to hear it. You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.
dragonwriter 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. Because purpose is an element of Fair Use analysis, and because fair use is an exception to copyright, and because the purpose differs radically between the two cases, there are a whole lot of other assumptions you need to make for this “if...then...” statement to hold.

mannerheim 5y ago

> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. I believe this is the case, yes.

jcranmer 5y ago

> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright. It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it. Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.

robbrown451 5y ago
Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public. The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there. Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is. "The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights." They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html "Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread." Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case. What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry." I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any. There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already. I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
beerandt 5y ago
He had the express intent that he didn't want others to hear it. You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.

dragonwriter 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. Because purpose is an element of Fair Use analysis, and because fair use is an exception to copyright, and because the purpose differs radically between the two cases, there are a whole lot of other assumptions you need to make for this “if...then...” statement to hold.