4 ms·

Interesting article for two reasons, how the practice originated and what it implies. The practice seems to be somewhat wide spread (in the distance between de

Interesting article for two reasons, how the practice originated and what it implies. The practice seems to be somewhat wide spread (in the distance between departments case). That might be because it came from a Facebook group or forum where Law Enforcement officers exchange tips. The second is the choice of artist (Swift) who has been in a pretty visible battle with ownership of her music. I suspect that if the officers who use this technique thought about it, they might find that using Disney tunes would be more effective in terms of triggering DMCA takedowns. What it implies, and is explicitly stated in the referenced video, is that a law enforcement officer is explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right (as adjudicated by the courts). While the doctrine of qualified immunity would likely shield them from prosecution, it is still a violation of your civil rights and should certainly merit disciplinary action on the part of the police department.

Simulacra 5y ago
"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right " I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming. There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
- cforrester 5y ago
  I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering with their body camera.
  - A-Train 5y ago
    And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter. I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit. Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible. People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.
- Taek 5y ago
  YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be denied. Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.
rpdillon 5y ago
I wonder if a cop playing a song in public constitutes a public performance. BMI[0] seems to think so: > A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place. [0]: https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_of_music_and_what_is_the_performing_right1 https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
IntrepidWorm 5y ago
There is something very poetic to being brutalized with tear gas to the tune of "A Whole New World."
aaron695 5y ago
The idea predates the web. It doesn't work now, just like it didn't with the old urban legend. (You can view this video) Amendments or rights are irrelevant to this. They don't protect you from being so lazy you can't be bother to subtitle something to put it on your favourite media host. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't design the constitution for that. In fact it feels like people want the right to easily harass other.
moistly 5y ago
Is global broadcasting a 1AR? You have the video and can play it back to your friends, lawyers, mayor, etc. In all likelihood you could stand on the street corner and play to passersby without a problem. Where’s the 1AR violation?
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  The intent of the officers, combined with the fact that they are agents of the government matter a great deal here. If this was a regular citizen with intent to cause copyright strikes it would not be an issue. The fact that these officers are acting on behalf of the government means that it is arguably the government acting to restrict the distribution of these videos. In the US, there are strong restrictions on officers acting in a way that could have a 'chilling effect' (legal term) free speech.

Simulacra 5y ago

"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right " I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming. There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

cforrester 5y ago
I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering with their body camera.
- A-Train 5y ago
  And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter. I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit. Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible. People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.
Taek 5y ago
YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be denied. Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.

rpdillon 5y ago

I wonder if a cop playing a song in public constitutes a public performance. BMI[0] seems to think so: > A “public performance” of music is defined in U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any public place. [0]: https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_of_music_and_what_is_the_performing_right1 https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

IntrepidWorm 5y ago

There is something very poetic to being brutalized with tear gas to the tune of "A Whole New World."

aaron695 5y ago

The idea predates the web. It doesn't work now, just like it didn't with the old urban legend. (You can view this video) Amendments or rights are irrelevant to this. They don't protect you from being so lazy you can't be bother to subtitle something to put it on your favourite media host. Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't design the constitution for that. In fact it feels like people want the right to easily harass other.

moistly 5y ago

Is global broadcasting a 1AR? You have the video and can play it back to your friends, lawyers, mayor, etc. In all likelihood you could stand on the street corner and play to passersby without a problem. Where’s the 1AR violation?

dghlsakjg 5y ago
The intent of the officers, combined with the fact that they are agents of the government matter a great deal here. If this was a regular citizen with intent to cause copyright strikes it would not be an issue. The fact that these officers are acting on behalf of the government means that it is arguably the government acting to restrict the distribution of these videos. In the US, there are strong restrictions on officers acting in a way that could have a 'chilling effect' (legal term) free speech.