6 ms·

"Police officers in Beverly Hills have been playing music while being filmed, seemingly in an effort to trigger Instagram’s copyright filters." https://www.vic

by sitic 5y ago

"Police officers in Beverly Hills have been playing music while being filmed, seemingly in an effort to trigger Instagram’s copyright filters." https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxb94/is-this-beverly-hills-cop-playing-sublimes-santeria-to-avoid-being-livestreamed https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxb94/is-this-beverly-hills...

dredmorbius 5y ago
Apparently numerous jurisdictions. Alamdeda County, California: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/officer-claims-sheriffs-office-told-him-to-play-copyrighted-music-to-shut-down-citizens-recordings.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/offic... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28546242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28546242
FractalParadigm 5y ago
What I find ironic, is the police are doing a copyright infringement (unauthorized public performance of these songs) in order to infringe on citizens' rights. Why are record companies not more pissed about this?
- Tenoke 5y ago
  Because they don't lose money over it the way they do over other types of unauthorized public performances.
  - _jal 5y ago
    I think I'd phrase that a bit differently. Extracting cash by threatening mom and pop restaurants for playing the radio is old hat, nobody cares. Threatening cops over it is going to attract attention.
- jMyles 5y ago
  Does it suggest that system of IP is genuinely designed and deployed to protect art? Or capricious exercise of state power?
  - randombits0 5y ago
    I will double down with, no, the system of IP is not intended to protect art. The whole concept of IP is antithetical to the intent of copyright. “Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause
- concordDance 5y ago
  It's not performance as there's the lack of intent to have others hear it and few will. You can play music for yourself in public even if others overhear.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Doesn't playing a song with the explicit intention of having it be recorded count as having intent to perform?
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      It's really curious in this case though, the intent is for the music to trigger automated software that prevents performance. Hard to classify that as 'intent to perform' especially with USA's Fair Use. My understanding is in UK causing a recording to be made (whether viewed or not) would be infringing. We have Fair Dealing but it's extremely restrictive compared to Fair Use. Just my personal, private opinion.
- labcomputer 5y ago
  Because it doesn’t have any impact on sales, and the executives of those companies don’t want to pick a fight with the local police (who could practically, if not legally, retaliate though various means)
hulitu 5y ago
In many countries this is unauthorised broadcasting.
dylan604 5y ago
The cops are not trying to post their footage to the socials. They want you to not be able to do it. If they need their footage, it's to prove you were being an asshat and deserved whatever happened to you. If you need their footage, it'll mysteriously not be available for some technical or clerical error.
- Fnoord 5y ago
  Its to provide a PoV from the police officer, yes. Because the PoV of the other side (whatever it might be) may omit details, or could've been tampered with. You're right that it is in the interest of the police (in general, not necessarily the police officer), but if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    > if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case. Unless the cop is saying things they shouldn't be saying. I think you are missing the point of the comment you are replying to. They are saying that cops only use that footage when it benefits them (that's assuming the footage exists and they didn't "forget to turn on their camera") and when it doesn't benefit them then they won't release it or the footage might get "lost". Also the police have been known to edit or post misleading footage to their own gain.
    - Fnoord 5y ago
      'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force. I get such point is popular with people who are cynical to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism in USA. Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute before the cop pushed the button as well, for context. The police are not allowed to tamper with evidence in a court of law. Nowhere in the world is this allowed.
      - joshstrange 5y ago
garyfirestorm 5y ago
Why can’t instagram distinguish between a public performance vs a cop playing music. Should be pretty easy to do.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  The challenge is determining between music playing in the background of a real-life arrest, vs the same for a fictional arrest where they would want to claim copyright usage fees. That's a hard job for most people, nevermind an automated system where the copyright holder doesn't care about false positives.
- spicybright 5y ago
  Doubt it. Copyright violation detected is fully automated for the most part, and very good at detection regardless of background noise. You would need a human viewing footage and listening for every single post to determine this.

by sitic 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago

Apparently numerous jurisdictions. Alamdeda County, California: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/officer-claims-sheriffs-office-told-him-to-play-copyrighted-music-to-shut-down-citizens-recordings.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/offic... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28546242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28546242

FractalParadigm 5y ago

What I find ironic, is the police are doing a copyright infringement (unauthorized public performance of these songs) in order to infringe on citizens' rights. Why are record companies not more pissed about this?

Tenoke 5y ago
Because they don't lose money over it the way they do over other types of unauthorized public performances.
- _jal 5y ago
  I think I'd phrase that a bit differently. Extracting cash by threatening mom and pop restaurants for playing the radio is old hat, nobody cares. Threatening cops over it is going to attract attention.
jMyles 5y ago
Does it suggest that system of IP is genuinely designed and deployed to protect art? Or capricious exercise of state power?
- randombits0 5y ago
  I will double down with, no, the system of IP is not intended to protect art. The whole concept of IP is antithetical to the intent of copyright. “Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause
concordDance 5y ago
It's not performance as there's the lack of intent to have others hear it and few will. You can play music for yourself in public even if others overhear.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Doesn't playing a song with the explicit intention of having it be recorded count as having intent to perform?
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    It's really curious in this case though, the intent is for the music to trigger automated software that prevents performance. Hard to classify that as 'intent to perform' especially with USA's Fair Use. My understanding is in UK causing a recording to be made (whether viewed or not) would be infringing. We have Fair Dealing but it's extremely restrictive compared to Fair Use. Just my personal, private opinion.
labcomputer 5y ago
Because it doesn’t have any impact on sales, and the executives of those companies don’t want to pick a fight with the local police (who could practically, if not legally, retaliate though various means)

hulitu 5y ago

In many countries this is unauthorised broadcasting.

dylan604 5y ago

The cops are not trying to post their footage to the socials. They want you to not be able to do it. If they need their footage, it's to prove you were being an asshat and deserved whatever happened to you. If you need their footage, it'll mysteriously not be available for some technical or clerical error.

Fnoord 5y ago
Its to provide a PoV from the police officer, yes. Because the PoV of the other side (whatever it might be) may omit details, or could've been tampered with. You're right that it is in the interest of the police (in general, not necessarily the police officer), but if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  > if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case. Unless the cop is saying things they shouldn't be saying. I think you are missing the point of the comment you are replying to. They are saying that cops only use that footage when it benefits them (that's assuming the footage exists and they didn't "forget to turn on their camera") and when it doesn't benefit them then they won't release it or the footage might get "lost". Also the police have been known to edit or post misleading footage to their own gain.
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force. I get such point is popular with people who are cynical to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism in USA. Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute before the cop pushed the button as well, for context. The police are not allowed to tamper with evidence in a court of law. Nowhere in the world is this allowed.
    - joshstrange 5y ago

garyfirestorm 5y ago

Why can’t instagram distinguish between a public performance vs a cop playing music. Should be pretty easy to do.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
The challenge is determining between music playing in the background of a real-life arrest, vs the same for a fictional arrest where they would want to claim copyright usage fees. That's a hard job for most people, nevermind an automated system where the copyright holder doesn't care about false positives.
spicybright 5y ago
Doubt it. Copyright violation detected is fully automated for the most part, and very good at detection regardless of background noise. You would need a human viewing footage and listening for every single post to determine this.