4 ms·

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.

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)

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)