4 ms·

Police unions would love for cameras to standardize on that. There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took t

by peri-cl 13d ago

Police unions would love for cameras to standardize on that. There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took to playing Disney songs from loudspeakers; so that any recording of their interactions would be impossible to publish on any significant internet platform (or at least, the audio would be muted, by IP protection filters).

the_other 13d ago
That’s an admission of guilt by the police, right there. If you have nothing to hide… etc.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 13d ago
  “We’ve got ‘em now!”. This’ll be police brutality’s great undoing.
nathanaldensr 13d ago
Wouldn't that constitute a public performance of copyrighted material? The police themselves could be DMCAed. Haha
- zdragnar 13d ago
  Not DMCA, but yes, that would definitely open them to a lawsuit for unlicensed performance.
- vincnetas 13d ago
  its basically equivalent of them punching you in the face and running away. Yeah you're right and they're wrong, but what would you do about that and your nose is bleeding. Nasty tactics.
- nkrisc 13d ago
  It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or illegal if they know nothing will happen to them. The rule of law is dying because it’s becoming only selectively enforced.
  - pocksuppet 13d ago
    has died
DrScientist 13d ago
Did the police have the appropriate license to play those disney songs in a public space?
- cucumber3732842 13d ago
  I bet Disney's lawyers can squeeze a lot more money out of municipalities for playing the music publicly in the first place than they can out of random citizens who are uploading to Youtube.
  - victorbjorklund 13d ago
    Im guessing the intention wasn’t that Disney would actually sue them in court but just getting it blocked automatically in YouTube, etc
    - cucumber3732842 13d ago
      Of course that was the point. But malicious broadcast of copyrighted material to trigger automated enforcement systems sounds pretty far from "fair use" to me. Say nothing of the bad publicity when some video is just so bad it hits the news and now your IP is the soundtrack to a cop beatdown. When you look at it from a legal "use it or lose it" and corporate risk perspective it's quite surprising that Disney didn't even sent cease and desists. Edit: Of course you don't lose the copyright but your ability to litigate someone else's unfair use is a lot weaker when their lawyer can trot out a million examples that you were fine with.
      - DrammBA 13d ago
        Disney seems to be taking a very hands-off approach when it comes to government use, so I doubt they'll do anything about this police case.
      - pocksuppet 13d ago
        Copyright isn't "use it or lose it"
amelius 13d ago
Wouldn't that be covered by fair use? Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 13d ago
  You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya.
  - 0x10ca1h0st 13d ago
    Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country.
    - someonebaggy 13d ago
      You can. YouTube doesn't. Instagram doesn't. Facebook doesn't.
- peri-cl 13d ago
  > "Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?" There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.
  - GJim 13d ago
    > It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. Ahem... In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.

by peri-cl 13d ago

the_other 13d ago

That’s an admission of guilt by the police, right there. If you have nothing to hide… etc.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 13d ago
“We’ve got ‘em now!”. This’ll be police brutality’s great undoing.

nathanaldensr 13d ago

Wouldn't that constitute a public performance of copyrighted material? The police themselves could be DMCAed. Haha

zdragnar 13d ago
Not DMCA, but yes, that would definitely open them to a lawsuit for unlicensed performance.
vincnetas 13d ago
its basically equivalent of them punching you in the face and running away. Yeah you're right and they're wrong, but what would you do about that and your nose is bleeding. Nasty tactics.
nkrisc 13d ago
It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or illegal if they know nothing will happen to them. The rule of law is dying because it’s becoming only selectively enforced.
- pocksuppet 13d ago
  has died

DrScientist 13d ago

Did the police have the appropriate license to play those disney songs in a public space?

cucumber3732842 13d ago
I bet Disney's lawyers can squeeze a lot more money out of municipalities for playing the music publicly in the first place than they can out of random citizens who are uploading to Youtube.
- victorbjorklund 13d ago
  Im guessing the intention wasn’t that Disney would actually sue them in court but just getting it blocked automatically in YouTube, etc
  - cucumber3732842 13d ago
    Of course that was the point. But malicious broadcast of copyrighted material to trigger automated enforcement systems sounds pretty far from "fair use" to me. Say nothing of the bad publicity when some video is just so bad it hits the news and now your IP is the soundtrack to a cop beatdown. When you look at it from a legal "use it or lose it" and corporate risk perspective it's quite surprising that Disney didn't even sent cease and desists. Edit: Of course you don't lose the copyright but your ability to litigate someone else's unfair use is a lot weaker when their lawyer can trot out a million examples that you were fine with.
    - DrammBA 13d ago
      Disney seems to be taking a very hands-off approach when it comes to government use, so I doubt they'll do anything about this police case.
    - pocksuppet 13d ago
      Copyright isn't "use it or lose it"

amelius 13d ago

Wouldn't that be covered by fair use? Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 13d ago
You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya.
- 0x10ca1h0st 13d ago
  Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country.
  - someonebaggy 13d ago
    You can. YouTube doesn't. Instagram doesn't. Facebook doesn't.
peri-cl 13d ago
> "Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?" There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.
- GJim 13d ago
  > It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. Ahem... In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.