Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyright against streaming
vice.com
vice.com
Police definitely have zero "expectation of privacy" when out on the job and it's a fairly well established legal fact. Additionally, this information was available at the time they decided to become police officers.
IANAL.
That sounds awful. Everybody needs to go out even if it is to buy groceries. What that means is that you can be recorded and there is nothing you can do about it.
My ¢2.
It is important for a society to be able to monitor the enforcers of the government, i.e. the police. To me, it seems pretty reasonable for people to be able to record the actions of the police in public spaces, so long as its not impeding the ability for the officers to correctly do their job.
It’s strange that so many people are arguing for using copyright law against the cop, instead of realizing that it’s absurd that we have to think about having videos taken down for background music.
That said, I’m not even convinced that background music can get the videos taken down, since we’ve all been watching these videos on social media platforms for the past few days.
It might be absurd that someone is shooting bullets at you but you should shoot back if that's the case.
The "shooting back" solution just ends up with a bunch of people injured (likely including random bystanders). The better solution is to get the shooting to stop entirely.
We don't need to find a new interpretation of copyright law to attack the cop, we need to remove the dysfunctional copyright system that started this. Or in your metaphor, I want no-one to get shot rather than wanting to shoot back.
Censoring is indeed legal if companies do it, but this is functionally State censorship.
I don’t think a “websites can’t moderate their content” is a good road to go down.
This story, fake news, the shenanigans around the election, etc has shown they are bad stewards of this responsibility.
This is not State censorship, because the police are not censoring the videos. People still get to record them, and still get to share them. If they can't be bothered to post somewhere other than Instagram (which is abusing their rights), then the failure to share is on the people doing the posting.
There's nothing stopping the people who recorded the videos from sending them to the news media. The recordings are still getting made.
They're just being removed by some bot from the Instagram feeds. Shame on Instagram.
There are some exceptions, such as for playing a radio or TV broadcast at businesses that are under certain sizes specified in square feet. I think the officers were probably playing recording from their phones or using a streaming service, which I don't think the exception cover. And even if those exceptions do apply, the officers are doing this outside--how many square feet is outside?
There was also a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that state governments were not liable for copyright violations because they have sovereign immunity. That sovereign immunity can be taken away by Congress, and I believe there has been some talk of doing so, but for now they are immune.
According to this law firm [1] that does not apply to local governments. They might still be liable for copyright infringement.
[1] https://www.hodgsonruss.com/newsroom-publications-11717.html
But let’s not rush to make listening to music on the job illegal. That wasn’t the intent of copyright laws that prohibit public performance.
Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly.
Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online?
I know everyone wants to stick it to these cops, but let’s be realistic. Normally HN is very against weaponizing copyright law, but the second it feels useful for their purposes we’re flooded with comments from people who want to misuse copyright law as a weapon.
This is a classic case of double standards. We want one set of standards god people we agree with and another set of standards for people we disagree with.
To avoid this, we institute a standard across the board for everyone, like them or dislike them.
And yes, it's fundamentally OK to hold police to a higher standard than the general public, including literal children. I'm not sure why this is in question.
Your last sentence is a common fallacy: just because I pick a certain set of annoyances on a scale of trade-offs (in this case, the scale of living in an apartment to living in the wilderness) doesn't mean I am required to unquestioningly soak up all those annoyances. If that's your logic, you could never speak up about any problem you could in principle escape from, even if that escape would result in bigger problems. This "leave if you don't like it" approach to criticism, where leaving is very expensive and especially where the solution is very cheap, is also not ok (as it more obviously would not be ok in a political context).
I'm not asking for a lot. Just use headphones.
Also, you need more than having passed the academy to become an officer of the law that can make standard, non-citizen's arrests.
But yes, I hold the police to higher standards of professional conduct than I do common criminals.
I'm not saying there aren't some abusive, nasty cops out there. But the "nice" cops aren't so effective when dealing with nasty people.
Number 1 way to prevent violence during arrests, or avoid arrest is (Ding Ding!) BE RESPECTFUL.
So initially I don't present as middle class, but once they get a hint of the fact that I am, you can watch them change their behavior nearly instantly. Other times, they don't ask questions like that and have then for instance lied about my drivers license being revoked, taken it, and then pretended like that never happened later, requiring my dash cam footage to even get them to admit they pulled me over.
My friends of color aren't typically even given the chance to re-calibrate their class position to the police by being asked questions like that.
If you watch the video (which is available in the previous article and all over social media, contrary to the narrative) it’s clear that the person is trying to get a rise out of the police officers by following them around and badgering them for content on his social media channels. He even went so far as to watermark the video with his social media handles. It’s clear that the officers are tired of dealing with him and being followed around while trying to do their jobs.
"I am filming you, a public official, doing something bad in your official capacity."
"You are now under arrest for stalking."
I don’t condone the police behavior, but it’s clear that the person recording is not a hero or even blameless. He’s running a business that profits from anti-police sentiment and promoting it with these videos.
If you antagonize and film a police officer while they are off-duty, that is inappropriate; potentially stalking and harassment. Same in the other direction. The courts have thus far determined there are specific rights to filming police while engaged in their duties; not just for press, but for citizens in general.
Filming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe
Antagonizing: https://www.wired.com/2013/01/flipping-off-cop-case/
If they feel the least bit threatened, they can simply arrest someone who is “stalking” them.
That they are resorting to clever tactics like playing copyrighted music, shows that legally speaking they can’t do anything else.
HIPAA, and you don't. (I'm sure the claim works on people, though.)
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/cameras-video/articles/pho...
> Your basic HIPAA obligation when it comes to the press is very simple. Don't divulge any patient medical information to a journalist. Don’t discuss patient specifics within hearing or recording distance, at least not in great detail. Don’t write notes where they can be read. If you have a clipboard with medical information, turn it over so it can’t be seen in a photograph.
> Your HIPAA obligation does not, however, require you to stop me or others from taking images at the scene.
Can you keep them at a somewhat reasonable distance? Yes. Out of the scene entirely? Generally no, barring a hazmat incident or something where you'd need to be getting out too.
> Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly.
> Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online?
They can claim those things, sure. But liability (especially civil liability, which is need only be established by preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal liability) doesn't go away just because you can present a narrative which is possibly true which would provide an innocent explanation.
Moreover, if a department pays the cost of litigating a couple cases where officers actions in this regard are challenged, they'll have a strong incentive to adopt policies which prevent the dispute from occurring.
I mean, a good chunk of the people here are GPL fans, and if that's not a weaponization of copyright law, I don't know what is.
It doesn't making any sense to ask the rightsholders to pressure the police to stop using a tactic that only works because the rightholders want it to work.
So long as the video isn't produced for profit, the producer isn't unfairly benefitting off the presence of the music in the video, and the quality of the audio doesn't compete with that of a commercial recording, I don't see the issue.
It’s not correct to suggest that this was a routine interaction with police.
Despite the headline, the videos are still up on his social media accounts.
The videos in question are still online. They haven’t been removed. It’s clear that the person filming is following police around, trying to provoke a reaction for his Instagram accounts where he sells anti-cop merchandise.
I’m wondering if it already is illegal for police officers who wear body cams, even when their routine video is not public record. They are recordings intended for other people, and they also can become public record when use of force is involved, as I understand it.
This isn’t a case of victims being drowned out of rightful conversations during arrests. This is a 3rd party trying to insert themselves into police duties and provoke a response while recording.
His Instagram accounts for these videos promote his anti-cop merchandise. It appears the videos haven’t actually been taken down. I’m sure he’s loving the attention, though.
Early in the evenin' just about supper time
Over by the courthouse they're starting to unwind
Four kids on the corner trying to bring you up
“Headphones, please” you shout at them “and kindly shut the fuck up”What the officers are doing seems more akin to a business use to me, since they are doing it to affect how they can perform their job, so I'm curious if they need to license the songs.
What, what? Does this mean that state governments can freely pirate software for example?
[1] https://itsartlaw.org/2020/05/11/case-review-allen-v-cooper-...
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
The original 13 colonies, Vermont and Texas were all independent sovereign states before joining the United States as states. However, the other 35 states were federal territories to which Congress granted statehood. Whatever sovereignty they have was given to them by the United States Congress, acting under the United States Constitution, it did not in any way pre-exist the Constitution.
(Hawaii was an independent sovereign state before being annexed into a US territory after a US-backed coup; to the extent that the present state of Hawaii has "sovereignty", it is unclear what relationship that had to the sovereignty of the independent Kingdom of Hawaii.)
Consider Brexit. When the UK wanted to leave, the EU said "we are sad to see you go, please reconsider, but if you really want out, we can't stop you". There was some negotiation over the terms of leaving, but there was never any doubt that the UK had the right to do so. And it was always made clear that if agreement could not be reached on the terms of leaving, the UK would leave anyway, under "default" or "no deal" terms that would be rather unsatisfactory to both sides. (Prior to 2009’s Treaty of Lisbon, the EU treaties didn’t officially permit withdrawal, but almost certainly if some state had sought to withdraw pre-2009, they would have amended the treaties to allow it.)
By contrast, the mainstream position is that US states are not allowed to leave – at least not without the consent of the federal level (Congress), and many say it would even require a constitutional amendment (which would mean the consent of most of the other states would be required as well). So there is a very clear sense in which EU member states are sovereign (they are free to leave) but the US states are not (they have to ask permission to leave, which may well be denied.)
The Civil War really settled this when a group of states tried to leave and their attempt was forcibly suppressed. Now, what complicates the matter is their reason for leaving was to protect the utterly odious and reprehensible institution of race-based slavery. But, there is no necessary connection between the issues of slavery and secession, it is just a historical accident the two got linked.
Some people who opposed secession, and supported the Union side in the War, did so primarily because of their opposition to slavery. And if you imagine some alternative history in which a group of states (whether the same group or a different one) seceded over some other more defensible issue, many of those people might have not opposed secession, or at least not so strongly. But, on the other hand, other people who supported the Union side, their primary concern was anti-secessionism rather than slavery, and they would have opposed secession over some other more defensible issue just as strongly. A secession over some other issue might still have led to a civil war, which could easily have had the same anti-secessionist outcome.
Finally, whatever "sovereignty" the US states have is really at the mercy of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is free to interpret the notion of "sovereignty" as broadly or as narrowly as it wishes, and a future Supreme Court could even turn it into a dead letter, a purely theoretical notion – and since they appoint the Supreme Court, the President and Senate have the ability in the long-run to influence the Supreme Court's positions. In recent times, the Supreme Court has been majority conservative-leaning, and conservatives are probably somewhat more sympathetic to the notion of "state sovereignty" than liberals/progressives are – but, I think the current conservative majority is mostly just a historical accident, the conservative side got lucky, it has had a liberal/progressive majority in the past and could well again at some point in the future.
[1] Perhaps it already has, the average Roman had no idea he no longer lived in a Republic.
What we need is strong, fast acting civilian oversight over the police to punish any that get up to shenanigans like this.
Recording an on-duty peace officer is protected by the First Amendment. Officers intentionally making it difficult to disseminate those recordings should not be taken lightly.
Compare https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.220892/... :
> Monsarrat raises a copyright infringement claim against Newman involving the republication of a comment he originally posted in the Davis Square LiveJournal community in 2010
> Newman contends that Monsarrat has failed to state an actionable claim because the allegations in the FAC establish his entitlement to a fair use defense.
> The Copyright Act codifies four non-exclusive factors relevant to the fair use inquiry:
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
> drawing all reasonable inferences in Monsarrat’s favor, the court agrees that the FAC establishes Newman’s entitlement to a fair use defense as a matter of law.
> As to the first factor, it is clear from the face of the FAC [...], that Newman did not publish the copyrighted post for the same purposes for which Monsarrat initially created it.
> Monsarrat submitted the original post to highlight LiveJournal’s harassment policy and demand deletion of other posts on the community website which he viewed as violative. The Dreamwidth reproduction, on the other hand, was created solely for historical and preservationist purposes. See Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., [...] (finding that the use of concert posters in a book on the history of the Grateful Dead served a different purpose than the original purpose of "artistic expression and promotion" because defendant used the concert posters "as historical artifacts to document and represent the actual occurrence of Grateful Dead concert events"); Stern v. Does, [...] (finding that defendants’ forwarding by email of a copyrighted post “conveyed the fact of the post rather than its underlying message” and “thus had a substantially different purpose than the post itself”)
> Turning to the second factor, the “nature of the copyrighted work,” the balance again tips in Newman’s favor. The post largely repeats the LiveJournal harassment policy, a factual matter
> The third factor, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," "focus[es] upon whether the extent of... copying is consistent with or more than necessary to further the purpose and character of the use."
> see also Haberman, [...] ("[I]t has long been recognized that a commentator may fairly reproduce as much of the original, copyrighted work as is necessary to his proper purpose.").
> This factor is neutral. Newman copied Monsarrat’s post in full, but a full reproduction is consistent with historical and preservationist purposes.
> Finally, the fourth factor, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" – "the single most important element of fair use," Harper & Row, [...] – weighs against Monsarrat. There is no plausible market for the copyrighted post and thus no likelihood that Newman’s reproduction could have any harmful market consequences.
Applying that to the case of a police officer playing copyrighted music into a livestream of police officer behavior, it is obvious that the first factor ("transformative use") favors the streamer, who is both documenting and commenting on the behavior of the police; the second factor favors the copyright owner ("music sold commercially"); the third factor may range from neutrality to favoring the streamer, depending on how much music the police officer chooses to play -- in the example here, the streamer is favored -- and the fourth factor favors the copyright owner.
However, there is a compelling case that, no matter how much music the officer plays, that is the appropriate amount for the streamer to record -- first, the purpose of documenting what the police are doing is not served by censoring what they do, but additionally, the more egregious the copying, the more noteworthy the officer's behavior is.
Furthermore, while it is possible that a video of police behavior in which everyone is respectfully silent while Santeria plays might substitute for other means of consuming the song, it is extremely unlikely, which trivializes the impact of the fourth factor. Here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ZeUL4fRyk ) is a YouTube video consisting of the song played over a background of the album art. And here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYN5w4T_aM ) is another YouTube video, from "TheofficialSublime", of the official music video of the song. It is not plausible that consumers seeking to consume the song for enjoyment would prefer the cop video to either of those, or even that they might be more likely to find the cop video.
There is no reason a poloce department could not actually purchise right to some random tune, and play it publically and ligitimately, and that would still get your videos banned.
[1] https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rig...
https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-sy...
That's because criminal prosecution is limited to people who have a professional dependency on cooperation by LEOs.
Civil prosecution does not, and while individual officers may have qualified immunity, state/local government agencies, including police departments, have no legal privilege to disregard copyright.
If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone.
People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed.
I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
A 16 year old working at McDonald's does not have the right to ignore the boss and play a gameboy (I was 16 in the 90's).
Banning music outside cop cars, or over the loud speaker, or on mobile devices while on duty does seem like something they definitely could do and would be within the law.
Suffice it to say, corporations are happy when the police find ways to let them exercise additional power that doesn't directly threaten their interests. What do they care if there's a fun song going on in the background if it lets police rough people up at their behest?
(For those who remember that Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog a few years ago and are wondering how McCartney has the rights, Jackson later sold it to Sony. When the songs became old enough, McCartney attempted to use the recapture provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 [1], 17 USC 203 [2]. Sony fought this, but in mid-2017 they settled and the rights went back to McCartney).
[1] https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/recapturing-copyrights-a-...
But I can imagine that playing certain music for a large crowd requires a specific license? Something like a radio station?
I don't see an argument that cops shouldn't have to pay for things working in court.
How so?
1. There is a video recording. This is specifically mentioned as a protected category.
2. The video recording of officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes material evidence. Recordings of officer conduct have been entered into evidence previously, so this fulfills the requirement that it be evidence.
3. Officer conduct prior to and during an arrest constitutes an inquiry or investigation. This article indicates that actions prior to an arrest constitute pre-arrest investigation [3] and thus fulfills that requirement.
4. Copyrighted music in the video recording reduces the discoverability of the evidence possibly to the degree of non-discoverability when it previously would have been discoverable. This appears to be at least concealment.
5. The accusation that the officers are deliberately playing copyrighted music resulting in the reduced discoverability. This fulfills the willfulness requirement.
1-4 establish that the specific outcomes observed constitute the hiding of evidence. It should be uncontroversial that the evidence has become less discoverable. 5 is then the only material question, which is whether it was done with the intent to cause the concealment of evidence.
Based on the above logic, I think it is fairly safe to say that, if they are doing as claimed, then they are violating California Penal Code 135 PC. The only part in the above logic that seems weak is point 3 as I am not sure if it is actually an inquiry or investigation. If point 3 is invalid, then I think the best thing to do would be to amend it to include officer conduct during pre-arrest investigation with respect to the eventually arrested party. This is a far better option than invoking copyright law as it would be narrowly defined to only target the specific willful action that seems unethical which is intentionally playing copyrighted music to prevent the posting of video recordings.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/#:~:text....
[3] https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5498-what-are-some-common-s....
The copyright owners probably live in Beverly Hills and are quite alright with their police keeping the riff-raff out.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/
It's a very simple DSP operation after song identification. It sounds like a lot of fun actually.
The front end location identification might not have an extant solution, but post identification it should be doable with standard tricks.
This is the cyberpunk future we were waiting for. Who wants to do some DSP?!
If anyone wants to work together on this, we absolutely should. This is a fun problem with a very, very cyberpunk vibe. Plus it's real DSP work!
Hmmm.... would playing another song at the same time not have similar effect?
This might be fun weekend project :)
To clarify, we don't want to subtract the data from the feed, we can just nullify it near the microphone.
I think it would be harder to filter on an instagram feed directly, not sure how their api looks or if it's possible?
This is also complicated, because you need to factor in the relative locations of the original source, your source, and the pickup to make sure the phase is correct.
Thats actually where any ML component would naturally sit. It would try to basically determine a "close-enough" deconvolution envelope for the reference recording.
You're right about echoes, but it doesn't need to be perfect - the echoes are already probably below the detection floor for the takedown filter.
Also: If you identify and match up with a refrain, you'd still nullify that refrain. You'd just have to keep on your toes and move to the right location once you realized there was a mismatch. This is a classic cat/mouse "warring filters" problem!
In the end, the solution does not have to be perfect. Just have to hide the song well enough so the content ID cannot be made. As you say, the sound that will manage to bypass the "inverted balanced-like filter" will be distorted and hopefully content ID is not accurate enough to recognize it.
Seriously, we don't need to fix the DMCA. This isn't the problem here. The problem is staring us in the face. Police are empowered by their unions which have a stranglehold on local if not national politics; even that 350 billion in the covid bills to shore up state finances is a little disguised bailout of public employee pension systems.
the simple fact is, public sector employee unions are a threat to the financial and physical security of all Americans. their actions permit their members to provide bad to no service in both schools and police if not general public services over all. Remember, qualified immunity is not just a police issue, it covers all public employees.
It isn’t realistic to think the officers could be prosecuted for DMCA violations, nor is it even that clear cut - they aren’t posting the videos that are being taking down. It takes two parties here to result in the copyright violation.
This is definitely not a good look for law enforcement to fight against public videos this way, even if it’s a clever hack. It is potentially violating the law, and it runs against the very reasons they have body cams. But enforcement won’t be easy and requires proving intent, which makes it even harder. So much simpler to just take away this particular avenue for avoiding public records.
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/have-you-heard-about-the-cockta...
The problem here is much deeper.
This doesn't interfere with the youtubers ability to record and publish the cop's actions. It only prevents them from profiting from it.
Sure they can be annoyed by this guy, but they lose respectability by trying to harm his business. The additional powers that police have, must come with some additional responsibility.
What is freedom of the press if not this?
I watched them on the guy’s Instagram account, where he’s using them to sell his anti-cop merch.
I’ve been seeing this headline on multiple sites in the past few days, but all of them include the video, which apparently hasn’t been taken down anywhere? Starting to think the person filming is doing so to promote his personal brand, and it’s working.
As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been a copyright removal. It appears the police were tired of being followed by this guy trying to provoke them to promote his Instagram and associated merch.
If they were deliberately playing it over a PA system to a crowd, then yes.
You may not like this behavior, but we really don’t want to set a precedent that listening to music at normal volumes in public spaces is a punishable copyright violation.
Neither of those things will happen. The system is too corrupt for that.
Is he going to come after me when i listen to music with an ipen window, or have friends over?
Having friends over isn't public performance. Having a window open incidentally isn't public performance.
So it's mostly about the take-down system and it's abusiveness.
And I think the activities of the police should be scrutinized heavily because they have an incredible amount of power and are accorded a very wide latitude. The police are the only people who can legally shoot you and not be tried. They can arrest you and throw you in jail. They can charge you with crimes, invade your house, and smear your reputation with the public. A police officer with a vendetta can absolutely ruin your life if not outright take it from you.
So yes, I think it should be okay for people to video the police going about their business.
The officers can't do anything about it because it's not illegal to film police officers in public while carrying out their official duties. It's a constitutionally protected activity.
Is it at times obnoxious? Sure. (Although in many cases, these videos capture police officers behaving badly, rather than live-streamers behaving badly.)
A lot of First Amendment protected activity is irritating to at least some people. Cursing at police is, in general, a First Amendment protected activity, and I don't suspect a lot of officers appreciate that, either. But the entire point of the First Amendment is to protect activity that other people might not like.
EDIT: It would be the most defensible thing ever- "It's our theme song, we can play it whenever we want to"
On the other hand we also seem to permit recording in other situations like law enforcement.
Eager to hear how people distinguish these two scenarios. Is it that if you’re a public figure or tax funded then your actions should be open to public scrutiny? I know companies operate in private but still need to make some data publicly available. Is there a balance? What is a good heuristic for how much data we should collect on cops, politicians, companies etc while still respecting privacy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
This (parent) comment falls foul of:
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Yes, always. Governments are given extraordinary powers by the people. Transparency is necessary to ensure these powers aren't being abused. Otherwise it's easy for corruption to set in.
On the other side, I do hope that this eventually leads to reforming the broken copyright fingerprinting systems in place.
Always consider the possible second and third-order effects of your proposal. There will always be people who use (or at least attempt to use) the new policy to their own maximum benefit, possibly not in the intended way at all.
Consider that behavior does not necessarily make them bad or evil, merely agents acting in their own self-interest. Consider then, also, not simply making a list of "if then else" exceptions and bans for these behaviors, but rethinking the entire policy in the first place.
I strongly believe we could all be in a better place civically if we adhere to these simple guidelines before we slap down policies left and right and get trapped in vicious feedback loops where we can't repeal certain laws because they are "grandfathered in".
I’m not thrilled about this, but I’m not entirely convinced that police officers are trying to get videos taken down by playing tinny, low-volume songs in the background of someone else’s videos.
Does anyone have an example of a video that was taken down because police were playing music in the background?
I’ve been seeing these videos over and over in the past 24 hours on various streaming platforms. It seems that if they were being taken down, we’d be hearing stories about the takedowns, not stories about them listening to music.
Edit: To response to your edited comment, I don't think the problem with this conduct hinges on whether YouTube or other video-streaming services actually do flag them as copyright infringement and filter them. The problem is that the officers are attempting to trigger the sites' filtering algorithms. Whether or not they're successful, it's still a problem.
Whether you like them or not, these cops have people obsessively following them around, filming them, and trying to engage them for social media clout. I suspect if the filters had more of a legitimate purpose, we’d be hearing about it in these articles.
Recording police in public as they perform their official duties is a constitutionally protected activity, upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers California. The police are trying to deter and prevent people from exercising that right.
The mature way to send a signal that they're not interested in engaging in conversation is to say, "I'm sorry, I'm not interested in engaging in any more conversation. I've got to attend to the duties of my job. It was nice talking with you."
I do acknowledge that police officers often face special scrutiny from the press and from the public. But that is because they are public servants with the ability to impinge upon people's life and liberty. And the more the public records LEO interactions, the more bad apples they seem to uncover.
This doesn’t appear to be a simple case of the police ignoring someone’s first question. The person recording the police appears to be following them around, recording them, badgering them with accusations and taunts, and posting the videos for social media clout.
(The way you invoked this is kinda reaching.)
They are reporting speculation.
If this was happening, they’d be reporting on the takedowns rather than the speculation.
Instead, the video is still up and available on social media.
I can easily see a coworker having a "brilliant" idea about copyright mumbo jumbo and a bunch of people buying into it. People try things that don't work all the time.
Here you have police officers flaunting the law, and yet, record labels have destroyed lives through punitive damages of regular citizens over unintentional sharing.
It just completely undermines and lays bare the hypocrisy underlying it all. One more mail in my anti-IP soapbox I guess.
Point otherwise clearly communicated though right?
Documenting every executive action taken by government - and ensuring that documentation is available in an open way - is at the heart of a decent society.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. If we can't see what police are doing, then under what pretext can we even remotely trust them to serve our interests?
The macro level statistics do not back this up. I agree with holding people accountable, but this issue has been over-sensationalized strategically by the media for political purposes.
I feel a much more impactful use of energy would be to focus on getting complete transparency from politicians for every decision they make, irrespective of political party. Just look at the mess Cuomo caused in NY...there should be people recording politicians like that all day.