I know everyone is looking for a loophole to prosecute these officers
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.
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.