It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP.
Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other.
The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not give YouTube that power.
I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.
I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?
If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble.
Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded.
Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
::Edit::
I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here:
The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment.
The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch.
They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment.
Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob
The public's right to record the police is well established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional wisdom.
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...
[2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-do...
"""Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right"""
They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that they link to in the text that I was quoting [0].
0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
The EFF link itself links to:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case law to explore.
The ACLU article links directly to:
https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20...
Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is repeatedly cited).
This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"? Lots of reading.
The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.