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.
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-...
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.
[1] https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rig...
https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/understanding-the-music-sy...
I don't see an argument that cops shouldn't have to pay for things working in court.
But I can imagine that playing certain music for a large crowd requires a specific license? Something like a radio station?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I am filming you, a public official, doing something bad in your official capacity."
"You are now under arrest for stalking."
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, you need more than having passed the academy to become an officer of the law that can make standard, non-citizen's arrests.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/
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.
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.
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