Re:Multiple Beverly Hills PD officers now weaponizing copyri...
by dragonwriter on Friday February 12, 2021 @01:29PM
(#26116814)
> So the officers just claim they always listen to music?
> 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.
> 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.