> Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in public spaces.

Generally, yes:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

---begin quote---

17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

---end quote---

There are some exceptions to this regarding specific permitted performances at 17 USC § 110 as well as the general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC § 107, but I don’t see an obvious argument that these or any other copyright exceptions apply to this use for this purpose. (I can see an argument that the police use would render the recording and reuse by the person recording the officer fair use, but that's not an issue here, because we already know that copyright protection schemes by platforms are hostile to fair use.)

Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.

Copyright law has a lot of subtlety and courts have to make reasonable decisions. Considering this a violation is not in any way a reasonable decision. Taylor Swift and her record company are not harmed.

Others probably are harmed (the public), but that isn't a copyright thing.

> Courts would never in a million years call this a copyright violation. If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.

Because purpose is an element of Fair Use analysis, and because fair use is an exception to copyright, and because the purpose differs radically between the two cases, there are a whole lot of other assumptions you need to make for this “if...then...” statement to hold.

> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.

I believe this is the case, yes.

> If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music would be violating copyright.

It would indeed be so, if you were playing it with the express intent of having others listen to it.

Also, never underestimate the eagerness of the entertainment industry to decide that you need license to play something.

He had the express intent that he didn't want others to hear it.

You can't really claim an intent to suppress and an intent to play for an audience at the same time.

Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video.

Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.

His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public.

The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.

Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there.

Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is.

"The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights."

They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version.

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

"Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."

Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.

Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.

What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."

I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.

There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.

I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.

This discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying):

"The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."

You mean this TechDirt article?[1] It's advocacy. Not legal scholarship.

Their hypotheticals don't fit this case. And some of them are settled questions in the US. Courts consider intent all the time. Fair use factors include purpose and character. 17 USC 110 has an exception for receiving broadcasts. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate said hotel rooms are private. Apartments are at least as private. And driving means not staying in the same place for long usually.

It wasn't a few seconds. The recording shows the officer played over 2 minutes of the song. It ends with the song still playing.

Kwik-Fit settled out of court apparently.[2]

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml

[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/be-kwik-its-time-fo...

IANAL but this typically comes down to the definition of broadcast and one could certainly argue that the officer's intent is to broadcast if they're playing it specifically because they know they're being recorded for public broadcast.

The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it, is he not?

The officer is playing the music knowing that an attempt will be made to distribute the video, while hoping but not knowing for sure that the video will be blocked from distribution. The video could appear on one of many other sites that do a poorer job of screening media or that don't even attempt to do so.

Intent doesn't require knowing for sure. Intent is just hope associated with an action.

If I hope to hit the bullseye with my dart, but miss, it doesn't change my intention. Neither does a low likelyhood of success.

Broadcasting the music performance live in public to prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.

Public performances violate copyright.

You need a license to play or perform music and other types of copyrighted media in public.

Is this true? I play music on the street sometimes. Am I violating the law?

Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.

Talk to a lawyer about it. I have a musician in the family who performs at venues and also likes to busk, and they pay some subscription fee for access to a library of music they're allowed to legally perform.

I don't know about the US but I remember a story where a garage got sued for copyright violation because its employees had the radio playing loudly (as expected in a noisy shop) and it could be heard outside, and therefore, it was considered a public performance. I think it was in France, or maybe Germany, where the right performance rights collecting society (SACEM for France, GEMA for Germany) is particularly aggressive.

It probably wouldn't have passed judgment, but it was enough to scare the shop into forbidding its employees to play music at work.