That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material.
There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself.
This thread is full of absurd arguments.
The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal.
Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance.
Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance.
If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it.
So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1]
None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you.
You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
Millions of people play unlicensed music beyond the narrow interpretation of this statute every day, and there's 200 years of case law that I referred you to that doesn't come anywhere even close to indicating that any court is going to take a narrow view of that statute.
The case law highlights where that 'boundary' is and it's beyond a cop or anyone else playing music from their person, on the job or otherwise.
The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]
More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.
My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.
1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.
2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.
3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.
Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.
This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.
It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.
It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about.
1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion.
2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material.
But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording.
This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really.
There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side.
HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.
I would expect most judges to take a very dim view of that argument.
Youtube's algorithms, however, will do what they're written to do...
It would be 'dim' for a claimant to suggest that the cop is participating in some kind of attempt to break copyright.
Rather, more obviously, the person doing the filming in public, without anyone's permission or awareness, just as any other filmmaker/documentarian, is unambiguously a party to some kind of production that ultimately may or may not violate copyright law.
Moreover, the interpretation of the statute, as indicated by a very long trail of case law history indicates that the boundaries for 'pubic performance' are fairly wide, at least wider than the most narrow interpretation of 'for oneself and close family' etc..
The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.
But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...
Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.
Where did you go to law school, exactly?
Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c).
And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.