Not sure I agree with you, reading the opening lines of the code, "that you know to be relevant to a trial, police investigation or other legal proceedings." No trail or police investigation happening means interfering with the video isnt illegal.

I agree that is the weakest element. Applicability largely hinges on what qualifies as a “police investigation” or “legal proceeding” which I have been unable to get a clear answer on. But, from a layman’s perspective, it seems like a police interaction which may lead to a use of police powers either should count or our legislative bodies should change the law to make it count as that appears to be in line with the spirit law to guarantee that all pertinent evidence to a crime be discoverable.

It's simpler than that. Even intent to get youtube to censor/not publish it is not concealing it from anyone, and especially not concealing it from an investigation/ the justice system, which is the clear intent of the law.

If not being published on YouTube were the criteria for concealment, then wouldn't the person making the recording also be guilty if they simply decided not to post/share it?

Preventing publishing or distribution isn't concealment.

The level of bizarre mental gymnastics employed by the otherwise intelligent but obviously cop-hating HN crowd is disturbing.

The cop isn't hiding anything.

YouTube, may decide not to publish something, and that's not 'concealing' anything either.

There's almost a 0% chance that if this went to court on copyright claims, that someone playing music while on the job i.e. cop, insurance adjuster, home appraiser etc. is going to be found in copyright violation.

There's almost a 100% chance that if you film people who are listening to music - and that copyrighted music is in your production ... that's it's going to be in violation.

It's not a perfect civil rights situation, because these laws were not designed for that.

It just is what it is.

Probably they will have to make some policy change for this issue.