Cops Are Playing Music While Citizens Are Filming To Trigger Copyright Filters (vice.com) 230
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Last Friday, a man entered the Beverly Hills police department, only to be treated to a mini DJ set that could potentially get his Instagram account banned. Sennett Devermont was at the department to file a form to obtain body camera footage from an incident in which he received a ticket he felt was unfair. Devermont also happens to be a well-known LA area activist, who regularly live-streams protests and interactions with the police to his more than 300,000 followers on Instagram. So, he streamed this visit as well -- and that's when things got weird.
In a video posted on his Instagram account, we see a mostly cordial conversation between Devermont and BHPD Sgt. Billy Fair turn a corner when Fair becomes upset that Devermont is live-streaming the interaction, including showing work contact information for another officer. Fair asks how many people are watching, to which Devermont replies, "Enough." Fair then stops answering questions, pulls out his phone, and starts silently swiping around -- and that's when the ska music starts playing. Fair boosts the volume, and continues staring at his phone. For nearly a full minute, Fair is silent, and only starts speaking after we're a good way through Sublime's "Santeria."
Assuming that Fair wasn't just trying to share his love of '90s stoner music with the citizens of Beverly Hills, this seems to be an intentional (if misguided) tactic to use social media companies' copyright protection policies to prevent himself from being filmed. Instagram in particular has been increasingly strict on posting copyrighted material. Any video that contains music, even if it's playing in the background, is potentially subject to removal by Instagram. Most people complain about these rules. Beverly Hills law enforcement, however, seems to be a fan. "Under most circumstances, civilians are legally permitted to openly film on-duty police officers under the First Amendment," the report notes. "And while the interaction between Devermont and Fair is pretty benign, BHPD's recent behavior suggests that at least some cops believe they can prevent themselves from being filmed or livestreamed by playing copyrighted music, which would have serious implications for more serious incidents of police misconduct."
In a statement emailed to VICE News, Beverly Hills PD said that "the playing of music while accepting a complaint or answering questions is not a procedure that has been recommended by Beverly Hills Police command staff," and that the videos of Fair were "currently under review."
In a video posted on his Instagram account, we see a mostly cordial conversation between Devermont and BHPD Sgt. Billy Fair turn a corner when Fair becomes upset that Devermont is live-streaming the interaction, including showing work contact information for another officer. Fair asks how many people are watching, to which Devermont replies, "Enough." Fair then stops answering questions, pulls out his phone, and starts silently swiping around -- and that's when the ska music starts playing. Fair boosts the volume, and continues staring at his phone. For nearly a full minute, Fair is silent, and only starts speaking after we're a good way through Sublime's "Santeria."
Assuming that Fair wasn't just trying to share his love of '90s stoner music with the citizens of Beverly Hills, this seems to be an intentional (if misguided) tactic to use social media companies' copyright protection policies to prevent himself from being filmed. Instagram in particular has been increasingly strict on posting copyrighted material. Any video that contains music, even if it's playing in the background, is potentially subject to removal by Instagram. Most people complain about these rules. Beverly Hills law enforcement, however, seems to be a fan. "Under most circumstances, civilians are legally permitted to openly film on-duty police officers under the First Amendment," the report notes. "And while the interaction between Devermont and Fair is pretty benign, BHPD's recent behavior suggests that at least some cops believe they can prevent themselves from being filmed or livestreamed by playing copyrighted music, which would have serious implications for more serious incidents of police misconduct."
In a statement emailed to VICE News, Beverly Hills PD said that "the playing of music while accepting a complaint or answering questions is not a procedure that has been recommended by Beverly Hills Police command staff," and that the videos of Fair were "currently under review."
Copyright holders chilling effect on society (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright was originally envisioned as a right granted from the people to creators that would give them the exclusive rights to profit from their work for a period to earn back the costs of creation and reward their efforts.
But this has gone far beyond that now with copyright houses claiming rights on works nearly a century old and using their copyright as weapons against people.
This was not the purpose of copyright, it has been distorted and corrupted to become abusive.
bad copyright law, but also bad courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone can make something that is copyrighted and own that work. It's a right accessible to all, perhaps more than any other right. (like voting)
Criminal enforcement of copyright violation seems to mainly favor big copyright holders. They somehow get to use tax payer funded law enforcement to serve corporate interests.
Civil cases always seem to favor those with money for attorneys. It doesn't really matter if it's about copyright or another IP issue, or even about a contract. The courts tend to best serve the interests of those with the resources to pay for it. Hiring a law firm to sue your competitor out of business becomes a calculation, how much money will you make long term versus what can you afford to "invest" in such siege warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of property ownership has generally involved a state to enforce said ownership.
Songs, poems, and the oral traditions predate the modern state, though. Songs generally belonged to all the people.
Modern technology makes it possible to record songs and make them into an item that can be claimed as property, Modern printing/publishing makes it cheap and easy to capture words the same way.
People should just quit relying on others to sing for them, and sing themselves. Stop passively watching 'movies
Re:Copyright holders chilling effect on society (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, could copyright law be used against police who do this?
Isn't the front desk of a police department considered a public space?
What does copyright law say about playing music loudly in public spaces without paying royalties?
Re: (Score:2)
The rightsholder (probably BMI or ASCAP) could make the argument that this is a "Public Performance" and ask the police to pay the licensing lee for the music. These sorts of lawsuits are very common and very expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This was not the purpose of copyright, it has been distorted and corrupted to become abusive.
Zoom the lens out a bit. What has become distorted, corrupt, and abusive, is the entire legal system that perpetuates this abuse.
Performers being protected was a reasonable decision. At the rate we're going, astronauts stepping foot on the moon again are going to get sued for moonwalking by the Jackson legal trust.
Re:Copyright holders chilling effect on society (Score:5, Funny)
This was not the purpose of copyright, it has been distorted and corrupted to become abusive.
Zoom the lens out a bit. What has become distorted, corrupt, and abusive, is the entire legal system that perpetuates this abuse.
Performers being protected was a reasonable decision. At the rate we're going, astronauts stepping foot on the moon again are going to get sued for moonwalking by the Jackson legal trust.
Show me on the map where Mr Jackson touched your moon...
Re: (Score:2)
This was not the purpose of copyright, it has been distorted and corrupted to become abusive.
Zoom the lens out a bit. What has become distorted, corrupt, and abusive, is the entire legal system that perpetuates this abuse.
Performers being protected was a reasonable decision. At the rate we're going, astronauts stepping foot on the moon again are going to get sued for moonwalking by the Jackson legal trust.
Show me on the map where Mr Jackson touched your moon...
Well that's me getting coffee off my screen again.
I must say, it was worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the tables could be turned on these cops. Aren't the RIAA interested in this "public performance"? In the UK the equivalent of the RIAA has gone after cops before, for having the radio on in the police station and audible from public areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is not binary (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm talking to people in my local bar, I expect a few people in nearby tables might overhear me, but I should be able to expect that every word I speak isn't captured by a high sensitivity mic and then put on YouTube?
Re:Privacy is not binary (Score:5, Interesting)
There seems to be this view that privacy is either of only two possible states. Either you're private and no-one can see you, or you're not private and then all 8 billion people are entitled to know what you're up to. Where are the 50 shades of grey that says if I'm doing something in my front yard, I expect a few people might see me, but this shouldn't give you the right to film me in my front yard and then broadcast it to the world?
If I'm talking to people in my local bar, I expect a few people in nearby tables might overhear me, but I should be able to expect that every word I speak isn't captured by a high sensitivity mic and then put on YouTube?
Hell yes!
There seems to be some sort of perverse assumption that you have zero right of privacy in a public place, therefore if you step out your front door it's legitimate to have your movement tracked and logged in perpetuity by a variety of interests public and private.
This is utterly absurd. The notions of privacy and it's legal backing completely predate the time when this was remotely feasible and something anyone had thought of. Sure someone might have paid a private detective to follow you around, but it just wasn't scalable enough to pose a problem in the general case. Just because it was legal to be intrusive in one person's life doesn't follow it's reasonable to be automatically do it to almost everyone for example.
I think your examples are fine in that it is reasonable for most people most of the time that their actions aren't continuously being captured, stored and logged in perpetuity. And if a private company wanted to film every road in the country and store the results that's not ok regardless of the current legal lack of expectation of privacy in a public place.
That said, I don't think this particular incident is quite the same case. In the last 50 years a TV reporter with a film crew could have pulled the same stunt at a police station, it would have just cost a bunch more money, but no one would have complained if he had the backing of a major TV network. Also you know a spiteful part of me thinks turnabout it fair play. They have body cameras to film interactions with private citizens, and so private citizens can film them right back. but you know it's much harder to lose the footage, have a broken camera or accidentally destroy the evidence if it's being livestreamed.
There's a curious thing, that there are many things are quite reasonable if not too many people do them, but if lots of people do it, it becomes a huge problem. Examples abound, from automatically putting everything you see on youtube to burning a wood fire in London. Sadly a lot of people see things in black and white as simply "ok" and "not ok", which makes this hard to discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your examples are fine in that it is reasonable for most people most of the time that their actions aren't continuously being captured, stored and logged in perpetuity. And if a private company wanted to film every road in the country and store the results that's not ok regardless of the current legal lack of expectation of privacy in a public place.
This is a balance between fundamental rights of privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And it seems to me that the right to privacy is somewhat overlooked in the USA compared to Europe. Maybe because we Europeans historically have been closer to the communist surveillance states (remember Stasi) and therefore put much more weight on protecting the privacy of citizens - also when they are in public areas.
I am quite satisfied that in general I cannot be video surveilled in public and that if I g
Re:Privacy is not binary (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a cop on duty then you should expect to be filmed. You have extraordinary powers over people, which means extraordinary scrutiny and accountability as well.
Re:Privacy is not binary (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a cop on duty then you should expect to be filmed. You have extraordinary powers over people, which means extraordinary scrutiny and accountability as well.
Not that I disagree entirely. But lots of people have extraordinary powers over people. What about nursing staffs at elderly homes? Should they expect to filmed since they have extraordinary power over the elderly? What about doctors and nurses? What about politicians? What about teachers? What about system administrators? Or CEOs?
This is definitely not an easy issue. In Denmark we have seen a number of incidents with secret recordings of nursing staffs treating helpless old people terribly. So these recordings are obviously justified. But should we be free to put all such recordings including ones that are not showing any abuse on the internet for the World to see if we please? I don't think so. Nursing staff also have a right to privacy. But they should of course be punished or fired if the don't treat their patients properly. In some cases you may want to show the recordings publicly. But unless something illegal happened you should IMO be obliged to blur out their faces.
And the same goes for the police. Just because you are a police officer does not mean that you want to be a YouTube star.
Re:Privacy is not binary (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, it's not an easy question to answer. I think in general most of the time there is a good argument for keeping the recording private, only handed to police when there is evidence of a crime or journalists when there is something in the public interest in there.
Cops are a somewhat unique situation though, because while on duty they not only have extraordinary powers, they are a serious threat to everyone if they decide to abuse them.
In the UK it is legal to film cops on duty, and many organizations recommend that you do so if you have any interaction with them at all. I'd say that is a reasonable balance, the cops can retreat to private spaces if they need to and given the level of routine abuse we see there is justification for the relatively minor loss of privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
What about nursing staffs at elderly homes? Should they expect to filmed since they have extraordinary power over the elderly? What about doctors and nurses? What about politicians? What about teachers? What about system administrators? Or CEOs?
To the extent that they *do* have that extraordinary power, yes, they should expect that.
But I think you don't realize exactly what exorbitant amount of power police has, and all people you named don't.
Police has the monopoly of force. This means they have the right to rough you up backed up by law, 7 ways from Sunday and for a wide variety of reasons. And you don't get any right to oppose in any way. The best you can do is sue after the fact, if you're alive, around and able to do that.
Nobody, not nursing
Re: (Score:2)
...If I'm talking to people in my local bar, I expect a few people in nearby tables might overhear me, but I should be able to expect that every word I speak isn't captured by a high sensitivity mic and then put on YouTube?
In a bar filled with narcissists addicted to social media, with 99.999% of them carrying smartphones riddled with privacy-robbing apps that often enable exactly that...yes. You sadly should damn near expect that to happen.
"Glassholes" were chased out of bars 5 years ago. They'll be welcomed in tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly and it's got to be crappy being any worker and knowing your are being watched.
As mentioned, the officers were being very professional and doing their job in a regular ordinary manner. Why do you feel the need to film it?
Did this activist really in his heart of hearts think the police officers at the station would be doing some really crazy shady stuff to warrant being video taped?
There's a social etiquette to this stuff. Maybe you go in without a camera. They turn down your request or try and persua
Is this really a big problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
"And while the interaction between Devermont and Fair is pretty benign, BHPD's recent behavior suggests that at least some cops believe they can prevent themselves from being filmed or livestreamed by playing copyrighted music, which would have serious implications for more serious incidents of police misconduct."
I am not sure that I understand how playing copyrighted music should prevent people from filming you. Yes, it will prevent you from publishing the recording unedited to the world. But you can still film them and if they do something illegal or reprehensible then you still have the evidence. Regarding livestreaming I can see the point if the stream is cut off. But then you can stream to a service which puts your recording somewhere safe instead of publishing it to the world.
My guess is that there are already filters that can remove background music from a recording now. So, just apply that afterwards if something illegal happens and you want to publish it. So, I don't really see this as a major blocker to prevent police misconduct.
Re:Is this really a big problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering if this is more of a technology hack than an attempt at legal protection. Putting copyrighted music into someone's video is going to cause algorithms on social media platforms to automatically suppress such uploads.
I don't know how this would work out if it ever went to court, but it adds technological friction to the publication of any such content.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the cop here too, if Devermont actually was filming and publishing email addresses or phone numbers of one of his colleagues that might otherwise be expected to be kept private. I'm extrapolating a bit here - what exactly was, "work contact information?"
Re: (Score:2)
Does it even work that well?
I mean, when I see some random street video of a police confrontation there's so much fucking yelling and background noise you can barely make out the voices and words of the principals in the scene.
How likely is it that some impromptu low-fi copyrighted music added to the baseline cacophony going to be appropriately processed by some automagic copyright filtering system?
It makes me wonder if its not even an intentional technical hack, but some kind of social hack designed to cre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not sure that I understand how playing copyrighted music should prevent people from filming you. Yes, it will prevent you from publishing the recording unedited to the world. But you can still film them and if they do something illegal or reprehensible then you still have the evidence.
I suspect this had as much to do with self-promotion as it did anything else. I mean, come on - he was streaming it on Instagram.
Re:Is this really a big problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, come on - he was streaming it on Instagram.
Or he was excerising his right to freedom of speech, and an agent of the government was using a roundabout method to try and interfere with that speech
Re: Is this really a big problem? (Score:3)
How? He never asked him to turn it off, he did what he was supposed to do (handle a body cam video request?), and nothing happened that prevented his exercise of free speech.
You have a right to record the police, as long as you don't interfere, and he did record the police - what was he denied? The ability to stream/share on social media because of music in the video? Are we now claiming that people have an inalienable right to stream videos?
Let's not forget, this is one activist and one officer - there's n
Re:Is this really a big problem? (Score:5, Informative)
I am not sure that I understand how playing copyrighted music should prevent people from filming you. Yes, it will prevent you from publishing the recording unedited to the world. But you can still film them and if they do something illegal or reprehensible then you still have the evidence.
I think the idea was that if you record a police officer (or record a bunch of ducks on a lake for that matter), and there is loud copyrighted music on your recording, and you put it on Youtube, some computer scanning everything on Youtube will detect the music, and automatically complain about copyright infringement.
If it went to court, you might convince a court that it is fair use to record music that a police officer played intentionally while you were legitimately recording him. But it doesn't go to court, your recording just disappears from Youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern deep learning probably can do better, I really wonder why someone still uses these stupid tricks to block video recordings from being uploaded to Youtube.
Re: Is this really a big problem? (Score:2)
It's not a new trick. It's a trick Antifa has been using all summer to prevent people trying to report on their violence from being able to post the video evidence on social media. People will live stream them doing something illegal, and they'll be blasting copyrighted music during it, to ensure that anyone who attempts to post the video will have their video copyright struck.
Thanks for sharing that - got a link or source for that? I was unable to Google up a source for that statement.
Not representative (Score:5, Funny)
For nearly a full minute, Fair is silent, and only starts speaking after we're a good way through Sublime's "Santeria."
Okay, look. I know that stories like this always make the headlines, but it's important to remember that only a tiny, tiny fraction of police officers listen to shitty ska punk, and we shouldn't judge the playlists of all of them based on the actions of a few.
Re: (Score:2)
Ska Lives Matters!
It's called "Bad Boys" by the Inner Circle. (Score:2)
Public performance laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how the exact laws are in the USA, but playing your licensed music to a stranger in public should qualify for "public performance". Isn't that explicitly forbidden by whatever small print you have to accept before you can play copyrighted music for your personal use? Isn't that cop engaging in piracy by sharing copyrighted material, with the patent intent of going beyond fair use?
How is it that I have the feeling he will not be prosecuted for this?
Re: Public performance laws? (Score:4, Funny)
He has qualified immunity. ;)
Entrapment (Score:2)
Arrest them and sling them in the clink.
Its called .. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That *was* an amusing three episodes that I saw. I liked some of the dark humor, but...yeah.
Copyright infringement by police? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally just having music playing when someone *happens* to be around is legal. But if you play the song FOR members of the public, that pretty much ticks the box for "public performance". Intent to disrupt lawful recording doesn't even need to get involved for this to be unlawful.
Cops are human garbage? (Score:2)
Lawful Evil (Score:2)
This is pretty brilliant, tbh.
Both in parry and in illustrating the need to decentralize.
Well, it's a public performance then, (Score:3)
Post the videos where DMCA isn't an issue (Score:2)
https://www.websiteplanet.com/... [websiteplanet.com]
What a genius hacker (Score:3)
Awesome! (Score:2)
Or maybe.... (Score:2)
Just maybe, not do those things if you aren't willing to be held accountable for your actions.
Gross behavior (Score:2)
When cops resort to tactics like this, it's basically a admission that they know what they're doing is "questionable at best" and they don't want it to be seen. How much longer will we tolerate these abuses?
Report them to ASCAP (Score:2)
Report them to ASCAP for public performance without a license.
Fifteen minutes of fame destoyed .. yea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Could he rightfully sue the cop here? (Score:2)
Potentially easy to shut down - ADA (Score:2)
Devermont (the citizen) could have stated he couldn't satisfactorily hear the cop over the music and asked him to turn it off. He has a right to communicate with the police under reasonable circumstances. Otherwise the police (or anyone) could always blast noise at 150db+ when citizens come to complain. This could effectively turn into an ADA case.
Recreating audio (Score:2)
If this becomes common, I can see people recreating the audio and laying it over the video. They could give the police ridiculous accents, change tones, and more. And many of those people are very good at video/audio editing, have lots of free time, and often chips on their shoulders with authority figures. This is not a road the police want to take.
sticks and stones (Score:2)
When the film of Rodney King came out it wasn't the soundtrack that got the attention.
If it is something that the cop says that is the problem then bring that before his superiors or a judge, It does not need to be covered so exigently that it must go live to instagram
If the purpose of streaming the interaction is to feel physically safer then do it without the soundtrack
Plural? (Score:2)
A careful read of this story reveals exactly one police officer and one citizen, why are "Cops" and "Citizens" plural?
To be honest, the live-streamed was being kind of a jerk, walking into the police station with a camera going while submitting a request for body cam footage, and the officer was kind of a jerk by playing the music - had to portray either as angel or villain.
Re:Um... Doubt the cop has a license for the music (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although i bet he did not have a license to broadcast music in a public place, nor does the police station.
And I'll bet all those people claiming they're "sharing" music with three million of their "friends" don't have the license to do so either yet people on here will defend that person's right to do so.
Re:Um... Doubt the cop has a license for the music (Score:4, Interesting)
That's enough to get you a 'friendly' visit from ASCAP or one of the other licensing vultures. They routinely hit up bars and restaurants even if the only music is a radio in the kitchen that might be overheard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He was lying, or just lazy. I work in pubs and hotels and there is no such thing as a legally required 'licensed music system'. If you are playing music you put in whatever music system you want and pay license fees to PRS. This is in the UK, but if its different in the US I'll eat my hat.
Perhaps he meant he couldn't change the plans easily to remove speakers from public areas.
Re: Very interesting - what are your sources? (Score:3)
Because he asked if they were streaming and then knowingly chose to use someone else's music to speak to thosr people watching the stream, AKA a performance of a copyrighted work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Very interesting - what are your sources? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the performance is in an unrestricted public location, or the people attending the performance are not friends and family, then it's considered a public performance.
If the cops want to continue using this hack, I'm sure there are a few cops capable of creating a bit of music, which they would own the copyright on, and only the copyright holder can sue you for a public performance of a copyrighted work.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I think this would be a trivial solution, for both sides, to bypass filters during streaming.
1 Write a bad song. ...
2 Add cymbals for white noise.
3
4 Profi...
sorry
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's a video of a policeman having non-police recreation while on duty, copyright infringement for live performance, and attempting to prevent themselves being filmed while on duty for no good reason, unsuccessfully, thus resulting in drawing more attention to himself and his action.
Not really sure a judge would look on it kindly or provide a way out between those constraints if anything were to have happened, however filming the police as they do their job and bothering them are entirely differ
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:5, Interesting)
And don't someone start with Instagram not being Free Speech and all of that. When the Public Square is privately owned, well, you get the idea.
The Public Square, is Privately Owned.
Can't think of a better way to describe the justification to dismantle social media's steel grip on public discourse, than that. And we wonder why so many citizens attack social media "filtering" (a.k.a. censorship) for being a violation of their Free Speech Rights on a "private" platform.
Here's a thought to remedy this; Hey Social Media. You want to run the world's largest get-off-my-lawn platforms, picking and choosing the content YOU want to shape and warp social discourse? No problem. Get the hell off the NYSE. We need to make it clear you're a privately owned platform.
Feel free to censor yourself into zero-tolerance oblivion after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:4, Insightful)
...Now, people are angry with those companies, but that is only because it is so human to place the blame outside of yourself.
As someone who remembers what it was like to have to pay a reasonable price for damn near every internet service, I could not agree with you more than one of the largest downfalls in society, was turning the human into the product with a "free" price tag.
People don't care about privacy anymore. They sold their digital soul, for a free price tag. And they'll find out soon enough that's not an exaggeration (go ahead. Tell me who owns your DNA now.) It's also a disgusting sales and marketing tactic.
I have a product recently purchased, that's defective. It's a $20 product. I was considering calling the manufacturer to see about a replacement, but immediately ran into the "register your product here!" marketing crap. Sadly, I'm weighing a $20 product against my personal information they're going to demand I give up in exchange for a damn RMA.
I remember when I bought a new car a while back. Salesman was practically ripping my phone out of my hand to show me how to "sync" it with my new car. Before I could tell him "uh, no thanks, I don't want to upload my personal information to your data mining clou..". Too late. I was rather pissed. He tells me "You'll be safer this way."
Sadly, putting a price tag again on internet products and services, isn't the answer either without massive legal reform. No way in hell would we trust companies to charge people and NOT still data mine them into oblivion behind their backs. Greed, and the stock price that drives it, would demand otherwise, which brings me back to my main point; time to de-list social media.
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:2)
So if you are a serious livestreamer get a license to rebroadcast copyrighted music.
An alternative step would be to have an AI that filters out the music from the stream. Maybe something for instagram and youtube to consider instead of killing the stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. You buy a single license from SOCAN that covers whatever you want to broadcast. It doesn't cost billions, or radio stations wouldn't be a thing. Some of the bigger streamers have them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I looked through SOCAN (which seems to be a Canadian thing) and couldn't even find how much it'd cost, instead redirecting to Entandem.
Gee. if it's so easy and affordable, then yes why hasn't every company ever done this? I Guess even news organizations that mute out copyrighted content just aren't "serious".
So even if it isn't "untold billions", then ho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Having the cops beating back rioters and all to the tune Freebird would be like the scenes in the Kingsmen.
Hell, I'd start watching the evening news again if they started doing that.
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a cop attempting to destroy evidence. The public should demand he be charged as such.
If a citizen were to attempt to do the same thing to police, I wonder what legal options the police pursue to obtain copyright waiver or other tactics, to preserve the evidence?
Pick up that legal mirror, and shine it right back.
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The police make and store recordings. They don't live-stream their body cams on Instagram. There's no need for police to "obtain copyright waiver or other tactics" to record body cam footage.
copyrights can't be used to keep stuff of court (Score:2)
copyrights can't be used to keep stuff of court now what if count on zoom blocks it?
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty much on board, it's just ironic that the thing they've done to deal with the person filming made the film far more newsworthy and casts the police in a bad light (do they get taught how to stop videos of them being shared etc etc). Not being an expert on US law I honestly don't know but I would have thought that there would be some legitimate grounds on which to require them to either stop filming or leave the premises; though my experience is from within Europe where distributing footage of someone without permission is generally not ok.
The officer sees they are filming. Asks if they would please stop recording. If they refuse then they politely excuse themselves and go to talk to someone who can advise them, if it takes 5-10 minutes then the person filming can wait. You now either have grounds to require them to stop filming, or if you can't then a plan for how to best handle it.
US Courts have said that filming of police officers while they are on duty, as long as it does not interfere in their ability to perform those duties (ie getting in the way of an arrest, etc), is legal. Police hate it, especially now, when their actions are now subject to scrutiny by the public at large and captured for any potential legal actions down the road (such as civil suits for racist behaviour, use of excessive force, etc). The ones that don't have an issue tend to be the ones who aren't doing anything wrong....
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:4, Insightful)
A perfect example of this would be the Covington Catholic School kids. By selective editing and promoting of a false narrative it went from them waiting to be picked up by their bus and being confronted by a group of Native American protestors to looking like they did the confrontation.
How many people here would like having a camera recording their every interaction and live streamed? I for one would look to walk away from an any encounter where I knew that was happening because my assumption would be that the person doing the recording has a chip on their shoulder about something and will probably be antagonistic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you shouldn't be a cop.
Actually, given that you're supporting those misogynist white supremacist Covington shitbags, you definitely shouldn't be a cop.
Humans have a right to record cops wherever they are and whatever they're doing.
Oh, and part of the point of recording and livestreaming cops IS to get them to walk the fuck away instead of attacking. A cop walking away and not beating or killing someone is a win for society.
Re: Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:2, Troll)
You don't necessarily have to be doing something wrong for someone to cut and splice a video to make you look bad. While you can argue that this was a live stream and therefore not edited what happens when someone takes the feed after the fact and cuts/splices it then pushes out a bogus story saying the individual was doing something wrong.
You don't even have to do anything wrong OR be the victim of heavy editing to be mistreated by video. I'm thinking specifically about the man that was seen in a video ignoring multiple requests to comply, at gunpoint, as police tried to take him into custody for a domestic violence felony warrant and when he leaned into his car to retrieve a knife the officers fired their guns to neutralize the threat. The officers actions were legal, but based on the victims race, the narrative that "another unarmed black
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt all these "well if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to be nervous" types wouldn't feel so good if the cops were the ones coming knocking with such an
Need more ironic selection in music (Score:3)
The Beverly Hills cops are clever, but if they were really clever, they would play "Sergeant Foley's Theme"?
Or "Neutron Dance"?
Re: (Score:2)
Axel F.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:5, Insightful)
It might piss you off, but there's a reason it's legal over the objects of your feelings being hurt - because the cops are funded by taxpayer money and if any public service begs for transparency and oversight, it's law enforcement.
Re:Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:5, Insightful)
This wasn't a cop in the field though, this was a desk jockey. There's no reason he needs more oversight than a janitor. Or maybe you think govt-paid janitors need body cameras?
If he's got qualified immunity and a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence then he should be recorded any time he interacts with a non-cop while on duty. Janitors can't whip out a weapon and shoot you if they feel threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe you think govt-paid janitors need body cameras?
Body cameras, not necessarily. But I would expect video surveillance in the police station and I would hope that with a few specific exemptions that those recordings would be a matter of public record.
In private life I'm a rugged individualist that champions privacy. But government has a tremendous amount of force and authority that we give it over our lives. I don't care if you're a janitor, a desk jockey or a beat cop - if you sign up for that position you should understand that you are voluntarily relinq
Re: (Score:2)
Was he a police officer? Yes or no? Your argument that just because he's working at a desk means he needs no more oversight than a janitor is highly specious. If the consequences of your interactions with a "desk jockey" police officer had no more import than the cleanliness of a floor or closet, then you might have a point. But it doesn't, and therefore you don't.
If you walked into a police station (Score:3)
There excuse is that you're interfering with them, but it's obvious your not since if a professional media outlet is there they can record the same as you and I. What they really mean is that they can't use excessive force (e.g. "More force than needed to make the arrest") that makes their jobs a bit ea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't think that would stand up in court. The recording was still made presumably, on the phone. The only disruption would have been to the live stream.
On the other hand a charge of copyright infringement might stick. The cop clearly intended to use copyrighted material for personal gain, and clearly knew that doing so would trigger a copyright claim. What's the going rate for that, $1000 per person who heard it?
Re: Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:2)
Re: Good luck getting somewhere with that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cop attempting to destroy evidence. The public should demand he be charged as such.
But that's nonsense. First, evidence of what? There is evidence on my shirt that I ate a softly cooked egg this morning. It's perfectly legal for me to destroy that evidence by putting my shirt in the washing machine.
It's perfectly legal to film him, and the evidence will be there. He may make it a bit more difficult to publish the evidence of Youtube, but if he did something that makes him end up in court, you can come with your (possibly copyright infringing but not your fault) evidence.
Re: Playing music to stop those First Amendment Au (Score:2)
A cop.
One time.
This isn't a 'thing' multiple people have experienced.
As noted by countless other commenters here, it only limits the livestreamers ability to play the video on social media, it's still usable as evidence in court.
You're acting like because of the music the officer could then pistol whip the live-streamed and the evidence would be unusable? That's not how the courts work.