Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Crime Music

Cop Admits To Playing Copyrighted Music Through Squad Car PA To Keep Videos Off YouTube (jalopnik.com) 127

Posted by BeauHD from the A+-for-creativity dept.
A police officer in Santa Ana, California, admitted to blaring Disney favorites from a squad car PA system in an attempt to keep citizens' videos of their actions off of YouTube. Jalopnik reports: It just so happens they woke up a sleeping city council member, who took police to task for their annoying and suspicious tactic. Using copyright infringement against those who record police actions hasn't really work so far, which may be why this officer decided to really blare Disney tunes during an investigation of a car theft. At the moment, the video posted by Santa Ana Audits is still up after being posted six days ago, so it's safe to say this officer woke up an entire community for nothing.

Santa Ana PD release a statement on Twitter acknowledging the video. Santa Ana PD told Vice that using squad car audio system is not department policy. YouTube won't always remove a video for copyright infringement. Sometimes the site will place an ad on the video, with proceeds going to the copyright holder.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cop Admits To Playing Copyrighted Music Through Squad Car PA To Keep Videos Off YouTube More

Cop Admits To Playing Copyrighted Music Through Squad Car PA To Keep Videos Off YouTube

Comments Filter:

  • YouTuber Viced rhino (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @09:29PM (#62442082)
    Had a problem with music showing up in videos that he was responding to that had copyrighted music in the background. They make software now that'll remove the copyrighted music believe the content intact. He used that to reupload a bunch of his videos.

    What I'm saying is that this is going to work for very long.

    • Well maybe this could be a good thing. Maybe it will stop YouTube and the copyright cartel from removing everything that is fair use just because an algorithm said it wasn't.

      • Maybe it will stop YouTube and the copyright cartel from removing everything that is fair use just because an algorithm said it wasn't.

        LOL!

    • Do you have a link to that software?
      • Sorry I don't. I don't think he mentioned what software he used just that he had to use it. If you search Google for "software that removes background music from video" you should be able to find several solutions. With copyright strikes being so common it's become a pretty common piece of software. It's nothing new. There's a hilarious video on YouTube somewhere a little Wayne playing the guitar at a concert and somebody use software to remove his background musicians so that you can only hear what he's pl

    • Re:YouTuber Viced rhino (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @04:17AM (#62442528) Homepage Journal

      I tried out the automatic copyrighted music removal tool recently. It didn't really remove the music, just kinda filtered it a bit in places. Enough that you wouldn't want to listen to it if you were interested in the song, but apparently enough to avoid the copyright filters.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 )

      I reckon this tactic can be turned back on them. RIAA requires a licence be purchased for public "performace" of copyright music. "performance" include things like playing the radio at work on the office, or listening to a CD in your hair-dresser salon.

      I'd say odds a re good blareing it out on the stereo at full volume in public probably requires a license.

      I also say odds are good that if you point RIAA at the situation they are going to turn up, and the RIAA's lawyers get paid a heck of a lot more than the

      • Re:YouTuber Viced rhino (Score:5, Informative)

        by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @10:12AM (#62443102)

        Sadly, no. I mean, you're right that this is a clear example of public performance. But judges and police are very closely aligned, so no judge is likely to rule against the police on anything but the most egregious violations. Plus, the RIAA's legal tactics only work because judges don't laugh them out of court, so the RIAA has no interest in pissing off police (and thus their allies: judges). Oh, and of course, none of that matters since qualified immunity would stop any lawsuit before it could even get going.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 )

          Except that is was not a public performance.
          I suggest to read up "copyright law" to get an idea what public performance means.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
            When it comes to the police, I've read up on 'murder' and 'hate crimes' and yet here we are.

        • Courts have ruled time and time again that recording the police is a 1st Amendment protected activity. I'd hope a judge would see that this cop is admitting his intent to illegally block this constitutionally-protected behavior.

      • Why is this so far down, +1

      • Re:YouTuber Viced rhino (Score:4)

        by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @10:18AM (#62443122) Homepage

        Yep. He should be made to pay for his use of the music.

        (at the same rates they claim pirates ought to be paying)

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        I reckon this tactic can be turned back on them. RIAA requires a licence be purchased for public "performace" of copyright music. "performance" include things like playing the radio at work on the office, or listening to a CD in your hair-dresser salon.

        I'd say odds a re good blareing it out on the stereo at full volume in public probably requires a license.

        I also say odds are good that if you point RIAA at the situation they are going to turn up, and the RIAA's lawyers get paid a heck of a lot more than the cops ones do.

        If memory serves it's not just the RIAA, there's ASCAP, EMI, and BMI (among others in alphabet soup land) that have licensing rights as well. So this could, theoretically, have a nasty ripple for the PD. I doubt it will, but it'd be interesting to see this play out in a court.

        That said, fun fact, (IANAL, but this is my understanding of the letter of the law on this one) playing music in a restaurant for customers, license needed. Playing music in the kitchen for the staff, no license needed. Playing mus

      • That assumes the RIAA doesn't want to be on the good side of law enforcement.

        The complaint would need to come directly from the artist, since I doubt the RIAA cares.

      • Running music in your car loud is not a public performance.

    • If you are trying to show the world evidence of wrongdoing by cops, I submit that manipulating the audio in the video really is not the best way to go about it. One shouldn't be required to do that.

      • get the country's attention first, you can always provide the unfiltered version to play on the nightly news and explain that because of an attempt at spoliation by the police it was necessary to post the filtered version

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      I would argue if you have altered the content in one selective way - removing just certain audio. There is exactly no reason I should give any credence at all to whatever else I see in the video. I would HAVE to assume its either a fake or has otherwise been edited selectively to misrepresent the actual happenings.

      What is really needed is a copyright exception where copyright material that is not the subject of but included incidentally in other media of public interest, falls under fair use. I would als

      • So if Youtube wants to cowardly match audio and block videos without any kind of human review

        Youtube doesn't want to. They just don't want to get raped in court by the RIAA. So they make a good faith effort to delete copyrighted material. Automated, because it's cheaper and the down side of a false positiive is far less costly than missing some content.

        If some riff-raff wants to record themselves commiting crimes and put it to music, I suggest they use Beethoven [wikipedia.org].

    • Trying to remove audio is an awfully bad way to go about it. You're going to end up with dropouts and decreased intelligibility.

      I see YouTube uploads all the time of music that has been put through essentially a pitch-shifting effect that fools the copyright filter. Seems that putting the song into a different key is enough to fool the copyright algorithm.

      It sounds, for all intents and purposes, just like the original song as far as "legibility" goes. Unless you are a musician with perfect pitch, or compari

    • What I'm saying is that this is going to work for very long.

      It doesn't work now, as the summary points out. YouTube doesn't remove videos that use copyrighted music, it just demonetizes them for the uploader. To be precise, YouTube suspends the video and asks the uploader whether they'd like to leave it up but demonetized. If the uploader clicks "yes", the video is back online.

      So while the cop's actions might prevent the uploader from making bank on their video, it won't prevent the video from being seen and shared, because the motivation for uploading this sort

  • Unauthorized public performance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Angry Coward ( 6165972 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @09:33PM (#62442084)
    Disney, or whoever the rights holders are really need to go after this clown for unauthorized public performance of their work. Easy win in court with the video as evidence, and good pr for them.

    • Re:Unauthorized public performance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @09:44PM (#62442102) Homepage Journal

      The real problem is that the cop is interfering with the public's right to monitor him doing his job and share their results. When the cop realizes he's talking to a city councilmember, he becomes a lot more respectful. That's the way he should have been from the start.

      • Bad cop. Bad cop. What'cha goin' do when they kill you too? Bad cop. Bad cop.

        • Bad cops, bad cops,

          Bad cops, bad cops,

          Bad cops, bad cops,

          Springfield Cops are on the take,

          But what do expect for the money we make?

          Whether in a car or on a horse,

          We don't mind using excessive force!

          Bad cops, bad cops,

          Bad cops, bad cops...

      • Re:Unauthorized public performance (Score:5, Informative)

        by GigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @10:01PM (#62442118)
        The public's right to record police actions includes the right to film a cop blaring copyrighted music without permission. The cop is the one violating copyright law. The video is covered by fair use, since it's evidence of a crime.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Arethan ( 223197 )

          Maybe you haven't dealt with automated systems like this before, so I'll give you an example of how a situation like this may play out:

          1) Copyright Infringement Algorithm doesn't care or understand about niche corner cases, so it simply drops/bans the infringing content once it detects any violation.
          2) The original poster now gets to file a complaint into yet another automation driven system, where again, such a niche case isn't expected, so it is automatically denied.
          3) Since an appeal case was filed and c

          • The problem is, once an accusation is made - whether by an automated system or by a licensing troll - that a video is in copyright violation, it's then the video owner's duty to prove their innocence, rather than the accuser's duty to prove their guilt. This law was intentionally written backwards from the start.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              That's how it used to be, these days YouTube and others are more relaxed.

              If you do a copyright match, the copyright owner gets a choice on what happens - they can have the video removed, or (and this is new and the most popular option), they can monetize the video.

              If the video is removed, it isn't played at all. If it's monetized, the copyright owner gets all the money from the video.

              The video uploader has the option to re-upload a new video, or to have the affected portion silenced, or to allow it to conti

          • yeah, law doesn't matter to dmca bots

          • And that's the problem.

            The automated system doesn't know about corner cases, but without automated systems, the sheer volume of content couldn't be handled at all.

            Kinda like a Catch22

          • Well, there's a simple solution to that... reform the DMCA to ban all algorithmic, automatic, or remote api or form driven takedowns. Any DMCA accusation should be reviewed and filed by a specific identified individual who makes a sworn statement under that "penalty of perjury" that it is in fact infringing in a *written* statement delivered to the service or provider by registered mail.

            Also, the "penalty of perjury" clause needs to be expanded and given some teeth such that anyone who submits a DMCA accus

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Arethan ( 223197 )

              reform the DMCA

              While I agree, I hold little hope that we'll ever see this happen. There's too much money involved to make these takedowns harder to perform, the lobbying against such a reform would be insane.

        • It is an admitted attempt by a governmental entity to stop the diffusion of protected speech. This should immediately be pounced upon by anybody wanting to protect constitutional rights. Yet.... I see a strange vacuum of apathy around this.

        • The right to record them would make good legal sense to be protected. The right to rebroadcast it, especially for commercial purposes on a Youtube channel, becomes a fascinating legal question.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            The right to rebroadcast it, especially for commercial purposes on a Youtube channel, becomes a fascinating legal question.

            Yes. But a very simple one to adjudicate. Youtube is private property. The owners get to decide what to host and what not to. "The public" has no right to consider it to be a public forum. That's what they told Trump supporters on Facebook/Twitter.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I like the German solution to this. When uploading the video the creator declares that the copyrighted music is fair use, and to challenge it the onus is on the copyright holder to make the counter argument.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jd ( 1658 )

            It's obviously the correct starting point. I'm not sure of precisely how the Germans work it but I could imagine a US version being per-instance.

            If taken to the extreme, that version would allow someone to create sock puppets to harass copyright owners because they'd have to prove it in each case.

            So perhaps we have to find a way to dial it so that the ruling applied to a parameterised class of cases, rather than individual instances, where anything that met the parameters identified as constituting unreason

        • So where, precisely, is the boundary between someone playing music loudly for themselves and "blaring copywrited music"?

          Feels like allowing music owners to go after anyone playing music someone else can happen to hear is a slippery slope.

        • I agree! Now all we gotta do is explain this to the algorithm.

      • Yes - that's the real problem. But sometimes real problems have sneaky cheap fixes. You can't play copyrighted music in public without paying royalties.

      • Being right for the wrong reasons isn't always a bad thing if your endgame's the same as people who are right for the right reasons.

      • The cop isn't preventing the recording.

        YouTube algorithms are preventing the rebroadcasting of the recording. So-called AI has a long way to go.

        • The cop isn't preventing the recording.

          YouTube algorithms are preventing the rebroadcasting of the recording. So-called AI has a long way to go.

          The cop is illegally playing it (copyright violation) with the purpose of denying the public a right that they have. Cops should not be above the law and shouldn't be able to interfere with legal activities of the public.

        • Actually the cop *is* preventing the rebroadcasting.

          The algorithm is at fault, but the cop is complicit and the primary moral actor responsible because he is deliberately exploiting the aforementioned bug in the algorithm for the express purpose of preventing the rebroadcast.

          This is a bug exploit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          The cop *admitted* his intent was to prevent the recorder from being able to use their recording.

    • Re:Unauthorized public performance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @10:13PM (#62442132)
      Agree 100% but.... in the end the taxpayers will pay the fine. We need CRIMINAL charges for police misbehavior, fines simply get passed to the department. This is a minor case as things go (he didn't shoot anyone) but it was still an attempt to prevent citizens from engaging in a legal activity .
      • Is a study that shows how much police abuse and bad cops cost the taxpayers in lawsuits and other miscellaneous expenses. I mean there's a reason why the captain in those eighties cops movies was always pissed at the loose Cannon. If the cop is doing more damage than the criminals do we really want that?

        Oh and as others have pointed out cops have a ridiculously low rate of catching murderers and serial killers. If anyone else was that bad at their jobs they get fired...

        It just doesn't seem to be a g

      • Agree 100% but.... in the end the taxpayers will pay the fine. We need CRIMINAL charges for police misbehavior, fines simply get passed to the department. This is a minor case as things go (he didn't shoot anyone) but it was still an attempt to prevent citizens from engaging in a legal activity .

        Not necessarily, Disney can sue the cop directly for infringement. After all he is the one that used the cruiser PA system for the public performance. He can then try to sue the city, claiming that said public performance was part of his job duties, to move to get help paying the judgment. I don't think he would even get a union paid arbitration judge to rule in his favor.

        • That has nothing to do with his accountability to the taxpayers or the city.

          Disney isn't the only aggrieved party here, and as a corporation I really wouldn't trust them to exact retribution on someone else's behalf anyway.

          We can't count on Disney to fight our battles for us.

          • That has nothing to do with his accountability to the taxpayers or the city.

            Disney isn't the only aggrieved party here, and as a corporation I really wouldn't trust them to exact retribution on someone else's behalf anyway.

            We can't count on Disney to fight our battles for us.

            I'm not expecting Disney to fight for anything, except to seek to punish the person illegally using their music for a public performance. Now the town/village/city isn't providing cruisers with PA system to play copyrighted music publicly. That means Disney shouldn't be suing the person uploading the legal video to YouTube, or the town/village/city, but the person giving the illegal performance. Now their role ends there, they are suing over the illegal use of their copyrighted works by the infringer.

            As

            • My point was how we can reliably trust disney to file that lawsuit in the first place. Expecting that they can is one thing, but it's completely different to count on that having a positive side benefit for us.
              • Nope, but the party posting the video isn't the one running the public performance. With a lack of strikes against the video, I'm guessing they don't want to step in it.

    • I think there was a $1,000 fine per song shared in the early music counter-pirating days.
      Make policemen pay $1,000 for each infringement, and this will quickly go away.

    • Playing your radio loudly isn't a public performance. Otherwise, every person listening to a boom box on a beach would be commiting a crime. The radio station already paid the copyright fee to play the music.

  • Smart and almost hilarious; but also definitely a dick move

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      It's not even smart, because it literally never works and has been tried numerous times. They are literally too stupid to continue to do their job. They have no critical thinking skills. This cop is only suited for something like a manufacturing line, where they do something repetitive and simple.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      It says a lot about law enforcement and US copyright laws. Deep Mouse has the most censorship power of anybody.

  • can they do this to stop cop cam videos from being put out into the public?

    Can Disney DMCA an video like that? DMCA the court room tv?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      Yes, and automatically too, but maybe not with that music. Some music is only tagged to take your monetization, but a small fraction is tagged to prevent the video from playing at all. One that I know for sure will block a video is Hotel California. If someone is trying to video you, play that and they will at least have to edit out the audio before posting.

      • and then the city can be found in volition of law for not putting the video out unedited.

        Even in a count room? And say due to some DMCA issue in where they can't give it to the defense attorney then it's an mistrial maybe with prejudice or even Prosecutorial Misconduct

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Hotel California

        I was just reading the suspect his rights: "You can check out any time you want. But you can never leave."

    • Cops just turn off their body cams. There are no punishments or repercussions for doing so.

    • can they do this to stop cop cam videos from being put out into the public? Can Disney DMCA an video like that?

      Disney could use the DMCA to take the video down from YouTube probably; however, most likely Disney will simply get all the revenue from the video.

      DMCA the court room tv?

      If your question is whether Disney can prevent the court from seeing the video as evidence in a trial using the DMCA, the answer is definitely no. The fair use of the video in a criminal matter would outweigh any copyright claims. If your question is whether the video can shown to the public during a trial, there are measures the court could do like mute the musi

  • So now that we have the evidence... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @10:40PM (#62442192) Journal

    When can we expect the suspension without pay penalty? It is, after all, the only punishment that will have any ringing effect.

    Let the fraternal order of police rally together to support this dumb fuck during their mandatory sabbatical. After that time is served, let them return to their job with some dignity, they're already going to get fucked with by all of their peers for the next year or so, perhaps forever.

    Do _not_ give this officer suspension with pay, that's just an unplanned paid vacation period. But also, don't fuck this person out of their livelihood just because they screwed up - use it to teach them a lesson, and send a message to their peers.

    • I'd rather see him fired to be honest. Did you miss the part where he turned his body cam off when he pulled this stunt?

      Ain't nobody entitled to be a cop. Let him find another job. That would send a message.

    • yeah, not gonna happen

      cops protect other cops, not people

      acab

    • "fuck this person out of their livelihood just because they screwed up"

      Since cops don't qualify as people, fuck him and the rest of them. Subhuman pieces of shit.

      • When cops "screw up" there is the potential for serious harm to life and livelihood. It takes a certain kind of person to be a good cop, I think that it is reasonable to try to weed out the ones who aren't cut out for it.

    • Civilians get fired all the time by private sector bosses when they fuck up. I don't see why police should be held to a lower standard.

      Getting fired is a consequence. If you don't want a pink slip then think twice before you do something that will earn you one.

  • back fires? (Score:3)

    by Lost Penguin ( 636359 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @01:21AM (#62442404)
    So, citizens were only recording the cops to document the copyright abuse by officers, in a public broadcast of Disney intellectual property.
    • Correct me if I'n wrong but couldn't the videos uplkader set the video as nin monatized, iirc this stops the dmca bots from scanning it, byt I could be wrong.

      • Correct me if I'n wrong but couldn't the videos uplkader set the video as nin monatized, iirc this stops the dmca bots from scanning it, byt I could be wrong.

        Completely correct.

  • Public performance of a copyrighted song on the streets for people not in your immediate family?

    That cop will go to jail for 20 years.

  • As a side note (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @08:46AM (#62442882)
    Can we start forcing police unions to self-insure, indemnifying the city/taxpayers, for certification? Nothing fancy, just have them use a captive insurer model like CCW Safe. They union takes care of business, booting troublemakers / lawsuit generators, their premiums will stay nice and low. They pull that "thin blue line" bullshiat and protect the jerks... well they can enjoy watching their paychecks shrink. They can't afford to self-insure, the union is dissolved and the city takes direct control until new union leadership is elected and they can get insurance... and yes... that means the city can fire the morons generating lawsuits.

    We won't have to worry about cops getting fired and going to work for another town/city either even with the self-insurance model. I'll guarantee that the insurers will know who the troublemakers are no matter how they try to hide, even if they move five states away. What will those poor cops that love to beat suspects do? Well, there's always barber college.

    Oh, and I've not seen too many reason police departments need multiple (heck most don't even need one) MRAPs or similar. Stop militarizing the cops. Wrong mindset. You want the military deployed inside the US, change the -expletive- law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      That sounds like a good idea on the surface but what happens to a town whose police department goes to shit? An understaffed police department wont do anyone any good.

      • Good on the surface? Really it's an AWESOME idea because it destroys bad cops having any ability to obtain employment, except for maybe as a mall cop. The only cops that need to worry are cops that do something illegal and generate lawsuits.

        As far understaffed police departments you might get that the first couple times, but it'll sort quickly as bad cops that can't be insured are replaced, and find themselves unemployable.

        Finally: Why in the heck should I be forced to pay extra tax money for judgment

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          As a police department looses money its ability to maintain proper staffing will decline. How will this not happen every time a police station is penalized? Furthermore, if paychecks go down for cops when their stations are penalized as you predict all you're inviting is more of a chance of police corruption as poorly paid police officers are a recipe for corruption.

          I'm all for finding ways to weed out bad cops but cutting off money to bad stations is just as bad an idea as cutting off funding from poorly p

          • Re:As a side note (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2022 @01:35PM (#62443602)

            As a police department looses money its ability to maintain proper staffing will decline.

            First error: The police department doesn't lose a dime of funding, as it doesn't spend a dime on the insurance... the police UNION members lose when they protect bad cops. The police UNION must self-insure to indemnify taxpayers.

            How will this not happen every time a police station is penalized?

            I think you made a mistake here, you don't penalize buildings.

            Furthermore, if paychecks go down for cops when their stations are penalized as you predict all you're inviting is more of a chance of police corruption as poorly paid police officers are a recipe for corruption.

            The cops are only poorly paid if they keep protecting troublemakers generating lawsuits. I mean, why is it the average citizen's responsibility to pay for a "rogue cop" murdering a person by choosing to become judge, jury, and executioner? Why should it be the average citizens responsibility to pay for a cop raping a 15yo? The police aren't paid to kill people wantonly, much less rape children. The only reason most of these quote un-quote "bad apples" hang around as long as they do is the union protects them from the consequences. Since we can't get rid of qualified immunity easily, no Republican judge or DA will EVER let that go even with video evidence proving the cops are lying, we just need to force police unions to indemnify the taxpayer.

            I'm all for finding ways to weed out bad cops but cutting off money to bad stations is just as bad an idea as cutting off funding from poorly performing schools. In both cases you're just going to make problems worse.

            Again with the stations thing. I think you mean departments tovarich. The police department doesn't lose a penny. The police department will always be fully funded. What will feel the pinch is officer paychecks as their union dues rise if they choose to run the "thin blue line" game. You know, the one where they say there are two types of people: "Cops and everyone else." Well, assuming they don't mind their paychecks being shrunk to pay for that insurance they can play that game. I'm betting that most cops will turn on the troublemakers to protect their paychecks.

            Absolutely that sucks but this is not the right answer to that problem.

            What's your answer. Mine is simple, completely fair to everyone involved, and maintains a fully-funded police department. That's right FULLY-FUNDED POLICE. As in NOT A PENNY LESS IN POLICE FUNDING. The ONLY thing that changes is the union MUST indemnify the taxpayers from any lawsuits caused by their members violating civil rights, raping people, murdering people, you know... BREAKING THE -EXPLETIVE- LAW.

            Tell me: Why do you support cops being allowed to break the law and forcing taxpayers to pay for their crimes?

  • That pig needs to lose his job and be ostracized by the entire country for that BS

  • Does the police have the right to play copyrighted music to hide their illegal acts and shield themselves from the court of public opinion or the individual that recorded the police playing copyrighted music (without permission) attempting to shield themselves from public scrutiny because they were in the process of violating someone's civil liberties?

    Is there a difference between the intentions of playing music for enjoyment vs that of using copyright protection by proxy to hide police brutality?

  • If anything, the officer would be guilty of copyright infringement for an unauthorized public performance.

  • Its a cute idea, but it can (and hopefully) seriously backfire. Since the playing of music is not part of the police officer's job, the city would not have to defend them or pay any judgment for the resulting copyright violations.

    The requirement for defense and indemnification by the employer is not subject to the qualified immunity standards. Copyright law is well established and the violation of such would not entitled the cop to qualified immunity.

  • Sometimes the site will place an ad on the video, with proceeds going to the copyright holder.

    I can just imagine the kind of ads that would accompany a beating to the sound of "Can you feel the love tonight"

  • A public broadcast often requires a license, so some concerned citizens should contact the relevant authorities to check.

  • I mean out of the millions of tunes available, he could have picked âoeI fought the law (and the law won)â

  • Years ago we were discussing on /. how Youtube's copyright bot would be weaponized in this manner to hide corrupt activities.

    Unsuprisingly, this prediction came true.

    "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few", well Disney can go fuck themselves. It's now impossible for them or others to gatekeep something that is literally floating around everywhere including on physical media.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close