[HN Gopher] Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a vid...
___________________________________________________________________
Police officer plays Taylor Swift song to keep a video off YouTube
Author : mychele
Score : 329 points
Date : 2021-07-01 18:07 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| throwawaycities wrote:
| Maybe the officer will have a great YC application answer for the
| time he hacked a system.
|
| Lots of people here upset with the officer's tactic, but he
| didn't interfere with any right to record. If anyone is at fault
| it is YouTube for preemptively taking down videos containing
| copyright that fall within the Fair Use Doctrine...of course that
| is YouTube's legal right also, they don't have to host anything.
|
| If it were my video, and if it were actually important to share
| online for one reason or another, I would look at it like an
| opportunity to request a limited license from the copyright
| holder to post the video...then they would have a great YC
| application also.
| rocqua wrote:
| Its not that the tactic is scummy.
|
| Its that police officers use tactics to prevent recordings of
| themselves being uploaded and spread. The fact that they
| explicitly go out of their way to avoid accountability is bad.
| It is bad because, given the privileges we give police, a
| strong force of accountability is needed.
|
| This situation is worsened by the fact that this happened at a
| hearing where police conduct was the subject. There already are
| doubts in that community about police conduct. If they close
| ranks, that suggests there is indeed something wrong.
| Certainly, it means the relationship between police and the
| community is becoming more and more adversarial, and police
| aren't trying to bridge that gap. That is simply bad.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| I completely disagree. Police are people too and as much as
| you are allowed to film them I can't imagine another country
| where people are shoving their phones into the faces of the
| officers. Just take couple steps back and there is no
| problem.
|
| I won't argue about the police actions in US. I've said my
| piece on the matter.
| sixothree wrote:
| He _did_ interfere with their ability to share the video.
| peeters wrote:
| Is there some kind of centralized review system for police
| departments in the US? I try to be cognizant of confirmation
| bias, but the amount of news I read about this particular force
| makes me think it's particularly bad even among US forces.
|
| As a Canadian the most prominent in my memory is when the Alameda
| county sheriff's office outright lied about circumstances
| involving Masai Ujiri (president of the Toronto Raptors) and one
| of their deputies at the 2019 NBA Final.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masai_Ujiri#2019_NBA_Finals_in...
| sixothree wrote:
| This country was founded on checks and balances. And currently
| the people who have the most control over whether we are
| allowed to live and how we do that have zero checks whatsoever.
| This needs to change.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| Nope, and it's why police regularly get away with abuses of
| power that would have (rightfully) landed me in prison if I
| tried it while deployed in Afghanistan.
| [deleted]
| wcarss wrote:
| 30 Rock was ahead of the curve on this one!
|
| Some of the episode Operation Righteous Cowboy Lightning[1] has
| the central characters singing an argument to each other to the
| tune of 'Uptown Girl' by Billy Joel, to stop a reality tv show
| that's following them from being able to air the footage, due to
| the copyright burden it would cause on them.
|
| Of course reality is far more tragic.
|
| 1 -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Righteous_Cowboy_Lig...
| theshadowknows wrote:
| This seems like a great use case for a mobile app that can use ML
| to "clean" content from video like that
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The actual video is available on YouTube if you want to watch for
| yourself, Taylor Swift music included:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc
|
| Apparently the strategy doesn't work.
| bugfix wrote:
| You can upload it to YouTube, but you can't monetize it.
|
| I've seen some videos of people following officers around with
| a camera and harassing them trying to get some sort of
| response, so they can post the video on their Instagram/YouTube
| and make money from ads.
| lucideer wrote:
| > _Apparently the strategy doesn 't work._
|
| Yet. Take-downs are carried out somewhat arbitrarily. The point
| is that there's no guarantee it will continue to be available.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Good example of the Streisand Effect. This YouTube channel
| currently has 89 subscribers. Most of their videos have less
| than a hundred views. Without this attempt by the officer
| likely nobody would have seen, heard, or cared about some
| argument over where a banner should or should not be placed.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| Keep psychologically abusing police (getting in their face and
| antagonizing them) instead of holding legislators and officials
| accountable and see if society gets better or worse.
| rocqua wrote:
| What should legislators and officials change?
| Forbo wrote:
| End qualified immunity, for starters.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| > instead of holding legislators and officials accountable
|
| or perps.
|
| A good idea for an experiment. We could try different things in
| different places (states?) and see what is what.
|
| I suppose the cops playing Taylor Swift could pay the ASCAP
| mafia or whoever and be above board.
|
| Generally, I'd say that if the public wants to watch all police
| activity, they'll have to get used to sausage being made. Maybe
| that's not such a bad thing, life isn't as clean and sanitary
| as you might think from a cubicle.
| spoonjim wrote:
| This is the action of someone who has already planned in advance
| how to suppress the evidence of their abuse of authority.
| 015a wrote:
| To some degree I understand the cop's position. The internet is
| an insanely dangerous echo chamber. The vast, VAST majority of
| police interactions are not that. The vast majority of police
| interactions are well-meaning officers maintaining public order.
| This doesn't excuse the interactions which _are_ unrighteous and
| deserve to be exposed, possibly including the interaction that
| these people were protesting.
|
| The officer here was, to my view, the more sane one. He said you
| could record. If something happened bad enough to justify
| publishing the video to expose the interaction, a little Taylor
| Swift music shouldn't stop that dissemination of information.
| What it can do is dampen Ambient Outrage; a citizen surveillance
| state of uploading every police interaction out there to social
| media for Internet Crazies to get angry about because Cops Are
| Just Evil, where there is no nuance, no context, just outrage and
| ad dollars for the protestors behind the uploads.
|
| Its memey and sad that this is the lengths officers have to go
| to. That's it. But if it works, especially in a situation when
| the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's fine"
| (good on him!); I think their underlying rationale is perfectly
| sound.
| akersten wrote:
| > when the officer flat-out says "yeah you can record, that's
| fine" (good on him!);
|
| The fact that he plays the copyrighted track is evidence that
| his statement about "oh, sure, of course you can record ;)" was
| not made in good faith. I give the officer zero benefit of the
| doubt here. Transparency is necessary in all police
| interactions in public, not just the ones that are "bad enough
| to excuse a little Taylor Swift." Cops can cry me a river about
| the internet outrage machine.
| 015a wrote:
| You are conflating the Court of Public Opinion with the Court
| of Law.
|
| The Court of Public Opinion is the court that drives teens to
| suicide through internet bullying, that accused the wrong man
| of bombing the Boston Marathon, and killing students at Sandy
| Hook, even suggesting Sandy Hook didn't happen. That's the
| internet.
|
| The standards for evidence on the internet are low, and
| tempers are high. Transparency in "all" public police
| interactions isn't necessary, just like transparency in "all"
| doctor interactions isn't necessary in order to judge doctor
| competency. Its an infuriating distraction; it gives you an
| excuse to be angry about everything. And moreover; media
| outlets fuel this outrage machine by purposefully omitting
| context and nuance in order to drive clicks.
|
| You believe you're using a critical eye to analyze these
| situations. You're not. This is undeniable, because it is
| difficult even for the people there, at the scene, to analyze
| a complex situation like these critically, to have all the
| information, and understand if the right call was or was not
| made, let alone someone sitting in a dark room in their
| basement a thousand miles away getting all of their
| information from Buzzfeed and The Verge.
|
| Its the job of the Court of Law to look past the Taylor
| Swift; they're held to a higher standard, just as officers
| themselves are. That doesn't mean mistakes aren't made. But
| those mistakes are not an excuse to break the system and
| raise tensions in every police interaction. This will only
| lead to more violence.
| jfengel wrote:
| If the goal is to reduce the violence level to the point
| that only the police are committing violence, then that is
| not a good goal.
|
| The issue here is that people have justifiable reason to
| think that the police themselves are breaking the law, in
| very brazen ways because the system that should hold them
| to account has broken down. When the system that maintains
| order breaks down, there is going to be violence, and
| trying to contain that violence to just the ones with the
| badges and guns is not a better outcome.
|
| Reducing tensions at this point must begin with police not
| supporting every single police act of violence, no matter
| how obvious. Until that happens, anything that people do
| will be considered "raising tensions". Since the situation
| is lose-lose for them, you're the one who's going to have
| to reconsider what outcome you want.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| the playing of the song doesn't make the recording of the
| video any less factual or truthful.
|
| it would just be harder to publish on youtube itself and
| there are other social medias
| moate wrote:
| Bad take is bad.
|
| It's not the cop's job to do prevent this video from getting
| onto YoutTube. We have a whole SLEW of legislative channels
| that could be used to "protect" cops from people recording
| them. Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet?
| Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law.
|
| Also, in an environment in which trust with the police has been
| eroded to the point of rioting because people feel the cops are
| dishonest and hiding bad behavior, admitting on camera "I'm
| trying to hide my behavior from scrutiny" is about the worst
| thing you can do, and will get a national publication to pick
| you up.
|
| The cop has a police union, qualified immunity, and the entire
| law enforcement segment of the government to protect him. It's
| assumed that whatever his report said happened is what
| happened. Protesters only have cameras to prove their side of
| the story.
|
| (edited for spelling/grammar mistake)
| jwond wrote:
| > Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet?
| Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a
| law.
|
| What would a law look like that would prevent people from
| posting videos of police officers on the internet while also
| complying with the First Amendment?
| moate wrote:
| It wouldn't. It's impossible. People want unconstitutional
| things all the time though, and sometimes they even make
| them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose.
|
| But you can do it.
| floren wrote:
| > People want unconstitutional things all the time
| though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then
| they go to the SCOTUS and lose.
|
| And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to
| suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to
| reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down,
| well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun
| owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push
| through another law next month.
| moate wrote:
| My personal "favorites" have been some of the abortion
| ban laws that know they're unconstitutional but are
| passed and sit there "pending the overturning of Roe v.
| Wade".
|
| Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it
| because you said "this law is illegal...for now."
| 015a wrote:
| No one is suggesting that recording the police should be
| disallowed. I'd argue its a critically important piece of
| balance between the police and citizens; at worst, it can
| tell a different angle of the same story, and at best it can
| fight against corruption which _does_ exist (e.g. not wearing
| body cams, lying, computer glitch lost the bodycam footage,
| etc).
|
| The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used.
| Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy,
| impossible to legislate boundary.
|
| A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where
| this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a
| very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at
| fault.
|
| A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters
| with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe
| there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can
| matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality
| or corruption, which does happen (especially outside
| developed nations).
|
| YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the
| single place for all internet video. Stop letting the
| algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will
| surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos.
| Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry?
| Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the
| police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that
| matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world
| better", but destruction never ends this way.
|
| You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can
| take it". Its still escalation, and they _can_ take it. Do
| you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War?
| Do you _enjoy_ the fact that officers approach cars pulled
| over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you
| think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it
| self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the
| probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with
| one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred
| pounds on each side breaks.
| darkerside wrote:
| Yeah, I get that cops aren't very popular these days, but this
| is a very clever hack, and I like to think that the HN crowd is
| logical enough to appreciate it, regardless of the perpetrator.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| It is a clever hack, and like other zero days we need to
| implement a patch immediately. It is simply unacceptable that
| police can start playing music and prevent their (mis)conduct
| from being distributed on the most popular distribution
| channels.
| trophycase wrote:
| What misconduct?
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| None in this case, but it's a tactic that can be employed
| in conjunction with misconduct.
| jfengel wrote:
| It wasn't his idea. We've known about this for months.
|
| And it didn't work. So it was neither original nor effective.
| There's nothing to laud.
|
| There were people who noted the cleverness of it months ago.
| This is merely script-kiddie stuff... and ineffective at
| that.
| gregallan wrote:
| I think it's a little misguided to praise the officer for
| allowing them to film. It would be illegal for him to prevent
| them from filming him performing his duties in a public place.
| I also find it slightly ridiculous for you to characterize
| citizens recording their interactions with police for their own
| protection as a "citizen surveillance state." The citizens are
| not the state. The police here are representatives of the state
| and must be held to account in every interaction with
| civilians. I don't deny that it's a high-pressure situation for
| an individual to be in, and like you I find it hard to
| personally fault him for his strategy to prevent going viral.
| AFAIK it's legally fine, and ethically grey depending on his
| exact intentions, which we can't really know. In this case
| however, it's more likely to result in a Streisand effect.
|
| Edit: on reading the rest of this thread I'm more convinced of
| the dubious legality of the cop's playing music with the
| expectation that the recording will be made public
| 015a wrote:
| > on reading the rest of this thread I'm more convinced of
| the dubious legality of the cop's playing music with the
| expectation that the recording will be made public
|
| You're convinced by angry internet hobby-lawyers sitting in
| their Aerons taking a quick break from writing HTML? This is
| precisely the very low standard of evidence that the officer
| involved here is trying to short circuit.
| gregallan wrote:
| Note that I said dubious legality. I was just qualifying my
| earlier statement that it was legally fine. Hopefully we'll
| get a legal ruling on this sooner rather than later.
| ortusdux wrote:
| IIRC, a while back that the MPAA was pushing for a law that would
| require video cameras to stop recording if they detected a
| specific trigger. The intent was to prevent people from filming
| in movie theaters, similar to the EURion watermarking
| constellation found on most bank notes. I can't imagine how
| things would have turned out if that technology had become
| standard and inevitably abused.
| varispeed wrote:
| In many Android phones you can't record calls and call
| recording apps don't work.
|
| When I recently reported a crime police didn't show up and when
| I asked them to come for a follow up, they lied that I have not
| asked anyone to come. The lovely lady even said "We listened to
| your call and you didn't ask us to come when incident
| happened."
| CyberShadow wrote:
| The reason is mostly technical. Depending on the phone, call
| audio isn't implemented as much in software as wired directly
| (in some variable degree) to the radio hardware.
|
| This is why the quality and success rate of call recording
| apps varies - it depends how many kinds of configurations the
| app authors managed to implement support / workarounds for.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Is that so? I can make phone calls with my iPhone on
| wireless Bluetooth headphones. Does the radio hardware
| directly stream to whatever headphones my iPhone is paired
| with? I suppose it's possible, but it strikes me as
| unlikely.
| CyberShadow wrote:
| Judging from that call recording apps apparently need to
| implement support for recording calls over Bluetooth
| separately, I would conclude that this does go over a
| different path, but still needs to be handled explicitly.
| zinekeller wrote:
| As some who tinkers phones, this is very true, especially
| with phones equipped with Qualcomm chipsets (note that
| VoLTE and VoWiFi _are_ decoded in software though).
| effingwewt wrote:
| Bullshit. They break it with updates on phones where it
| worked just fine. They also removed access to root folders
| on a whim. This sucked for those of us with locked
| bootloaders, without root we now lost access to those
| folders and the contents therein.
| CyberShadow wrote:
| > They also removed access to root folders on a whim.
|
| I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but from the
| manufacturer's view, any method of allowing the
| modification of the operating system software is a
| vulnerability (because the same could be done to e.g.
| install rootkits). This is why many devices allow
| unlocking the bootloader (as the official way to modify
| the OS) but announce this loudly on boot.
| zinekeller wrote:
| What is you country (of your SIM card)? If it's Asia, I'm
| definitely sure that circumventing that restriction (even
| analog means) _will_ get you to jail.
|
| Edit: also some parts of the US!
| zinekeller wrote:
| Sadly, the HN can't handle valid concerns.
| [deleted]
| varispeed wrote:
| No, I am sure it is intentional. I have call recording
| working on my phone, but I know for a fact the pending
| software update I have disables that functionality.
|
| The success rate varies, because of the cat and mouse game
| with manufacturers.
| goldenkey wrote:
| Google just broke call recording again on my Pixel 4 with
| their latest Android update. They've done this multiple times
| in the last few years. Truly deplorable..
| jiveturkey wrote:
| that more or less happened. all BD players required to
| implement audio fingerprinting
| cwkoss wrote:
| What is BD in this context?
| LegitShady wrote:
| I assume blu-ray disc
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I am surprised I never heard of this before. It's a
| watermark not a fingerprint. The audio would have a
| watermark embedded in it, and if the player finds the
| watermark it requires the disk to have encryption. That
| would be pretty neat if it wasn't awful.
| [deleted]
| zamadatix wrote:
| I'd lean towards "less", a unique fingerprint provides
| completely different functionality than a kill sound. The
| only connection is the MPAA liked both.
| cratermoon wrote:
| They police and federal law enforcement did this in Portland
| during the BLM protests last summer.
| NazakiAid wrote:
| Quite funny that this ends up making the video more popular
| because of the Streisand effect. Would be scary if police always
| had this technique though when recording as maybe it would end up
| becoming more normalised so the Streisand effect wouldn't happen.
| calgoo wrote:
| This sounds like a great ml app idea: Remove music from audio
| while keeping the other voices. I wonder how hard it would be to
| keep them separate.
| MereInterest wrote:
| Spleeter [1] does a really good job of it. It can separate out
| the vocals, accompaniment, drums, bass, and piano. It does a
| really phenomenal job at it, though there can be a bit of
| reverb in the vocals if there's a lot of reverb in the base.
| Splitting out individual vocalists is a lot harder, and I
| haven't found any pre-trained models that manage it. There's a
| lot of speaker separation [2] models, but they are trained on
| separate sentences overlapping.
|
| [1] https://github.com/deezer/spleeter/releases [2]
| https://paperswithcode.com/task/speaker-separation
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If you know what song is playing, then it's somewhat trivial to
| remove it from the audio, no ML needed.
| pope_meat wrote:
| That's pretty clever, they know that an individual with a video
| can be dealt with a lot easier than a viral video where the whole
| public gets to see the behavior.
|
| I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a bunch
| of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge, maybe
| negative reinforcement works on them too xD
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"I'm glad some precincts burned down last summer. I'm glad a
| bunch of cops quit, and the ones remaining are all on edge,
| maybe negative reinforcement works on them too xD"
|
| Be careful what you wish for.....
|
| Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs
| will be more accountable than the police?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You may hate the cops, but do you really think that mobs
| will be more accountable than the police?
|
| To the currently politically powerful who disproportionately
| control what is done by government, no.
|
| To people on the other side of that power imbalance? Well,
| who do you think the mobs _are_ , and why do they use that
| mechanism instead of the formal political system to attempt
| to impose accountability?
|
| Obviously, not a desirable durable state of affairs, the
| desirable condition is to resolve the power imbalance in the
| formal systems. But if you can't convince those who control
| those systems that the systems they control will be forcibly
| rendered irrelevant if the imbalance in them persists, that
| is unlikely.
| brewdad wrote:
| > Edit: You may hate the cops, but do you really think that
| mobs will be more accountable than the police?
|
| Considering cops currently face accountability that
| approaches 0, yes.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I just don't how see burning down precinct buildings leads
| to anything better. A controversial opinion, it seems.
| cforrester wrote:
| It's not the burning that directly leads to something
| better. It's more like a natural consequence caused by
| failing to adequately address people's need for something
| better; people who feel powerless in their quest for
| justice will treasure morsels of that justice whereever
| they can get it, such as direct attacks on the public
| institutions suppressing them.
|
| The good that can come from it is motivation: it's more
| clear than ever that gradual reform is not occurring, and
| something has to change at a fundamental level. Enabling
| people to get justice civilly will sharply reduce the
| number of people resorting to incivility.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| Well, it may not be the most constructive way of dealing
| with police abuses, but it's one of the vanishingly few
| consequences police have faced for their malfeasance and
| unfettered violence.
| jessaustin wrote:
| USA police have shot and killed roughly a thousand people a
| year for many decades. Over that time period three police
| have been convicted of murder. [0] I can't imagine a less
| accountable mob. If nothing else, a greater percentage of any
| _mobile vulgus_ would feel guilty and turn themselves in.
|
| [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-officers-
| convicte...
| lucideer wrote:
| I don't follow; what need the gp be careful of?
|
| (I do see the post is now flagged but presume that's users
| disagreeing & abusing the flag button as it's within
| guidelines; I see what users may disagree with but still
| don't see what they should be "careful" about)
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I copied/quoted the part from the GP that stood out to me.
| I was just gobsmacked that the GP was glad precincts were
| burned down. I'm weary of mob and vigilante "justice".
| lucideer wrote:
| Ah; the edit makes more sense.
|
| We're each entitled to our own perspective, but fwiw, I
| think you'll struggle to find any cohort less accountable
| than the police. Whereas "the mob", being traditionally a
| phrase used broadly by established powers to derogate the
| opposition, is almost by definition always the cohort
| held most to account in any given situation.
|
| Furthermore, perhaps one of the biggest false assumptions
| many seem to have about abolition movements is that there
| isn't reasoned proposals for (existing or new)
| accountable institutions to fill potential voids left by
| abolition.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Understandable. I'm coming at this from a "violence
| begets violence" perspective and my fear is escalation.
| lucideer wrote:
| I agree. I've just seen evidence of police being the
| primary source of escalation too many times.
| throwaway29303 wrote:
| Hrm. Upgrades.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Perhaps a work around would be to post without audio and add text
| captions, fully accepting that if the people in the video are
| wearing masks, the captions could turn into _bad lipreading_
| memes.
| jopsen wrote:
| Or just use mask/obfuscate the audio, and face while your at
| it.
|
| In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if officers
| faces and voices were blurred.
|
| After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at
| fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the
| department policies that require officers to apply unreasonable
| force.
|
| There are also many other contributing factors to policing
| issues in the US. But the argument that it's just "a few bad
| apples" seems like deflection to me. And if it's not just a few
| bad apples, then why do we need to publicly shame individual
| officers who are just doing their job as they were trained to
| do, in line with department policies? (Doesn't such public
| shaming just create opposition and resentment, distracting from
| the issue at hand)
|
| Just saying... in other countries media don't go around
| posting/shaming people publicly if there is no conviction.
| (Sure, there is a balance, a few exceptions, and lots of
| nuance)
| kemonocode wrote:
| > In some ways, the whole debate could be more civil if
| officers faces and voices were blurred.
|
| Police have no expectation of privacy when performing their
| official duties, at least in the US, so that should be a non-
| issue. If they don't want to bring consequences unto
| themselves for what they're doing, then perhaps they should
| stop doing such things or think really hard about their
| chosen career path.
|
| > After all, it's not really the individual officer who is at
| fault: it's the system that trained the officer, and the
| department policies that require officers to apply
| unreasonable force.
|
| At some point you can't just blame "the system" and there
| needs to be individual accountability. Mayhaps if they like
| the lack of it and with less bodily risk, they could pursue
| politics instead.
| lucideer wrote:
| Given the tools available now to do speech replacement/
| deepfakes / etc. I wonder is there anything open-source
| available for song-replacement.
|
| This is actually a problem I've seen on multiple (more
| innocuous) occasions: so-called "content-creator" youtubers
| casually mentioning that they had to throw away clips or
| rerecord sections during editing after realising there was
| copyrighted background noise. So I'd say there's definitely a
| market.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It'd probably be better to do a vocal boost to the max and
| try to silence the music part as much as you can.
|
| Although I don't really know how often it's going to be
| necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast some
| garbled mess on a YouTube video.
| lucideer wrote:
| A straight vocal boost would change the audio profile of
| the overall scene pretty significantly, so I'm thinking
| some tool that has less impact would be desirable.
|
| > _I don 't really know how often it's going to be
| necessary. Here I am watching this police officer blast
| some garbled mess_
|
| I don't know how it'd fare in this instance but continuous
| improvements to the Shazam-esque algorithms used by
| copyright-flagging bots might make this less and less
| likely to go undetected.
| eqtn wrote:
| There is "Mute song only(beta)" in YouTube which says "Remove
| the claimed song only, keeping the rest of the sound. This
| option usually takes longer and might not work if the song is
| hard to remove"
| 988747 wrote:
| But if you do "song-replacement" then the video is now
| edited, and loses all credibility.
| hirundo wrote:
| So post the video with the copyright-material-subtracted
| audio, plus a link to the unedited audio.
| lucideer wrote:
| There's a reasonable argument that deepfakes are
| challenging our ability to rely on video evidence in
| general, but saying any editing at all removes credibility
| is pretty out there. Almost every video on the internet has
| been edited in some way.
| pc86 wrote:
| Are there deepfakes out there that can withstand even a
| cursory technical interrogation? Most of them are
| extremely obvious once you've seen two or three.
| lucideer wrote:
| While it's blatantly obvious from the context and subject
| matter that they're fake, I did find quite a few of the
| Sassy Justice[0] series' examples to be quite convincing
| from a technical standpoint (I imagine they could have
| been undetectable given more subtle context & subject
| matter)
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| Depends what you mean by "technical".
|
| There are deep fakes that are good enough to fool some
| humans. There are deep fakes that are good enough to pass
| by some AI detection. Then there are some deep fakes that
| can not pass either.
|
| By definition this is unquatifiable problem since you
| won't know how many deep fakes you aren't detecting since
| you aren't detecting them.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| Stupid question: How do you know that the video isn't
| "edited"?
|
| It clearly has been edited to add the subtitles and the
| watermark to the top left corner and it has fade to black
| and then fade in their logo and donation link at the end.
| grahamburger wrote:
| Yeah this seems like an easy way around it. Post the video with
| subtitles and no audio, and a link to the original video hosted
| on a PeerTube instance or something.
| gumby wrote:
| Would be simpler to simply play 4'33" on a continuous loop.
|
| For those who'd not know the song:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4'33''
| babyshake wrote:
| I don't think it would be possible to verify this when making a
| copyright claim. But along these lines, if you could play a
| loop of audio that would not be recognized by people around you
| or not recognized as music but could be recognized by an
| algorithm, then you could use this strategy without anyone
| knowing.
| ttt0 wrote:
| YouTube striked white noise with a copyright claim:
| https://www.neowin.net/news/youtubes-algorithms-strike-
| white...
| frumper wrote:
| verification doesn't seem to be very high on the priority
| list of copyright claims
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| Isn't that video evidence that the police officer is violating
| the copyright?
| [deleted]
| otterley wrote:
| It would be hilarious (and also poetic justice) if Taylor Swift
| (or whomever the copyright holder is) sued the Alameda County
| Sheriff's department for copyright violation and demanded
| maximum statutory penalties.
|
| EDIT: Bummer, it looks like this route is not available to the
| copyright holder, since states have sovereign immunity against
| copyright infringement claims. See _Allen v. Cooper_, 589 U.S.
| ____ (2020).
| jollybean wrote:
| It would be poetic justice of a kind, because I'll bet that
| they find a cop playing music for himself, even while
| interacting with others is probably not breaking copyright,
| whereas the person filming and publishing the situation
| probably is, i.e. an attempt to 'press' the police would end
| up more than likely just affirming the situation with a
| specific judicial ruling. It'd be interesting to see how a
| judge ruled however.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _...whereas the person filming and publishing the
| situation probably is..._ "
|
| 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...
| robbrown451 wrote:
| The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way
| that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the
| market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the
| video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://e
| n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
| ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a
| direct market substitute for the original work.")
|
| The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in
| YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.
| mcguire wrote:
| I would expect the courts to also object to using
| copyright law to suppress other legal rights.
|
| But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care
| about the fine points of law.
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time
| finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one
| that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect
| sjg007 wrote:
| It might be considered a public performance. In contrast to
| playing the radio in your backyard.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| He didn't play it for himself.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| He played it in the normal way you play music, where
| others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact
| that it is being filmed and shown more widely.
|
| That said, he should be fired for reasons that have
| nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt
| to avoid accountability.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| The recording isn't what made it public performance.
|
| 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.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| > He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being
| filmed and shown more widely.
|
| 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."
| jollybean wrote:
| Just the opposite.
|
| 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.
| jollybean wrote:
| He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate
| surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to
| be considered some kind of violation.
|
| He's not making a public production or broadcasting
| either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate
| surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make
| it public performance.
| jollybean wrote:
| That's not a public performance.
|
| 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_S
| upreme_...
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| There is no such exception for publicly playing a
| copyrighted work "for oneself"
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| Then how is Disney suing school boards for showing the Lion
| King?
| stale2002 wrote:
| No it's not.
|
| Nobody is going to be charged for playing a song on their phone
| in public.
|
| That's just not going to happen.
| DevKoala wrote:
| I don't think so because the officer isn't posting the video
| online. Unless you think it violates copyright to play music in
| public spaces.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Public performances violate copyright.
| lucideer wrote:
| 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.
| parineum wrote:
| The officers is explicitly attempting to not broadcast it,
| is he not?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Broadcasting the music performance live in public to
| prevent broadcasting the video after the fact.
| throaway3141593 wrote:
| 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.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You need a license to play or perform music and other types
| of copyrighted media in public.
| DevKoala wrote:
| 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.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| 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.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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 SS 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 SS 110 as well as the
| general exception to copyright in fair use at 17 USC SS 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.)
| robbrown451 wrote:
| 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.
| mannerheim wrote:
| > If it was, anyone walking down the street playing music
| would be violating copyright.
|
| I believe this is the case, yes.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| Veserv wrote:
| No, that is video evidence of a police officer admitting to one
| count of willfully concealing a video recording during an
| investigation with the intent to prevent its content from being
| discovered which, if I am reading California Penal Code 135 PC
| - Destroying or Concealing Evidence [1] correctly, qualifies as
| a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months in jail.
|
| [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/135/
| jollybean wrote:
| 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.
| wedn3sday wrote:
| 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.
| Veserv wrote:
| 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.
| posguy wrote:
| This would constitute a public performance of a song, I doubt
| he paid for a license.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| You don't need a public performance license to personally
| consume music in public. Public performance licenses would be
| for things like playing a song in a restaurant you run, or in
| a retail store.
| tnel77 wrote:
| Cops are bad, so you are wrong.
| akersten wrote:
| He's not personally consuming - he's playing the music in
| public for the purposes of performance (the audience) _and_
| broadcast (he knows it is being recorded)! This is willful
| and flagrant infringement.
| stale2002 wrote:
| No its not. Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would
| ever be brought to court because they played a couple
| seconds of music, on their phone, while walking down the
| street.
|
| Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because
| you think that a police officer "deserves" it.
|
| This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And
| people are lying to themselves that something like that
| would happen, because it sounds cool.
|
| The law is not a piece of code that is run through your
| computer, and if you can find some technicality, or "well
| actuuuaaallly" argument, then it means that someone is
| going to go to jail.
|
| Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
|
| And any actual normal human being, is not going to fine
| someone, or send someone to jail because they played a
| couple seconds of a song, in a public street, on their
| phone.
|
| The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you
| think that you found in the law simply do not matter.
| clucas wrote:
| You are probably right, but let's play it from the other
| angle to see _why_ people are suggesting that they try to
| pursue a copyright claim against the police, using your
| post but turning it the other way:
|
| ----
|
| Absolutely nobody, in the entire world, would ever _have
| a recording of police brutality taken off of youtube_
| because _the police_ played a couple seconds of music, on
| their phone, while walking down the street.
|
| Don't pretend. Don't make up funny narratives, because
| you think that _the recorder_ "deserves" it.
|
| This silly hypothetical just isn't going to happen. And
| people are lying to themselves that something like that
| would happen, because it sounds cool.
|
| The _youtube moderation_ is not a piece of code that is
| run through your computer, and if you can find some
| technicality, or "well actuuuaaallly" argument, then it
| means that someone is going to go _get their video
| removed_.
|
| Instead, the law is interpreted by normal, human beings.
|
| And any actual normal human being, is not going to
| _remove a video that is attempting to keep the police
| accountable_ because they played a couple seconds of a
| song, in a public street, on their phone.
|
| The technicalities, and debates, and loopholes that you
| think that you found in the _youtube algorithm_ simply do
| not matter.
|
| ----
|
| Obviously the above does not describe reality. The police
| seem to get to take advantage of the system to hide their
| misdeed, but as you (probably correctly) point out,
| citizens are NOT able to take advantage of the system to
| expose police misdeeds. This is why people are angry, and
| this is why you were downvoted.
| fivestarman wrote:
| "...send someone to jail because they played a couple
| seconds of a song, in a public street, on their phone."
|
| No one is saying this. You are leaving out a lot of
| crucial details that have been brought up.
| kube-system wrote:
| Eh, knowing that something is being recorded is not
| broadcasting.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| That might be hard to prove unless there is an unofficial
| department email going around on tips and tricks to avoid
| pesky recorders. Sorry for the cynicism.
| mannerheim wrote:
| He explicitly states his motive for playing the music on
| tape.
| [deleted]
| robbrown451 wrote:
| No. It is being filmed without his consent. He is just
| playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't
| count as a public performance.
|
| By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or
| beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn
| it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
|
| He should be fired for other reasons (making the
| department look bad by attempting to avoid
| accountability), but he is not violating copyright. Nor
| would the person filming it be, since "courts consider
| whether the use in question acts as a direct market
| substitute for the original work", and this isn't. No one
| is going to say "I'm not going to pay for Taylor Swift's
| version because I can just watch this video of a cop
| playing it on his phone" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa
| ir_use#4._Effect_upon_work's...
| akersten wrote:
| > He is just playing it for those immediately around him.
| That doesn't count as a public performance
|
| That literally _is_ the definition of "public
| performance." He is in public, playing for an audience
| that is not his private close family and friends.
|
| > By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or
| beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn
| it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.
|
| You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's
| permission regardless of whether someone is filming you.
| You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree
| that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and
| should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here
| to fight oppression.
|
| The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed
| for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the
| already "infringement" piece of the public performance.
|
| I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law
| in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just
| combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA
| goon would, looking for the right charge.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| No, you're not looking at it like a prosecutor/RIAA goon
| would, because they have not sued anyone ever for merely
| playing music on their phone while standing in public.
|
| What you're doing is taking a phrase which has a
| contextual meaning within copyright law, looking at the
| individual words of the phrase based on their common
| usage, and then saying that your new understanding based
| on the individual words is how copyright law actually
| works.
|
| If I drop my phone, and then walk into a McDonalds, am I
| guilty of "breaking and entering"? That's what you're
| doing here with "public performance"
| akersten wrote:
| > because they have not sued anyone ever for merely
| playing music on their phone while standing in public.
|
| But that's not (just) what the officer was doing - he was
| playing music as background to his business operation,
| which RIAA _have definitely_ sued establishments over[0].
| If you 're playing music as a soundtrack for your
| business (in this case, the business of law enforcement),
| you need a license. Even in a non-business context, if
| they had a chance to sue you for playing music in public,
| they would. There just haven't been any
| prominent/worthwhile cases for them to do so. Just
| because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that isn't what
| the law allows.
|
| [0]: https://www.frantzward.com/news-blog/june-2017/let-
| the-music...
| googlryas wrote:
| So by your expert understanding of the law, no person is
| ever allowed to listen to music while working if someone
| else happens to be near them. Gotcha.
| jcranmer wrote:
| https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performanc
| e_o...
|
| > A "public performance" of music is defined in U.S.
| copyright law to include any music played outside a
| normal circle of friends and family that occurs in any
| public place.
|
| This is a quote from a RIAA member explaining their
| interpretation of public performance.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| He consented to recording when he became a police
| officer.
|
| Market effect is 1 of several factors courts consider for
| fair use.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > He is just playing it for those immediately around him.
| That doesn't count as a public performance.
|
| Yes, it does; most public performances other than
| radio/TV broadcast are, by nature, only for those in the
| immediate vincinity.
|
| > By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or
| beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn
| it off.
|
| No, because asserting that this case, independent of how
| other Fair Use factors might apply to it, doesn't fall
| into Fair Use because its purpose is to suppress
| commentary does not indicate that your counterfactual
| would not.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I'm not sure how it being recorded makes a difference. If
| I'm listening to a CD and someone walks up and starts
| filming me, would I need to stop listening to it because
| the filmer might post it on youtube?
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| But thats not what happened.
|
| If you knew you were being recorded, had reason to be
| believed it would be broadcasted and your stated
| _intention_ was to turn that otherwise normal and non-
| infringing broadcast into copyright infringement, ya, you
| might have an issue with the courts.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Taylor Swift and her record company would be the
| plaintiff in a copyright case. They cannot claim harm
| here.
|
| It's simply not a copyright case. If there is a law on
| the books that says that cops can't use sneaky methods of
| avoiding accountability, then that's a court case. The
| public is harmed, not the owner of the content.
|
| Better yet, the cop should just be fired for doing
| something that is clearly against the public's interest,
| making the department look bad.
|
| But this is not a copyright case.
| nkssy wrote:
| He's certainly wearing the uniform, on the job and using the
| music for work purposes in a deliberate way. Sounds feasible
| as a public performance but I'd prefer a legal type's
| opinion.
| [deleted]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I really have no clue. Playing music in public isn't considered
| copyright violation. Otherwise playing the radio would be
| unlawful.
|
| Edit: Wow, it really is considered unlawful. I reflexively hate
| the idea that playing a song can be considered violating
| copyright. Yes, I know there's more to it than just that, but
| wow.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| If you're intentionally playing other peoples' recorded music
| for the public, then ASCAP and BMI are going to want their
| money.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think there should be a distinction between 'for the
| public' and 'in public'.
| otterley wrote:
| Wrong. One of the rights in the "copyright bundle" is public
| performance rights, which are reserved exclusively to the
| copyright holder and their licensees:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights
|
| Generally speaking, "public performance" means outside a
| small social group consisting of friends and/or family.
| jollybean wrote:
| More likely the opposite.
|
| Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a truck,
| or even in the office, listening to music is not going to
| be in violation - unless the music were played as part of
| entertainment for customers/patrons.
|
| The cop will unlikely be found to be in violation.
|
| The person filming in uploading, that production would
| probably be in violation under the 'Transmission Clause'.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Someone working on the job, like a taxi, driving a
| truck, or even in the office, listening to music is not
| going to be in violation
|
| Even to the extent workplace semi-public (for coworkers,
| not primarily for public customers) entertainment use
| _might_ be fair use [0], use by a state officer for the
| purpose of leveraging known provider policies to inhibit
| First Amendment protected public monitoring and
| distribution of recordings of police activity would seem
| unlikely to be viewed by a court as fair use (whose
| statutory definition was crafted to follow the parameters
| of a judicially-articulated restriction on copyright that
| itself was viewed aa necessary to conform copyright to
| the First Amendment.)
|
| [0] a quite controversial position itself.
| mannerheim wrote:
| > like a taxi
|
| Taxi drivers do have to pay license fees in some
| countries.
|
| > or even in the office
|
| According to the RIAA, you need to license music in order
| to play it in the office.
| whiddershins wrote:
| The RIAA makes many assertions. Whether they are
| enforceable, or even the correct interpretation of
| copyright law, is a separate thing.
| mannerheim wrote:
| It could be difficult to enforce requiring a performance
| license in an office, but I suspect alleged violators if
| caught will settle rather than let it go to court. Of
| course, this then proves nothing.
|
| That being said, I would say they're probably right,
| because it doesn't seem that different from a store or
| restaurant playing music.
| whiddershins wrote:
| If I play it at my desk it seems very different than the
| office piping it out to everyone as 'background music.'
| randyrand wrote:
| Do people not remember that you can post copyrighted music on
| youtube?
|
| it's generally allowed. They just get any money from it.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Rights holders have automated the DMCA take down process on
| platforms like YouTube.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Depends on the rights holder. I have a random 43-second clip
| from Cyberpunk 2077 with some jazz playing in the background
| uploaded to YouTube. Within minutes of uploading, UMG made a
| copyright claim on it, meaning that YouTube can show ads on
| my video despite my channel not being monetized and UMG will
| get that ad revenue. However, it doesn't actually impact my
| channel's standing in any way. And I guess a side benefit is
| that you can actually listen to the full track by clicking
| the automatically added link in the description.
|
| It does allow me to either mute or replace the song if I
| don't want UMG claiming my video, but most likely it will
| just completely destroy the audio in the entire video.
|
| (https://youtu.be/7_C14lT4Tzw if anyone's actually curious)
| marsdepinski wrote:
| Isn't that public performance and doesn't that require the police
| dept to pay royalties?
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _Isn 't that public performance and doesn't that require the
| police dept to pay royalties?_
|
| Yes, but under current law, states can ignore the royalty
| requirement with impunity: "[C]opyright owners suffering
| infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies
| provided by the Copyright Act." [0]
|
| Police departments are almost certain to be held to be state
| entities, I'd think, and therefore immune from individual
| personal liability for copyright infringement liability.
|
| And the doctrine of "qualified immunity" might shield the
| police officer from personal liability for infringement as
| well.
|
| But I haven't looked into this specific issue.
|
| (Usual disclaimer: I'm an IP lawyer but not _your_ lawyer.)
|
| [0] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/state-sovereign-immunity/
| elliekelly wrote:
| I know the purpose of this is really to avoid the clip going
| viral but I'm curious whether there have been any cases
| addressing whether this situation could fall under fair use
| with respect to the person recording? Videos like this are
| usually newsworthy (and not made for commercial purposes) and
| the copyrighted material is incidental to the purpose of the
| recording.
|
| I suppose I'm wondering whether this is an actual potential
| legal issue for the people making/posting these videos or
| whether the only issue is the headache of YouTube's takedown
| process? If someone posts a video like this how likely is it
| they've infringed on someone else's copyright? Being careful
| not solicit legal advice maybe a better question is, what
| factors would be relevant to weighing whether or not the
| video infringes on the copyright?
|
| I guess it's difficult for me to wrap my head around how
| there could be infringement without the (intentional?)
| misappropriation of the work.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _whether this situation could fall under fair use with
| respect to the person recording?_
|
| IMHO the person posting the YouTube video with the Taylor
| Swift song in background would have an _excellent_ shot at
| a fair-use defense against any claim of infringement of the
| copyright in the song or the recording (which could be two
| different things). See, e.g.,
| https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-
| factors/
|
| I also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s)
| in question would think very hard before making an
| infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the
| adverse publicity.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _what factors would be relevant to weighing whether or
| not the video infringes on the copyright?_
|
| "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a
| copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed,
| publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without
| the permission of the copyright owner."
| https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
|
| See also a useful FAQ-style article, especially Myth #4: ht
| tps://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law.
| ..
|
| ------
|
| > _I guess it's difficult for me to wrap my head around how
| there could be infringement without the (intentional?)
| misappropriation of the work._
|
| Intent isn't a factor in determining whether infringement
| exists (as opposed to whether a fair-use defense is
| available). "The U.S. Copyright Act is a strict liability
| statute. In other words, following a "rule" that you
| believe to be true but which turns out to be a myth will
| not excuse you from liability for infringement. Under
| certain circumstances, it is possible to plead "innocent
| infringement," but even that only serves to reduce the
| amount of damages you may owe and does not excuse your
| infringement." (From the ABA "Myths" article cited above.)
| asdff wrote:
| I thought a state entity referred to the State government.
| Police departments are run by the local city or county
| government.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| From the point of view of federal Constitutional law
| (except provisions designating powers or obligations to
| _particular_ state bodies, of course) all elements and
| administrative subdivisions of states are part of the state
| government, even though each has its own separate legal
| personality.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _I thought a state entity referred to the State
| government. Police departments are run by the local city or
| county government._
|
| For this purpose, city- and county governments and their
| various departments are regarded as subdivisions of the
| state.
| cratermoon wrote:
| In this case the definition of state that applies is "a
| politically organized body of people usually occupying a
| definite territory". In other words, any government
| generally.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| I don't want to argue the case on the video, but I am curious.
| If I have legally obtained copy of a song and I play it so that
| people I do not know hear it is it considered illegal.
|
| Some scenarios:
|
| A) like here, I just play on my phone. Idea is that it is for
| myself, say I left my earphones at home, but I just need my
| tunes.
|
| B) I have my open headphones on, so the music is clearly
| audible to anyone near by me
|
| C) I have earbuds (no sound for people near by), but they get
| disconnected and my phone goes on speaker
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Intent matters in these cases.
| brundolf wrote:
| Maybe this kind of thing will finally force some preventative
| measures for DMCA-trolling
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Interesting article for two reasons, how the practice originated
| and what it implies.
|
| The practice seems to be somewhat wide spread (in the distance
| between departments case). That might be because it came from a
| Facebook group or forum where Law Enforcement officers exchange
| tips. The second is the choice of artist (Swift) who has been in
| a pretty visible battle with ownership of her music. I suspect
| that if the officers who use this technique thought about it,
| they might find that using Disney tunes would be more effective
| in terms of triggering DMCA takedowns.
|
| What it implies, and is explicitly stated in the referenced
| video, is that a law enforcement officer is _explicitly_
| attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right (as adjudicated
| by the courts). While the doctrine of qualified immunity would
| likely shield them from prosecution, it is still a violation of
| your civil rights and should certainly merit disciplinary action
| on the part of the police department.
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| There is something very poetic to being brutalized with tear
| gas to the tune of "A Whole New World."
| rpdillon wrote:
| I wonder if a cop playing a song in public constitutes a public
| performance. BMI[0] seems to think so:
|
| > A "public performance" of music is defined in U.S. copyright
| law to include any music played outside a normal circle of
| friends and family that occurs in any public place.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.bmi.com/faq/entry/what_is_a_public_performance_o...
| [deleted]
| Simulacra wrote:
| "explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right "
|
| I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment
| right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have
| no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is
| absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as
| distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming.
|
| There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't
| rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
| Taek wrote:
| YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's
| incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be
| denied.
|
| Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have
| automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's
| rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to
| violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is
| to violate rights.
| cforrester wrote:
| I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel
| that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent
| of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress
| widespread dissemination of video documentation of their
| actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the
| technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least,
| this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction,
| akin to tampering with their body camera.
| kklisura wrote:
| Would it be possible do make an AI that would mute or remove the
| song, while preserving the rest the sounds?
| Diederich wrote:
| Pretty sure no AI required, especially if the (near) exact
| audio that was being played was available.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who
| will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an
| officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then
| upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that
| recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by
| society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not
| cool!
| ipnon wrote:
| It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and
| collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting
| him, and calling him an "asshole."
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I've seen bus drivers treated worse. It's just a part of
| working with the public, which is part of being cop. If an
| adult armed with a gun can't deal with this, they should seek
| a desk job.
| pempem wrote:
| It seems like signing up for a job like being a police
| officer, and receiving a gun, riot training, interrogation
| and arrest techniques means that they should be able to
| handle this without escalating.
|
| Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of
| those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think
| maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an
| asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves
| so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our
| government protects through qualified immunity.
|
| If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors,
| all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more
| about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they
| aren't even sworn to protect.
|
| https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-
| protect-y...
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| >If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors
|
| It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that.
| The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on
| whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile
| and trying to land the officer in question in trouble.
|
| Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the
| music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only
| see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the
| protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance /
| recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were
| shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into
| recording equipment that was touted as genious use of
| technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries
| something similar they are touted as trouble makers and
| assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded.
|
| Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them
| but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Muromec wrote:
| Cops are paid by public and public has a right to know
| how they are doing their job, so yes, it's very different
| jolux wrote:
| Ever heard of the first amendment?
| stale2002 wrote:
| They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.
| vxNsr wrote:
| The OP said the cop was harassing them... the only
| harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
| jolux wrote:
| Point being, cops aren't actually allowed to retaliate,
| or stop you from filming them, just because they don't
| like what you're saying. They are required to let you
| speak and film.
| gowld wrote:
| Not entirely true. Disturbing the Peace is an offense
| that police can respond to.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Let's be clear, there was no retaliation. You're making
| up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something
| and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at
| best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on
| YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people
| online from raging on him and his family while he
| attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
| pc86 wrote:
| Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally
| protected speech isn't retaliation?
| vxNsr wrote:
| It's unclear to me how recording something is a first
| amendment issue at all, let alone a speech issue.
| TheVerge makes this unsubstantiated claim and many people
| here accept it, but I struggle to understand how the
| first amendment protects recording something.
|
| ::Edit::
|
| I'm being rate limited due to getting flagged and
| downvoted so I'll reply here:
|
| The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but
| doesn't actually explain _how_ it's falls under the first
| amendment.
|
| The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it
| pertains to "information gathering" which still feels
| like a stretch.
|
| They both also appear to be very clear that it's about
| recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is
| confusing bec the first amendment doesn't mention public
| vs private. I'm not saying it's not protected, I'm just
| saying it's not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to
| the first amendment.
|
| Regardless of whether it's protected though, it's still
| not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to
| protect their family from an internet mob
| jolux wrote:
| The state is very broadly not allowed to suppress speech.
| "People might harass me online if you post a video" is
| not a very good argument for abridging peoples'
| constitutional rights.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > but I struggle to understand how the first amendment
| protects recording something.
|
| The public's right to record the police is well
| established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge
| doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional
| wisdom.
|
| [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-
| first-amendme...
|
| [2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-
| police-do...
| gknoy wrote:
| 'woodruffw beat me to it, but I'll quote from the EFF's
| page that he links:
|
| """Federal courts and the Justice Department have
| recognized the right of individuals to record the police.
| Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the
| issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law
| from the high court that supports the right to record the
| police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third,
| Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have
| directly upheld this right"""
|
| They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that
| they link to in the text that I was quoting [0].
|
| 0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-
| v-rolli...
| handrous wrote:
| > I'm just saying it's not clear to me how it pertains in
| anyway to the first amendment.
|
| The EFF link itself links to:
|
| https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-
| rolli...
|
| Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case
| law to explore.
|
| The ACLU article links directly to:
|
| https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents
| /20...
|
| Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly
| relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a
| similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v.
| Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is
| repeatedly cited).
|
| This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks
| "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"?
| Lots of reading.
|
| The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I just watched the video in the article. Seems like
| everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip
| seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due
| to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that
| harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
| vxNsr wrote:
| That's not really true tho right? they mock him, they
| hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he
| has no life... I understand that we're now entering a
| phase of cognitive dissonance, but it's always surprising
| to see it so starkly represented.
| sigzero wrote:
| Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not
| "calm".
| [deleted]
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal
| of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes?
|
| It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record
| is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered
| by these organizations.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It's copyright law that's broken. Youtube and etc are just an
| ugly stack of mismatched patterned band-aids covering a large
| infected wound that really needs antibiotics and not just
| bandaids.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I mean, I do take issue with that. But police officers
| behaving inappropriately is a MUCH larger problem, and so the
| focus on my concern.
| sixothree wrote:
| Can't a person be upset about both? Why do you need to
| present a distraction here?
| darkwater wrote:
| Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is
| just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being
| recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US,
| according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the
| problem here, he would use another loophole if this one
| wasn't available.
|
| Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
| ballenf wrote:
| I think both are fair readings here.
|
| There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright
| itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP.
|
| Three different things can all be true at the same time
| without detracting from each other.
|
| The problem with focusing on just the police here is that
| there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted
| audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will
| require more than just getting the police to refrain from
| using the loophole.
| deadbunny wrote:
| I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any
| monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the
| artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?
| lancesells wrote:
| I think you're reaching a little here. There are many, many
| things wrong with YouTube but just because someone found a
| hack on attempting to stop things from going viral doesn't
| mean they are really to blame here.
|
| Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation
| archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad
| company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube
| doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their
| service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not
| give YouTube that power.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The video, including Taylor Swift music, is available on
| YouTube and has not been removed:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc
|
| I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background
| to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the
| system actually works.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Right, the mistake was not playing Hotel California
| instead.
| a9entroy wrote:
| Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public.
| People voted in representatives that brought laws that force
| YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced.
|
| You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to
| YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators
| ample flexibility while still making sure there's no
| infringement.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Laws don't force YouTube to preemptively detect and
| demonetize or remove anything. They chose to do that.
| acituan wrote:
| I have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism,
| maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too.
|
| On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very
| good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments,
| righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a
| faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in
| their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible
| to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more
| graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative
| harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
| [deleted]
| moate wrote:
| It's almost like there is a systemic problem within the
| department...
| jMyles wrote:
| > Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and
| yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse).
|
| I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like
| these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the
| corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
| kgwxd wrote:
| I don't think it's always cause and effect. People who want
| power, specifically so they can abuse it, seek it out. If
| society offers a position of power that lets acting like a
| spoiled brat go unchecked, spoiled brats will gravitate
| towards that position.
|
| I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance
| sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is
| there some places in the world with a policy as strict as
| that and actually enforces it?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Well, it was a way to be charitable in my rhetoric. Giving
| the hypothetical police officer the benefit of the doubt that
| they might be worthy of the powers they are being given.
| Which, might not actually be powers humans can handle without
| abuse.
| [deleted]
| moron4hire wrote:
| I've been seeing videos on TikTok and such of cops using tape to
| cover up people's security cameras _at their homes_ when
| approaching the front door. I don 't care why the cop is there,
| that should be at least a firable offense _on the first
| occurance_.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The irony is that body cameras for police are sold to
| departments as devices that keep the "lying public" from
| accusing cops of doing things they didn't do. They have no
| problem shoving cameras in other people's faces, but if someone
| records cops, then it's the end of the world.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| If you can't see the difference either you are naive or you
| are pushing agenda.
|
| One is a random guy recording the cops then being able to cut
| it and edit it how he pleases to spread any info they want.
| Other is full recording of what happened from the officer's
| point of view.
| cforrester wrote:
| In most of the cases I've seen of police misconduct, a
| brief clip of the actual offending act is all that is
| necessary to establish that misconduct, making them
| valuable documentation for any court case. Edited footage
| between the beginning and end of the clip is easily
| detected.
|
| Taking an egregious example of the murder of George Floyd,
| there is no context that could have preceded the footage of
| his murder that would have justified kneeling on a man's
| neck for over 9 minutes. It also would have been trivial to
| detect if someone had extended the video to make it appear
| that he knelt longer than he did.
|
| What are some examples of situations where you imagine that
| footage taken by a regular citizen could be edited to make
| an officer's reasonable actions look like police brutality
| or other major forms of police misconduct?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Other is full recording of what happened from the
| officer 's point of view._
|
| Ironically, the security cameras on people's private
| property that cops are choosing to put tape over before
| possibly committing crimes are closer to "full recordings"
| than what body cameras offer.
|
| Body cameras are sold with features that cops and their
| bosses like, like features that exist for the purpose of
| keeping the public from accusing cops of violating their
| rights or worse.
|
| That means that many body cameras are designed to only
| record short 30 to 60 second segments of video after a cop
| feels that "something bad" might happen to them. Many of
| the cameras also come with convenient on and off switches,
| too, and some come with features that allow cops to delete
| videos.
| sixothree wrote:
| There are no checks and balances.
| pan69 wrote:
| Then you upload it somewhere else and share that.
| mattlondon wrote:
| A Barbara Streisand track would have been more appropriate!
| moate wrote:
| I love that the article mentions a different cop who played a
| Sublime track. Whoever was making the video should have put on
| "April 29, 1992".
| paulpauper wrote:
| Should have played a Prince song..gone in 3,2,1...
| cj wrote:
| > keep video off YouTube
|
| That, and it also trips up algorithms that scan live feeds (e.g.
| Facebook Live, Instagram Live) to make live streaming the
| encounter more difficult.
|
| (citation: my virtual fitness instructor who gets booted off of
| Facebook Live mid-workout when certain songs are playing)
| nashashmi wrote:
| Calm down people. A while back the headline was music weaponized
| to prevent broadcast.
|
| It's not a weapon. The officer is using music to prevent videos
| from being put online. I really don't see the problem in this.
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| The problem is less about the specific act of stifling the
| virality of police recordings and more about what this says
| about the mindset of this cop and police culture in general.
| nashashmi wrote:
| The mindset is not isolated to police culture. It is also
| present in construction inspection and pretty much anywhere
| the job is enforcement of policies.
|
| You do the little you can to enforce rules in the most
| effective way possible with the least opinions being raised
| at the methods you used to get there. "How do I do my job and
| create the least amount of fuss?"
| bmsleight_ wrote:
| If it is a well known song - maybe the audio coudl be subtracted
| - noise cancellation style to remove the rogue song.
| recursive wrote:
| If it was recorded by a microphone in a space, then that won't
| work. Time and frequency inaccuracy in playback by speaker,
| sound reflections, and inaccuracies in recording by microphone
| all contribute to a signal. The original can be recognized, but
| simple subtraction will never remove it.
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| But keep in mind the goal isn't perfect removal. You only
| need to disrupt the audio hashing algorithm.
| netr0ute wrote:
| This is untrue, things like Fourier transforms can account
| for those variables.
| recursive wrote:
| I'd love to see a demonstration of this. (not of a FFT, but
| use of one to remove one signal from another)
| netr0ute wrote:
| They might have done this to extract instruments, and if
| you can extract one then maybe you can just subtract it
| from the main recording. https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel
| eases/2008/10/081030201607.h...
| goodcanadian wrote:
| The irony being . . . I just watched it on YouTube.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-01 23:03 UTC)