1. Record an album
2. Copyright the music and get it to all the social medias for automatic DCMA goodness
3. Play the album in all precincts, courthouses, squad cards, prisons, public offices, social disturbances-- like background Musak- or Waffle House music. Hell if they make it corny enough, maybe people will play it for the police. For the lulz.
4. Contract out a third party to pursue DCMA takedowns of anything left behind
5. Use the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center task force for special abusers
Ok-- got a little carried away, but there's still a lot of potential here.
https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Tracks-Various-Useful-Lengths/... (Highly recommend the Stadium Remix)
Let us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when a firm named "Prenda Law" was still a going concern:
It would certainly be a juicy story for a government agency to stray down this path!
I have never understood why anyone viewed what happened to Prenda as a victory against copyright trolling. Prenda was a group that engaged in blatant, abusive copyright trolling, yes. And the official opinion of the legal system is that that was fine, and other people should keep doing it.
I imagine the legal fallout from this would be very bad for the police department itself. Communications about this scheme would be public records.
I tried doing something similar a while back, I made tracks with white/brown/pink noise to stream while you study or sleep called DonateYourStreams, with all the money going to nonprofits like Watsi & charity:water. Unfortunately DistroKid thought that was a ToS violation and disabled my account.
I can see this all happening and more, but wow the mental gymnastics.
They could just say that John Cage's 4'33" is playing in the background. :P
A bigger hurdle for the police department is the 1st amendment suits a systemized program would attract.
Fair Use is an affirmative defence against copyright infringeement. That is, its effective power is used in a court of law as an argument in defence against a criminal or civil copyright complaint.
TL;DR: Present policy says "F-U" to Fair Use.
> Broadly speaking, this includes any presentation of music outside of a domestic setting. For example, it will include using music in the following ways as part of your business or organisation (for the benefit of customers and/or employees): playing recorded music via any device, including the radio; showing TV broadcasts, or other audio-visual content, containing music;
They also have an international collections department so I would advise the U.S. Cops against using music from the UK!
> Now I can post any song on Youtube, as long as the backing video is Rodney King.
This is brilliant. I can see people starting to replace the song by a similar melody and the lyrics by 'I can't breath' and the names of 100% proven innocent people killed by police sung in a loop. Probably not on youtube, but easy to browse
Seems to be a pretty clear conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law, actionable criminally under 18 USC Sec. 241 and civilly under 42 USC Sec. 1983.
Sooner or later, they will be sued.
That would risk copyright laws being opened up further…benign neglect will rule the day here, bad faith actors rely on everyone else being to afraid to call them on their BS.
How about we instead attack the legal scenario that enables this fucking absurdity? People other than cops can do this.
"This option mutes just the claimed song. Other audio, like dialog or sound effects, won’t be muted. "
Though it is marked as beta, maybe it's not reliable yet.
Remove the allegedly infringing music, with a notice that audio has been filtered due to copyright claim, unless the uploader permits a revenue passthrough / share with the copyright claimant.
(This still doesn't address the issue of erroneous claims, e.g., the Adam Neely / Kate Perry fraudulent claim, but it does mean that neither YT/Google nor the claimant automatically profit by the appropriation of another's work and audience-development.)
Ideally the copyrighted portion could be subtracted from the audio in question; without muting the rest.
How long until the Police departments are sued for unlicensed public performance of copyrighted music?
Someone else elsewhere in this thread is citing some civil rights statute, but the idea of charging with copyright infringement is just... amusing. If only prosecutors didn't hate charging cops.
PS. Taking it back as I was proven wrong
But also, I'm suggesting criminally charging the individual officers, not the government. Police officers are not generally immune to criminal laws, so citation requested that they would be in this instance (it is possible, there are certainly some weird exceptions in the law for LEO, but I'm not aware of one here).
You might have a problem with prosecution agreeing to prosecute such case I think.
> On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Copyright Act subjecting states to liability for infringement did not validly abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from suit. As a result, copyright owners suffering infringement by state entities cannot seek the remedies provided by the Copyright Act.
In that context, this action as described in the article would itself be an interesting counterargument to the SCOTUS decision / Library of Congress Copyright Office finding.
The state exemption is apparently based on a sovereignity clause, though ... that seems somewhat twisted and wrong to me.
I'm thinking of ways that might exploit this.
Say, for the sake of argument, that a state government decided it wanted to host and provide legal cover for Sci-Hub.
Or an entity of state government. Maybe, say, the University of California Library.
> The Alameda County Sheriff's Department has learned from this Streisanding, and has since made it official policy to forbid the playing of copyrighted content for the sole purpose of thwarting the recording of officers by members of the public.
In many counties the candidates for sheriff must be active employees of the department or similar, making for an extremely narrow pool of candidates with plenty of opportunity for the incumbent to make their competitors ineligible to run.
Ballotpedia has a more complete narrative description:
It's not even clear to me that there is an minimumm age requirement for municipal or state office. There are a set of petition and/or filing-fee requirements.
Alabama is a state in which I might expect more stringent requirements to be in place. Those are: 18+ years of age, 1 day+ state residency, 1 day+ US citizen, and registered voter. Terms are 4 years, with no limit on terms served.
Who made these inane rules? At the end of the day, if a county goes bankrupt for enacting stupid measures, it's on its citizens. Especially if they didn't even bother voting.
Even for those obsessed with the primacy of market forces to solve all things, counting on them to solve bad police sounds...well, I can't really say how that sounds on HN, because the moderation is too good here. :)
They have one requirement besides a GED, and it BDS (big, dumb, stupid).
They are known for doing stupid stuff around the country.
I grew up with the guy who runs the Coroner's a office, and literally thought he was developmentally disabled.
(CA decided to nix voted in Coroners a few years ago, and replaced all with cops to save money. A Coroner is an executive position. Needs no training. In Marin County, we had a great Coroner, who was a medical doctor, for years.)
Said denoiser could easily destroy the audio your looking to preserve, and the altered audio is not good quality evidence of the events that occurred.
Chapters 1 & 5 of 17 USC address limitations on exclusive rights or remedies. I see no government exclusion:
You may be confusing the lack of copyright protection in US Government works, 17 USC 105:
Congress has specifically cancelled state immunity against copyright suit:
The US government has been successfully sued for copyright violation:
That's been effective for ... about two weeks then. Brand spankin' new.
That's kind of (but not very) true of the Federal government . It's not at all true of state governments or local governments.
 They have somewhat different liability than normal actors, which can only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims.
You see police use this tactic a lot in "First Amendment Auditor" videos. It makes it very difficult for the auditor to monetize the video.
Edit: A-ha, YouTube already offers this: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en
Mute song only (beta)
This option mutes just the claimed song. Other audio, like dialog or sound effects, won’t be muted.
And by muting the audio you could lose any captured voices, incriminating or intimidating statements, etc.
I mean given the article links to a YouTube video of the incident, clearly it didn't work at all in that case.