That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
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."
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.
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.
The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
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_Supreme_...
OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]
More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.
My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.
