undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointspseudalopex4y ago0 comments

He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers. You keep ignoring that fact.

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.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

0 comments

jollybean4y ago

"He said he didn't play it for himself or the the other officers."

1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.

2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.

3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.

Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.

This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.

It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.

It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.

otterley4y ago

You’re really going off the rails and should stop. If you want to argue the law, that’s fine (to a point). But you’re starting to question others’ motivations and that’s not acceptable.

jollybean4y ago

Totally disagree.

The bad faith argumentation is apparent in the thread, and it's worth pointing out because that is actually what this is all about.

1) It's a stretch to conclude a cop playing music on a radio is a 'public performance' - and yet the commentary here jumps immediately to that conclusion.

2) Someone making a production of some activity in public, and then uploading said production, may very well be in violation of copyright if that production contains copyrighted material.

But nobody at all seems interested in commenting on the potential culpability of the person making the recording.

This is typical of the few specific HN issues where the community is triggered, where they plainly lack the ability to be dispassionate, and lack self awareness. It's shameful really.

There are other 'controversial' issues, but they tend to be 'sided' in that, there's a lot of more extreme discussion going on either side.

HN is rabid about copyright and 'information libertarianism' and what they perceive to be arbitrary authoritarianism (even though policing is not that) - and this issue has both: police, and copyright, so it's an ugly mess of sided reasoning.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse