By the time Devermont is close enough to speak to him, the officer’s phone is already blasting “In My Life” by the Beatles — a group whose rightsholders have notoriously sued Apple numerous times. If you want to get someone in trouble for copyright infringement, the Beatles are quite possibly your best bet.
So couldn't you counter this by simply playing royalty-free music out of the same device you're recording on (or another one if that doesn't work) at the same time? It would be closer to the mic...
So couldn't you counter this by simply playing royalty-free music out of the same device you're recording on (or another one if that doesn't work) at the same time? It would be closer to the mic so would likely drown out their music. (Or for that matter, just turn off recording of audio.) It does make it less likely you'll get what they say recorded, but you can still show what they're doing live, at least.
Really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether this would be considered an acceptable case to share the audio, caught in the filter is caught in the filter. In the article itself, it mentions...
Really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether this would be considered an acceptable case to share the audio, caught in the filter is caught in the filter. In the article itself, it mentions that this is probably a case that should get by instagram's rules, but that isn't the point. We can have reasonable and nuanced rules all we want, but as long as there's an algorithm nuking anything that contains copyrighted music, assholes like this win by default.
German law's got you covered: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0413 You would have an (in my opinion) very easy time arguing that someone deliberately blasting...
It shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public works if they are to be regarded as works incidental to the actual subject-matter being reproduced, distributed or communicated to the public.
You would have an (in my opinion) very easy time arguing that someone deliberately blasting copyrighted music to make your recording unpublishable would constitute merely an incidental work. The subject-matter being distributed is the officer's behavior. This means that music companies can't hurt you anymore.
However, rigorous application of this doctrine is completely absent from the internet. ContentID etc. don't care about german laws. Same issue as with e.g. fair use.
The eternal problem with government-mandated internet "censorship" (quotes because it's not actual censorship). If you can't reasonably moderate your own platform, you'll just end up deleting everything even moderately spicy.
It's clear you've never been given the runaround by administration. There's dozens of ways to mess with someone who's just trying to fill out a form. If you're working with an untrustworthy...
It's clear you've never been given the runaround by administration. There's dozens of ways to mess with someone who's just trying to fill out a form. If you're working with an untrustworthy institution recording them is an eminently reasonable action. It would be rude if they deserved the benefit of the doubt, but given that the person in question was attempting to get documentation regarding the police's prior unjust actions it seems like the benefit of the doubt has already been lost.
To me, filming an interaction is a statement that you believe documentation is or may be needed, and possibly an attempt to dissuade others in the situation from engaging in actions they wouldn't...
To me, filming an interaction is a statement that you believe documentation is or may be needed, and possibly an attempt to dissuade others in the situation from engaging in actions they wouldn't want to have filmed. If an officer of the law is miserable working while being recorded, why? What are they doing that they wouldn't want to be seen?
I recognize the irony of using this argument when I completely hate it when it's applied to private citizens' privacy, but I think it applies. A police officer in the line of duty is a representative of the government, and should be behaving and seen to be behaving in an appropriate manner.
I think it's important to point out that a person working for the government is by nature employed by its citizenry. I think it is fair for citizens to have insight into some of how this money is...
I recognize the irony of using this argument when I completely hate it when it's applied to private citizens' privacy, but I think it applies. A police officer in the line of duty is a representative of the government, and should be behaving and seen to be behaving in an appropriate manner.
I think it's important to point out that a person working for the government is by nature employed by its citizenry. I think it is fair for citizens to have insight into some of how this money is actually being spent and there is accountability for anyone to their employer - in this case, every citizen is the joint employer of a government employee and thus government employees are both responsible and accountable to it's citizens.
A private citizen, on the other hand, is not beholden to the same standards because they are not employed in the same manner.
This is a long way of stating that it is actually not a double standard to apply this kind of logic to government employees and not to private citizens and to apply this argument to citizens ignores the fundamental nature of their employment and thus responsibility.
The expectation of privacy does not apply when you are working for the government. Civilian interactions with the government are absolutely public and should be 100% transparent. To sit here and...
The expectation of privacy does not apply when you are working for the government. Civilian interactions with the government are absolutely public and should be 100% transparent.
To sit here and dismiss anything but ire at the government because the civilian in the video is rude does not matter and detracts from any conversation about how this behavior can and should be upsetting. The discussion is about how this is problematic behavior and how this can be used in malicious ways. Drawing attention away from this to talk about the person being rude is splitting hairs over something entirely unimportant.
Not to mention that this rude response may be entirely driven by the behavior of the government. People tend not to direct ire towards things they enjoy or feel are working for them. If the police department were perceived as doing more good for the populace than bad, do you think this kind of paradigm would even exist with enough prevalence to have a police officer decide to immediately respond with rude behavior because they expected the population to be rude with them?
Welcome to the infopunk future, everyone.
So couldn't you counter this by simply playing royalty-free music out of the same device you're recording on (or another one if that doesn't work) at the same time? It would be closer to the mic so would likely drown out their music. (Or for that matter, just turn off recording of audio.) It does make it less likely you'll get what they say recorded, but you can still show what they're doing live, at least.
You could, but at least some of the point is to capture what is being said; with masks on and music going, that would not be possible.
Interesting. Would music or social media companies start making exceptions to the rules in cases such at this, do you think?
Really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether this would be considered an acceptable case to share the audio, caught in the filter is caught in the filter. In the article itself, it mentions that this is probably a case that should get by instagram's rules, but that isn't the point. We can have reasonable and nuanced rules all we want, but as long as there's an algorithm nuking anything that contains copyrighted music, assholes like this win by default.
German law's got you covered: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html#p0413
You would have an (in my opinion) very easy time arguing that someone deliberately blasting copyrighted music to make your recording unpublishable would constitute merely an incidental work. The subject-matter being distributed is the officer's behavior. This means that music companies can't hurt you anymore.
However, rigorous application of this doctrine is completely absent from the internet. ContentID etc. don't care about german laws. Same issue as with e.g. fair use.
The eternal problem with government-mandated internet "censorship" (quotes because it's not actual censorship). If you can't reasonably moderate your own platform, you'll just end up deleting everything even moderately spicy.
Filming an interaction when you have reason to expect the need for documentation is not rude.
It's clear you've never been given the runaround by administration. There's dozens of ways to mess with someone who's just trying to fill out a form. If you're working with an untrustworthy institution recording them is an eminently reasonable action. It would be rude if they deserved the benefit of the doubt, but given that the person in question was attempting to get documentation regarding the police's prior unjust actions it seems like the benefit of the doubt has already been lost.
To me, filming an interaction is a statement that you believe documentation is or may be needed, and possibly an attempt to dissuade others in the situation from engaging in actions they wouldn't want to have filmed. If an officer of the law is miserable working while being recorded, why? What are they doing that they wouldn't want to be seen?
I recognize the irony of using this argument when I completely hate it when it's applied to private citizens' privacy, but I think it applies. A police officer in the line of duty is a representative of the government, and should be behaving and seen to be behaving in an appropriate manner.
I think it's important to point out that a person working for the government is by nature employed by its citizenry. I think it is fair for citizens to have insight into some of how this money is actually being spent and there is accountability for anyone to their employer - in this case, every citizen is the joint employer of a government employee and thus government employees are both responsible and accountable to it's citizens.
A private citizen, on the other hand, is not beholden to the same standards because they are not employed in the same manner.
This is a long way of stating that it is actually not a double standard to apply this kind of logic to government employees and not to private citizens and to apply this argument to citizens ignores the fundamental nature of their employment and thus responsibility.
The expectation of privacy does not apply when you are working for the government. Civilian interactions with the government are absolutely public and should be 100% transparent.
To sit here and dismiss anything but ire at the government because the civilian in the video is rude does not matter and detracts from any conversation about how this behavior can and should be upsetting. The discussion is about how this is problematic behavior and how this can be used in malicious ways. Drawing attention away from this to talk about the person being rude is splitting hairs over something entirely unimportant.
Not to mention that this rude response may be entirely driven by the behavior of the government. People tend not to direct ire towards things they enjoy or feel are working for them. If the police department were perceived as doing more good for the populace than bad, do you think this kind of paradigm would even exist with enough prevalence to have a police officer decide to immediately respond with rude behavior because they expected the population to be rude with them?
While what you say may be theoretically true, searching for almost any sov cit video on youtube demonstrates its not practically true.
It's easy to be rude while filming the interaction; that's not the same thing.