Please Don't Normalize Copyright As A Tool For Censorship:
Yes, yes, copyright is a tool for censorship. [...]
That said, it's one thing to recognize that copyright is a tool for censorship and another altogether to normalize and embrace that fact.
Over the last few months, we've had a few stories about cops blasting copyright-covered music in an effort to block people filming them from being able to upload the videos online. The steps to getting here are not hard to figure out. The legacy copyright industry spent a couple decades screaming about copyright infringement online, and demanding that internet services wave a magic wand and stop it. And, eventually, a variety of automated copyright filters sprung up to try to get Hollywood to just stop whining all the time.
When cops are doing it, it's clearly problematic, because as multiple courts have noted, you have a constitutional right to film police. So the use by police to try to get these videos taken down are a nefariously clever attempt to using copyright law to stifle the public's rights.
But that doesn't mean it's okay when private citizens do it. Even if in pursuit of a good cause. Just as it's not right when people abuse the DMCA to take down content being used for harassment and abuse, it's not right to try to use copyright to block people from being able to film you.
[...] Which seems more likely? Congress fixing broken copyright law? Or Congress and lots of others getting excited about new ways to exploit this "feature" of copyright law to their own benefit. It's the latter and no one seriously thinks the former is going to happen.
Copyright law is used for censorship all the time. It's good at that. That doesn't mean we should embrace it or support it. And it definitely does not mean we should be normalizing that kind of abuse.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2022, @12:47PM (1 child)
You act like this is a new thing. This sort of tactic has been used quite a few times on YouTube (and presumably many other platforms) already. Private citizens generally don't have the resources to put up a meaningful fight against a DMCA takedown without, at minimum, risking everything they own.
Police getting in on it is relatively new, but the idea itself? Far from it.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 12 2022, @02:10AM
I'm thinkin' it should be possible to filter out copyrighted music. Or if cops don't like context disappearing because the sound is omitted, maybe they shoulda not played said music.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by soylentnewsfan1 on Thursday August 11 2022, @12:57PM (2 children)
This is a restoration of copyright for that use, and it has always been leaning that way, only strong freedom of expression protections have been the headwinds and those are waning as people forget that freedom of expression is an ancient millennial cross cultural concept, very rarely given to citizens, but believe that it is solely for the protection of horrific abusers and terrible people.
When you chip away one aspect of it, whether it is through copyright or speech codes, you have far reaching effects that eventually cumulate in people being afraid of speaking up against the consensus, even when they are wrong. So while it seems like this is just don't post some pictures or copyrighted music, there will be consequences to this line of thinking as it expands beyond its original intentions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2022, @04:15PM (1 child)
Copyright has ALWAYS been censorship.
It's literally the government telling you you can't write certain words.
Now, whether that's on the whole a good or bad thing is a whole 'nother topic but acting like this is some new occurrence is pretty weird.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday August 11 2022, @06:48PM
I don't have a problem with this . . .
But they have really taken that "limited times" and ran with it. Life of the author + 90 years? And they want us to respect Copyright?
Copyright is supposed to be a bargain: you get exclusive rights for limited times but then your work eventually, as it should, becomes public domain to promote the progress of . . . useful arts.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday August 11 2022, @01:53PM (5 children)
People already strip vocals from songs to create karaoke versions, it should be trivial to do the reverse.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by GloomMower on Thursday August 11 2022, @03:41PM (4 children)
But you want to keep what people say that are around you, not all people's voices. In anycase it starts adding another barrier, you can't just record video and upload it, you would now have to put it through some filter ai that removes music and vocals from a song but not other voices.
I guess video platforms could try building in such a feature to make it easier for people.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Opportunist on Thursday August 11 2022, @04:56PM (2 children)
That's what I mean, instead of stripping the human voices, strip the music.
And considering that karaoke-versions of songs are quite numerous on YouTube (and I mean those that remove the vocals rather than playing a kinda-sorta-maybe version of the song), I have to assume that it's far from supersecret insider knowledge. It should be possible to find someone on the internet willing and able to help with the task of getting a police brutality video copyright-cleaned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2022, @10:01PM (1 child)
What is needed is an AI for which you input the copyrighted song and it scrubs those components away from the video, so only the pieces which are not song are left over.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday August 12 2022, @07:09AM
Well, considering that the copyrighted song is pretty much certainly published, that should be trivial to do.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2022, @01:34AM
> ... keep what people say that are around you...
Voice recognition, turn their voices into captions. Turn off the audio before posting.
Of course this opens a can of worms because someone nefarious could make up captions that were never spoken...
The whole problem sort of reminds me of an old stoned activity--watch some political talking head on TV (TV sound muted) while playing a George Carlin (etc) recording on the stereo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lester on Thursday August 11 2022, @02:13PM
The problem is that you have misunderstood the goals of those laws. You thought they were to allow public enjoy content while creators get rewarded by their effort.
Wrong.
Copyright laws are not broken. They do what they are supposed to do: Let big owners sit on a hill of dollar, that grows every day.
Period.
(Score: 4, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 11 2022, @02:21PM (1 child)
Copyright is bad in so many ways. I admit, I hadn't thought of this novel twist-- cops playing copyrighted material, in order to trigger DMCA take downs of footage of them at work. Glad to know of the tactic, and it shall be added to the list of reasons why copyright should be abolished. Thanks, officers!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2022, @04:34PM
It would appear that the correct response would be to drag those police officers into court for broadcasting copyrighted material. That's the definition of pirating. I'll bet the police departments have much deeper pockets to pay then your average kid on the street.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by dwilson98052 on Thursday August 11 2022, @02:52PM
...they've been doing it for so long now it's basically SOP.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday August 11 2022, @03:43PM (1 child)
In Canada, you need a license to play music in public (again, not a lawyer). Don't the cops need to pay a license fee to do the same?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 11 2022, @06:51PM
It will take a first time. Someone will have to be first to bring a lawsuit for unpaid licensing fees for public performance.
Gee, I wonder how soon that would happen? Or who would be motivated to bring such a suit?
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday August 11 2022, @07:52PM
Mein Kampf [wikipedia.org] was suppressed by copyright claims from 1945 to 2016.