Police Play Disney Songs To Keep Citizen Recordings Off YouTube
A Santa Ana police officer is the latest official to use YouTube's copyright infringement algorithm as a means to evade accountability.

If you have a noisy neighbor who plays loud music when you're trying to sleep, you may feel you have no choice but to call the police. But what if the police are the ones playing the loud music?
On April 4, in Santa Ana, officers responded to a report of a stolen car around 11 p.m. In a video of the events uploaded to the YouTube channel "Santa Ana Audits," the man filming approaches several parked police SUVs surrounding a car which he later identifies as a Porsche. Suddenly, after a period of filming, the sound of Randy Newman's "You've Got a Friend in Me," from the Toy Story soundtrack, starts playing through loudspeakers, seemingly from one of the police vehicles.
As the playlist cycles through several other songs from Disney movies, neighbors come out of their homes and approach the officers, complaining about the noise. One of those is Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, a Santa Ana city councilman. Hernandez asks one officer, who is holding a cell phone still playing Disney songs, "What's going on with the music?" The officer indicates that the filming was "not letting us conduct our investigation"; when pressed further on why he's playing music, he gestures to the camera and says, "Because it'll be copyright infringement for him."
Despite numerous court rulings upholding the right to record, police officers across the country continue to harass citizens who film them, even going so far as to try to grab phones and delete the footage themselves.
But within the past couple of years, officers around the U.S. have been caught playing copyrighted music when encountering citizens with cameras. When the footage is uploaded to YouTube, the video site's algorithms can detect the presence of copyrighted content and pull the video down automatically. Many companies responsible for content creation are litigious, but especially Disney.
Ultimately, Councilman Hernandez convinced the officer to both stop playing the music, and apologize to the man filming. But this is far from an isolated event: In fact, there are enough documented incidents that Vice coined the term "copyright hacking" to describe it. Last year in nearby Beverly Hills, officers played music by the Beatles and Sublime in apparent attempts to trigger social media copyright filters. In July, in Oakland, an officer played a Taylor Swift song and advised the person filming, "You can record all you want. I just know it can't be posted to YouTube." And in September, an Illinois officer indicated in an incident report that he "was recently advised" to play music while citizens filmed.
While playing songs from children's movies may be less adversarial than grabbing someone's phone from their hands, the motivation is the same: to prevent themselves from being lawfully recorded while interacting with citizens. It still constitutes an abuse of power, and a violation of the public's trust. But it is also an example of the power to weaponize laws that apply too broad of a brush to certain issues. Incidentally capturing background music in a video is not a copyright violation, and it should not be treated as such by an overzealous algorithm.
In 2019, Cory Doctorow dismissed the idea of playing copyrighted music during neo-Nazi rallies to prevent them from being posted online, since the tactic could be co-opted by anyone: "Are you a cop who's removed his bodycam before wading into a protest with your nightstick? Just play some loud copyrighted music from your cruiser and you'll make all the videos of the beatings you dole out un-postable."
Thankfully, the filtering algorithms have a shaky track record: Every video mentioned above, including the one of an officer saying "[this] can't be posted to YouTube," are still available on YouTube or Instagram. And The Washington Post reported yesterday that the police department was investigating the incident in Santa Ana. But it seems clear that copyright laws need to change with the times, especially since agents of the state are using those laws to dodge accountability and hinder free speech.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given Disney's recent political shift, maybe they'll sue the police for infringement.
That was my first thought. Public performance without permission. Might finally find a way to hold police accountable for something.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of (res30) income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
The police aren't the ones putting the copyrighted music on the internet. They are entitled to play it, it is the person recording the police putting it on the internet. Easy solution would be for the copyright owner to let it go, as clearly the person placing the music on the internet is not profiting from use of the music and would probably prefer the officer didn't play it.
Actually, as the original article points out, incidentally capturing copyrighted music in the background in a public place and posting a video with that incidental background music is not a copyright violation. So the copyright owner doesn't have to do anything. Nor do the copyright laws have to change. Two things have to change:
1. The police need accountability and respect citizens' First Amendment (and other) rights.
2. YouTube and other media companies should not use algorithms that are over inclusive such that they generally pull down these videos even though they don't violate anyone's copyright. (And it seems maybe they don't, because the OP points out the videos were accessible.)
So, mostly, we need 1. These are examples of law enforcement officers trying to intentionally undermine citizens' First Amendment right to record and post videos of police. They should be held accountable.
Also, you are wrong. Public performance of copyrighted music requires a license. They aren’t "entitled to play it" unless they paid for that license.
Cops should be allowed to be filmed. But that is kind of funny.
It would be funny if they were playing Fuck Tha Police in the background.
Police are not stopping the person from filming. Person recording can always disable audio if they choose and still post the video.
STFU boot licker!
No boot locker, the criminal conspiracy of the cops venal garbage often needs to be heard.
Our Lords and Masters can make money (their paychecks) while playing copyrighted music, but us peons (and our agents at YouTube) cannot make a SINGLE PENNY from advertising on their web site, along with these posted videos!
What's wrong with this picture? Maybe it is high time to start boycotting owners of music copyrights who do NOT carve out an EXCEPTION to cover these cases!
So this guy starts outright that capturing background music in a video is not copyright infringement, but “copyright laws need to change”?
Yes because the process is the punishment and current copyright law creates incentives for sites and their algorithms to take down content before making proper legal determinations of whether it is in fact a copyright violation.
I actually think Google does it because they're keeping their largest content owners happy, not because of the law.
Sony, for example, is notorious for claiming out of copyright tunes because one of their artists performed it. So you could be playing Mozart but they'd flag you because the big name did a recording of one of their artists playing that piece.
Google will side with the major label because they are a commercial/tv/google music/etc provider these days, and work special deals with those same labels and content companies to have exclusive content access, special deals, preferred advertising, and all of that.
Joe idiot playing piano in his living room can go to hell. No million dollar advertising deals to be had there, so he's not even worth a real human to review the infringement allegation.
This is pretty damn close.
Rick Beato, a big Youtube name in the audio engineering/guitar space, has gone at length, including testifying before Congress, about how asinine Youtube copyright works, particularly when a content creator is well within fair use laws.
This guy also pointed out that enforcement was done by mindless bots on which nuance is wasted. Just now a cop murdered a black guy right after this "body cam disconnected." Yet the cop is doing exactly what force-initiating looter politicians do and hired him to do. Boycotting those looter political parties has been possible for 50 years now. If not for that, cops would smugly shoot anyone filming and invent some story for internal affairs. Vote libertarian, then complain with admirable justification.
While this certainly says something awful about police behaviors, it says something almost equally awful about Youtube's DRM/copyright takedown policy.
It also says something about free speech advocates. This doesn't stop him from filming or filming a complaint with the video or playing the video at a local meeting. What it might do is stop him from uploading to global social media and instigating global George Floyd style "peaceful protests" with their billions in damages to cities around the world, not to mention the assaults and deaths.
They’ll make an exception for that.
Cops who try to loophole like this to avoid accountability are the same degenerates that complain about people insisting that their 4A rights are respected by claiming y. That if you have nothing to hide. You should allow warrantless searches. They need to be fired and treated like the gutter rats that they are.
"This doesn't stop him from...filming a complaint with the video"
Or just mail it with your letter to Santa; equally effective.
"What's going on with the music?" The officer indicates that the filming was "not letting us conduct our investigation"; when pressed further on why he's playing music, he gestures to the camera and says, "Because it'll be copyright infringement for him."
Because we've all tended to make the mistake of believing that when a liberating technology arrives on the scene, that there aren't people sitting around a boardroom table imagining ways to use it against you.
I"m pretty sure the cops doing this is itself a copyright violation as it's a "public performance."
Playing it out of the police cars' loudspeakers certainly makes it a public performance, especially so on a public street if the neighbors can hear it.
I assume they've paid the appropriate licensing fees to Disney and to the Beatles, neither of whom is known to "let it go" or to "let it be" when it comes to stealing their music.
So when you film them and they say you can't post it on Youtube simply reply that you're collecting evidence of their public performance for the copyright violation lawsuit.
Exactly. They're screwing themselves. Masturbating.
"Public" is usually Newspeak for government (public park, public road, public servant). So if you kill someone on camera, that's a baaad extrajudicial killing. If they do it, it's performing a public service, hence the goood kind of public performance. Ask any gun-toting cop, cop union, politician or soft machine operator.
Well, yes, but in the context of copyright law it means "pay Disney a licensing fee for permission to play their music at a kid's birthday party."
Clever. How else can this be used? Cops aren't the only people doing nefarious deeds on camera that they wouldn't like to have on YouTube.
*scratches chin*
I think you meant; *scratches chins*
first thought was clever but if it doesn't work then it's just pigs liking disney tunes
This is hilarious
Dumb cop doesn't realize YouTube won't yank the video for background music. What they will do is demonetize it so that the person posting the video cannot get money from ads and that any monetization from ad revenue goes to Disney Corp.
So the abusive cop video going viral will just make Disney money, not prevent the video from being seen.
In your dreams.
And the police will be on record making a public performance of copyrighted music without permission.
It's hard to understand how they could be so stupid and still manage to cash a paycheck?
So police can't play music while they work as that is a public performance? Nonsense. They aren't the ones recording the music or posting it to You Tube.
You continue to be wrong. Do an internet search for "public performance license" if you want to know how to stop being wrong.
Two things indicate the cop playing this music is a "public performance". He put it on the loudspeakers, and he admitted that he's not just playing it for himself, but intends for others to hear it.
At one point, the music industry was suing restaurants and stores just for having a radio station playing where the customers could hear it. That was a public performance of whatever song happened to be on the radio, and according to copyright law it required a public performance license. (So did singing "Happy Birthday to You". In 1998 Congress changed the law to exempt most bars and restaurants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_in_Music_Licensing_Act_of_1998
So I'd have to be a copyright lawyer to know whether this is exempt or a violation of copyright - and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a good copyright lawyer could argue it either way, depending on who paid his retainer...
One more thing: the European Communities stuck to the original law and filed a claim with the WTO that the US violated international copyright agreements. The US government actually paid a $3.3 billion fine.
I understand the concern, but, if this story is true, this is Bugs Bunny level of American ingenuity, and all American patriots should appreciate that.
We can appreciate it for the amusement factor. But agents of the state trying to avoid accountability should never be appreciated.
Warner Media and its predecessors was able to sue every restaurant that sang "Happy Birthday To You" as an unauthorized public performance, until someone finally challenged Warners and the court found out that the copyright had lapsed many years prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status
So the Mouse ought to be able to sue these police for an unauthorized public performance. Heck, both the record companies and the songwriters can lawyer up. Someone needs to tell these cops that ThE lAw Is ThE lAw!
Incidentally, that's why we got restaurants composing their own Happy Birthday songs for years, such as:
"Happy Happy Birthday!
This song is really lame!
Because 'Happy Birthday'
Isn't pu-u-blic domain!"
It almost sounds like deprivation of rights under color of authority, but I'm not an attorney.
It is a public servant attempting to dissuade the public from exercising their 1st amendment protected rights, obstruction of transparency, erosion of public trust, and a typical cop dick move.
Evidence tampering.
And it DOES seem like it would be a prima facie attempt at deprivation of civil rights under color of law or authority.
Cop needs to be stomped on, hard, by his department and his city and/or state government.
I can understand the difficulty of the job of being an officer. My brother is a cop. And while I can laugh at the music, I still find it disturbing. If these officers do not wish to be held accountable and/or be restricted by a fellow citizen's constitutional rights they should perhaps find other work.
There is probably an easy way to solve the problem.
Is this cop bullet-proof?
Maybe it's time to find out.
If only there was some way to mute the sound while recording...
If being filmed while doing your job in public interferes with your job, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!
It is a shame that Heard didn't have the same idea and now the only people defending her are incels.