Santa Ana (CA) Council Looking To Ban City Cops From Playing Copyrighted Music While Being Recorded
from the fixing-problems-that-shouldn't-exist dept
A couple of weeks ago, a police transparency activist caught something on video: a cop trying not to get caught on video. That isn’t the interesting part. Lots of cops hate being recorded, even by their own cameras.
This Santa Ana police officer was rolling through a neighborhood — supposedly to investigate a stolen car — and blasting music from Disney movies from his cruiser’s loudspeaker. This is how cops have been rolling lately: firing up big hits from big IP holders with deep pockets in hopes of thwarting uploads or, at the very least, burying them under stacks of DMCA notices.
This move not only attracted the attention of people minding their own businesses in their houses (some emerged to complain about the volume of the music), but it also attracted the attention of city councilmember Jonathan Hernandez, who confronted the cop about his attempt to thwart a citizen’s recording.
Seconds after the music appears to abruptly turn off, a Santa Ana city councilman, Johnathan Hernandez, also asked: “What’s going on with the music here?”
The officer replied it had to do with “copyright infringement” as he pointed toward the man filming the video. Hernandez took that to mean the officer was trying to keep the video off social media.
This led to one of the very few worthwhile uses of the phrase, “Do you know who I am?”
“Do you know who I am?” Hernandez asks. The officer pauses, then says that he does recognize the city official — and his demeanor shifts.
“You’re not gonna conduct yourself like that in front of my neighbors,” Councilmember Hernandez continues. The officer apologizes to Hernandez, but Hernandez isn’t satisfied: “Apologize to him,” he says, motioning to the camera-holding YouTuber.
I guarantee the officer knows now. The Santa Ana PD has opened an investigation into the blasting of a global media conglomerate’s copyrighted-to-fuck-and-back music to shut down an activist’s recording — something openly admitted to by the officer, who somehow has still managed to keep his name out of the (digital) papers.
Maybe they’ll name a law after this (not yet named) officer. The latest Santa Ana council meeting went into overtime. And nothing good was said about the officer who chose to turn beloved Disney tunes into a weapon against accountability.
Hernandez led off.
“This is a practice that no officer should engage in. There’s no reason to ever behave this way with members of the public, especially if you’re an officer with a badge and a gun,” said Councilman Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, who brought up the matter before his colleagues.
“The practice of utilizing music to deter members of the public from recording (police) isn’t something we’re going to allow to continue,” he added.
But he wasn’t the only one, despite being the councilmember on the scene of the stolen car “investigation” that somehow involved blasting Disney tunes at high volume for the sole (admitted) purpose of preventing activists from recording the officer’s actions and words.
There was a bit of hedging from another councilmember, but it ultimately ended in a full rebuke:
Councilman David Penaloza said that public auditors sometimes cross the line and antagonize police while recording video. But, he added, the public has a right to film city employees while they are working for the public.
“That was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen,” Penaloza said Wednesday.
Councilmembers may be a dime a dozen (and, to the officer’s credit, it’s probably difficult to pick out councilmembers from a lineup, much less a confrontation on some random street), but there’s only one mayor. And he wasn’t happy either.
Mayor Vicente Sarmiento agreed that the more important issue is that police were actively trying to prevent the dissemination of a video capturing their work. He pointed to well-known cases of police misconduct – Rodney King and George Floyd – that became public issues only after they were captured on videos that were then widely seen by the public.
The officer has become a conduit for action, presumably not in the way he intended.
The city of Santa Ana is considering whether to ban the controversial practice of police blasting copyrighted music to prevent videos of them from being posted to social media.
Sounds great but it really isn’t. It’s pure bullshit. This should not be happening.
First, cops should be in the business of enforcing laws. Their actions should not be so far off the rails they generate new laws. That is sincerely screwed up. No city should have to implement a law to prohibit behavior cops already know is wrong and (in this case) have admitted to on camera while engaged in public disservice.
Second, this is already forbidden by Santa Ana Police Department policy.
The Santa Ana Police Department recognizes the right of persons to lawfully record members of this department who are performing their official duties. Members of this department will not prohibit or intentionally interfere with such lawful recordings.
Probably not an offense that leads to instant termination. But why not make an example of this officer? Lord knows, cops and prosecutors love to make “examples” of arrestees by seeking “life +cancer” for tiny-ass drug busts. Why not show the department you don’t condone this action by canning the officer? Maybe he gets his job back once his union gets involved, but at least you can show pissed off citizens and city reps you aren’t screwing around.
Unfortunately, this will end with this cop being the impetus for wasted tax dollars. The law doubles down on existing policy, making the law redundant. And the officer may be sued for First Amendment violations, which means the city is going to spend money defending him, even though it has already declared his actions indefensible.
The most infuriating aspect of this whole debacle is the cop will get away with it. Even if he’s fired, he’ll get his job back. Even if he can’t get his job back in Santa Ana, he’ll have no trouble finding a law enforcement job elsewhere. The public will have its tax dollars wasted pursuing a bill that does nothing more than codify existing PD policy. As much heat as this has brought down on the Santa Ana PD, it remains the only game in town. And since it’s the only game, it can still set the rules, even if it means retaining an employee who openly admitted he was trying to thwart accountability. That’s the real con here. This is not a minor offense. The cop knew what he was doing. But I guarantee he walks away from this unscathed, free to violate rights and otherwise be shitty for years and years to come.
Filed Under: california, copyright, police, santa ana
Companies: disney
Comments on “Santa Ana (CA) Council Looking To Ban City Cops From Playing Copyrighted Music While Being Recorded”
Tables turned with Disney
You know, it’s oddly satisfying that a company named for someone with fascist sympathies like Walt Disney is now being opposed by fascists like Florida Man, er, Governor Ron DeSantis and the Santa Ana police officer in question playing ©’ed music.
Re:
…someone with fascist sympathies like Walt Disney…
ORLY?
Re: Re:
Hmmm… that link states that he was probably anti-Semitic, though not necessarily any worse than others at the time, and that they didn’t even both to look at the alleged support for Hitler.
It could be that the accusation were overblown, but I don’t see that as a refutation of fascist tendencies, as per the comment above.
Re: Re: Re: You didn't read it, did you?
Actually, that link states that although someone did a lot of research about Walt Disney, nothing was found in regards to the alleged anti-Semitism.
Re: Re: Re:2
You and Paul and both right.
In Paul’s defense:
So I think the takeaway was not that Walt Disney wasn’t anti-Semitic but whatever he had was par for the course during his lifetime and wasn’t at all unusual.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whereas to me, anti-Jew jokes and calling Jewish people generally tight-fisted is offensive, but doesn’t rise to the level of anti-Semitism.
Re: Re: Re:4
They would to me.
Re: Re: Re:5
I still don’t believe that a joke beginning “an Englishman, an Irishman, and a Jew” is on the same level as claiming that Jewish people eat children (a blood libel that was told to me about a family of Hassidic Jews when I was a teenager).
I’m not sure about the legal viability of it but it strikes me that if they really want to ‘dissuade’ such behavior and they’re in the mind of crafting a new law writing one up that any officer accused of such behaviour will receive zero taxpayer money from the city for their defense, and if the department funds it that amount will be subtracted from the next year’s department budget would likely do the trick.
Make officers that blatantly corrupt foot their own legal bills and they’d change their tune real quick, anything less sadly is just going to be ignored as usual.
Re:
Yup, hang him out to dry. He was in blatant violation of department policy, why in the world would they spend a dime to assist in his defense?
Public Performance?
Wouldn’t the police playing music over loudspeakers be considered a public performance? Shouldn’t they be getting smacked for paying for that?
Re:
Almost certainly and very much so but no company or collection agency is going to go after cops for breaking the law so they likely rightly feel perfectly safe flaunting the law like that.
Re: Re:
It’s a perfect example of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: Re:
…no company or collection agency is going to go after cops for breaking the law…
Because cops have guns. I’m sorry, sir! Please don’t shoot!
Re: Re:
Im not sure Disney has much to fear from suing the department for retaining employees committing willful copyright infringement in violation of law and department policy. Its not like Disneyland is in their jurisdiction, and I think in a dick swinging contest the mouse will win out, by buying local politicians if nothing else.
Re: Re:
The word is flouting not flaunting.
There is a difference.
The first is to ignore
The second is to show it off like Liberache
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so it is, thanks for the correction.
Re: Re: Re:
The name is Liberace, not Liberache.
There is a difference.
The first is to be a flamboyant pianist.
The second is to misspell.
Re:
I’m not sure if you noticed, but there’s not been a particular trend of police being held to account for crimes they commit in the course of their duties. Except, of course, when a viral video goes public and people are forced to take action, which seems to be the very thing that this tactic is meant to prevent.
Re:
Somewhat – it appears you have to get a license from the songwriters and publishers (but not the artists?). And in this case, only for recordings made after 1972:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/win-music-listeners-florida-no-performance-right-pre-1972-recordings
Re: Re:
Um, didn’t that change with the Hatch-Goodlatte Music Modernization Act of 2019 (which is only good thanks to Ron Wyden)?
To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
Councilman Jonathan Hernandez, how do I admire thee? Let me count the ways…
Besides, “No one wants to get their ass beat to a soundtrack.” — Dave Chappelle
Now they're advertising...
Nothing broadcasts, “I’m an asshole cop that needs to be filmed” more than one blasting Disney music.
Re:
I can imagine cops playing Let It Go from Frozen like the title of the song’s a (very strong) suggestion to citizens filming them as they kill yet another unarmed black guy.
Yes, because if it’s one thing corrupt cops love, it’s obeying the law.
Re:
If we make laws that cops have to obey, then only law-abiding cops will obey them. The outlaw cops will just ignore them and then you’ve just exposed us all to the criminals that roam our streets constantly!!!
/s
Re: Re:
Why the sarc mark? Corrupt cops are criminals that roam the streets (in patrol cars) constantly.
Re: Re: Re:
Because the sarcasm is the argument being made – facetiously taking the original poster’s comment to the extreme of “we might as well do nothing because the cops will just ignore the law anyway.” – same thing as “your vote doesn’t matter, just stay home.”
second AC is taking the mickey to that argument (whether it was first AC’s intention or not), and using the sarc mark to make it clear they’re taking the mickey to it.
Re: Re: Re:2
*whoosh*
God, I hope not. Laws named after people (victims, perpetrators, proponents) are almost always horribly drafted.
I will point out, though, that “police department policy” is not equivalent to “law”. The city council can make law, which can then be enforced (or ignored), but has legal weight regardless of contracts with the police union. The police department has a policy … which was already being ignored.
City just needs to look at it from a financial perspective
Can the city afford to be on the hook for impromptu public performances without a license? ASCAP wants to know.
Re:
Going on Spotify to find a track produced by one of the most litigious companies on record just in case there’s a citizen recording you hardly meets the definition of ‘impromptu’.
Does the city have a noise ordnance?
Perhaps the officer should be ticketed for disturbing the peace along with being fired for violating departmental policy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Once again activist judges continue to look for problems where there is none. You want my son to keep the peace but you won’t do a thing to stop woke millennials from doing everything they can, misdemeanors included, to get in the police’s way. Disgusting.
Re:
Unless you want to be mistaken for the real davec, you need to stop with these kinds of posts. Poe’s Law is a thing for a reason and your posts aren’t even good satire.
Re: Re:
I’m starting to think that davec meeting fake davec is like the Spider-man meme where the two identical Spider-men point at each other.
Re: Re: Re:
Except they’re both cops with a knee on a Black man’s neck.
Re: Re: Re:2
Er, no. They both have a son who is a cop with his knee on a black guy’s neck.
Re: Re: Re:3
I meant that they each have a son, but the other way works, too. ;p
Re: Re: Re:
Considering that davec has made it clear while logged in that he’s here to stay until we agree with his trolling, davec is indistinguishable logged in or out.
Re: Re:
davec isn’t good satire.
Re: Re: Re:
The real davec’s not satire at all, and even if he was, he still couldn’t be any less funny.
Copyrighted Music
I might add to this that public performances of copyrighted music are subject to royalty license payments. Any radio, television station, concert halls, etc. are required to pay. So someone here is skirting copyright laws.
If I were Disney
If I were a lawyer for Disney (and I’m not), I would think about suing any police officers themselves for doing this. If the music is so loud it disturbs the neighbors, they are having a public performance without a license to do so.
Re:
Here’s the thing: the cops doing this aren’t relying on Dibsney et al.’s lawyers getting the videos pulled, they’re relying on YouTube’s ContentID system automatically pulling citizen activists’ videos. The cops know full well that ContentID can’t take context into account, which not only gives them some time before any crimes they’ve committed become known about by the general public, but may ensure that some cop-on-citizen assaults are never in the public record at all.
Couldn’t something like a fair use exemption be made where copyright claims wouldn’t apply to media that documents police activity? The exemption wouldn’t apply if the material was added to the recording, but would apply if a recording of police activity also captured audio being played at the time, or video visible in the background.