[stale2002]

> is well established law

The point being that no rights holder, in their right mind would prospect someone for this, in the same way that they don't go after people walking around with boomboxes.

There might be a crazy example if this happening once. But mostly nobody gets prosecuted for walking around playing music on their phone.

[fredophile]

Apparently you don't remember how hard Metallica went after their own fans for file sharing in the 90s. You should also consider that the person in question is a cop, not some random person. I'm sure that there are plenty of bands that would be happy to use this rule specifically against cops.

[stale2002]

No, The idea that any court would say that someone walking around, playing music on their phone, while walking around outside, should be punished in any way, is so obviously false that it is just silly.

As in, maybe there has been 1 or 2 times, in history, where a court has ever punished anyone, for merely walking around, playing music on their phone, if it has ever happened at all.

> there are plenty of bands that would be happy

And the band would waste a lot of money and lose in court doing that.

I am truly curious as to how far you actually think this goes. As in, do you truly believe, that, to give a more extreme example, if someone was walking around, and had headsets in, and was listen to music but someone walking next to them could hear it, that any court ever would call this a public performance?

I mean someone can hear it right? That makes it a public performance? No. That is ridiculous. This would never happen.

Because that is only a slightly more extreme situation.

Copywrite law would be completely meaningless, if you are willing to bit the bullet on these kinds of extreme hypotheticals.

[fredophile]

I'm a bit late replying so I'm not sure if you're going to see this or not.

In your headphone example, I'd say it's pretty clear that this would not be a public performance. Let's approach the problem from the other direction. If you have a store and play music over speakers in the store then this does count and stores pay licensing fees for this. What about if an employee regularly plays music with a bluetooth speaker while they're working at the cash register? This is a representative of the company playing music where customers can hear it so you could argue it still counts. What if they don't use the speaker and play the music directly over their phone's speakers? Does the quality of the speakers matter? What if instead of a store it's a government employee working somewhere like the DMV? Is the government exempt from copyright laws? What's the difference between the DMV employee and a cop? They both work for the government, doing a job where they interact with the public, and are playing music over speakers where the public around them can hear it.

At what point in that series does it stop being a public performance? Where exactly does the law draw the line? Is there even a clear line in established case law? Does that precedent vary depending on your location in the US? I would be surprised if there is relevant precedent for this example. There wouldn't normally be any incentive for anyone in the music industry to claim this type of scenario is a public performance. However, I think that changes when the police start doing this to as a way to avoid criticism.