> It is almost impossible to prosecute police for straightforward violent crimes,
That's because criminal prosecution is limited to people who have a professional dependency on cooperation by LEOs.
Civil prosecution does not, and while individual officers may have qualified immunity, state/local government agencies, including police departments, have no legal privilege to disregard copyright.
Police and corporations have a special relationship. The corporations sell things and concentrate wealth, the police prevent other people from breaking the rules and redistributing it. This is one reason why the right talks up respecting the police and the sanctity of private property.
Suffice it to say, corporations are happy when the police find ways to let them exercise additional power that doesn't directly threaten their interests. What do they care if there's a fun song going on in the background if it lets police rough people up at their behest?
Do police and Paul McCartney have a special relationship? He owns the copyright to one of the songs the police played.
(For those who remember that Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog a few years ago and are wondering how McCartney has the rights, Jackson later sold it to Sony. When the songs became old enough, McCartney attempted to use the recapture provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 [1], 17 USC 203 [2]. Sony fought this, but in mid-2017 they settled and the rights went back to McCartney).
The preferences of individuals are more idiosyncratic, but certainly a wealthy man like Mr. McCartney would have had many more experiences where the police or security protected him vs. commoners that are treated with suspicion.
The officer didn't do anything wrong and just because police are sometimes unreasonable or unethical, it doesn't mean this officer was either. The officer has a right to do whatever he wants with his phone as well. He could be recording with it, or he can play music with it, without recourse. It's his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that protects him, not the constitution or being an officer.
If someone wants to film him, and then use the power of the Internet to amplify that video to be viewed by many, as is their current right, then they will simply have to do additional work to ensure they are not transmitting the officer's "tunes" to others. Take the time to edit the video provides a means to still publish. Not as easy as clicking submit, but still available as an option, without making a sensationalist claim that music is being "weaponized" by anyone.
People using straw man arguments to "weaponize" language and then place it online where it becomes divisive. That's more of a story than some dude using his phone in a clever way to protect from being video mobbed.
I am aware your comment may be sarcasm, so there's that.
The officer absolutely did something wrong. They intentionally abused copyright to prevent lawful free expression. They should be strung up on First Amendment charges, and the RIAA should come down hard.
A 16 year old working at McDonald's does not have the right to ignore the boss and play a gameboy (I was 16 in the 90's).
Banning music outside cop cars, or over the loud speaker, or on mobile devices while on duty does seem like something they definitely could do and would be within the law.
This would actually fall under a "sync license" which requires approval by both the master rights holder as well as the composition owner which is the artist although it cold be the artist and their publishing company if they have sold shares to them. See "permissions needed" here:
