Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal.
Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance.
Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance.
If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it.
So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1]
None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
You're basically implying that 'everyone is breaking copyright all the time' which is a spectacular claim unsupported by the case law which I presented to you.
You'll have to provide some basic logic and hopefully evidence to support the claim that someone playing music for themselves and even a couple of other people they are engaged with is a 'public performance' because at it stands there's no reason to believe that.
The law says publicly means at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.[1]
More radio use infringes than you think. But performing rights organizations can't force their way into work areas not open to the public. Infringement by individuals tends to be transient and anonymous. Suing individuals could provoke a backlash. And courts would be more sympathetic to individuals claiming fair use.
My claim is consistent with the statute. Yours isn't. It's up to you to find case law.
1) He didn't indicate that he was not playing it for himself.
2) He definitely didn't indicate that he was making a public performance, nor was he playing it for the benefit of others.
3) The point is moot: this cop may have said one thing or another - but otherwise cops cay play this music for themselves which is obviously within their rights.
Your claim is nowhere near the statute, and you have nothing remotely near this in case law.
This isn't about laws or copyrights, because the arguments are ridiculous and embarrassing for these people making them - it's hardly worth pointing out.
It's about bias and populist delusions of the people who for some reason 'hate cops'.
It's really embarrassing for HN to see all this mental energy steered into anti-intellectual arguments and bigoted posturing.
