Slashdot Mirror
Theater Chain Bans Google Glass
mpicpp sends this report from Ars: A cinema chain announced Tuesday that it is now barring patrons from wearing Google Glass at its movie houses across the U.S. in a bid to clamp down on piracy. Alamo Drafthouse, which runs theaters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and soon in California, is among the first U.S. chains to ban Google's computerized eyewear. 'Google Glass is officially banned from @drafthouse auditoriums once lights dim for trailers,' the chain's chief executive, Tim League, tweeted. The decision comes as Google has made the eyewear readily available to the general public, and it follows a slew of incidents in which wearers of Google Glass have had brushes with the law.
Hmm, previewing before posting makes sense; " and even better commercials "
It's inflammatory to say they are "banned" rather than "not allowed to be used". Banned implies that you cannot enter the theater with them... but "once the lights dim" implies you are allowed in, just not allowed to use them.
But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't. There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.
Yah, makes perfect sense to extend a ban to devices that distract from the viewing...after all, this is a place where (as in the Austin location) waitresses are taking orders and delivering food and beer throughout the whole movie!
Some of us certainly do mind when inconsiderate jerks think they're being clever and "discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed". That's the thing: the franchise caters to people who actually want to watch the movie without kids/cellphoes/etc. From Wikipedia:
"When we adopted our strict no talking policy back in 1997 we knew we were going to alienate some of our patrons," [founder] Tim League posted on the cinema's website. "That was the plan. If you can't change your behavior and be quiet (or unilluminated) during a movie, then we don't want you at our venue."
Moral of the story - regulate your behavior or go somewhere else.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
How is it common sense to ban an emerging technology before it's even in the marketplace? Someone wearing GG does not impact your movie viewing in any way, unless you're just an intolerant douche. And what about when the technology comes around to let deaf people see subtitles in their HUD while watching the movie? There are all sorts of positive, enabling possibilities for this tech, but because of people like you with their self-absorbed mentalities, some may never see the light of day. Don't be such a reactionary twat.
Why in the world would you want to check your email, etc. if you're in the middle of watching a movie? No, I completely agree with Alamo Drafthouse from this one. There are really no good reasons to want to use Google glass in the theater other than discreet piracy. And it's not like you're completely banned from bringing the glasses into the building. You just have to put them away before the movie starts, and if something urgent came up and you needed to use your glasses, you could step out into the lobby and take care of it there.
I'm amazed that a head-mounted video camera has been banned from a venue that previously had a ban on video cameras. Same story with casinos.
I would guess the primary driver of this is not to ban annoying behavior but to prevent somebody from filming the screen to make and distribute cheap copies.
But I like your idea of subtitles via the glasses. Something that I have not thought off.
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.
Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?
You mean the "projectionists"? They don't have those anymore, I know because I used to be one. These days you get some usher who knows how to load the film into the projector (for those places still using film) and mash the button to start. If you are lucky they focus the film and adjust the volume when the feature starts, but usually they don't come back until it's time to thread the projector again. They don't have time to set up the camera and tape anything.
The only time you will see somebody who can splice film or knows how to clean the projector is on Thursday when the guy who knows how to get the new prints loaded onto the platters during the day and break down the prints you are sending back after the last show. I used to do this and for an eight screen theater it took from about 4PM to well into Friday morning (about 2 AM or later) to do this. It was pretty hard work because I always cleaned the projector when I threaded it, always focused and set sound levels for the start of the trailers, then came back and did it again when the feature started. It was LOTS of running. The rest of the week, some usher did the threading and button mashing and they never cleaned anything by the looks of what I found on Thursday. This was 20 years ago, so I'm betting things have only gotten worse, and based on the dirty prints and out of focus films I've suffered though as a paying customer, I think I'm right.
But the "screeners" you are talking about are usually done after the place closes on Thursday. For big films, we used to sometimes let the staff see it on Thursday night before it opened. Mainly for films that we where expecting would be sold out for days. This was a nice fringe benefit for the staff who where going to have to work pretty hard over the next few days, not to mention it let the projectionist to actually SEE the film from a theater seat an not the office chair in the booth. I'm sure there are some managers who don't mind making screeners, as they are not the brightest bunch of people and don't get paid much for the long hours they work.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This kind of technology is obviously going to evolve, and have better battery life, not to mention, increased miniaturization.
It's going to get interesting once people (other than CIA operatives) start wearing camera+audio recorder technology that masquerades as stylish jewelry, or a baseball cap http://www.amazon.com/Baseball....
I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.
That doesn't mean that certain uses of it won't still legitimately be considered douchebaggery.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
because social media and a slew of reality tv shows has convinced many, many people that they are special snow-flakes who need to be in constant contact with the outside world, and that everything they do, see, think, feel is somehow relevant to anyone.
Though part of this is just due to declining decorum and manners in general. Maybe I'm getting old, but people just seem far, far more self absorbed and inconsiderate than when I was a kid.
see also:
-selfies
-photos of meals at restaurants
If your need for connection to your bffs or whatever the fuck they're calling it these days are so dire that you can't do without facebook/text/email for 2 hours, stay out of the theater. Put the cell phone down. It won't kill you, promise.
Like...? Glass technophobes always remind me of the reaction to Kodak cameras in the 1880's. A few choice quotes:
I really don't get the vitriol. In 120 years people will laugh at the primitives from the early 2000's who reacted with shock and horror to Google glass. My biggest objection is that it's rude to glance at a notification when you're speaking to someone. But that's true of a phone, too.
Knowing how Alamo Drafthouse operates, this is more about minimizing distractions for other moviegoers. This is a theatre that explicitly states "No talking, texting, or using your cell phone during the movie or we will KICK YOUR ASS OUT" prior to every screening.
You've never been to Alamo Drafthouse. Each seat is serviced individually multiple times during the showing for their food/drink orders.
"cams" are straight-up, sitting-in-the-theater bootlegs.
"telesyncs" are shot from the projectionist booth, with a telephoto lens and generally use the equipment's audio out synced with the video.
"screeners" are are discs sent out, usually before awards season (but before the home video market), for people to screen.
The more you know....
...
"no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone"
I do. I mind very much. Guess what? A bright light in a dark theater is NEVER not distracting. And a phone at any dimmed level that is readable is bright in a theater.
A cinema is where we go to quietly enjoy immersion into a film.
You are being a distraction, you need to grow up.
The fact that you are telling people who want other people to be polite to 'grow up' must require a huge ego to muster that much cognitive dissonance
" and enjoy the movie."
That's the problem, douche bags like you make it so we can't enjoy the movie.
Watch it at home if your damn phone is so important.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Also consider: Google Glass isn't banned. You just can't use it once the lights dim, just like their cellphone policy. I'm willing to bet some patrons think they're being 'slick' by using glass...
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
It is just like if someone walked around holding their phone/camcorder/camera in front of him all of the time and was pointing it everywhere he looked. No one wants that.
I honestly don't care. And I don't feel like this is the same thing as someone pointing a camera at me.
There are security camera's everywhere. I don't freak out whenever a camera happens to be pointed at me (which is nearly all the time in public). If someone continuously focuses their camera on me (i.e. targeting me specifically) then I'd have a problem with it, because I don't know what their intent is.
I don't care if people glance at me as part of just the normal looking around and being aware of their surroundings. For the same reason I don't care if they are just filming their own experience (of which I might be in the background) without targeting me specifically, nor do I care if I am in the background of a security camera.
I don't care about being recorded. I care about being targeted.
Gee, I can't wait to see blockbusters on the big screen at 640 x 360. The pixels are going to about an inch in diameter.
No, this is about Alamo Drafthouse pleasing their customers. They get a big boost in attendance when they publicly crack down on stuff that people complain about. Such as when they kick out people for using phones during the movie. They know that banning Google Glass will make a lot of people happy, and will gain them some new customers, whether or not that ban actually improves the quality of the movie going experience.
This is probably not anything new anyway, they already ban using mobile devices after the movie starts. So this is just a reiteration of the policy, with emphasis that it does indeed apply to new technology and no special dispensation is given to Glass.
You say the device is distracting. How is it distracting? I notice people using their cell phones in a movie. How would I notice someone who is wearing a particular kind of eyeglass thing during a movie?
I swear I am not making this up, but I was at the first day opening of a highly popular movie (one of the Star Wars I think) and the guy in front of me has his phone ring, and then he actually answered it! And he talked to the other person, not whisper, so that just about everyone in the theater could hear him. And the place was packed. From the side we could hear it was not some home emergency. After people starting shusshing him he said, loudly enough for us to hear, "I have to go, I'm in the middle of a movie".
I can't begin to imagine how that sort of person even has a friend who would want to call him.
From what I understand, this chain is fairly mild as far as "intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority." The similar place by me - there are many such places that serve beer and have no-kids policies around the US - only shows boring films of the sort people think they're supposed to like, instead of the kind of films people actually like.
No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
Then leave the damn darkened cinema area to check it, or check it after the show! Have some impulse control if you consider yourself an adult.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
for pretty good reason. unlike a cell phone there isn't a brightly backlit screen but I can still get texts/updates/emails that may signal I should quietly excuse myself from the theater to take care of some personal business. It's even less invasive than a pager.
There are huge ways this can (and probably will at some point) be used to make technology less invasive to those around you and your life. I'd love to not interrupt a conversation to check if my wife just went into labor or needs me home ASAP while out having a beer with a friend. Or my friends who are doctors can get a low profile pop up that they are needed at the hospital rather than having to have their phone out.
I would love for Google to delist them. From everything. I love it if they didn't come on Maps or any android app that google maintains. Then see how long that ban lasts.
First, the the Alamo, then there will be others.
After all, we can't have people wearing active recording devices into an area where they charge money to play copyright protected media to a limited audience, can we?
Besides, if you were sitting here in a typical theater with a smart phone in a little tripod-thingy recording the movie, you could reasonably expect to get in trouble, if spotted by any staff members, right?
So, how long before we see anal-retentive stars at ComiCon who charge an arm and a leg for a pic, setting their body-guards on Google Glass-wearing attendees for "stealing" pics/video of them at the Con? Next we'll see Google Glass Banned from such conventions...
Where does it end?
Society at large sees a futuristic and experimental Star Trek head visor. You can't buy them in the shops, nor online, and their rarity means the majority of people have not personally used one or even had a personal friend demonstrate how it works.
I have not personally seen any tech specs on the device, as a technologists my previous assumption was that it would be of comparable spec to a high end mobile phone, with some additional constraints imposed by miniaturization.
A non-techie sees a futuristic device that they don't fully understand through lack of direct experience and probably conceptualize something from a sci fi film. Many people are afraid of new technology they don't understand.
A bureaucrat simply sees the camera lens and says "no cameras allowed"
It isn't just a bit of regulation that will be required. The freedom of the press means that anyone who wants to, or even claims to eventually want to publish has a right to take pictures and video in any public place so long as their rebroadcast of copyrighted material falls into the fair use category. The right of free press doesn't give people the right to infringe on copyright or the right to privacy, but the right to privacy doesn't extend to public places. Even preventing perverts from taking upskirt videos and posting them on the web wasn't simple to legislate and that relied on defining privacy in a way that was painfully obvious already.
Consider that a ban on public photography is pointless if it applies only to g-glass since there are dozens of alternatives to clandestine video already available and dozens more will spring up as soon as g-glass is banned on a widespread basis. Contacts that take video and hidden cameras doing constant upload that melt without any provable trace of what they were doing will inevitably spring up to meet the demand. More sinister is that the fight against g-glass is is actually a fight against the right of the people to know what is going on. Nothing would make a corrupt government happier than to know that they need not fear public proof of wrongdoing.
The fight against paparazzi has been going on for many, many years and this is just a discussion of one of their most obvious potential tools. This problem isn't confined to g-glass, but the potential remedies to the problem it presents must be considered carefully if they are to have a result which doesn't cause other problems worse than the ones they solve.
You don't want to lose your privacy, and you have a right to that privacy. You're already guaranteed the right to privacy in certain circumstances, such as in your home and on your phone conversations, but that only extends to certain points. Federal wiretapping laws prohibit someone from recording your conversations on the phone unless the person you're talking to knows it is being recorded. Donald Sterling's recent time in the press shows that even in your own home, your privacy isn't guaranteed.
What kind of laws exactly do you propose where amateur journalists and bloggers can still record and report news they feel is in the public interest without having to fight a legal battle against big money and corrupt government interests?
So, do you also kick out people wearing a tie, or using a phone you don't like?
Maybe it's a t-shirt for a band you don't like because they play the 'wrong' music.
Sounds more like the people that weren't wearing a headsup display accessory for their phone are ones being "glassholes".
So, the glasses don't seem to be generating lights or noise that are annoying other people, and they were not being used to record anything, though if they were, the batteries would have run down so fast you'd have to have a whole bag of them to make it through the movie.
One of those listed in the article was OFF and also the wearers PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HE NEEDED TO SEE WITH!!!
Yeah, your torch wield mobs of conformity police are really doing of good job of proving yourself worse than that douche that talks on his phone everywhere.
It's amazing how pissed so many people are getting over somebody else having a new and expensive accessory. What's even more amazing is the massive and undeserved overreactions that people are having that far out weigh anything that I've seen reported for actual "glassholes" doing. So far, most of the reports boil down to "somebody dared to actually wear googleglass, so people immediately started doing awful assholish things to them, all of which were unfair and several were illegal, isn't it awsome". I'm embarrassed that you technophobic luddites even found out how to get to the internet.
Yeah, I know, now you're going to go screaming about how I'm an evil monster and threaten to burn me at the stake. You should really look at yourselves first, you've turned into a mindless mob screaming for blood and attacking the innocent. Metaphorically that is. Nobody has been killed yet, though there are reports of theft and assault, so I doubt it'll be much longer before your kind kills someone over a tech accessory. Maybe next you'll go after kids with tablet computers.
I expect that in a few years, you will be able to get something equivalent to the googleglasses, but with much better battery life and a price more in the range of $150-$250. I'll want to get that, and load up a variety of apps to help deal with some issues of mine.
My meds screw with my memory, so an intelligent scheduler and notes app is on the list. Popping up reminders in my vision works much better than me trying to remember to check my phone all the time, or the 10 million alarms that often aren't even heard over the noise.
Another app will help with my face blindness. Yes, that's right, the dreaded facial recognition software. I want pics of the people I meet stored with their names and reminder notes so when someone starts talking to me, I can figure out who they are in a few seconds instead of agonizing over it for hours. Even if people know you have that issue, they tend to get upset when you can't remember who they are.
Besides, it won't be that much of a change for me to wear them, as I need glasses to see pretty much anything in the first place. You know that big E at the top of the eye chart. Let's put it this way, the last time I saw that without glasses was in grade school. I've been banned from having glass lenses since I was in high school. Fortunately they have these fantastic optical polymers that are so much lighter and thinner than glass for lenses. Even so, a little bit of extra weight could be tolerated for the benefit.
So again, you want to ignore something what it can be used for and instead be an even bigger pain than someone you suspect might act like an entitled douche?
Well go get some rabies shots fido, because you're foaming at the mouth again.
I think that for many people it is about availability. Movies are released at different dates in different parts of the world, or in some places not at all. A movie may be released in cinemas six months later somewhere, but by then the hype about it on the Internet is already long over.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
I think your original line is correct. It implies there's a can of whoop-ass waiting when she brings it.
Wheelchair ramps are a reasonable accommodation.
Providing special audio devices for the hard of hearing is a reasonable accommodation.
"You have to let me wear this recording device because I didn't bring a spare set of prescription lenses" is not a 'reasonable accommodation,' it's narcissistic bullshit.
Get over yourself, and respect the rights of property owners, or don't set foot on their property.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Google Glass (and similiar tech) is here. It's in the world, and it's not going away. Lots of people complain about it, and mostly they feel like it's an invasion of privacy.
I find that odd. Our privacy is invaded all the time. The US government records every text message and call you make and no one can seem to be outraged. Meanwhile, some guy has a camera on his face (and he's not even necessarily recording) and everyone is bent out of shape. No one bats an eye when someone takes out a phone to take a pic though.
There is ONE drawback to this tech. You might get recorded.
There are several HUGE benefits. For one, it turns the surveilance around. It's been shown that cop/citizen violence goes WAY down(I seem to remember a 50% reduction reported) when everyone is recorded. That's a good thing. For two, putting these things everywhere will turn everyone a lot more polite. I know it's a popular meme that an armed society is a polite society. Well, a recorded society might ACTUALLY be more polite. For three, carrying around an alibi might put an end to the practice of rounding up "the usual suspects". No more "He's black, it was probably him." We can all SHOW we weren't there. For four, I'd love to see it mandated that all public servants wear them. It's significantly harder to make backroom shady deals when everything you're doing is being recorded, but that's really just my pipe dream.
Anyway, people are bitching about glassholes. This is just... eh. Shrug. It's loosed upon the world. It's coming, and nothing you can do is going to stop it. I happen to think the benefits are well worth it. The only real drawback is that someone might record you being an asshole. :D
Dude - it's their property. Respect their rules or GTFO.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I have a right to wear corrective lens. I have a right to have a red light blinking on them if I want to and you can't say anything.
And the movie theater has a right to not take your money.
The difference with the bakery was that they were being asked to do something that they were completely willing to do most of the time except for the identity of the person asking. If Alamo kicked you out for needing glasses at all, or for being white, or straight, or short, that'd be the same level of discrimination.
tl;dr: they can kick you out for your actions, but not for your identity
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
Don't be a drama queen. Geeks aren't banned. Google Glass is, whilst the movie is showing.
No, I don't work for them and neither do I have any desire to do so (and I doubt they would be interested in me, since I am not currently permitted to work in the USA) In fact, there was nothing stupid about my message.. The previous commenter said "The two big issues are" and listed two. I merely pointed out that the second one was not an issue at all
Regarding the issue you are focused on (the poor video and audio quality), well of course technology improves at a rapid rate. If a device such as this was not available with better recording capabilities within a few years, I would be very surprised.. The other poster mentioned that a head mounted cam is likely to be jittery.. thats true also, but software and hardware solutions exist to remove jitter already.
I'm not saying, that this theatre banning such a device is a great idea. I think that it is a futile idea! Miniscule devices capable of streaming high definition video to external storage are going to be ubiquitous in a few years. If you want to oppose banning them then you really need to start thinking about non-technical reasons for that. If you base your entire argument on the fact that they are rubbish, then when they get better as they inexorably will.. your argument collapses!
Nope; actually, what I'm doing is pointing out that if a person with prescription Google Glasses doesn't think to bring a non-Glass pair for places/times where Glass would be inappropriate, that's their own fault for not planning ahead, not the fault of the venue who doesn't allow Glass.
That you would choose to not frequent businesses that disallow Glass, rather than carry a spare set, is a perfectly valid and reasonable response; but if you read through the comments on this thread, many supporters of the product do not share your sense of logic - they'd rather whine endlessly about how a private property owner won't let them do whatever they want to. My comment was directed at them, yours just gave me the jumping-off point I needed for this particular rant.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese