Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Bans Google Glass In Theaters
An anonymous reader writes: The Motion Picture Association of America, along with the National Association of Theater Owners, have banned Google Glass and similar devices from being in movie theaters. They said, "As part of our continued efforts to ensure movies are not recorded in theaters, however, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward using any recording device while movies are being shown. As has been our long-standing policy, all phones must be silenced and other recording devices, including wearable devices, must be turned off and put away at show time. Individuals who fail or refuse to put the recording devices away may be asked to leave." This is a change from the MPAA's stance earlier this year that Glass was "no threat" in terms of copyright infringement. A spokesman said the ban is geared toward combating more sophisticated wearables in the future.
I don't like people being able to surreptitiously record things; I don't like the MPAA or RIAA on principle alone (they're leaches sucking blood from the artists.)
So I've no sympathy for either side in this debate. I think they're both wrong.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So I can't use Google Glass, but I'm free to bring in my smart phone, which has an HD camera and likely better quality? Good work there, MPAA.
This is news because it is about "Google Glass." Not Go-Pro cuz that is cool. Google Glass, on the other hand, is nerdy. If you want to attack something stay away from the hip and trendy since Go-Pro is somehow different.
Waiting half an hour to buy a ticket for about ten bucks, then suffering for 3 hours in 100+ degrees heat to ensure you need to buy something to drink, sitting and standing in the leftovers of the previous show and getting to choose to either not understanding any dialogue or getting a tinnitus from explosions and music (or rather, having that choice being made for you)...
Seriously? Anyone still masochist enough for that "authentic experience"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They could have embraced new technology by releasing a multi-language subtitles glass app. Instead, they further alienate people to combat an unrealistic threat. Early gadget adopters may not be numerous, but they have outsized influence in creating trends. In this case, trends towards not going to movie theaters.
Quite frankly, with the quality of a good deal of movies today, NOT watching it is probably the only thing that could keep the audience in the theater...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Can't we put MPAA lawyers and Google Glass enthusiasts into one room and have them duke it out?
Whoever loses. We win.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, fuck them! How dare they try to protect themselves from theft on PRIVATE property that no one is REQUIRED to go to. Fuck them indeed.
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own and do not, in any way, reflect the opinions of my employer or university.
Other recording devices have not had perscription lenses.
"I am sorry but you have to take off your glasses to see the movie."
"If I take off my glasses, I can not SEE the movie!"
Yet another reason to watch movies at home.
Of course, I'm not sure what the value of crappy, head mounted recording it going to be, or how much it devalues the product.
I agree you shouldn't be recording the stuff in a movie theater, but a head mounted recording it going to have limited sound quality, is going to move around as the watcher does, and you'll probably hear them eating popcorn.
Do crappy recordings like this actually get watched and cut into DVD sales? I sure as heck wouldn't be interested in watching one of these, and I want my full surround sound in my home theater, not some dodgy stereo recording of the sounds inside the movie theater.
This sounds like it would be like watching Mystery Science Theater 3000, but without the good stuff.
I've never seen one of these recordings (I've never actually downloaded a movie, except for digital copies I've bought) -- but I can't imagine they're worth watching.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There was no reason to wear them while watching a movie.
Uh... Vision deficit?
that I can't bring my 70mm camera and tripod in, and can no longer tap into the theater sound, either. what a bunch of spoilsports!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Just to add,
This isn't a future issue. I have prescription frames that I use with my Google Glass. Those glasses are my only glasses with my current prescription. The Google Glass is actually one arm of the frame, so you can't remove it and still use the glasses. To tell me that I can not wear the Google Glass in the theatre means that it would eliminate my mechanism to correct my near-sightedness.
I am happy to turn the Glass off at a movie. I do the same at other performances that do not allow videos/photos. My cellphone is turned off. Why do I have to remove my glasses completely? It is okay though. I will stay at home instead. Someday we all will have something similar to Google Glass. It may not seem like it and it may have to come from someone other than Google, but the experience and benefits will one day compel us all as the cell phone does today.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Stop referring to it as such.
Or the terrorists win.
You didn't keep your regular glasses when you received your Google glass?
Maybe you should purchase a pair for a backup anyway?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Wait you could afford a $1500 Google Glass but you cannot afford a set of normal frames? You sir have screwed up priorities.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
we paid money to watch a movie and are instead distracted by the texting and one-sided phone conversations.
Texting wouldn't be so bad if they just mute the damn alert tone and stop reading their texts out loud.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So instead of politely putting your google glass in your shirt pocket and wearing normal glasses, you'd rather make an ass out of yourself and get the police involved? I may be able to see your point if they just arbitrarily picked you out of a crowd, but if they went through the trouble of placing signs up at the entrance informing you of their restrictions then I'll have to side with them.
By having the sign out front saying no recording devices, you made an educated decision to use the theater instead of looking for a different theater that is more lenient or waiting for the movie to come out for home viewing. You making an ass out of yourself won't change the theater's policy, but loss of admissions will.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
He didn't have the $1506.95 to order Google Glass and order a pair of prescription glasses from Zenni Optical as a backup.
Troll much? I disagree with this statement.
Suppose that your vision is such that, like many people, you require corrective lenses in order to see properly. Now suppose that being one of those many people who requires corrective lenses, you also wish to use Google Glass as a lifestyle choice. Why would you desire to purchase a second pair of glasses which does not have the extra features which you use?
For reference, I am not a Google Glass user, but I am near-sighted and do wear eyeglasses all the time, even as I'm writing this post right now. I only own a single pair in my current prescription. I also own a computer which technically I don't need which cost a lot more than my glasses. Are my priorities also screwed up?
This has been posted 10 times probably in this thread, but ideally an eyeglass wearing Glass wearer would just have one pair of glasses on their person most of the time. Most of us who wear eyeglasses keep a spare pair in the glove compartment if our prescription is severe enough, and you'd think that a Glass wearer would understand the social issues around Glass enough to keep another pair nearby, but if I went all-in on Glass, I probably wouldn't have another pair in my pocket - and despite allegations to the contrary, I don't carry a murse.
The idea behind Glass is that you just wear them. They become the norm.
Look, I'm with you. I agree that you should have the foresight to put on your normal glasses when you go to the theater - the same sort of foresight that says, "Hey, 3D movie, maybe I'll wear my contacts today, because 3D glasses." - but if you're all-in on Glass, you've probably just adapted to the fact that they're just your glasses.
I banned the MPAA in 2000, I haven't gone to see any of their shit since then. My life is the better for it. *gently strokes PC* it's solved allllll my entertainment issues.
If you're using your PC and, presumably, the Internet for *all* your entertainment "issues" and stroking your PC, you're doing it wrong.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Absolutely. I don't even own google glass on the premise that it might make me violently nauseous, but if I saw someone kicked out for it I'd make a shit-storm, UNLESS he was also bothering other people, then he's on his own. I'm not about to enable anyone to set policy like this or set a precedent for toleration.
Perhaps they shouldn't have forked out for a pair of glasses they knew were banned from movie theaters?
Because I base all of my life choices based on what is (currently) acceptable in movie theaters... (smh)
let's ban people too! , movies are being recorded by their brains
I do not believe a single Google glass wearer is surprised that they may be asked to remove them at a theater, bar, or restaurant. It's been all over the news since the thing was first released. I place these google glass wearers in the same category as smokers who are surprised that they have lung cancer.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You're entitled to your opinion. Don't be surprised when you are asked to leave too. We are all adults (well most of us) and we know what signs mean. You don't have to agree with them, but you are free to spend you money elsewhere.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yes, you've been told it's not theft, but your basic premise of "I don't want you doing X on private property" still stands as legitimate (doubly so when the X isn't something like "being of X religion"). If theatres and the MPAA don't want google glass in their cinemas, they are OK to do so, and I'm OK not to go there.
However, frankly, does it really surprise anyone that the MPAA/theatre would rather you not bring recording devices into the theatre, even if they're not very good recording devices?
Copyright is a monopoly. It just happens to be a monopoly defined by the Constitution, and protected by legislation bought and paid for by Disney. It's a monopoly that, if limited to a reasonable amount of time, enriches our culture. If that monopoly is permitted to go on too long, it harms our culture instead -- though I admit it's hard to argue that putting Mickey Mouse in the public domain would improve American culture.
While I don't mind being able to profit from sales of my books for the rest of my life, my creations drew upon the culture around me. It's only fair that my work should eventually join the culture as part of the public domain after twenty years or so.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I'm pretty sure they'd ask you to remove your GoPro-equipped helmet, too.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
So lets see what evidence we have.
Given Hollywood accounting means no movie ever makes a profit, whether cam'd or not, this appears to show that they lose no profits from anything outside.
Bugger all evidence from you.
So HOW THE FUCK do you come up with the "thought" that they would lose money???
That still doesn't mean it equates 1:1 to *lost ticket sales*, especially as TBP and other mainstream *rrent sites are a global audience.
As someone who works in the content industries (I am a musician and 3D animator & VFX guy) I care less about the 'poor unwashed masses' consuming movies and music early in release schedule via *rrents for ticket sales reasons, and care more about people being able to experience creative works with some kind of quality control in place. Which imo is the same reason people care about cel phones going off in a theatre. As a content producer though cams and crappy mp3's are only going to worsen the experience regardless of how good or poor a script or composition may be. Quality control is paramount...
Thus it follows that MPAA is trying to insure that only HIGH QUALITY cams are created, none of that horribly low res head-shake-vomit-inducing cams for the proletariat thank you very much! (/sarcasm)
They're generally awful and often Russian, but the quality varies. People watch them because they are one of the only ways to get hold of a movie prior to its release on DVD or BluRay perhaps months later. Some people are simply poor and buying an illegal DVD of the Avengers the week it's released at the cinema is better value than taking the whole family (where I live a family of four is probably going to pay around $60 including popcorn). Have a look at the top torrents on TPB, lots of people download them to check if the movie looks any good before they go or simply because they want to say they've seen it.
I may be able to see your point if they just arbitrarily picked you out of a crowd, but if they went through the trouble of placing signs up at the entrance informing you of their restrictions then I'll have to side with them.
By having the sign out front saying no recording devices
Are they enforcing this restriction consistently? Are they allowing people to bring other recording devices, like smartphones, into the theater?
What exactly is the restriction?
If it's "no recording devices", then they're enforcing it selectively and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording the movie", then they're enforcing it prematurely/incorrectly and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no glassholes", then that's rather arbitrary and I can see why people would be upset.
If it's "no recording devices aimed at the movie regardless of whether or not they are recording", then I suppose it remains to be seen what they'd do about someone sitting there with their phone aimed at the movie (but not recording).
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Yeah, fuck them! How dare they try to protect themselves from theft on PRIVATE property that no one is REQUIRED to go to. Fuck them indeed.
It is not "theft". Whatever you may think of copyright infringement, IT IS NOT THEFT. It is a legally completely distinct area of law.
When you steal, you deprive someone of the use of the stolen item. When you copy, you aren't depriving anyone of use of the item.
That may seem like an ethically immaterial difference to you, but I assure you the difference is actually quite enormous.
Afford a second pair of glasses, yes. Carry a second pair with you at all times just in case some idiotic movie cartel decides that they don't like the pair you're wearing, no. With this rule, for Glass users, going to the movie theater becomes a bit like going to the airport. You have to think about it ahead of time, to make sure you aren't carrying prohibited items, and to make sure you have all the extra items you're going to need to have with you. Gone are the days when those folks can walk by the movie theater and think, "Oh, that sounds like a cool movie. I think I'll watch it now." Going to the movies becomes a production, which means Glass users will be much less likely to go to the theater in the future.
Then again, most Glass users probably gave up on movie theaters long ago. It seems to mostly be a place that teenagers hang out, plus a place for people to take their kids, and anyone who can afford Glass probably is not a teenager, and probably does not have kids, statistically speaking. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It's just as easy to get a ballpoint pen with recording capabilities, and it is just as stealthy. I don't see them inspecting ballpoint pens. No, this is arbitrary, which makes it bad policy.
And the problem is that Glass isn't just a recording device. It is also glasses. They don't require you to leave your cell phones elsewhere. They don't require you to leave your laptops and tablets elsewhere. So again, the policy is arbitrary, which makes it bad policy, by definition.
Do you always have the second pair with you? I mean, I do, but I also carry a drum key, a utility knife, and a high-capacity flash drive, so I'm not your typical person. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
To play devil's advocate here, why? They "took the most restrictive course possible on keeping their movies from being reproduced without them getting a share." You bought a copy of a movie to watch on their terms. That does not give you a right to watch it on other terms. If you don't like their terms, don't buy the DVD or Blu-Ray.
Either the MPAA is being a bunch of a**hats by banning Glass in theaters or they aren't being a**hats by using restrictive DRM. I fail to see the difference.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What is their alternative? Attaching it to nonprescription lenses and then walking into walls repeatedly?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Does anyone go to movies in theaters any more?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
To play devil's advocate here, why? They "took the most restrictive course possible on keeping their movies from being reproduced without them getting a share." You bought a copy of a movie to watch on their terms. That does not give you a right to watch it on other terms. If you don't like their terms, don't buy the DVD or Blu-Ray.
Watching a movie purchased on DVD or other physical media does not require clicking "I Agree" first before it can be viewed. And even if it did, so what? If I purchase a movie on DVD, and I want to run it through DVDFab to turn it into an ISO to watch right off my hard drive instead of having to have the physical disc in the drive, I will. If I want to convert it to a format that I can view on my PSP, or on a tablet, or even on my smart phone, I will. I will do whatever the hell I want with the copy I legally purchased (short of distributing copies to other people of course).
I do not give a flying fuck what "protective measures" were put on the original media. If the publishers do not like it, they are cordially invited to go fuck themselves. They got paid for the DVD from its first sale (whether I was the original purchaser, or the original purchaser was the one who donated it to the Goodwill from whence I subsequently purchased it.) Their rights over that copy (with some obvious exceptions) end with that first sale.
Oh yeah, and as an afterthought, as I always see on ads for movies... "Own it today on DVD or Blu-Ray!"
This space unintentionally left blank.
Perhaps they shouldn't have forked out for a pair of glasses they knew were banned from movie theaters?
And then we can ban service dogs from restaurants, because blind people shouldn't have got a dog they knew were banned from restaurants.
Really - do people even bother recording movies at the theatre anymore? And what are they going to do when hearing aids eventually get Bluetooth or some other method of recording?