More Performers Are Demanding Audiences Lock Up Their Phones (nytimes.com)

More performers -- and other venues -- are discovering a new anti-piracy technology called Yondr -- including comedian Dave Chappelle. Slashdot reader HughPickens.com quotes the New York Times: Fans are required to place their cellphones into Yondr's form-fitting lockable pouch when entering the show, and a disk mechanism unlocks it on the way out. Fans keep the pouch with them, but it is impossible to snap pictures, shoot videos or send text messages during the performance while the pouch is locked.

'I know my show is protected, and it empowers me to be more honest and open with the audience,' says Dave Chappelle...But some fans object to not being able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape...
"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it." But the device is becoming more common, and according to the Times it's now also being used at weddings, restaurants, schools, and when movies are being prescreened.

Comments

Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing the man would be all for tying a body camera to every police officer on earth, but god help you if you point a camera at HIM. Do that and you'll have to put it in a DRM-enabled "satchel" and pay a few hundred bucks for a ticket to see his drugged out ass.

Maybe someone should mention to Chappelle that he hasn't been relevant since he literally clicked his heels three times and went back to Africa.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing the man would be all for tying a body camera to every police officer on earth, but god help you if you point a camera at HIM. Do that and you'll have to put it in a DRM-enabled "satchel" and pay a few hundred bucks for a ticket to see his drugged out ass.

Maybe someone should mention to Chappelle that he hasn't been relevant since he literally clicked his heels three times and went back to Africa.

That's one Olympic-level strawman you've built there - probably gold-medal caliber!

Are you too dumb to see the difference between police officers - agents of the GOVERNMENT who we HAVE to deal with - being required to videotape their interactions with citizens and a PRIVATE performer that you only get to see on HIS TERMS and who NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO SEE?

Or maybe you just trust that those government agents known as "police" will always do the right thing?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[jonnyj]

One great benefit of the smartphone era is that we can easily find out when two-faced, dissembling politicians attempt to say things in private lectures that conflict with their publicly stated policy positions.

So let's imagine a typical fundraising dinner in Dave Chappelle's dystopian future. A keynote speech will be given by a prominent politician, and a comedian will lighten the mood with a short gig between dessert and the auction. The comedian insists that his intellectual property is protected by Yondr, so the politician is free to promise unpublicised tax-breaks for his loyal supporters, to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.

I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Coisiche]

to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.

You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

" to make racially insensitive remarks "

Stop being a whiny ni66er.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Joce640k]

...fans able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape

Does he really think there's little reels of tape inside smartphones?

Maybe like one of those 1960's mainframes, but smaller...

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[jonnyj]

to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.

You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.

I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump. Then Trump's own gaffes come to prominence...

In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.

So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.

The only similarity is videos are involved.

Maybe you're dumb enough to think cat videos on Facebook are related, too.

When you find yourself in a hole, the best advice is to stop fucking digging.

Or not - you ARE amusing. Mildly.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

u mad, bro who was on a debate team in school once?

The problem is that you're too dumb to understand the answer I would potentially give to your question, which isn't exactly a surprise. Incidentally, I LOVE it how you randomly EMPHASIZE words as if it increases their RELEVANCE or IMPACT in any measurable WAY.

I don't trust police to do the right thing all the time, for example, much like I don't expect a brainless, low-ID pleb like you to be able to participate in an argument beyond yelling things like "straw man" and plugging your ears. I do expect them to do the right thing when a camera is pointed at them though, behave like a decent human being. Not "put it into a small bag that requires some sort of disk to unlock." Dave Chappelle is a self-centered twat, that's the point that YOU are too fucking stupid to understand, just like the rest of these celebrities who are so self-important they think that they have the right not to be filmed...yet they would demand that others not film _them_ because hey, they're celebrities, not peon police officers. They're important. If they tell you to put your phone in the Yondr bag, you do it.

Or maybe you just worship those celebrities known as "shitheads" so much that you wouldn't criticize them on any grounds, no matter how legitimate?

Now be a good little boy and go research what "straw man argument" actually means, mouthbreathing it every time you see something you disagree with isn't a discussion or a debate. It's pure ignorance, which is all you're capable of.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[luis_a_espinal]

Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.

The only similarity is that video recording take place. The context in which these two occur are so vastly different that the similarities are irrelevant.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that comedians tend to try out new material outside of their national venues, like HBO specials...to have your performance plastered on youtube may be perceived as diluting the audience, or some hack comedian will steal it, or audiences will heckle cuz they already saw it and what something yet newer.....

But I can definitely see a potential for abuse here where leaks that have occurred can be diffused, namely collecting the staff/the help (or anyone who hasn't paid the generous cover charge to be there). I can't imagine these private/pay events with VIP speakers don't just take your phone at the door already but this might normalize the process, especially if the container allows you to at least see a call or message incoming...would suck to have you phone locked up, then get out to a frantic voicemail that some family member is in the ER.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump.

Hard to say. Pick a poll, and pick an answer, pprobably based on what the answerer wants. Iv'e seen people call it her 47% moment - recalling Mitt Romney in the previous election, and others saying it didn't hurt her at all.

And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.

So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.

IIRC, that was how the 47% Romney chitchat was obtained.

And for all of the brouhaha over the DNC leaks that show favoring Clinton over Sanders, odd how people forget the old Permanent Republican majority movement, where Republicans targeted other Republicans who were deemed "too moderate". This is merely politics at work, but with a new wild card. Whether this eating your young policy is manifested in their current presidential candidate might make for good discussion.

Heaven knows it is a cautionary tale of catering to your most extreme and irrational base, something akin if the Democrats catered to the extreme far left kooks.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't have a phone."

They can't search me and I still have access to my phone. That said, I'm not one of those assholes who uses their phone during things like performance or movies. I just don't like being treated as though I were an irresponsible child.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

For supposedly being on a debate team, your refutation of his points is at Trumpian levels.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

Performer in a private venue is not public.

I don't break the fucking law

I bet you do every single day.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was merely stooping to GGP's level for comprehension purposes, much like you just did now.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[ph0rk]

Says the person without the gumption to post that under a real login.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

Well, given that he clearly didn't make any point explaining how he thought private persons vs public government are different, he failed mightily.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[reanjr]

No, but a performer has no expectation of privacy, which is typically the rule of thumb used when determining if recording is permitted.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[amiga3D]

You act like it makes a difference. We've got two candidates running for president of the United States at this very moment who have both been caught in multiple lies and various activities if not unlawful they should be. One of them will be president in a few months, most likely the most crooked of the two. What difference do you think all that evidence makes? None really.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[knightghost]

Yes, your local peace officers do the right thing. That's their job and there is a multitude of tools, trainings, and stats to back it up.

OTOH, them wearing body cams is a great way to show the world just how much of an stupid asshole YOU are. I think those should automatically be uploaded to youtube and found by a simple google search by your future employers, possible friends, love interests, family, etc etc. It'll also tie the hands of a peace officer in not being able to let you go with a warning - something that is the most common occurrence today but unfortunately disappearing.

Don't demand something without accepting reciprocation.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the person without the gumption to post that under a real login.

I'm a different AC (forgot my username and password ages ago), but what does his status as an AC have to do with the validity of his comment?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know? Your reading comprehension failed so badly, you think he claimed to be on a debate team.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[I'm New Around Here]

Performer in a private venue is not public.

That's an interesting point. Since the venue is not public, can the venue owner ban blacks and jews from entering the "private venue"?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[niaxilin]

In the case of Yondr, could you still record audio? Start it before you go in and let it run for the duration.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

Venue owners can ban anyone not in a federally protected class of people.

So, smokers yes, races no.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

Exactly why do you think a performer, in a private venue, has no expectation of privacy? That can be totally determined by the venue owner. Who may or may not have an agreement with the performer on what is or is not allowed.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Performer in a private venue is not public.

Any venue that is open to the general public (ie. places that performers perform) is a public venue regardless of whether it is owned by a private entity or not.

I bet you do every single day.

Then that is a bet you've already lost. Stop projecting your failings on to others.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[I'm New Around Here]

"I don't have a phone."

They can't search me ...

They can use a "walk-thru" metal detector, and refuse entry to anyone who won't go through it. With the shootings lately, even movie theaters are searching for guns.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

what does his status as an AC have to do with the validity of his comment?

Nothing at all. It's the hypocritical run-to that many Slashdotters employ when they have no legitimate argument.

But surely "ph0rk" is that guy's real, legal name so he is totally putting it all out on the line there.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

So, no point to be made. Good discussion.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm I don't know it seems to me a few years ago the whole Michael Richards thing got about as much attention as some of the police shootings. Those incidents are very different, yet they do for some reason, attract similar attention and outrage. I think that makes them more similar than you suggest.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[flink]

...fans able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape

Does he really think there's little reels of tape inside smartphones?

Maybe like one of those 1960's mainframes, but smaller...

I also "tape" shows on the DVR. It's a colloquialism. Just like how shows are "filmed" in front of a live audience, even though hardly anyone uses film anymore. Musicians still release "records" even though many of them will never press any vinyl.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[prelelat]

That was quite impressive, you spent the whole time bemoaning celebrities that you failed to point out why you would have the right to film someone against their wishes in a private establishment.

Police should wear a cam because they are individuals in a profession that is going to put them in a situation at some point where we need to know what happens. Not want to know. They are going to be put into a position where they might have to fire their gun or use other physical force. We need to know if that's justified or not. It's a way of watching the watchers. It's a way for the Police to get some vindication when they are falsely accused of doing something wrong. There's so much benefit to it as a public servant that it makes sense. We don't require them to wear it home.

Performers are being a bit ridiculous in not wanting to be recorded, but I do kind of understand it. They don't want to be distracted with flashes during a performance, they don't want their material leaked and stolen online, they don't wan't a joke taken seriously that was highly inappropriate. They know it's inappropriate but a good comedian might tell it anyway to emphasize a point, shock people. They don't want it taken out of context.

You only want to record them. Take a step back and think about it for a second. Do you have to allow me into your house with a video camera and record everything you do? Maybe, but you sure don't have to let me. You don't even have to let a police officer into your home with a camera, they would need a warrant. So why you as a public citizen who rented a space can't deny people from entering your rented venue can't deny it.

Now you go and learn how to properly debate instead of skirting an issue and changing the subject.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least two points were demonstrated:

1) The guy claiming one public person is different from another public person is a moron
2) You are illiterate

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then that is a bet you've already lost. Stop projecting your failings on to others.

LOL at guy who thinks he knows all the laws.

http://www.cracked.com/article...

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[bigfinger76]

It's a private venue, open to the public. That is the difference.
All the relevant laws apply - no discrimination against the usual groups, etc. But the venue owner has always reserved certain rights, such as prohibiting flash photography or audio/video recording. This is nothing new, and nothing has changed here other than venue owners now have an apparently effective preventative measure.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.

Nice try.

Well, okay, not that impressive, to be honest. When he pointed out the differences, he made clear why they were of significance and formed a fundamental distinction between the two cases.

Whereas you retorted- ironically- with an off-the-cuff remark that not only didn't bother to actually argue its case, but tried to distract from its lack of substance with proof-by-condescension. ("Are you too stupid to understand the point that I'm not bothering to argue?")

Yes, we *can* see the similarities, namely that both involve people being videoed. That was already obvious.

To the GP's case, I'll add that the police also have extra powers not available to ordinary people.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

Don't like it? Vote with your wallet. Don't attend concerts / shows that require you to lock up your phone. You won't be missed by anybody.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because someone acting under the color of law is completely the same as someone performing a private show in a private venue, which you have every opportunity to not go to.

Super equivalent.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Isaac-Lew]

Maybe a better word would be skeuonym? We still say dialing a number, even though telephones haven't had dials for decades. Sports teams refer to looking at game film, when it's really digital video.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Maritz]

Want to know how I do it? I don't break the fucking law.

I break the law all the time and I never have to deal with police either. Are you just not that bright? Is that why you conflate those two things?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

So when you're driving home and there is a DUI checkpoint ahead, how do you not deal with the police?

I had this exact situation a few weeks back - on my way home with my girlfriend in the car, police had a checkpoint set up. The office claimed he could smell alcohol on my breath (total fucking horseshit) and performed a field sobriety test on me. Unsurprisingly, I passed and continued home, a little salty over the affair.

How would you "not deal" with that? Turn around as soon as you see the checkpoint, all but inviting a good legal rogering from making an illegal U-turn and giving them all the probable cause in the world to fuck you over? Tell the officer to fuck off, inviting arrest, or some other bullshit 'humble' charge they want to stick on you for not being cooperative? Refuse to get out of the car, which opens you up to being cited for DUI and the mountain of bullshit that comes with it?

Just because you "don't break the fucking law" doesn't mean that the law won't still fuck with you.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

That private venue can have (legal) restrictions and rules placed on it by the owner.

Just because it's a public venue doesn't mean you get to do anything you want. Go ahead - go to a theater on opening night of the next blockbuster movie and whip out your phone and start recording. See what happens.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

So, in other words, it would be just like the previous 225 years of the existence of the United States of America.

How did Abraham "Honest Abe" Lincoln ever get elected (twice) without smartphones to keep him honest!?

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[gnupun]

a performer has no expectation of privacy, which is typically the rule of thumb used when determining if recording is permitted.

Go ahead and record a movie in the theaters with your phone and see what happens when you apply your rule of thumb. Here a movie showing in a theater is a public performance that is similar to concert, except it's not live.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[operagost]

Captain Gumption here.

Yes, a private citizen should get to decide how he's monitored.

I find the idea that he mentions being "more honest and open" indicates that he's worried about PC police as much as copyright infringement. The belligerent left is really beginning to destroy art and free expression from all directions.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[operagost]

I hear a lot millennials are puzzled by the "Save" icon used in most software.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely different. Recording a movie is making a copy of a copyrighted film. A live performance cannot be copyrighted due to the fact that it's live.

The mind boggles at how stupid some of you people are.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL @ the guy who thinks everyone in the world is subject to the same laws. Aside from that, I've done 4, 1 and possibly 2 on that list, none of which are a crime where I live. In fact nothing on that list is a crime here and probably aren't crimes where you are either. You shouldn't place much faith in the legal expertise of an article written by a little kid on a comedy web site.

Nice try but you fail.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalm* You stupid fuck. A movie is a copyrighted work. A live performance isn't.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard this argument too many times. Setting commonly accepted private contractual standards by "voting with your wallet" is a flawed economic theory that makes the assumption that your average consumer makes rational economic decisions.

The fact is, consumers typically make terrible decisions with their purchasing power due to the desire of immediate gratifiaction and ignorance. Some of these bad choices manipulative pyschological marketing techniques are more responsible for than consumer ignorance.

That argument also assumes there's a competitor offering an equivilant alternative product/service with a better set of policies. This, too, is growing less and less the case.

Industries are well aware of these facts and abuse them often to their advantage by subtling changing the standard expectation consumers have. The recent trend in the entertainment industry is no exception.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is a technicality and holds no weight in reality. How many times have you seen people taking pictures in a restaurant, bar, club, concert, theme park, etc?

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that you're the idiot if you are living in a place where you feel the need to break the law all of the time. I have no need to.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[meta-monkey]

Trump's PussyLeaks comments helped him with blacks. Apparently the only men in America who will still admit to liking pussy.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[onepoint]

>>>That's an interesting point. Since the venue is not public, can the venue owner ban blacks and jews from entering the "private venue"?

I called up a friend, he's a lawyer. he said,
the word venue is vague in this context so...

if you rented a place, and it's a peaceful gathering to speak, and people are by private invite only ( friends and family with no $$$ )
you can block the door to all or anyone, it's your place, your rules. think of weddings, whom you invite is private. you can not discriminate against the staff that works the location.

if you are selling tickets to a show, then everyone is welcome

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

He had to go speak in person

As media reach increases, the asymmetry between your voice and "their" voice increases.

Recording reduces this asymmetry somewhat by helping to expose hypocrisy and lies.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[mspohr]

... except the performer.
Seems rather shortsighted to be blocking all that free publicity.
Stealing a joke? Really? If they are so concerned, that's what copyright is for... otherwise, they are just another lame entitled person with no real skills relying on secrecy to dupe people into spending money to see their lame show.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[thundercattt]

What performers are complaining? I've been to 3 concerts in the past year. Not 1 has complained about cellphones, photos, recording.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you're super white, too.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

So based on that logic I can record a play on broadway?
No, live performances can be copyright

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[ravrazor]

Go record your next phone call without telling the person you're talking to, then try to convince the judge that copyright matters when he rules for the person you recorded and awards damages. The mind boggles at how stupid some of you people are.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[ravrazor]

Go try and stick up for your rights as a "cellphone carrier" at the next show where they're banned, get arrested, then tell your friend he gave you inaccurate legal advice and sue him.

(not legal advice)

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[amicusNYCL]

I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.

You can imagine that world, but it's Dave Chappelle's "dystopian future", huh?

There's a point that I think people like you are missing: Yondr does not disable recording devices or stop them from working. If someone wants to secretly record a political speech then they aren't going to put their recording device inside a bag that is going to lock itself when they go inside, they're going to use a camera and microphone that don't look like a camera and microphone. This "technology" requires the consent of the participants.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

U R Dum.

Chappelle is not a government employee, issued a government gun, paid for by taxes collect via those guns.

Cops are.

If I want to leave a meeting with Chappelle, I can. Cops can shoot me, legally, if I don't want to stick around when they say stay.

Nothing else matters.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[amicusNYCL]

Who can't search you, the private security hired at a private venue? They may not be able to force anyone to submit to an arbitrary search, but they sure as hell can say that a requirement of entry is that you allow them to search you. If you don't want to be searched, fine, you don't have to, go away. If you want to enter the private establishment then they can tell you that they get to search you first. There's nothing illegal about that, you don't have some right to enter any building you want on your own terms.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

You can lock my phone up, but I can still record audio with my smartwatch. You can also purchase eyeglasses with a hidden camera if you want to take pictures or video. I don't think this solution is going to work for very long as more and more wearables come to market.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[ewhac]

So, smokers yes, races no.

ERROR: INVALID LOGIC.

DETAILS:
In your fallacious example, you attempt to conflate an activity with a state of being. You cannot ban a black person for being black. Likewise, you cannot ban a smoker for being a smoker. However, you can ban the activity of smoking in your venue.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[kwbauer]

NatasRevol, interesting that you are willing to put your limits on private venues but completely reject somebody else wanting to impose their limits simply because they are not your limits.

How about we go back to honoring the actual law of the land (the US Constitution) and let private property be private property and recognize that we are not supposed to have the notion of "class" in this country, especially not a notion enforced by law.

Oh yeah, let us also not forget that many concerts are actually taking place in actual publicly-owned venues.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

Well that's a nice big ole strawman you got there.

I was saying the federal gov't has a class of people that can't be biased against.

Bitch to them, not to me. I didn't make the fucking laws.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[barc0001]

Oh we don't even need to go that far. To use Chappelle as an example, he references the Michael Richards rant that basically screwed Richards' career in one of his stand up shows, and mentions semi-jokingly that's one of the reasons he's terrified of cameraphones.

And going back to that rant of Richards', if there wasn't a video of it, chances are nobody outside of that club would have even heard about it.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[gnupun]

A live performance cannot be copyrighted due to the fact that it's live.

The two problems arise under section 1101 of the Copyright Act and the criminal anti-bootlegging statue that Congress passed a number of years ago (Title 18 USC 2319A).

Section 1101 requires "consent of the performer" if you "fix the ... sounds and images of a live musical performance" (which is what you've done in making the recording, assuming it's a "live musical performance"). It also would require consent if you "transmit ... to the public" (which is what your blog would do).

Read the rest of the lawyer's argument here:
http://www.socialbrite.org/200...

The mind boggles at how stupid some of you people are.

No kidding.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[kwbauer]

Ah yes. The first movie theater shooting was at the one theater that already banned firearms so all the others will prevent shootings at themselves by also banning guns. Logical failure.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[NatasRevol]

You do know most states have a 1 party law, right? ie only one party has to agree to the recording. The party doing the recording.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[denzacar]

Because a live performance, by a living human being, in front of an audience of living human beings is based on the performer's ability to interact with and perform in front of said audience.
I.e. To stand in front of and be observed by thousands of people.
Which is about as private as standing naked in the middle of a panopticon, and yelling so everyone can also hear you.

The fact that those people paid the toll to do that doesn't make any of it more private or less exposing.
Hell... Jim Jeffries got punched in the head by an audience member.
He later took the video of the event and included in his material - instead of demanding it be erased from the internet, because privacy.
Even though it is unflattering AND though he makes some bigoted statements about Irish in the "punch video".

Then again... he's not the kind of guy who would get a nervous breakdown and run away to Africa because he got paranoid about people wanting to see him in a dress or a kinda guy who'd file DMCA requests on account of being fat in a photo.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I go to a show by myself and somebody hands me one of those without warning and I'll demand my money back and leave.

If, on the other hand, you're out on a date you might not realistically have that option in that exercising it might cause you undesirable consequences. Corporations and entertainers take advantage of this too.

I had a free ticket to a movie preview courtesy of a friend of mine. They wanted to take our cellphones on the way in. I told them no and turned around and left. Not on a date, wasn't gonna sleep with her, so had freedom. Otherwise, standing on principles causes domestic strife and the best bet is to just avoid events like this in the first place.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[thoughtlover]

For supposedly being on a debate team, your refutation of his points is at Trumpian levels.

HAHA! Indeed, and the desire to post as AC speaks volumes, too... at least Trump owns his rhetoric, no matter how incorrect it may be.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. You can't ban smokers, but you can ban smoking.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[BasilBrush]

In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.

None of which is true.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[BasilBrush]

It looks like a neoprene case, presumably with other layers to make it more robust. Audio would he very muffled at the very least.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Rakarra]

Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.

But the differences are key. You can't just point out the similarities while disregarding the differences.
Well, you CAN, but you won't have a valid point to make.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[ravrazor]

Move to non-US country and check back, american...

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[BasilBrush]

People get searched for clubs and concerts all the time. You can refuse, but you won't get in if you do.

If you really wanted to smuggle a phone in, you'd take two phones. But then try to use it, and you're the odd one out with the phone everyone knows you're not supposed to have, and security may come get you.

Most people are reasonable enough to understand a no-phones policy, but many don't have the self-discipline to then leave the phone alone once in a venue. It's these people that it works for.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

the extreme left is simply the egoless future that awaits us all; some of us are farther along in accepting this truth, the rest are literal apes.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of the men in this world believe the same thing. misogyny is much more severe outside of the US. you spent two hundred years running away from the rest of the world and now you learn that you are the one and the same. you made your own ideals to exclude others and now youve excluded yourself. the most delicious irony.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[phorm]

They can ban protected classes too, just not *BECAUSE* they're a protected class.

Re: Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[meta-monkey]

Understanding that women like getting their pussies grabbed by high status men is not misogyny. It's just reality.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[jeremyp]

So is recording a concert an activity or a state of being?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

I doubt it's about stealing a joke. It's more about potential ticket holders seeing the material on YouBook rather than buying a ticket and attending the show.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[MachineShedFred]

Good job being obtuse. You responded to the actual situation, rather than the hypothetical.

Can you seriously not think of some scenario where you are already engaged with police without knowing it, and "disengaging" would simply increase the level of suspicion? If you can't then I'm thinking that you really do live in a basement and just get everything delivered by Amazon and DoorDash.

Another example that happened to me: you are in a park on a particularly beautiful fall day. You have your camera because you want to also take some pictures. You're taking pictures and a police officer walks up and starts asking you pointed questions because the park also happens to be a water reservoir for the city, and he's thinking that you are casing the joint for some future attack due to you vaguely pointing the lens in his direction, even though he has no idea what you have framed, and the level of telephoto zoom you are using in order to get his car out of the shot. How do you not deal with that?

There are thousands of completely innocent non-law breaking actions that can be taken every day that can be interpreted as something that police will take issue with. To say that "I don't break the law therefore I never deal with the police" is asinine, and you sound like a complete fucking moron.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[SherylDewey]

Thanks for sharing. This link is very helpful.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[david_thornley]

Liking pussy != grabbing pussy without prior consent, formal or informal

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[meta-monkey]

I'm pretty sure he said "they let you do it." Almost as if there are women who enjoy getting their pussies grabbed by famous musicians, TV & movie stars, etc, and seek them out for that very purpose.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if only you weren't AC I'd mod you up with these mod points burning a hole in my pocket. But there's no sense wasting points on an AC. (As I ironically post AC because I've modded this OP)

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[jonnyj]

In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.

None of which is true.

It's all true.

The Momentum footage appeared on a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. I've viewed it myself. Similar evidence was shown on a BBC1 Panorama report. Again, I've viewed it myself. The footage of the shadow chancellor was highlighted by the Daily Telegraph and it's also on YouTube. Once more, I've viewed it myself.

Your denial of reality demonstrates why video evidence is so important if the public is to know the truth.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[david_thornley]

No, there's also a difference between letting someone do something and enjoying it or even being OK with it. There also may be women who want Trump to grab their pussy, but Trump sure didn't imply that he checked that first.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[meta-monkey]

Have you ever been with a woman? How did you know when it was the right time to grab her pussy?

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[BasilBrush]

Just because you say it's true, and say that you've seen video, and that's your interpretation, does not make it true.

It's not true.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[david_thornley]

"Grab" sounds more abrupt and rough than my usual lovemaking, and as far as I know my wife has no complaints about me in that department. I touch my wife's pussy in the context of privacy and a sexual relationship (which I've had with two women) and good feelings towards each other. It isn't my first move of the cuddling, and I can judge how she reacts to other things I do.

That's how it works with me. If you want a more general answer, you'll get better from someone not on the autism spectrum.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[meta-monkey]

Okay. Well, for non-autists, here's how it works. The man says something to the woman like "hey baby, wanna come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" (or in the modern parlance, "netflix and chill") This is called a "pretext." No one actually cares about the lithographs. It's just an excuse to be alone.

Once you're alone, the man and the woman chat and flirt. The girl tosses her hair, laughs at jokes that aren't funny and generally signals her interest and availability to the man. When the guy thinks she's ready, and will agree to move forward, he tries to kiss her, and honk her boobs. He does not get the express written consent of the woman (and Major League Baseball) before making his move. Essentially, he's reading her mind. And this is exactly what she wants him to do: correctly read her mind. She does not want some pussy meekly asking "M'lady, w-would it be acceptable if I was to kisseth thy on the lips, and grabbeth of they womanhood?"

Now, most of the time, this works out well and sexy-time ensues, because she wouldn't have agreed to be alone with the man, or laughed at the stupid jokes if she didn't want to get physical with him. Sometimes, though, the woman is incredibly naive, and actually just wanted to see the lithographs. Sometimes she's a cocktease who just wanted the attention (particularly from a rich, famous man) and so she led him on. She will then say "no, this isn't what I wanted" and so long as the man stops when she says "no," his worst crime is failing to read a woman's mind. But there's no malice involved, and no reason to condemn an honest misunderstanding as "sexual assault." Everyone should just feel a little embarrassed, move on, and not talk about it again.

This is why modern feminist ideas of "rape culture" are stupid. Before the sexual revolution we didn't let men and women be alone together. We had chaperones. We socially shamed men who wanted to be alone with women as pigs and women who wanted to be alone with men as sluts. This prevented most cases of unwanted touching. Now however, they want to be able to put themselves in positions where unwanted touching can occur without judgement, but when the man fails to read the woman's mind properly, she's suddenly a poor innocent victim and the man needs to punished (by government, even!).

You don't get to have it both ways. Women are either incapable of navigating sexual situations in which case we go back to chaperones and slut shaming, or they're strong independent wymynz and they can deal with a misplaced grope here and there when somebody gets their wires crossed without having to run to the state.

Personally, I don't give a shit about any of this crap. I think feminism is retarded. What I find hilarious is the feminists telling me Trump is the bad man for disrespecting women and therefore I need to give up on the policies of his I like. But Hillary, silencing her husband's rape victims (objectively worse), and they're not willing to give up on their policies to dump her! Clearly, the president's treatment of women in private is not actually that big of a deal to them. If it isn't a big deal to them, and it's THEIR FUCKING ISSUE, then why the hell should I care?

It'd be like yelling at a Democrat that they can't vote for Hillary now because her Wall Street speeches reveal she'll use executive actions to enact gun control. If you're voting for the Democrat, you either want the guns snatched, or you don't give a shit about guns anyway. It's not your issue, and not persuasive!

Article II of the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being a proxy battle for gender culture wars, so I do not give a fuck one way or the other how the president treats women in private. Feminists can take their gender politics bullshit and cram it right up their pussies. Nobody else wants to grab them, that's for damn sure.

Re:Interesting, Dave Chappelle.

[Coren22]

Having not been to one in years, I have to ask, do they tell you before you buy your ticket, or when you show up at the venue? If they let you know in advance, than it should be trivial to avoid them, if it happens at the venue, do they even allow refunds at that point?

what about security?

[OffTheLip]

Like emergencies. Can the phones be retrieved quickly enough in the "fog of war". Can a police situation be recorded?

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not; it seems like not being able to extract it outside of the parameters they provide is the entire point.

Re:what about security?

[queBurro]

and like on-call Doctors who couldn't care less if they're ruining the end of "Star Wars" for you because they have to go and err you know? save-a-life.

Re:what about security?

[BarbaraHudson]

1. Bring a second, crappy phone.
2. Lock the crappy phone in the pouch.
3. PROFIT!

Re:what about security?

[houghi]

As you did not stat you are a doctor, I assume you are not. I will talk as somebody who has been on call (not as a doctor) and being on call means that I get paid to ber available and that also means I am restricted in what I do. e.g. I can not drink any alcohol, as I need to be able to drive. Because of these limitations, I am paid for my time. Not going the the movies is not forbidden, but something that I am not willing to do, because I will be disturbing others. Not by the phone, but by me walking out.

The doctors I know will not go to the movies when they are on call. We will go to restaurants, but it is then very clear that it would mean they could leave any moment, so they avoid that as much as possible.

If you are on call 24/7, you are doing it wrong. If not alone from the point of view of being hit by a bus.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a emergency, just cut open the pouch with your knife. What you don't have a knife?

Re:what about security?

[MitchDev]

If you are on call 24/7, you really need to re-evaluate your life choices...

Re:what about security?

[mwvdlee]

+1

If you're on call, regardless of your profession, you assume a responsibility.
Don't burden others with the consequences of your choices.
The fix for this problem is easy; don't go to a location where your phone will not work.
If you can't do something that easy, you shouldn't have been trusted with it in the first place.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends entirely upon how much you're being paid to be on call 24/7. To use an old expression, "every man has his price," and if you're being paid enough to feasibly retire in a short timespan on the earnings, it sort of changes the economics of the matter. -PCP

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Bring a pouch that looks just like the Yondr pouch.
2. Put your phone in your own pouch.
3. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like emergencies. Can the phones be retrieved quickly enough in the "fog of war". Can a police situation be recorded?

Tragedy!!!

OMG!!! The HUMANITY!!!

How the hell did humans survive long enough to even get to inventing the cell phone?!?!?!?

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I would never be at one of these events in the first place. I hate concerts and never go anymore. But, if I were to go - two phones. 1 in my sock maybe. No problem. I wouldn't want to record their lame concert / comedy - but would want to be able to access the device in the situations you mention.

Re:what about security?

[wisnoskij]

Have doctors really gotten rid of their pagers?

Re:what about security?

[lucm]

When you have a knife you don't need a phone, you can use other people's phones. Unless you don't live in a blue state of course, in which case what you need is a FBI badge.

Re:what about security?

[luis_a_espinal]

and like on-call Doctors who couldn't care less if they're ruining the end of "Star Wars" for you because they have to go and err you know? save-a-life.

That's why vibration mode is for, the very thing that has existed for years and that movie theaters reminds you off at the beginning of every single movie.

Re:what about security?

[luis_a_espinal]

If you are on call 24/7, you really need to re-evaluate your life choices...

Maybe a person who works as a heart surgeon or trauma specialist has made a specific life choice. Did that person do the wrong choice in becoming a heart surgeon or trauma specialist?

Re:what about security?

[luis_a_espinal]

That depends entirely upon how much you're being paid to be on call 24/7. To use an old expression, "every man has his price," and if you're being paid enough to feasibly retire in a short timespan on the earnings, it sort of changes the economics of the matter. -PCP

Bingo. I wouldn't do a 24/7 on-call job again, but I did that once in IT. Those were 5 grueling years, but they paid well and served me well. They also got me (temporarily) out of being a developer and to see all the other important shit that goes around development.

I became a much better developer because of it. Now with children, I wouldn't do it... unless I have a need for a job or if the pay is so spectacular that I could sacrifice 3-4 years plowing at it to create a greater safety net with which to provide (and protect) my family.

The previous OP, just because a choice was made that doesn't fit the shallow pigeonholes of your world view, that does not rob them of legitimacy. Shut your mouth and learn to walk other people's shoes for a change.

Re:what about security?

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

To play devil's advocate - some emergency situations might actually be easier escaped if there are fewer people slowing down to take video or make a phone call.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stunningly enough, we seemed to manage emergencies just fine 30 years ago before everyone had cell phones.

Re:what about security?

[Holi]

No doctor is on call 24/7. Seriously 24/7 means every day of the week. No one should be expected to be on call 24/7.

If your on call all the time you are being taken advantage of.

Re:what about security?

[Dunbal]

Those are called assholes. Being on call does not preclude your ability to put your phone on vibrate.

Re:what about security?

[queBurro]

maybe not so much the taking of the actual-call as the standing up and leaving the theatre bit. i.e. Someone being sensitive of their environment but still realising that "it's only a film".

Re:what about security?

[drinkypoo]

Those are called assholes. Being on call does not preclude your ability to put your phone on vibrate.

They're also called idiots. They can use DND mode so that only actually important calls get through while they're in a theater.

Re:what about security?

[slashrio]

No need for double-SIM phones, I'll just bring a double phone...

Re:what about security?

[bobbied]

However, I can imagine a situation where "on call" at "all times" is considered the norm. I've had such jobs, one where as the primary support engineer of a mission critical system, I was expected to be available after normal business hours should the need arise. I was given a cell phone, data service and a laptop to carry and it was my job to answer the phone when it rang, regardless of when it was or where I was. I was compensated accordingly for this availability and even took calls during "vacations" from time to time. I didn't get called that often at off hours, but when I did, I answered the phone. The company I worked for had contracted SLA's, and I was responsible to the customer to meet them.

I can see where a Trauma surgeon might be put "on call" for weeks and have specific response times. The very best of these know what they signed up for and are paid handsomely for their skills and availability. How a life choice like this is a bad one is beyond me. Work can be inconvenient and a pain at times, but if you take a job that requires after hours availability, or travel or whatever, you do what you agreed to do, and if you don't like it, find another job you do like.

Re:what about security?

[silas_moeckel]

I know a few who are. You get specialized enough and you see this that also means you looking at a few calls a month maybe and a lot of logistics to take a vacation.

Re:what about security?

[Higaran]

Yes, but now everyone must immediately post to facebook and text everyone they know that they are ok, should any crisis of any sort happen. Such as stubbing their toe on something, all the way up to terrorist attack.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

Like emergencies. Can the phones be retrieved quickly enough in the "fog of war". Can a police situation be recorded?

Are you one of those people who panic when the little notification on the phone says "No Service"? I know several who have become so worried by the "what if" scenarios that they get all nervous even if it dips out of LTE these days. I do have personal experience in students losing letter grades because they wouldn't put their cellphones in a pouch for a required lecture attendance. Which is all to say that they were more worried about (fill in the blank) than passing a course

This isn't aimed at you specifically, but what I am seeing in society. If it is so important to you as an individual that you never are witout immediate access to that little smartphone, you probably shouldn't go to any shows. Something that 20 years ago didn't exist is now controlling your life, and as likely as not, you don't feel even a little more secure.

That's why I am really concerned about the home surveillance systems offered today. They always show some parent - usually a mother, all pleased and relieved because the surveillance camera shows her children getting home from school, or the pets are safe.

If this follows the smartphone path, mom or dad will be checking more and more often - after all "what if one of the children hurts themselves while I'm not looking, or what if a burglar or rapist breaks into the house at that moment when I'm not watching?" So next thing you know, mom and dad are paranoid as all hell, and watching over their house at all times. Work/vacation/ during sex....

If smartphones are any indicator, this is the future.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

Doctors are a big user of old school pagers.

Re:what about security?

[0100010001010011]

Additionally any time a doctor is 'on call' they are on a leash from the hospital. For most specialties they have to be at the hospital in 15 minutes or less.

Unless they live in a small town most 'on call' doctors just stay on campus and do other things. (My wife jokes that the surgeons live in the weight room).

This isn't 1980 where a pager will alert the doctor to be somewhere in an hour.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

If you are on call 24/7, you really need to re-evaluate your life choices...

Why? I made a very nice living by being on call. Nice enough to retire at 55. Now I'm not on call at all.

A lot of the people who thought I was crazy are now re-evaluating their own life choices, because after finally doing the realmath, they "plan" on never retiring - assuming health issues or a forced retirement analogue doesn't get them.

Re:what about security?

[0100010001010011]

People are scared of random things. I drive a diesel car (in the US) and can't count how many times people have showed grave concerns about my ability to find fuel.

~700 miles (1100 km) per tank I think I should manage to find a station that carries diesel.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

That depends entirely upon how much you're being paid to be on call 24/7. To use an old expression, "every man has his price," and if you're being paid enough to feasibly retire in a short timespan on the earnings, it sort of changes the economics of the matter. -PCP

Whoa! I replied to the guy with exactly that situation. Then I read your post.

I gotta say, retirement at a young age, beats the living shit outta working those extra 12+ years.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

Have doctors really gotten rid of their pagers?

No. Most have smartphones just like the rest of us, but there are certain groups who need that one way communication. Doctors, people who work in sensitive locations where phones are not allowed, and a few others. We still have an annoying Paging system near us. RF splatter all over the place.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been emergencies at public entertainment events for centuries. Jeez, does anyone remember how we used to handle those?

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should someone change their life choices because of something a stranger wouldn't consider acceptable in his own?

Re:what about security?

[i.r.id10t]

At least that way you can call Phone 1 from Phone 2 when you can't find Phone 1 ...

Re:what about security?

[I'm New Around Here]

People get up and walk out of movies all the time, usually to use the bathroom. That's why my wife and I set at the aisle, within a few rows from the exit, whether the exit is at the back or the side.

Anyone "on-call" would do the same thing if they just had to see a movie.

Re:what about security?

[I'm New Around Here]

That's still a good sized fuel tank. My Saturn four-door has a ten gallon tank that goes from dry to past-full with only 9.8 gallons.

Re:what about security?

[Archangel Michael]

took calls during "vacations" from time to time.

Having been in one of those jobs, I usually took vacation where there was no service of any sort, or where it took hours to get from shitty cell service to a place where I had data. Made sure they knew it too. If they possibly need me while I am on vacation, then they will make sure I am not camping out in the middle of nowhere by paying for my vacation.

If they don't have another body to back me up, then that is their fault for having a "mission critical" system not be "fault tolerant".

Re:what about security?

[Archangel Michael]

Next invention ... bluetooth cameras that record to your phone when you want.

Re:what about security?

[MitchDev]

Not much of a life then if you can't make simple plans because you are always on call...

Re:what about security?

[jedidiah]

I'm not a doctor, but I actually got paged during one of the Star Wars movies and had to immediately leave and fix the problem for which I was paged.

There are any number of emergency situations that should make this a huge civil liability for the person responsible for the phone ban.

As far as "doing it wrong" goes, I have done production support for companies of all sizes. The only time I have ever had 8 hour on-call shifts was ONE outsourcer.

Re:what about security?

[jedidiah]

> Having been in one of those jobs, I usually took vacation where there was no service of any sort,

I've managed to do on-call support while on vacation on another continent before. When you are "the guy" in a small startup type company it's bothersome but it won't grind you into the dust. You don't have that many machines to deal with.

At least your employer will let you have a life even if some piece of shit entertainer doesn't want you to have one.

Re:what about security?

[MachineShedFred]

Nope. Pagers are still quite common for doctors. They have batteries that last weeks at a time, and use frequencies that penetrate buildings much easier.

Re:what about security?

[operagost]

Being on-call 24/7 doesn't also imply "365 days a year". I have been, and still am, on-call 24/7 but only one week at a time followed by at least one week off, and I am compensated.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

People are scared of random things. I drive a diesel car (in the US) and can't count how many times people have showed grave concerns about my ability to find fuel.

~700 miles (1100 km) per tank I think I should manage to find a station that carries diesel.

I get people who are scared about me hiking and 4 wheeling alone, so I know the situation. I've come to the conclusion over the years that lot of people are just inherently scared and like to find outlets for that fear. I like my outlook better, I'm only fearful enought to want to live to do hte crazy shit I do tomorrow.

P.S. did you know there are a few AC's who think you and I are one and the same?

Re:what about security?

[k6mfw]

Wow! About time someone says physicians do not go to movies or other such places when on call. Mod this guy to 10. So irritating when people say "OMG you just never know when someone has to respond to an emergency" so certain venues have to allow people to use their phone and/or jump from their seat on a Code 3 call (ummm, ya know that responding to an emergency from a theatre takes a really long time, i.e. lots of luck getting out of the SHN theatre on Market St. to your car in SF in less than one hour).

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

That's still a good sized fuel tank. My Saturn four-door has a ten gallon tank that goes from dry to past-full with only 9.8 gallons.

SIde note - there were some 1980's vehicles that went from full to half a tank using maybe two-three gallons. I had an S10 pickup and 87 Pulsar that did that, and even now have an old 86 Toyota RV that does the same.

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

Not much of a life then if you can't make simple plans because you are always on call...

I was "allowed" to go on vacation - although many were cancelled then taken later.

No one says you have to do as I did. And if I dropped dead before I retired, it would have been wasted. But as a person who is presumably still working - even if you refuse to work a minute past 40 a week, what do you think about those 24 thousand hours you get to work (12 years with two weeks vacation from 55 to 67 year normal retirement age) that I'm not working?

I can tell ya that while I don't have an issue with hard work, long hoirs when needed, and professional attitude, this beats the hell out of working for a living.

Re:what about security?

[thegarbz]

The best thing you can do at an event is not touch your damn phone and instead wave down one of the hundreds of security guards that are present. Doing anything else at all is counter productive. ... unless you're a first aider, in which case perform first aid and send someone else to get security (NOT THE AMBULANCE)

Re:what about security?

[R3d M3rcury]

First, in some cases, they didn't.

Second, way back in those olden days, there were accommodations made so that people could make phone calls. There was this whole network of what was called "pay phones." You could insert money and make a phone call. So if, for some reason, you needed to get ahold of someone to say you were running late, you could pull off into a gas station or pretty much any group of shops and find one of these "pay phones" that you could use. They were pretty ubiquitous.

Now-a-days, not so much. Look around next time you're at the gas station or inside a mall or a group of shops.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get paid to be on-call? Seriously, I need to change jobs if true, we only get paid for the time after we answer/take the call. There are 5 admins, and we rotate, a different day each week, and a weekend each month. It's not so bad, but it can happen that 3 or 4 things go down on a shift, like at 1am, 3am, then 5am. Each time I only get paid from the time I answer the call at 1am until I am either done and logged out if remote, or back home if I had to drive to our data center. We get double time for this work, but still it always felt like we should be paid for a 24 hour shift if we're on-call like that. We also are required to take the call with-in 1 hour of getting it. This is for a government entity that deals with banking regulation, that's all I can say. I argued years ago that technically this would be under the reporting for work clause, but that doesn't count when you make more than 60K a year, they stated.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phones aren't being destroyed when you enter the venue. You'll get it back, probably faster than you could have gotten to a pay phone in the old days.

Re:what about security?

[Guitargeek86]

I am in the same boat. This is why at 30, and 10 years in the field I am looking to either get into management or to change out to something else before I hit 40. My biggest regret now with the tech industry is letting the startup I was at suck me into not finishing my undergrad. I bought a house before I was 25, and have a well-funded retirement, so it all worked out. I can see though that the bubble is getting ready to pop with silicon valley. There isn't much more we can push things, the cloud situation is a full classic rendition of the .com bubble that happened. It's time to look outside of the field. Also what has made a sour taste for a lot of investors is the BS that happened with Theranos. It really has put a freeze on startups, and they are looking elsewhere now, such as NY and Israel, at least in the circles I run in. If I was you, I would hold onto that government job and thank your stars when the rest of us are scrambling to find a job like that in a few years.

Re:what about security?

[luis_a_espinal]

maybe not so much the taking of the actual-call as the standing up and leaving the theatre bit. i.e. Someone being sensitive of their environment but still realising that "it's only a film".

There is a point where sensitivity turns into entitlement stupidity. If I didn't want anything in my surroundings to bother me, I would just watch TV at home. People get up to pee, get a drink and shit like that. Ain't the end of the world except for the incredibly uptight and borderline sociopath.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a pager.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

all the other important shit that goes around development

Ummm... yea. Like hovering over the dev's shoulder "You done yet?" Or taking 5 minutes to answer the phone and divvy it off to someone "less important" to do it?

Re:what about security?

[sjames]

It is possible to do that politely. Sit at the back, phone on vibrate. If it actually gets a call, step out to answer.

Re:what about security?

[0100010001010011]

14.5 gallons.

Re:what about security?

[sjames]

It may be considered the norm, but it shouldn't be. If your employer needed you on-call 24/7, that means if you got sick they would be sunk. If they had someone else, why weren't you on call just half of the time?

Re:what about security?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

That all depends. I'm the sole DevOps guy at a startup which means I'm basically on-call 24/7. The good news is that I'm the guy that setup all of the systems including the alerting/monitoring, so if something does go wrong it's either my fault or one of our vendor's.

24/7 on-call supporting someone else's mess is an entirely other matter. That can really suck.

Re:what about security?

[slew]

People are scared of random things. I drive a diesel car (in the US) and can't count how many times people have showed grave concerns about my ability to find fuel.

~700 miles (1100 km) per tank I think I should manage to find a station that carries diesel.

I think concerns are driver dependent. I used to know someone who would only fill up $10 cash at every fill up and seem to revel in getting near empty. Basically he was Kramer on Seinfeld's "The Dealership" episode. If he had a diesel car, I'm sure there would be grave concerns about his ability to find fuel...

Re:what about security?

[Archangel Michael]

I live in Northern California, there are plenty of places to camp that are primitive. No Electricity, no running water, no Cell service ... no nothing.

Go camping on the beach on the north coast, good luck getting a hold of me. Your best bet is to send someone out to get me, and hope they know where I am.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

You comment seem to support firearm ownership but as the same time equate having a knife with mugger. You are beyond retard. There is no hope for you. Please go die in the nearest fire.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on.

I know a number of companies where "on call" is either minimal or no extra pay unless there is a situation that requires active work. One company I worked for, the boss made coming in to change the tapes a 4-hour call-out on Saturday and Sunday to compensate for overtime. then th net boss updated the abckups, no more tapes, and eliminated that pay - but not the general on-call requirement. The only good point was that it rotated among a half-dozen of us, so only happened every 6 weeks.

Re:what about security?

[BasilBrush]

In theory, no. You step outside the venue if you want/need to use the phone. This is not a problem. 20 years ago the majority of people didn't even possess cellphones. It's not the essential to life that young people think it is.

In practice, the cases look to be neoprene, presumably with some reinforcement. If you were really determined to get your phone out I'm sure you could, and the cost of wrecking the case.

Re:what about security?

[LihTox]

Or just say you don't own a cellphone. Or is owning a cellphone a requirement to go to a show now?

Re:what about security?

[BasilBrush]

You know what, most people aren;t assholes and will just do it. That solves most of the problem. The ones that don't, will likely be escorted from the venue if they actually use the phone, and be barred.

Re:what about security?

[bobbied]

I didn't consider it "normal" but, it was the price I paid to be gainfully employed by a Telco company during the dot com melt down in 2000. So the family and I could eat I kept taking the paycheck and putting up with the work hours and being on call. When I found a better situation, I moved on.

All I'm saying is you do what the job demands of you, or find another. If that's being on call 24/7, then that's what you do. If you cannot do it tell them you can't, but be prepared to get another job.

Re:what about security?

[sjames]

I can well understand that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I was just objecting to considering it the norm.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious -- what area of the country do you live in, that the people you meet think diesel is so hard to come by? I can't even remember the last time I pulled into a gas station that didn't have diesel pumps...

Re:what about security?

[macs4all]

1. Bring a second, crappy phone. 2. Lock the crappy phone in the pouch. 3. PROFIT!

I like the way you think! Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're that concerned about it, just don't tell them you've got a phone on you.

"I left it in the car" will easily get you through any overcrowded, underpaided security checkpoint.

So long as you're not dumb enough to actually whip your cell out in the middle of a performance, you'll be fine and if something DOES happen then I doubt anyone will care. Hell, if you just HAVE to text then find a bathroom stall and do it in there.

These pouches clearly aren't there to restrict phone access for the fun of it, they're there because 99% of the population is too stupid to put away their phone despite being asked repeatedly throughout a performance - just don't be an idiot and keep your phone hidden, it's THAT simple.

Re:what about security?

[macs4all]

I guess I would never be at one of these events in the first place. I hate concerts and never go anymore. But, if I were to go - two phones. 1 in my sock maybe. No problem. I wouldn't want to record their lame concert / comedy - but would want to be able to access the device in the situations you mention.

Well aren't you special!

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the people who thought I was crazy are now re-evaluating their own life choices, because after finally doing the realmath, they "plan" on never retiring - assuming health issues or a forced retirement analogue doesn't get them.

Of course. I would have preferred to work hard 20 years ago and be rich now. I would have preferred to put in the hard work 10 years ago and now speak 10 different languages. There are lots of things I would have wanted to do in the past to reap the benefit now, casually glazing over the fact that means I'd have the benefit now and not be facing the real work to get there.

I'd be more curious if in retrospect if those people would have taken the extra hours and stress for the money. I'm guessing many fewer would be as eager if you made them re-live their lives, including all the pain and suffering, and no guarantee they would live as long as they did.

Re:what about security?

[doom]

"I left it in the car" will easily get you through any overcrowded, underpaided security checkpoint.

I was wondering about that. I don't carry one of those things at all, and I was wondering if they'd even let me in if I didn't have a phone to lock. This could be the long-expected time when you're no longer regarded as a human being if you don't have a mobile phone.

(Concert security checkpoints vary much with time and place-- you may very well get to deal with a power-tripping moron that's hoping for a job with the TSA.)

My prediction would be people carrying second phones, or dummy phones, to give the gate staff something to put in their funny pouches.

And if the dummy phones were cheap enough, you could throw them away with the pouch to protest the policy...

Re:what about security?

[lucm]

You comment seem to support firearm ownership but as the same time equate having a knife with mugger. You are beyond retard. There is no hope for you. Please go die in the nearest fire.

You can't even write proper sentences and you're accusing other people of being retards.

This reminds me of a scene in that Bruce Willis movie (Surrogates) where he gets attacked by an angry mob, and the last thing he sees before passing out is a disgusting obese lady with rotten teeth and terrible skin that screams at him "you're an abomination".

Re:what about security?

[Ol Olsoc]

Of course. I would have preferred to work hard 20 years ago and be rich now. I would have preferred to put in the hard work 10 years ago and now speak 10 different languages. There are lots of things I would have wanted to do in the past to reap the benefit now, casually glazing over the fact that means I'd have the benefit now and not be facing the real work to get there.

There lies the rub of the whole thing. Perspective and temperament. I have always taken the long view, and delight in planning and saving. Not everyone is like that, and it isn't a sin if a person isn't like that. I knew I probably wasn't going to keel over, and my better half is a wizard with money. Not everyone can do that.

I'd be more curious if in retrospect if those people would have taken the extra hours and stress for the money. I'm guessing many fewer would be as eager if you made them re-live their lives, including all the pain and suffering, and no guarantee they would live as long as they did.

That was another thing. I didn't find it all that stressful. I managed to raise a family and not neglect them either. I not only did the long workweeks and on call situation, but I was a Ice Hockey Coach and president of a Hockey League, and captain of my own Hockey team. That is sooo awesome for burning off a long day at the office.

Some think I'm a maniac. Could be.

Anyhow, I don't even promote my style as smarter , or a "Wanna be wealthy? just be wealthy!" setup. I nly offer it as an alternative to the standard I hate my job, I refuse to poop on my own time, and whatever the excuse is for not saving for retirement is at the time - when I entered the workforce it was "What's the point of saving? Inflation will just eat it up and you won't have anything. They were wrong.

Re:what about security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment about home security couldn't be more accurate. A once customer of mine who is incessant about his cameras opened my eyes about the lengths people will go to to keep an eye on their 'stuff'. This house, no less, was a rental with him living in the granny flat. Cameras 'everywhere' all IoT accessible via dodgy freebie dyndns account. That guy was a turn on a dime nut job. Glad to be rid of him actually.

Re:what about security?

[david_thornley]

Why would the venue owner have any responsibility? If you have to be available on your phone, you shouldn't go to a place where you'll have to lock up or surrender your phone or be in a no-reception area. The venue owner is not responsible for knowing your responsibilities. If you want an exception from the rules, there may be someone to talk to.

Re:what about security?

[hucker75]

Don't be such a pessimist. Always thinking of the worst case scenario. FFS live a little.

Re:what about security?

[RespekMyAthorati]

I think there is a terminology problem.

Being on duty "24/7" doesn't mean that you are at work every hour of every day of the year.
It means being on duty around the clock for a few days, then being off duty for a few days, and so on.

Re:what about security?

[KingBenny]

uhuh and what he said : "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it" ... and ... lock phone in restaurants ? well in case of movie screening i can dig it .. but it would be quite the same to just pat down everyone so they dont wear spyglasses
when will the madness end .. okay anyone requiring me to do this ... i INSIST that it states CLEARLY BEFORE I PURCHASE a ticket to the show or i will SUE YOU
reverse-productive, how about it ?

Re:what about security?

[Rakarra]

There is a point where sensitivity turns into entitlement stupidity

There's certainly a line to be drawn. People talking on their cell phone, or just talking over the movie, shining lights around the theater, etc: not cool.
Someone needs to get up to pee, or a doctor has to leave? Don't see why I should have a problem with it.

Queue spineless twerp whining!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to read all the "Help! Help! I'm too mentally weak to survive for an hour without my phone!!!!" whining.

Re:Queue spineless twerp whining!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, their spelling is spot on. The fact that they chose the wrong word, in your opinion, is a different matter. Maybe they felt they'd be queuing up to post responses.

Re:Queue spineless twerp whining!

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Re:Queue spineless twerp whining!

[Ol Olsoc]

I can't wait to read all the "Help! Help! I'm too mentally weak to survive for an hour without my phone!!!!" whining.

Looks like that wish has been granted in spades!

I love their what if scenarios. Maybe we can do a what if subthread - I'll start

What if a farrier throws a refrigerator at my third cousin and they are waiting in a Best Buy store for me?

Re:Queue spineless twerp whining!

[I'm New Around Here]

Holy textwall, Batman.

That is a long Wikipedia entry just to discuss the use of the word "they" in the singular.

It's 17 screens long on my laptop. YRMV

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that the ticketholder can get a full refund if they choose not to submit to this ridiculousness?

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

They make it pretty clear before you finish buying the ticket that they use this technology.

Forest of hands

[sTERNKERN]

.. holding mobiles and tablets. That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.

Re:Forest of hands

[Anonymous Coward]

.. holding mobiles and tablets. That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.

Yes because having a digital camera pop up instead was a real PITA a few years ago.

Re:Forest of hands

[Anonymous Coward]

This was just as annoying, but not nearly as ubiquitous. Phones and tablets are worse.

Re:Forest of hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Safer than holding lighters...

Re:Forest of hands

[The-Ixian]

But not nearly as pretty....

Re:Forest of hands

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought /.ers always said that musicians need to make their money from live concerts, and consider recordings as free promotional tools.

Well, sucks to be a musician, I guess. But don't expect any sympathy when you guys whine about IT offshoring, forced training of replacements and H1-Bs. What goes around...

Re:Forest of hands

[Curunir_wolf]

.. holding mobiles and tablets. That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.

Sound like you were going to the wrong concerts anyway.

Re:Forest of hands

[R3d M3rcury]

Back in my day, we had half-naked women pop-up. Why can't we go back to those simpler times...?

Re:Forest of hands

[Princeofcups]

.. holding mobiles and tablets. That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.

Interesting. I've never seen that at a concert, but I've only been to Killing Joke the last few years. Different crowds have different priorities. The people there felt privileged to hear a legendary band live, and were too busy listening to the music to fiddle with devices.

Re:Forest of hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what happened to the topless chicks with poodle perms and tight acid wash jeans sitting on guy's shoulders? Wait... I think I know the answer... gah! I preferred the nostalgic memory!

Re:Forest of hands

[martinX]

That went away when venues installed pop-up blockers.

Re:Forest of hands

[HornWumpus]

They were safe enough. Only burnt for few seconds at 15 foot flame setting anyhow.

banned now, required later

[turkeydance]

how else will a customer pay for a t-shirt/beer/etc?

Re:banned now, required later

[Anonymous Coward]

By cash... Oh right, we can't: terrorism.

Re:banned now, required later

[Joe_Dragon]

bill the card linked to the ticket + an 1% fee.

Re:banned now, required later

[Overzeetop]

1% - ha! How about $5 plus 15% - it's still less than the cut Ticketmaster takes for the ticket sale.

Re:banned now, required later

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Are you really going to trade your phone for a T-shirt?

Re:banned now, required later

[Anonymous Coward]

how else will a customer pay for a t-shirt/beer/etc?

With the government-issued microchip implant, that's how.

Oh, microchip implants are over the top? Yes, tell me again how you're standing defiant against this privacy-robbing technology as you proudly walk around with that cellular lease shoved up your ass...

Re:banned now, required later

[Curunir_wolf]

It sucks that Ticketbastard is even getting any business these days - they have lost the monopoly on the market that they once had. Promoters and venue operators need to wake up and stop doing the exclusive contracts.

Re:banned now, required later

[I'm New Around Here]

What are you? Amish?

Re:banned now, required later

[Anonymous Coward]

Ticketmaster is the least of your worries now. StubHub makes them look like kids on the playground.

I have no problem with a service that allows someone to sell a ticket they can't use with a bit of a mark up. That's fine. But Stubhub? 10 minutes after tickets go on sale they're filtered right to SH at a few hundred percent mark up. That's a scam. Pure and simple. Ticketmaster is likely kicking themselves for being so conservative on their fees.

Re:banned now, required later

[DarkLordBelial]

By placing the retail desks outside the exclusion zone?

Just a thought.

Re:banned now, required later

[wbr1]

I have been to many venues that will take your card, open a tab and issue a venue card they can scan for additional purchases. This keeps the tab open and keeps the employees at different locations from having to look up your tab/find your card.

Re:banned now, required later

[poofmeisterp]

how else will a customer pay for a t-shirt/beer/etc?

Give 'em your card number up front before your device is locked. It'll be secure; no worries. *cough*

Just tell them you don't have a mobile phone on yo

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they gonna do? A cavity search? Well, In USA that's at least possible I guess.

Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have a cell phone.

Re:Doesn't affect me

[BarbaraHudson]

Don't have a cell phone.

Then be ready for them to refuse entry. Even the homeless have phones now.

Re: Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a cell phone either!

Sent from my iPhone 6

Re:Doesn't affect me

[LordHighExecutioner]

Don't worry. They will give you an iPhone upon entry, so that your presence can be reduced to the previously solved case.

Re:Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

Then be ready for them to refuse entry

Link?

Re:Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

What about getting a cheap tracfone and handing that over?

Re:Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

those of us who like our privacy don't
and if they refuse me entry because of that, I'll just take my money elsewhere

Re:Doesn't affect me

[Anonymous Coward]

Me neither: I have two.

My phone is how I keep my memory?

[Smid]

Use your eyes. And brain.

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[DirkDaring]

Some people don't have very good memories.

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly both will function less effectively in the future for you too

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[Anonymous Coward]

and photographs.

Photographs and memories
Christmas cards you sent to me
All that I have are these to remember you
Memories that come at night
Take me to another time
Back to a happier day when I called you mine

But we sure had a good time
When we started way back when
Morning walks and bedroom talks
Oh how I loved you then

Summer skies and lullabies
Nights we couldn't say goodbye
And of all of the things that we knew
Not a dream survived

Photographs and memories
All the love you gave to me
Somehow it just can't be true
It's all I've left of you

But we sure had a good time
When we started way back when
Morning walks and bedroom talks
Oh how I loved you then, Dave Chappelle
But you turned into a dick

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[Anonymous Coward]

O hell, its not just 'not having good memory', very FEW people have an 'eidetic memory'. Why do you think we snap pictures of various nature scenes, random things 'in the world' that we come across but find interesting or that we want to keep as a memento, or take a video of it as we pass through the world.

And there is a HUGE difference between a 'professionally authored and produced picture or video' vs a 'random picture or video' created on a phone regardless of how 'high fidelity' features the latter gets stuffed with.

I have a blue-ray of Robin Wiliiams' 'Live on Broadway' show. Regardless if I'd been there and regardless if I'd taken a complete video of the show using my phone (and who does that anyway in any 'professional sense' as you will MISS a large majority of the 'entertainment value') I'd STILL have bought the blue-ray as the video production of the event is awesome. I've watched it regularly & enjoy myself, enjoy the jokes over & over even though I will recall the jokes/punch-lines before they occur as my memory is 'tweaked'.

I've taken pictures at live events simply to capture a 'moment in time', that while I may remember years later only in 'broad strokes', the pictures help remind me of the totality of the event as it occurred at that moment.

But hell, if performers want to do this more power to them, its their show, they make the rules under which you pay to attend & can watch them. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in terms of how audiences decide to support these events. From the point of view of a 'trying to make money from professionally produced videos' I think this is a waste of time/money & could result in a 'fan backlash' but I guess we'll see.

I'm not sure I get the whole "people using these things at 'weddings, restaurants, schools'" thing, people captured their memories of events or places YEARS before 'social media' and when everyone had a smartphone with a camera/video recorder. NOW we're going to say that people can no longer do these things? Are we seriously trying to make it so you can't take a photo of little Johnny in the school play? Or little Jane playing for the school basketball team etc. SERIOUSLY? If I was a parent I'd be EXTREMELY pissed, if I was going to a wedding I'd probably think "yeah, you guys were pretentious dinks anyway I'm only here for the booze. Have fun in that pretentious life you're going to lead"

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Use your eyes. And brain.

I still recall when I spent a significant amount of time in Rome over a decade ago. This was before smartphones were common, but reasonably portable videocameras were pretty cheap.

I remember how many tourists I saw walking down the hallways in the Vatican Museums or whatever with their videocameras plastered on their eyes, bumping into everything, basically oblivious to the world except for their camera and its settings.

In general, most of these folks were completely oblivious to the fact that they were surrounded by priceless art, historical artifacts, etc. And they could probably have bought some "virtual tour" DVD for a few bucks that would give them an even better visual record than their camera.

This tendency has only worsened in the era of the smartphone. To each his own, but I actually sometimes like to simply live my life and experience what's going on around me to the fullest, rather than spend the whole time making what's probably an inferior recording.

I kept an electronic journal of sorts during my visit to Rome, reflecting on my day's activities. Sure, I've forgotten some things, but sometimes I'll go back to those log entries and that will be enough to jog a lot of memories. Personally, I'm really glad I take time to stop and enjoy the actual experience, and I probably have a lot more memories of what I encountered than those who make a video that they likely watch once (if that) and then never again.

Re:My phone is how I keep my memory?

[DarkLordBelial]

I'm the same. I have a camera but usually leave it at home because I prefer to experience rather than document.

However, I have an atrocious memory - and often pine for a record of my experiences.

I've forgotten the point I was trying to make :(

"...my phone is how I keep my memory"

[Anonymous Coward]

In just one more generation, the augmented memory people will be the bulk of the human race. Imagine how easily it'll be to starve them to death just by killing their connections for a month. No way to exchange goods, no way to look up survival skills, no way to get help. Recording the police, screw that, I'd be far more worried about the gross dependency ubiquitous phone "memories" has already created. The phone as a mnemonic augment is the real threat to safety and survival.

Poor basterd

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory,",
since he's got kicked in the head by a horse, a phone is the only way.

I'm tired of these dumb fucks holding their phones, or even damn ipads, up whenever there is something to see.

Re: Poor basterd

[Anonymous Coward]

The real pisser is the wanker who holds up a full size ipad with its case draping down below it. Far more effective at blocking the view than a small digital camera. These tossers then go on holding it there whilst they record video. However, I don't think the pouch device is the answer; instead, I'd suggest appealing to their conscience (with a sturdy clue-stick and maximum prejudice).

Simple explanation

[laughing_badger]

He thinks his act is so poor that if anyone catches a clip of it on line, they will realise there is no point in paying to see the show?

Re:Simple explanation

[MitchDev]

This is pretty much truth....

Re:Simple explanation

[gnupun]

Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales. If money was not an issue, most of these performers would not mind cameras. But they have to make a living... so no cameras, no piracy.

Oh and live performances are almost always sloppy compared to recorded events meant for mass-consumption, so no one cares about these slip ups.

Re:Simple explanation

[stealth_finger]

Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales.

Why, because they've seen a clip of it at phone quality and thought, wow, this guy isn't funny, glad I didn't waste my money on that shit?

Re:Simple explanation

[thegarbz]

Fewer ticket sales

The common problem with all these artists taking this stance at the moment are shows that are pretty much sold out every time. I don't think they give a shit if a few people decide not to come.

Anyway that's really beside the point. I applaud this effort but it has nothing to do with DRM and everything to do with wanting to see the show, not some asshat in front of me's camera.

Re:Simple explanation

[sjames]

Didn't that ship sail when they released a professional recording? If that didn't kill concert attendance, why would a bouncy garbled cellphone video complete with people screaming and shots of the backs of people's heads and waving arms hurt matters?

Re:Simple explanation

[poofmeisterp]

Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales. If money was not an issue, most of these performers would not mind cameras. But they have to make a living... so no cameras, no piracy.

Oh and live performances are almost always sloppy compared to recorded events meant for mass-consumption, so no one cares about these slip ups.

I'm using words from a different context, but I tend to "try before I buy". Watching previous shows, raw, without biased editing, shows me what type of person/show I might be interested in paying money to go and see later! I'm not making this up as an argument; it's actual real-life fact and it's what I operate on. The only backup to it is a guaranteed refund if I'm not happy, but I don't believe they offer those (contextually in-line again) at concerts/performances/etc.

Sorry, but I like it.

[Parker Lewis]

I'm tired to go to nice performances, including circus, movies, etc (i.e., most stuff that is funny in a dark room), and then people insists in get their big phones and tablets and turn on the bright screen in your face and ruin your experience, blocking your vision and spotting light in your eyes.

If people really used to just attend urgency calls, devices like this will be not required. For sure, probably doctors will be allowed to keep their devices. In case of fire, there are employees in the place able to make a call. Like in the old days.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Holi]

Seeing as the majority of people do not seem to share your pain I would guess it is something that you have to work on yourself instead of expecting everyone around you to acquiesce to your wishes.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with you. Sometimes, it's appropriate. Sometimes, it's not.

We're currently talking of concert venues. But I've seen people using their cell phones during a theatre piece. I've seen people unable to disconnect when going to the Opera. When you are in your bubble while listening to the action (or even worse actually acting it) and someone opens a bright light in the place, it's just bad.

On the bigger venues where they mostly care about (C), there's always been people who took pictures, recordings and so on. I tend to be lenient. If a generation enjoys $100 shows while looking at them through a cheap screen and a $20 embedded camera, that's their problem. As long as they don't bother me.

Fun fact: I'm 6 4, am really easily bothered, and I won't stand still while someone tries to record the show in front of me.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[jittles]

Seeing as the majority of people do not seem to share your pain I would guess it is something that you have to work on yourself instead of expecting everyone around you to acquiesce to your wishes.

I have definitely been to events where everyone is holding up their phones and (and worse) tablets. You seriously can't see through all the arms and devices, even if you're tall. But I've also been to other events where almost no one is doing this, and it's just a few inconsiderate people. It just depends on the event and the type of crowd it draws. I would prefer people NOT stick their phones in front of my face while they record a crappy video of whatever event their at. I feel like it's mostly the hardcore snapchat types that do it

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as the majority of people do not seem to share your pain I would guess it is something that you have to work on yourself instead of expecting everyone around you to acquiesce to your wishes.

And yet some people won't shut up, they make the progress, and improve our lives.

Locking people phone in cases is pretty stupid though. As often, it's trying to force some symptoms away, instead of dealing with the root causes.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact: I'm 6 4, am really easily bothered, and I won't stand still while someone tries to record the show in front of me.

Fun fact: I'm 5' 1" 130 lbs, record live shows with a full-sized iPad held over my head, I conceal-carry a Taurus Judge which holds 5 shotgun shells and has a 3" barrel, and I won't hesitate to shoot an attacker.

See ya at the show!

Re: Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

See ya in jail, I'll bring you some cigarettes.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I've been to several shows where the bands didn't like photos/videos being taken for various reasons. For instance, the Scorpions and Manowar don't want anyone else but members of the press taking photos, and they'll have security walking around telling people to put their cameras away. I don't think they're hard on mobile phones, but anyone pulling out an SLR is pretty much going to be shut down instantly. I think that's a bit fascistic, especially coming from bands that claim to embody freedom (Manowar) and tolerance (Scorpions) in their lyrics.

On the other hand, I think it was Def Leppard who specifically asked for no flash photography because one of their members is photosensitive, and it can trigger epileptic fits and migraines. So they asked people not to snap photos while they were playing, and wait until the end of the show. That's a bit more reasonable, in my mind.

I really dislike the trend of trying to film concerts, especially on crappy phones and tablets. The resulting video is going to be shit anyway, and it's seriously annoying to everyone else at the show. Sure, snap a couple of quick photos as a memento, but don't start filming for minutes, or (gods forbid) the entire damn show. I also don't think a complete ban is the solution. The ideal solution would be to educate people, but we all know how well that works in the face of the "fuck you, I'm more important" attitude.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Good luck trying to reach for your Penis Size Compensator while you're in an armbar or a full bear hug from behind.

Hell, good luck even getting into any proper venue with that piece of shit on you.

Re: Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

See ya in jail, I'll bring you some cigarettes.

In most US States shooting someone in self defense while lawfully armed is legal. If the idiot who attacks him survives, *he* will be open for charges of aggravated assault & battery and more, and would likely be transferred to a correctional facility after he recovers sufficiently from his gunshot wounds.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as we are discussing this because these things are getting banned, it would seem your majority may not be as big as you thought.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT is a semivalid argument. But it's not the argument that the "talent" are using - they're all up in arms about being recorded, not about the effect the devices will have on the experience of other concert-goers.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as the majority of people do not seem to share your pain I would guess it is something that you have to work on yourself instead of expecting everyone around you to acquiesce to your wishes.

How old are you? I'm not literally asking, but do you by chance remember the days when there was no such thing as a mobile phone? When you went to a concert, you went to a concert; alone, with friends, whatever.

This isn't about possibility / reasonable circumstances. It's about people not wanting to give something up in exchange for something else (temporarily). I do NOT agree with the concept, but the angle of the argument is VERY important when you want to be taken seriously or have decision-making weight.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people really used to just attend urgency calls, devices like this will be not required. For sure, probably doctors will be allowed to keep their devices. In case of fire, there are employees in the place able to make a call. Like in the old days.

Ah, the good old days. People did just fine in the past! Before 911, anesthetics, wireless communication, central heating and cooling, vaccines... Why would you want a cell phone when you could enjoy smallpox? I'd be happy to go back to the 1970's if it meant I could enjoy my $15 comedy show again!

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[martinX]

I think it was Def Leppard who specifically asked for no flash photography because one of their members is photosensitive, and it can trigger epileptic fits and migraines.

If that's the case, Rock Star probably isn't the best business to be in.

Re:Sorry, but I like it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think lots of people do share that pain. Which is part of the reasons you see things like this. I'm there to watch a show or whatever, not watch you hold up your iPad to record it. And especially not to watch 50 people do that. Depending on the nature of the show, it can get absurd with half the audience fooling around with their phones and tablets.
captcha: uncouth

Case in point where this would have been great...

[thejynxed]

Went to a Rob Zombie show rather recently. He was not happy with the sea of phones and asked several times for people to put them away before finally just saying, "You know guys, you all ask why it seems rock seems like it is dead. It's because of stuff like this. I'm a rocker, not a tv guy. I don't know what to do when all I see staring me in the face is a bunch of cameras. I can't do anything with that." Thankfully people finally got the damned hint and he went on with the show instead of leaving (and yes, it was fscking great - he even went through an entire White Zombie album on top of his solo stuff).

Backfiring

[Anonymous Coward]

People block ads. Those who don't block ads ignore them.

So, how do they find out about concerts? An old concept called "word of mouth" has come back, except that now it's called "word of Facebook" or "word of Twitter" (depending on who your friends are). All the people who loved the concert are posting pictures and videos from it. Those who didn't like the concert don't post anything.

So, basically they've invented a way to make it look like nobody liked the concert.

Re:Backfiring

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Do you really that's the only way people find out about concerts? Are you completely ignoring Facebook events created by the organizers/artists? Bandsintown? Actual word of mouth from talking to actual people?

If you cannot "word of mouth" a concert without having to upload a crappy photo or video, maybe that's because no one listens to what you say.

Stand-up is a special case

[Kiuas]

I was recently at the Louis C. K. show here in Helsinki and they did not require anyone to lock away their phones, but prior to the show there was an announcement that anyone caught filming the show will be ejected.

As a lover of stand-up, I can understand why they're strict about this: the tickets to the show cost nearly 60 euros and essentially people are paying that to hear new material. It's different from music and other performing arts where most often people know what they're going to see. AC/DC won't lose any ticket sales if a few dozen guys upload a shitty quality video of Thunderstruck from midfield. But a recording - even audio only - of the new material by a stand up performer will probably hurt ticket sales.

That being said this seems like overreach: I did not see anyone being ejected from the aforementioned show (well, outside 1 dude who was way too drunk but he wasn't recording). People who've invested money to get to the show are unlikely to risk missing the show just to get a clip online, so I don't see a need for such a high-tech solution.

Re:Stand-up is a special case

[Karl Cocknozzle]

It's not just about the video clips, but about the disturbance to the rest of the audience of having a phone screen suddenly light up in their line of vision.

Re:Stand-up is a special case

[justthinkit]

As a lover of stand-up, I can understand why they're strict about this: the tickets to the show cost nearly 60 euros and essentially people are paying that to hear new material. It's different from music and other performing arts where most often people know what they're going to see. AC/DC won't lose any ticket sales if a few dozen guys upload a shitty quality video of Thunderstruck from midfield. But a recording - even audio only - of the new material by a stand up performer will probably hurt ticket sales.

This is it in a nutshell. Our family went to see Brian Regan and it was great to hear new material live. Conversely, if we knew every joke, why would we go? With comedy, laughter is the end goal -- it either comes out naturally or lube is required. Since I stopped drinking 35 years ago, I'm fine with Yondr. Besides, the quality of live performance is so far below that of a CD or DVD, why would anyone want to rewatch/relisten to it?

We support Brian Regan, have bought all the DVDs and CDs, and have one memorable live experience. All except our youngest who slept through most of it.

Re:Stand-up is a special case

[drinkypoo]

It's not just about the video clips, but about the disturbance to the rest of the audience of having a phone screen suddenly light up in their line of vision.

I've been just waiting for this to happen, but it never does. I guess I need to go out more for that. Early to bed, early to rise, means never having someone else's cellphone shine in your eyes.

Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[hyades1]

I'm sure you'll be missed. (snicker)

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[garyok]

Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.

Good. You stick to your guns and never go to another live show again.

I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.

It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[bickerdyke]

I beg to differ.

I completely agree with you that it is a live experience that should be experienced live.

But it's a difference between a 20 seconds clip to try to make your friends green with envy (if that's possible with the crappy quality) or to serve as a souvenir (only needs to be barely recognizable for that) or trying to make the worst replacement of a professional DVD production.

Best solution I've seen was a singer-songwriter. At the beginning he asked the audience to put phones away until the encore, during which the stage (and house) lighting would be set in a way that would allow for at least somewhat acceptable picture quality. Result: Audience (and artist) got an undisturbed show AND souvenir material.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[geekmux]

Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.

And your normal routine of paying a shitload of money to see a live performer only to ignore the shit out of them all evening due to a debilitating cell phone addiction, somehow isn't "wasting a cent".

Yup. Solid logic.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I get the phone out, if at all, is to snap a picture of my kid(s depending on if I have both wherever it is).

In a lot of places, cameras are treated the same way, because they can record video. About the only thing left are crappy disposables that no one processes anymore

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Drethon]

Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.

Good. You stick to your guns and never go to another live show again.

I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.

It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.

Personally I have never recorded at a live event with a phone. The only time I have done any recordings was at a race track with a handheld camera and the official camera man traded me tickets for any good clips I got. If an event wants to prevent me from using my phone in any manner, including everything that does not involve recording, because of what other people do, they don't need my business. I probably wont be missed but I wont miss anything that important either.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[stealth_finger]

What an entitled baby you are. Performers don't want people like you at their concerts anyway.

They do want you to pay for the tickets though, and buy the dvd because apparently being funny only works once.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

I would rather not go to a performance with my phone locked up - even if I never took the phone out once. It's way too much an invasion of privacy.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Nunya666]

Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.

Same here.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Far too many people these days don't know when to put down or turn off the cell phone/tablet! Your phone needs to be turned off while driving, at a theater, in a restaurant, at the grocery store. Talking or texting while driving is at least as dangerous as driving drunk! In public places it is very annoying when someone's phone rings or they make a call, especially as far too many people think that they have to talk loudly (many almost shouting!) into their phone. In grocery stores people talking or texting on phones block the aisles, and ruin the shopping experience for others. In theaters (no matter what the type of show/movie) and restaurants, you are disturbing others and ruining the experience that they have paid for.

Idiots with cell phones/tablets are the reason that I do not go to movies and live shows. The more of these places that don't have wi-fi, and passively (legally) block cell reception the better! If only to teach some of the phone toting morons that they can't (nor do they need to!) be connected 24/7/365, !!

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[hyades1]

Good riddance to both of you. It will be a better concert if the tools with a cell phone jones stay home.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[chexican]

What privacy is being invaded? They aren't searching your phone, they are making sure you don't use it during the event. Even if there was a privacy issue here, it's completely avoidable by leaving your phone at home.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

I don;t use a cell phone at a concert, but I'm not locking mine up for one either.

Be a good little consumer sheep if that's what makes you hard....

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

Go away little consumer sheep.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

Such a good little consumer sheep.

I don;t use my phone at concerts/movies.

Nice attempt at a strawman though...

Keep on bleating...

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

If what others are doing with a cell phone at a concert (especially how insanely loud they get) disturbs you, you have deeper mental issues.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

The privacy of my pocket.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Invasion of privacy? How so?

All they're doing is stopping you from using your electronic pacifier for an hour or two. It's fine, you'll survive that harrowing situation, I'm 100% sure.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

I get it - people who have their phones out are annoying. I'm not one of them. What's in my pocket is my business and no one else's. Especially if they ever do this without disclosing it at the point of ticket purchase.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[hyades1]

The guy welded to a cell phone calls a music lover "sheep"?

Are you so afraid to be without your electronic security blanket for a couple of hours? Are you such an unimportant little drone your boss gets to reach out and yank your chain 24-7?

ROFL! Truly pathetic.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[chexican]

They aren't looking in your pocket. They are asking you to remove a specific object from it IF you have it. unless you have some private info scrawled all over the case, it shouldn't be too much of a privacy issue for them to have you put your phone in a bag.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

It's none of their business whether there is a phone in my pocket.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[chexican]

It is. You are on someone else's property, and they have the right to at least know what you are carrying onto it.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

So you wouldn't object if every store or place of business you went into made you empty all your pockets?

They don't have any such rights. They can refuse entry to someone for any reason - and consider it trespassing if you continue. However, that does not equate to having "rights." If the ticket sale doesn't disclose any of these requirements, then the money used to pay for the ticket was received under false pretenses and should be rightfully refunded.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[coughfeeman]

I would rather not go to a performance with my phone locked up - even if I never took the phone out once. It's way too much an invasion of piracy.

Fixed that for you.

None of your information, private or otherwise, is being taken. It's preventing you from taking something from the show, either in the form of the artist's performance or your fellow attendee's ability to enjoy it.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

You fixed nothing. Treating every guest like criminals is not the answer and will not be tolerated.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. The phone addicts can go to their own phone-addict concerts, while normal humans go to a normal concert. Guess which concert will be more enjoyable?

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[chexican]

Except the ticket sale DID disclose these requirements, and this is a place of business where people using their phones actually presents a problem for other customers. It would be pretty ridiculous if I had to have my phone locked everywhere, but I'm not disrupting peoples grocery shopping by checking a text, and people aren't blocking my view of the shelf with a massive tablet.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[geekmux]

Go away little consumer sheep.

Way to champion your millennial logic.

The entertainer certainly knows how ignorant your mentality is, which is the reason we're having this conversation. Disagree with me all you want, I'm not the one you'll be dealing with at your next concert event. Have fun.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

Yes you are truly pathetic. Glad you like letting petty tyrants tell you what you can and can't do.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

I didn't buy THAT ticket, so my point still stands. I'm not going to participate in that kind of a hostile market - where every consumer is treated like a criminal.

You only like it because it keeps phone screens out of your field of view - but that's not why they're doing it.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[BasilBrush]

You can spot the children in this debate. The ones too young to have lived a life where they weren't constantly attached to a cellphone. Sad little fuckers.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Sure, you and I know when to have the phone out, and when not to.

But apparently Joe Q. Average doesn't, and thus measures like this are apparently needed. And since it would be a massive allocation of resources to screen everyone present for whether they intend to pull out their phone, the lowest common denominator is chosen.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[omnichad]

And since it would be a massive allocation of resources to screen everyone present for whether they intend to pull out their phone,

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. They could just kick out anyone who is recording with their phone. No screening needed.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[hyades1]

They stick out like a priest's dick at a group shower for choir boys.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[hyades1]

I bet you do. That's why you're all upset about the actual artists telling you to go fuck yourself.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[KozmoStevnNaut]

And have bouncers running around the venue, disturbing the show and possibly causing the culprit to start complaining loudly?

I think they chose the best compromise, to ensure the show could go on without interruption.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Once less person to ruin the show. Good move on your part. Hey do you remember how we used to tell each other how the concert went? No worries, I'll remind you.

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[MitchDev]

So you again hoist the mirror at yourself

Re:Hope you enjoy being broke

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a reasonable compromise. I think most people would be good with it.

Value for money

[sjbe]

That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.

That's why? I don't go because the value for money almost always sucks. Once in a while a concert is an awesome experience but most of the time it's just an expensive, overly loud, poorly produced, sloppily performed, rehashing of music I've heard before and better in a recorded format. Sometimes you get the bonus of drunk or stoned concert goers and of course the numerous inconsiderate a-holes or thugs that too often seem to attend. Sure, live music CAN be awesome but it usually isn't. I really don't get the point of concert where i need ear plugs to avoid getting hearing damage.

Maybe all that is your bag and you dig it in spite of the problems. Cool by me. Have fun. Personally I find many/most concerts something to be avoided because the experience is decidedly unpleasant. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and I've been to a handful of excellent concerts myself. But most simply aren't worth even a fraction of the price of admission.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. My favorite are the ones who pay $$$$+++ to get in, and then spend the entire concert popping up and down going back and forth to the beer tent.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists that are exceptional live entertainers do not have to worry about this. No jerky phone recording can do the real thing justice.

Re:Value for money

[drinkypoo]

I don't go to concerts to hear the lyrics. I go to concerts to knock people over in the pit while the music is played. Can't do that in my living room, it's called domestic violence in that case

Re:Value for money

[Ash-Fox]

I don't go to concerts to hear the lyrics. I go to concerts to knock people over in the pit while the music is played. Can't do that in my living room, it's called domestic violence in that case

I snorted into my drink reading that, ahaha.

Re:Value for money

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Dude, you're going to the wrong concerts. I've been to around 30 concerts so far this year, and most of them have been absolutely amazing, with bands at the top of their game and lively good-natured crowds. Sure, there have been a couple of weaker shows, but that's how it always is.

Granted, I mostly go to metal and hard rock shows, priced between $10-60, and held at venues with room for no more than ~1000 people. That's the sweet spot for me, and I've been having a blast. Some of the best shows happened with less than 100 attendees.

Go to smaller venues, avoid the huge expensive mainstream shows. Find the local music scene where you live. There are so many amazing live performances happening every single day.

And if you think it's too loud, wear earplugs. That's what I do. Bilsom 303s or 3M EARs are the best in my experience, both in comfort and attenuation level and evenness.

Re:Value for money

[thegarbz]

Maybe it's time you investigated in some different bands.

Last time I went to a concert it cost me $30. It was a pre-launch so I'd not heard any of the songs before. When the album came out the songs sounded vastly different due to the massive amount of mad soloing and liberties the artist took with his recorded material. And I see this a lot. I remember going to an art vs science concert ($15). The album version of Parlez-vous français goes for a few minutes, the live performance it went for close to half an hour.

I can't remember the last time I was disappointed by a live gig.

Re:Value for money

[SvnLyrBrto]

I think a big problem is that all of the independent tour and concert promoters are gone, and replaced by the monopolistic conglomerates like Live Nation, Insomniac, and the like. Little to no competition means ticket prices in the stratosphere. And when I was going to see, for example, Nine Inch Nails at the peak of their popularity for $20 at The Edge, with the likes of Gravity Kills or Thrill Kill Cult as openers; the notion of paying $200 to see them at Outside Lands as a nostalgia act with a roster of dull and genre-inappropriate openers just rubs me all kinds of the wrong way.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you just listen to suck music. Ever think of that?

Re:Value for money

[ThatsNotPudding]

Sometimes you get the bonus of drunk or stoned concert goers and of course the numerous inconsiderate a-holes or thugs that too often seem to attend.

This.

My first concert in decades (and probably the last ever) was pretty nice except at the beginning because of the 50-something woman a row behind us who wanted everyone to get up and dance. At a Steely Dan concert.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I get the Bluray or DVD after the concert instead of the concert. Cheaper. Cleaner. Safer. Can be played multiple times.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

No one goes to concerts anymore, they're too crowded.

Re:Value for money

[PraiseBob]

I feel bad for you. I've seen at least 150+ bands play in the past year for free. I generally try to chip in a few bucks for the artists, but that's always my choice, and I find music to be a pretty good entertainment value per dollar.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice you said that $200 ticket rubs you the wrong way, not that you can't afford it. And that, my friend, is why the ticket is $200 instead of $20. When you were a teenager in the 1990s going to see NIN, you couldn't afford $200. So the concerts that appealed to you at the time were priced within your budget. That $200 NIN ticket isn't priced for teenagers. They don't know who the fuck NIN is. And they wouldn't care if they did. Those NIN tickets are priced for people who were teenagers in the 1990s, are in their 30s now, and want to capture that bit of nostalgia. In other words, they're priced for YOU. The shows that teenagers are seeing these days are still $20. And if any of those bands are still around in 20 years, the tickets when they are nostalgia acts will be $200 too.

I feel you on the Insomniac thing though. Pasquale and the rest of that bunch of shitheads can go fuck themselves up the ass with a rusty crowbar.

Re:Value for money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your problem is that you like shitty bands. Or maybe you're the kind of person who doesn't travel because the value for money sucks - such a hassle to go new places, and you're surrounded by people speaking a foreign language! Sometimes, they're even DRUNK!

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[MitchDev]

Been better if the audience just said a collective "Fuck you" and walked out...

Great! Now do this...

[LordHighExecutioner]

1) go to a concert and get a Yondr pouch
2) put inside a Samsung Galaxy 7
3) .....
4) Profit!

Re:Great! Now do this...

[jlv]

Would have been funny if that were a Galaxy Note 7 inside the pouch. The Galaxy 7 is just fine.

Re:Great! Now do this...

[BasilBrush]

Hey LordHighExecutioner, I think you just pissed off a couple of Android/Samsung fanbois! :-)

As a D-list performer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you're selling out every show and can't find a bigger venue in town then you can get away with this.

As a D-list performer? Please, tag yourself at my show, throw a couple pics up on social media, drop a clip on youtube. Selfies at the merch table after our set.

Tomorrow night we're in Sheboygan, tell your friends there how awesome tonight was...

Re:As a D-list performer...

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Yeah, I see no issues with people snapping a couple of photos to send to their friends and family.

The real issue is people who insist on recording everything, while missing the actual show.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[smooth wombat]

Why would he care at that point? He got his money. They're the immature brats who think they're entitled to his performance.

If your life revolves around your phone, you need to reevaluate your life.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[geekmux]

Been better if the audience just said a collective "Fuck you" and walked out...

I'll now ask you to kindly elaborate as to exactly how your recommendation would have helped anyone.

You can try and make a point about being an "adult" and "choices" and all the usual BS excuses, but nothing you will bring forth can excuse the stupidity of paying a LOT of money to see a live performer in order to disrespect and ignore the piss out of them and their performance all evening with a cell phone in your face or theirs.

Since when....

[Anonymous Coward]

...does the paid employee, the performer, tell the employer (the audience) what to do with their property?

Re:Since when....

[91degrees]

He's not the customer's employee. They're the customer of the business. He's a business partner, not an employee.

And yes. I make all sorts of demands of my employer. They tend to be reasonable (salary, days off, essential equipment) so my employer says "okay".

Re:Since when....

[MooseTick]

"Since when does the paid employee,... tell the employer ... what to do with their property?"

Unions?

Re:Since when....

[Rakarra]

You pay for a concert, but that does not make you the employer, any more than buying an item at a convenience store means you "employ" the shopkeeper, nor does paying taxes mean you can order around the guys fixing potholes.

Liability?

[trawg]

Are they accepting liability if my phone gets stolen? What if someone takes the phone while it's in their possession, hacks it, and steals all my data?

I suspect in their T&Cs they provide no guarantees about any of this - probably quite the opposite. Seems like a lot of fucking around that will just punish the vast majority of legit users and not do anything to stop those that really want to break the rules.

What do we call the analog version of DRM?

Re:Liability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the summary again. The answer lies within.

Re:Liability?

[bickerdyke]

Your phone is never in their possession. It's always in your possession, but in a locked bag. (taht will be unlocked remotely after the show)

This guy is NOT a live music fan

[hyades1]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."

If you don't want to see the artist's performance enough to abide by their wishes and see it live rather than filtered through your smart phone, then stay home. Those of us attending the concert will be quite happy not to put up with the jostling, distracting light from your device's display, and the general assholery of a self-entitled little prick who believes he has some kind of divine right to be accommodated.

Re:This guy is NOT a live music fan

[Anonymous Coward]

Preach man. I just can't believe people are up in arms about this. 70s - 2008's - no one or not many had cell phones that would have the capacity to record live shows and everyone made it out okay. Yet today, it is a right to have your phone? Gesh, just a bunch of addicts. Quite making excuses, stay home then. Everyone who wants to go to watch it will be much happier if you did stay home with your precious cell phone.

Give Out an Official Recording

[wisnoskij]

In this day and age, with cheap cameras and practically free storage, performers should record everything, and they should give out the recordings to their audiences. Every joke Dave Chappelle ever makes is going to be on YouTube, their is nothing he can do about that. If he is unwilling for the public to hear something he says, then he probably should not say it in front of an audience of several hundred.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. Even if recorded content is protected by ticket code or smth it should be available to original viewer.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[i.r.id10t]

This day and age? Hell, the Grateful Dead did it for DECADES ... and yet, they always seemed to sell tickets to the next show.

Why, you can even go and download high bitrate MP3s of shows, often recorded directly from the sound board. Here ya go - only 11000 recordings... https://archive.org/details/Gr...

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[geekmux]

In this day and age, with cheap cameras and practically free storage, performers should record everything, and they should give out the recordings to their audiences. Every joke Dave Chappelle ever makes is going to be on YouTube, their is nothing he can do about that. If he is unwilling for the public to hear something he says, then he probably should not say it in front of an audience of several hundred.

You watch an entertainer. You listen to a comedian.

BIG difference between the two when it comes to profitability after new material has been leaked.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

This day and age? Hell, the Grateful Dead did it for DECADES ... and yet, they always seemed to sell tickets to the next show.

Why, you can even go and download high bitrate MP3s of shows, often recorded directly from the sound board. Here ya go - only 11000 recordings... https://archive.org/details/Gr...

Many of those recordings (definitely all the audience ones) aren't recorded by the band, but by tapers in the audience. Which, yes, the Grateful Dead did allow. (I don't know whether they had special taper tickets, to ensure that taper rigs didn't disrupt nearby audience, and be disrupted by that audience.)

That said, Phish does give out a free recording to everyone with a ticket, while still also allowing tapers, and still selling recordings. The model seems to work well enough for them.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch an entertainer. You listen to a comedian.

A comedian is an entertainer. And unless you're dusting off some old Bill Cosby records, you're probably both listening to and watching comedians.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[geekmux]

You watch an entertainer. You listen to a comedian.

A comedian is an entertainer. And unless you're dusting off some old Bill Cosby records, you're probably both listening to and watching comedians.

Your point is made, but mine still stands, as I grew up becoming a fan of comedy by listening to them. And it's quite easy to be a fan of comedy with only your ears, which bootleg recordings increases the risk for the artist. Not so much for Hollywood entertainers who tend to rake it in regardless of bootlegs.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, on the one hand, yes.

On the other hand, when a comedian _knows_ that every joke he's trying out (and every gaffe he makes) potentially has a _global_ audience (of which a _very_ vocal minority is just _itching_ to take offense and harvest a scalp), he's likely to be more cautious and less ambitious with what he attempts publicly.

Chilling effects happen in all sorts of situations.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[coughfeeman]

I think the Grateful Dead should be considered an exception because it's widely known that a properly attended Dead concert is one you can't remember.

These authorized recordings were a way to constantly reassure their fans that "yeah man, that really did happen."

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dead even had dedicated recording areas at some shows. However, the difference is that none of these recordings in any way impinged on the experience of watching the show. The tapers were in a great location, near the sound board, recording audio. They did not have bright screens showing a 4" version of the show, held overhead where they blocked the views of those behind them.

I'm not against anybody recording the show. I am against having my enjoyment of the show destroyed by a sea of unfocused light blobs blocking my view of the artists I paid to see.

I love going back and listening to the one Dead show I managed to see. It's awesome. But I was also able to enjoy the show at the time, because nobody was blocking it. Unlike the last few shows I've been too, where I can barely see the stage due to overhead iPads.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[wisnoskij]

This is about more than just, "am I negatively effected by other recorders". I think the biggest issue here is, "is watching the show through your tablet as you record as entertaining as just watching the show"? I think the answer is absolutely no. The biggest reason to figure out some way to get people to put down their phones is to get them to actually watch and enjoy the show.

Re:Give Out an Official Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more a testament to the unique draw of a Grateful Dead show than it is to the practice of releasing recordings.

This is why we can't have nice things

[zerofoo]

I've never used my phone during a movie or concert, but I'll be damned if the performer I'm paying to see will force me to part with my property for their convenience.

The primary reason I carry a mobile device is for safety and security. I'm not giving that up because others can't control themselves.

I guess if the performer doesn't trust me with my mobile device, then they really don't want my money that badly.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so your phone can only make and receive phone calls, right? You don't use it for anything else? You are lying.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[ChoGGi]

It goes in a neoprene pouch which you then hold on to, you don't part with anything.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm about to go into some extremely technical speech, so I apologize if this gets a little hard to follow, but I'll try to go slow so you can keep up:

Large structures, like concert halls and movie theaters, have these things call "landlines".

A "landline" is a cell phone that's physically tied to the structure itself.

Some structures will even have MULTIPLE landlines.

A landline does, admittedly, require a person to operate it, however, large venues often have groups of people called "staff".

It's often in the best interest of these "staff" to contact the emergency services using a "landline" in the event of an incident.

This service is not costly, either! Often "staff" will be more than happy to call people for you FOR FREE!

What's more, these "landlines" can not only make calls but receive them, as well - if you find the "landline" number for a venue (this may be extremely difficult for you, but try google!) you can give the number to important contacts to call in the event that you are needed. "Staff" may even have a public address system that they can use to announce the call to you no matter where you are in the building, isn't technology amazing?

So you see, your "safety and security" isn't really jeopardized at all! There's really no need to thank me for helping you overcome this difficult problem, I'm just glad I can offer my knowledge to someone in need of it.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I saw Rob Zombie it was still White Zombie and the pit was so huge you would have quickly lost anything you were trying to hold in your hands.

Self-entitlement & narcissism...

[XxtraLarGe]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."

I'd bet this "live-music fan" is a Bernie Bro. I think current copyright laws are way out of line--both in terms of length & amount charged per violation--but at the same time, I believe you have to respect the wishes of the property owners & the artists. Nobody has the right to other people's work beyond what was agreed upon when you purchased the ticket, just because they want to post on Facebook to show all of their friends that they were at an event.

Re:Self-entitlement & narcissism...

[HBI]

The wishes of the performer are bullshit, they are showing themselves to the public and getting filmed. Boo hoo. I don't owe them a revenue stream above and beyond what I paid to see them. If Chappelle wants to have stormtroopers locking up cellphones, well, I wasn't going to go see that lame ass anyway.

On a different note, I took my wife three times over the past few years to see John Prine, the folk singer. Prine doesn't give two shits who films him. I watched him sing. She got out her cellphone and went up to the edge of the stage and filmed him playing Angel from Montgomery and a couple other tunes. She wanted to remember the night that she saw him before he croaks.

Re:Self-entitlement & narcissism...

[XxtraLarGe]

The wishes of the performer are bullshit, they are showing themselves to the public and getting filmed. Boo hoo. I don't owe them a revenue stream above and beyond what I paid to see them.

If they're performing at a park where nobody has to pay, it's public. If they're performing at a private venue where you had to pay, it's not public. No, you don't, but you do have a contractual obligation if you purchased tickets and were notified about the requirements at the time of purchase.

If Chappelle wants to have stormtroopers locking up cellphones, well, I wasn't going to go see that lame ass anyway.

Your prerogative. I wouldn't go to see him, but simply because I don't really care for his work.

On a different note, I took my wife three times over the past few years to see John Prine, the folk singer. Prine doesn't give two shits who films him. I watched him sing. She got out her cellphone and went up to the edge of the stage and filmed him playing Angel from Montgomery and a couple other tunes. She wanted to remember the night that she saw him before he croaks.

I don't have any problem with any artist allowing people to record them. If John Prine wants to let his audience record him, more power to him! Aside from your inability to identify public and private venues, I don't see how what you wrote counters what I wrote.

Re:Self-entitlement & narcissism...

[HBI]

There is nothing private about an arena or large theater. If I were filming him in his house, he'd have a complaint.

Re:Self-entitlement & narcissism...

[XxtraLarGe]

There is nothing private about an arena or large theater.

Unless the arena or theater is owned by the local, state or federal government, it is indeed private. You seem to be engaging in some kind of equivocation where you're substituting private in a personal sense as opposed to private in a property sense.

Easy way to deal with this.

[dcavanaugh]

Vote "No" by avoiding venues that use this stuff.

Re:Phone can no longer dial 911

[Anonymous Coward]

Worm.

I can do better.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a phone, computer or internet. Hell, I don't even know how to read or write!

Re:I can do better.

[I'm New Around Here]

Oh shit, we're fucked now. Hillary found out how to use her powers of ESP to go online.

Because Dave Chappelle will kill you with a gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't believe this comment got voted Insightful

pretty simple

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't go to see these people; I can live without them very easily!

Too few good live entertainers

[sjbe]

Artists that are exceptional live entertainers do not have to worry about this. No jerky phone recording can do the real thing justice.

Agreed but that describes relatively few performers in my experience. Particularly among the flavor of the day pop acts. Some well known bands are absolutely terrible in person. Some like Rod Stewart are inexplicably popular despite a profound lack of singing ability. The Beach Boys were renowned for using hired hands in the studio (others did too) and I can confirm with my own eyes and ears that they were not a great live band. Any performer that has to use auto-tune or lip-syncs is a waste of money.

I don't really understand the point of trying to record a whole or even substantial portion of a concert with a shitty smartphone camera. Especially given that it isn't likely to be watched by anyone ever again.

Re:Too few good live entertainers

[Curunir_wolf]

Particularly among the flavor of the day pop acts.

Well, yea. That's the thing: those guys are just touring as a way to sell records (or Spotify hits or iTunes downloads or whatever), and that's how they make money. So putting on a good show is not something they put any effort into. They're just making an appearance to sell recordings.

There are plenty of great artists out there that don't really make a lot on recordings, they make money putting on quality shows for the audience, typically doing stuff that doesn't even translate well to their recordings. If you're interested in see live acts, it's those artists you should be supporting.

Re:Too few good live entertainers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the other Beach Boys' contribution to Pet Sounds essentially just laying vocals over tracks Brian Wilson, The Wrecking Crew and other session musicians had created?

(I say "just"; when in fact that sounds overly demeaning and minimising of their singing skills, and is as much of a contribution as many singers make on "their" records. At the same time, The Beach Boys *were* a full, instrument-playing band, and it would probably be fair to assume- or expect- that they were playing at least some of the instrumentation on their own songs).

Re:Too few good live entertainers

[Anonymous Coward]

But now that it is on the internet, it can never go away (unless you live in a country that forces the likes of Google to remove it at gunpoint).

Just don't.

[DriveDog]

Don't agree to it. Walk away. Convince your friends not to. A wedding? Really? How about just announcing that the bride and groom don't want people holding up their phones. Then it'll be obvious who really respects them.

Re:Just don't.

[SecurityGuy]

It's a trade off, but honestly one I'd be happy to take. I definitely snap a few pictures at concerts I go to. I have one friend on Facebook who follows a band somewhat obsessively and watches all of their shows via periscope. In other words, through some ass holding his phone up in the air blocking the view of people who are physically present.

Would I give up the ability to take a couple pictures in exchange for not having people in front of me block the view/blind me with their phones (because they never seem to realize they have brightness settings)? Sure.

Re:Just don't.

[GrumpySteen]

Actually, at a wedding is probably the most appropriate us for this sort of technology out of all of the types of events listed.

Almost every wedding will have a professional photographer trying to get really good shots... and almost every wedding will have some dumbass who picks an important moment to step out in front of that photographer in order to a shitty cell phone photo. Some people are just that clueless (and no... "don't invite them to the wedding" doesn't work because psychic powers aren't real and there's no way to know who is going to be stupid during the wedding).

Re:Just don't.

[Githaron]

Unfortunately, some people are just too dense for that. My cousin had a big sign up at her wedding that asked for everyone not to have their phones out during the wedding ceremony. Among other things, she was worried that people were going to just get in the way of the professional photographers and videographers. Guess what, some people took their phones out recording and got in the way of the professional photographers and videographers. My cousin was pissed.

Yeah, no.

[clonehappy]

Try and deprive me of my personal property, for any legnth of time, because you're a whiny, self-serving little sniveling Hollywood scumbag and see how much money you continue to get out of me. I would walk away in a heartbeat and make sure everyone I know is aware of what a piece of shit you are.

"Everyone in the world should be recorded to make sure they don't say or do anything that constitutes wrong-think." "Except me, I'm special..."

Yep, go fuck yourself.

Re:Yeah, no.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I think it would be best for everyone if you just stayed at home, with your anger issues.

Re:Yeah, no.

[clonehappy]

Nah, no chance. I'm so sick and tired of these so-called "stars" and their ilk thinking they can dictate reality to the rest of the world. We pay their fucking salaries and they tell us how much better they are than us. All of Hollywood and the mass media can fuck straight off.

Re:Yeah, no.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

In that case, I think everyone would prefer if you would just stay at home at interact with no one.

Re:Yeah, no.

[clonehappy]

You sound like a broken record. You aren't the kind of person I'd interact with, anyway.

Such entitlement...

[QuietLagoon]

..."If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."...

The performer does want the music heard, the performer does not want the music recorded. See the difference?

.
The solution to this is simple. If you are unable or unwilling to enjoy the performance under the guidelines set by the performer, then do not go to the performance.

See how simple that is.

Re:Such entitlement...

[mark-t]

The performer does want the music heard, the performer does not want the music recorded.

Then the performer asks people to not record. How hard is that? Heck, it's what they do at movie theatres... if you are caught using it to record, you get kicked out and may even have criminal charges filed in the bargain. Pretty steep costs that tend to discourage all but the people with the most sincere intent to do something that they know perfectly well they aren't supposed to be doing in the first place. Such people are not, in general, likely to respect a performer enough to pay to see a live performance of that person in the first place.

Re:Such entitlement...

[QuietLagoon]

Then the performer asks people to not record. How hard is that? Heck, it's what they do at movie theatres.

Recording at the movie theater is more obvious because the recording device needs to have line of sight to the screen. No such requirement to record audio at a concert.

.
Once again I'll say, if you don't like the policy, don't go to the performance.

Paris?

[Anonymous Coward]

No really, how much did this slashvertisement cost?
I really don't see this taking off after the Paris shootings at the Eagles of Death gig.

I totally get that they don't want to see a sea of phones, or have their stuff uploaded, but denying the essential communications device of the modern age is not the way to go.

Ah, memories.

[Pascoea]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory,"

Really? I know people say this shit, but do they REALLY mean it? I'm a tech guy, I love my smart phone, and my cloud storage, and everything else as much as the next guy. I have been "guilty" of snapping a picture at a concert, but that's not how I remember the concert. Do people actually go through their phones to reminisce and re-watch the inaudible, grainy, shitty video they shot from 50 rows back at the Katy Perry concert? Need a memory, take your picture, then put your god damn phone down. There are people behind you watching a concert. (And then get off my lawn)

Re:Ah, memories.

[Nemyst]

Nah, they're usually taking that video and posting it on Facebook, expecting a few friends to answer (probably without even watching the clip) and then forgetting about it completely. People rarely look at pictures and videos they've taken, especially when taken with a phone.

People can't see past their hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it." - one live-music fan

"If you don't want to put away you phone don't go to a show where it's required."

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[BlueKitties]

Any great performer knows the show is never about them, it's about the audience.

Post Modern art rung true in light of War Time propaganda, Beethtoven composed his art to be comprehensible to the widest of audiences, Show Boat reflected interpersonal racial dynamics in southern states. Art reflects through an individual by shared experiences. The critical mistake here is that the person behind the lens has reached for their phone because of an accumulation of personal desires, say by a deep urge to appear digitally relevant, or to feel socially desirable by their peers. An artist knows how to relate to the times, not stamp their feet.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[Anonymous Coward]

He got his money. They're the immature brats who think they're entitled to his performance.

Then he'd better be willing to give that money back. They paid. They are at that point entitled to his performance.

Prohibit in advance or not at all

[sjbe]

I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.

Curious argument. You want to enjoy the performance on your terms while denying others the right to do the same. The idiot holding the smartphone could make exactly the same argument in reverse and it would be equally valid. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that trying to record a concert with an iPad is an idiotic thing to do and can definitely reduce the enjoyment for others. But if the folks producing the concert don't prohibit that behavior it's kind of hard to argue that they are ruining the experience because that IS what they want from the experience. The fact that you or I don't like what they are doing is kind of irrelevant.

I have no problem with the concert requesting *in advance* that people leave their recording devices at home. But if they don't prohibit it then they are effectively giving it the go ahead and those of us who don't like it become the self entitled douche-bags for complaining about what we knew in advance was likely to happen.

It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.

Far be it from me to defend someone using a smartphone to make a shitty recording but to be honest that is the least of the annoyances at a lot of concerts. I find it far less annoying than the smelly drunks that seem to find their way to near my seat or the concerts that are played loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss or the concerts where performers lip sync or otherwise try to hide their lack of musical talent.

Re:Prohibit in advance or not at all

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they don't prohibit it then they are effectively giving it the go ahead and those of us who don't like it become the self entitled douche-bags for complaining about what we knew in advance was likely to happen.

Exactly. They should also remind people not to steal merchandise from the vendors before you buy the tickets. Otherwise they can expect the audience to think everything in the venue is free!

Re:Prohibit in advance or not at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference is, the guy without the phone isn't negatively affecting anyone else's experience.

baby sitter

[Anonymous Coward]

My issue with locking up the phone is that I have a young child. For me to go to a movie or similar even, I must leave him with child care. My phone is my providers contact with me should there be an emergency. I set my phone to vibrate and it sits on my leg, where I can feel it vibrate. That way I don't have to look at the screen. If I can not have the emergency contact ability, then I will not go to that event.

Re:baby sitter

[Ash-Fox]

I have a young child.

Fortunately, you won't have a young child forever.

If I can not have the emergency contact ability, then I will not go to that event.

You are a good parent, please continue being one.

Sigh

[ledow]

Just another performer that I wouldn't go and see live then.

Sorry, but recording devices are not new.

Interruptions from the audience are not new.

Why we feel the need to act on them now that copyright law is VASTLY in favour of the artists, whereas before it wasn't, I can't fathom. But that also seems to be the trigger for this kind of reaction.

If you want me to effectively cripple my phone, something that stays with me all the time EVEN THOUGH I WORK IN SCHOOLS, then we're going to clash heads. I either won't come and see you perform, or I have to jump through a specific, special, nuisance every time I want to do so. Like a form of DRM on a live performance. That will affect my enjoyment, and the rate I'd be willing to pay for that performance.

There's a time and a place for smartphones. I happily agree with you throwing out ANYONE whose phone goes off at a classical concert, for instance. No problem at all. Their own fault for failing to manage their device when they were given the opportunity to voluntarily manage their device.

Even chicken-wire cages around the venue, or whatever. Fine. But to demand I start putting useful items in little bags, you're just trying to be like the TSA and other places who are overstepping their remit under the name of something else (terrorism, etc.). And do you demand the same of, say, a smartwatch?

I can get a mobile phone with camera and wireless and bluetooth that's the size and thickness of a credit card. Literally, now, on Amazon, for 30 GBP. You can't police that kind of thing. And you're at a large venue with people who've paid to see you and you object to them immortalising that special performance?

Wholesale copyright infringement is an entirely different problem. Taking people's phones away doesn't solve that either.

But the problem of "how can I convince an audience that they want to pay money to come and see me?" That's a difficult enough prospect as it is without adding obstacles for yourself.

If I ever did want to go to such a thing, and there was a warning on booking that this was required, I'd cancel. If I turned up and this was an ad-hoc policy, not notified and only implemented on the door? We're going to have an argument and I'm going to seek a refund for more than just my ticket and time wasted.

Re:Phone can no longer dial 911

[Anonymous Coward]

Or another Bataclan.

The other stupid thing is that the phone can still receive calls, so if haven't turned on vibrate the thing is going to ring until you get out of the area to unlock it.

Only Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! This doesn't effect me. Disposable cameras for the win!

Also, won't alarms and ringing be annoying when people can't access their phones to turn it off? Or is the music too loud to hear a phone in your pocket.

This

[Anonymous Coward]

The sense of entitlement and disconnection contained in thus statement pretty much sums it up: "In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it." Make your own music then, genius. There is something very wrong with this generation. :/

Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[sjbe]

Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales. If money was not an issue, most of these performers would not mind cameras. But they have to make a living... so no cameras, no piracy.

Nonsense argument. The Grateful Dead was a band that allowed recordings of their concerts and it didn't affect attendance one bit as far as anyone can tell. They cultivated a genuine relationship with their fans unlike too many of the overly entitled "artists" we see today. If a crappy cell phone recording of your concert makes people want to go less then you probably weren't selling anything worth attending in the first place. A good concert cannot remotely be replicated by a shaky video taken on an iPad. I think a lot of performers are trying to hide behind this stuff to cover their lack of actual ability and the poor value for money of their concerts.

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[i.r.id10t]

Posted similar elsewhere already, but I'll second this. Often high quality recording straight off the sound board. And still available free online today via archive.org. Almost 11000 recordings...

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Grateful Dead couldn't remember their performances, either..

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[Gibgezr]

Of course, there is one big difference between a jam-band like the Grateful Dead and most other acts: every show is somewhat different from the others. It's like good jazz bands; they improvise all night long. Every show is fairly unique.

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[martinX]

Their fans just wanted a venue to get blazed without being hassled. And as for seeing them multiple times, well what can I say? Stoners.
"Hey dude, The Dead are playing next month over at the venue."

"Awesome. But didn't we see them last year?"

"Dunno. Whatever. Let's go. They'll be awesome!"

Good times.

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[HornWumpus]

On the one hand, every show was unique. On the other, they really only had one song, it just went on for hours.

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is nonsense. The Grateful Dead were an exception....most band don't have an army of fans willing to follow them from show to show. The Dead did. They were also 'prisoners' in a way to their taping policy....imagine the horrible PR a 'hippie' band would get banning it? The financial hit would be horrendous so even if the Dead wanted to stop fans recording, they were powerless to do so. And just as arguments can be made that their policy didn't hurt their TICKET sales, an equal argument can be made that it did indeed hurt the sales of their official live albums. If you have a soundboard of a show, what is the point of buying a live album? Also, the Dead never faced VIDEO recording....that was tightly controlled because they would regularly make movies of their concerts, and so back then if you wanted to SEE them live, you either had to pay for a ticket to see them live or pay for a movie theatre ticket to see a movie of it.

BTW, the Dead would even NOW still be taking financial hits from their policy....if you can get a SBD of every show they did in '72 in lossless format for free, then why would you ever buy "Europe 72" (which is one of the best live albums I've ever heard)?

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dead, Phish, and other bands who encourage live recordings are exceptions to the rule. This model only works because of some specific qualities these bands have. A majority of their songs include extensive improvisation; they have a huge catelogue of music; and they don't just play in support of their most recent album. Thus, every show is totally unique. Even if you see a recording of today's show, you still want to attend tomorrow's show.

What's more, the extensive repetoire of these bands - and the phenomenon of having a few songs that they play only very rarely, along with Phish's on-stage stunts - mean that there's a certain "Pokemon mentality" to the shows. People go to every single show in a tour because they don't want to miss that song they only play once every 3 years, or because they want to be there when the "perfect setlist" is played.

Long story short: this model doesn't work for most bands, who just play the same setlist every show on a tour, with little or no improvisation.

Re:Bad bands trying to hide a lack of talent

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but a comedian's set can be ruined if you see most of the good stuff before on YouTube. I can understand why comedians are pushing back.

Fine, then don't expect me in your audience.

[m76]

I avoid any concerts or performances where they specifically say I can't take pictures.
If you want to threat me as a pirate then I'm not going to pay you money to see you. Recording for your own private use is fair use anyway. Noone is going to record the entire show from beginning to end on their phones. Only short parts, with extremely crap quality. Those videos ending up on youtube are actually advertisement for you you moron.

Bottes Timberland Pas Cher France

[zhenbenhan]

timberland Homme Quelle idée ! Hein ? On marche derrière moi. Des pas d'homme. Merde ! Et si c'était ce jeune gars ? Zut. J'suis coincée. Obligée d'aller au bout de cette rue pour rattraper le parking. Allez, pas de panique. Plus que deux cent mètres. J'ai le cur qui va exploser. Et si j'donnais juste un coup d'il rapide en arrière. Au moins, j'saurai et si c'est pas lui, j'pourrai souffler. J'ai super envie de pipi. Ça c'est la pluie. À chaque fois, qu'il pleut j'ai l'envie de pipi. Et s'il me forçait à rentrer sous un porche ? Si ça continue, avec la trouille que j'ai, j'vais pisser dans ma culotte. Bon allez, je m'arrête et j'vois s'il me double. Tiens, j'vais faire semblant de remettre ma chaussure. Mon Dieu, j'espère qu'il va passer son chemin... J'espère... Allez, un, deux, trois, je stoppe. Mon Dieu, qu'il me double... Je garde la tête baissée. Hum... Beaux mocassins et trench-coat, ça sent bon l'homme tranquille. Ouf, il a continué. Ah non, il s'est arrêté et il revient vers moi.

Blame yourselves

[pak9rabid]

You millennials have nobody to blame but your own narcissistic asses for this.

Re:Blame yourselves

[Aaden42]

How exactly are Millennials to blame? Phones don't bother us. We have nobody to blame but old fashioned, can't adapt to the evolution of socialization & technology Boomers & Gen-X'ers.

Re:Blame yourselves

[noldrin]

I went to a concert lately and the 50+ year old were far worse. They were constantly snapping pictures and texting them out to there friends.

Re:Blame yourselves

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Don't forget the whole "getting pissing drunk, thinking they own the place and start groping everyone in sight".

The baby boomer men are bad, but the women are even worse. Shut the fuck up lady, and stop grabbing my ass and getting all up in my face with your ass-old tits, while joking with your equally drunk girlfriends.

Re:Blame yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. As if boomers and gen-xers wouldn't have done the same thing had the technology been there.

Re:Blame yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

You Baby Boomers always like to lump the behavior of some assholes to an entire generation. Get the irony?

Now I will kindly get off your lawn.

Re:Blame yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

By age, I'm a millennial. I turn off my phone in these kinds of venues. I mostly use it to call or text, take the odd picture to document something for work, and occasionally check e-mail when away from a desktop computer. I'm not on social media.

Sponsors

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Yondr sponsors are ISIS, Al Qaeda, Talibans and similar :v

Re:Hitler would have loved this

[Calydor]

Yeah, Hitler really hated all those cell phones recording his speeches prior to starting World War II.

Video tape?

[FaxeTheCat]

>But some fans object to not being able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape..."

So they copy the shows from their phones over to video tape?

How interesting...

Re:Video tape?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody hipsters. They'll even transcribe the audio to 8-track for shits and giggles.

Violence

[sjbe]

I don't go to concerts to hear the lyrics. I go to concerts to knock people over in the pit while the music is played.

Sounds like you need counseling rather than a concert. If you really need to go hit people I can suggest a few sports like boxing or MMA. You can even play music while you do it.

Re:Violence

[drinkypoo]

Sounds like you need counseling rather than a concert.

Sounds like you're a wimp who wouldn't last five minutes in a pit. That's OK, but don't pretend it makes you superior. It doesn't. It makes you fragile.

Re:Violence

[SvnLyrBrto]

I outgrew the mosh pit many years ago myself. But to categorize it as violence worthy of counseling is hyperbole to the point of absurdity. It's very... enthusiastic... and definitely full-contact. But it's not about violence any more than rugby or hockey is. There's actually a lot more order and custom to it than is apparent to the unfamiliar observer. And people who actually go in to fight are put in check and shown the door fairly quickly.

Re:Violence

[HornWumpus]

It's just a tribe thing.

Likely a god damn 'noodle dancer'. Fucking Hippie. Shakes fist at GP.

Time for a fake phone...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to carry a fake phone to have locked up, and then to pull out the real one eh?

Great news for Samsung

[Plumpaquatsch]

Now they can sell all their smartwatches with the in-build camera to people who want to go see and record Dave Chappele live. That should seriously boost their sales.

RIGHTS, and contract law, and prior designation

[gavron]

This is already spiraling... so pardon me for going on a tangent.

If it says on the TICKET THAT I PURCHASE that I'll be required to surrender/bag my cellphone then that's fine. I can choose to go or not go.

If it does not say so and I show up, the ITEMS ON MY PERSON are NOT SUBJECT TO SEARCH OR SEIZURE by agents of the government (4th am) or private parties without my agreement.

If they'll play fair (say so ahead of time) ... I'm fine with this. People who are willing to give up their rights are always happy and welcome to be the sheeple they are to go see awesome shows (Dave Chapelle, etc.). I'd rather keep my phone (silent, screen off, thanks).

E

Re:RIGHTS, and contract law, and prior designation

[Nemyst]

Much as I'm fine with people not willing to go through these motions, you aren't being "sheeple" or "giving up your rights" by doing this. That's ridiculous. You don't have a right to a cellphone, let alone the right to use it in a private property during an artistic performance. This wouldn't be a thing if people weren't being obnoxious with their phones during shows. It's just a bag, you still have your phone on you, you just can't use it during the show (which is basically enforcing with a technical solution what people should naturally do of their own volition, but don't).

Re:RIGHTS, and contract law, and prior designation

[gavron]

> You don't have a right to a cellphone...

Yeah, you do.

You have a right to have a wallet/purse, right?
You have a right to belt/buckle, shoes, etc., right?

Don't make up things because you want to be argumentative. Cite some law.

What is on your person is your right unless lawfully prohibited (such as firearms when lawfully prohibited).

Cellphones unless lawfully prohibited* are allowed.

E
* Lawfully prohibited means prohibited by LAW, not because some halfwit said "NO you can't bring that in here!" If posted that's half the part. If prior informed to the ticket purchaser that's enough for me... but still not law.

Simple,

[Anonymous Coward]

bring two phones.

Razorblade defeats it.

[Nyder]

Scissors, razor blade, and knife are a few objects that can defeat this. Do it at the bottom of it and no one needs to know it was damage when you turn it in. But hey, security theater needs money also.

Re:Razorblade defeats it.

[Nemyst]

"Security theater"? Do you even understand the purpose of those things? They're a deterrent so people don't put their phones way up recording shit and distracting everyone. There's no implication of security what so ever. If you're willing to destroy those bags to take pictures, then you're crazy. Just don't go to those shows.

Re:Razorblade defeats it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just destroy the bag. I'm sorry, I'm not having my phone locked up, whether I go to a show or not. They're not going to be looking at the bags that closely, and you're doing the next person to get that bag a favor too.

Re:Razorblade defeats it.

[lhowaf]

Wouldn't plastic scissors (like they use in kindergarten) pass through a metal-detector?

Re:Razorblade defeats it.

[unrtst]

I've been looking for a comment like this through a LONG list of shitty reactionary comments.
This is just a neoprene bag with what appears to be a lock like they put on clothes to prevent them from getting stolen. Since I don't get two shits about their bag, why wouldn't I just cut it open and throw it out? Walk out at the end with my phone and, if they ask, say they missed it when I went in. If they're holding something hostage in return for the bag (my credit card, or just the number so they can charge me), then that's a separate and, IMO, bigger problem. I don't want to be responsible for their bag.

That said, I'm REALLY missing the comments about how one can circumvent these bags. In the slashdot of old, that would have been in the first couple comments, if not a link to a page documenting it in the summary.

Tinfoil hat?

[Aaden42]

According to Yondr's site, "simply step outside of the phone-free zone to unlock the case." Almost sounds like it's an active locking technology or a signal you pass through when you enter/leave. Stick their stupid sock in some kind of radio shielding to block the locking signal.

Failing that, seems like an Arduino & an SDR shield should be more than capable of broadcasting the unlock code. Anybody working on reversing this mess?

Re:Tinfoil hat?

[quietwalker]

Pretty sure the description indicated that it's a locking mechanism similar to that in clothing stores. You have a plastic chit with a magnet in the right place, slide it over the 'locking disc' and it slides off. Obviously the 'phone-free zone' would have ushers or whomever at it's borders, applying and removing the 'yondr' case, in the same way they might hand out and collect 3-d glasses at a movie theater. Why have a complex, error-prone technical solution when a manual solution is cheaper, easier, and more reliable?

Re:Tinfoil hat?

[DarkVader]

It would be interesting to know the details. If it's as simple as a magnet, you could carry one with you to your next concert that uses these, and unlock everybody's phone around you too as a public service.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he did good to me. Good on people that care.

Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[sjbe]

Sounds like you're a wimp who wouldn't last five minutes in a pit.

Wimp huh? Ok Mr Internet Tough Guy. We will all pretend for you that a mosh pit is something other than a pathetic effort to compensate for a lack of sizeable genitalia by people with serious social issues.

If you think that somehow proves that you are actually tough you've told us everything we need to know about your lack of self confidence. Here's a hint. People that actually are tough don't need to brag about it or try to call other people wimps. When you actually are serious about proving you are a tough guy let me know and I'll introduce you to some people who really know what that means and can help you figure out just how tough you really are.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Don't worry about him, he's one of those macho assholes who thinks a mosh pit is all about beating other people up or knocking them over.

Around here, he would be very firmly and sternly shown to the exit and told not to come back, or else.

The pit is for bouncing around off of each other, maybe getting a few bruises, but all in good fun. NOT for deliberately trying to hurt other people.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

Don't worry about him, he's one of those macho assholes who thinks a mosh pit is all about beating other people up or knocking them over.

You have no idea who or what I am. I'm the guy who charges in between two barrel-shaped skinheads fighting in the middle of the pit, or the guy who holds the pit back (yes, the whole fucking pit, son) at Bad Religion so the poor little girl can get her shoe.

Around here, he would be very firmly and sternly shown to the exit and told not to come back, or else.

Around here, you can suck my balls.

The pit is for bouncing around off of each other, maybe getting a few bruises, but all in good fun. NOT for deliberately trying to hurt other people.

There are many kinds of pits. Some of the bands I don't like because they're thrashy or whatever have way more violent pits than you have clearly ever even imagined. While I was sending people flying every fucking direction during the Tool show in San Antonio, tons of people just wanted to come up and shake my hand in between every song because I was both dominating everything and also not stepping on people or trying to hurt them. People don't come up smiling and shake your hand because you're a problem.

In summary, suck my fucking balls.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I reminded of why one shouldn't wrestle with the pigs?

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

Why am I reminded of why one shouldn't wrestle with the pigs?

If one doesn't want to get covered in mud, one shouldn't wrestle with pigs. Is that where you're going with this? I think that's perfect, because playing in the mud is fun. At some point, you just have to wash it off. Say, before bed.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

You have no idea who or what I am.

And I could say the exact same thing.

But unlike you, I don't have to get violent to feel like a man.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

But unlike you, I don't have to get violent to feel like a man.

No, you just have to talk ignorant, hypocritical bollocks about internet bravery by spouting ignorant shit that you would never say to someone's (anyone's) face. But there's only one me. And guess what? This is not about feeling like a man, because what does a man feel like, anyway? This is about so what? it's your problem, so learn to live with, destroy us, or make us saints. This is about quality or quantity, a choice you have to make. This is about music that moves people. Sometimes, it moves them around in a circle. That you're afraid of a mosh pit is immediately evident. Go back to your kiddie pogo pits, and leave those of us who mosh consensually alone.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

When you actually are serious about proving you are a tough guy let me know and I'll introduce you to some people who really know what that means and can help you figure out just how tough you really are.

I mistakenly re-read this and now I'm wondering why you actually wrote this. Are you actually proposing that you're going to prove how tough you are by... calling your mom, or whatever you have planned? Because the only point of you asserting that I'm not tough (why don't you try being kicked in the head by crowd surfers and elbowed in the balls by miniature skinheads for a couple hours, me laddo? I'm two meters tall so everyone is at nutsack height) is to make yourself feel more tough. I didn't mention mosh pits to show that I was tough (although if you're offering to call someone to show me how tough I am, and not to do it yourself, what does that say?) but instead to point out that the reason I'm going to go to a show is for audience participation. It's because it's an experience. Part of the experience for me is knocking over dickweeds who think they're tough guys and come at me with fists and elbows.

You can get all upset about my supposedly violent proclivities when I'm not confining my violent behavior to socially acceptable situations. Until then, you can still get all upset, but you're just a wimpy little whiner who can't handle the fact that someone else lives differently from you. You being wimpy and whiny doesn't make me more violent, or reflect on me in any way. It just makes your complaints more petulant than anything else. You don't have to get butt-hurt because you're not tough. Just stay out of the pit, and you'll be fine. Not all activities are for all people. I'm not doing any ballet. There's lots of people a lot tougher than me. I'm not doing any combat sports. This is not a dick-waving contest. If it were, and I wanted to participate, I'd just post a pic of my cock on a ruler.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

It's abundantly clear that you have no idea who I am or what I do in my spare time, and how I participate in concerts.

Your assumptions about my person are laughable at best, and it only further cements your obvious desperate attempts at appearing like a 'tough guy' online.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

It's abundantly clear that you have no idea who I am or what I do in my spare time, and how I participate in concerts.

Your comments made it clear that you cannot handle a real pit.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Well, that misconception is 100% on you.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[drinkypoo]

Well, that misconception is 100% on you.

You apparently don't even have them where you are, by your own words, so how could you know what to do with one? Make up your fucking mind. Either the so-called pits you are in are "[...]for bouncing around off of each other, maybe getting a few bruises, but all in good fun. NOT for deliberately trying to hurt other people." and you don't know what a real pit is, or you're lying through your stupid face. There are always people in anything more advanced than a Nirvana fans' pogo pit that are trying to hurt you, and they practically never get ejected for it. My balls know the truth of the elbows of the small. And the back of their heads know the truth of the elbows of the large, but only after they hit me in the nuts once or twice with their bony fucking elbows.

Now, make up your fucking mind. Are your pits happy nice-nice places for children, or do you know what a real pit is like? Because from where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem like you've even been in one.

Re:Tough isn't found in a mosh pit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Again with the utter misconceptions and feeble attempts at machismo.

Plenty of pits 'round here. But you seem to misunderstand the whole point of a pit. You're out to hurt people, you have malicious intent. Proper pits are for getting physical with other people, not against them.

You probably think crowd-killing and spitting are A-OK at concerts, too. If you want to fight, just admit it outright, instead of trying to dress it up.

I wonder who will go broke first...

[Nunya666]

Who will go broke first - the performers or the venues?

So when I arrive an hour early to make sure that I'm not late because of traffic or the crowds, I can't pass the time until the event starts by playing games on my phone.

And parents can't check up on their kids by sending texts.

No, thanks.

Most already charge too much money for an evening's entertainment. If the price of admission didn't keep you away, then the price of food/snacks/drinks might. Now, if the total cost doesn't keep you away, this silly rule might. In my case, it definitely will.

Sigh...Please RTFS at least.

[ravrazor]

Has no one even read the summary?
This company provides bags to lock your cellphone in, and carry it around yourself until exiting at the end of the show, when it will be unlocked. This is not a big deal in Chappelle's show, where you go to a seat, sit down and put the bag on your lap until the performance is done. It is a big deal for Chappelle himself, because if your brother goes to the show, records the performance, then plays it for your extended family at Thanksgiving, Chappelle just lost the possibility of 3-10(?) ticket sales. As opposed to you going to dinner, raving about how hilarious the show was, and 3-10(?) people deciding to buy tickets.

Concealing cameras? Make people walk through a metal detector on the way in.
Do you think you have some entitlement to carry your camera into the show? They can put a condition on the ticket. It's not your right to do anything when attending a private show that has informed you of the conditions to enter. Resell a ticket - it's called scalping, not a right because you have to work late. If you don't want to follow the rules of the show, you're not allowed in. Chances are there's already a clause that says they can eject you for any reason at any time during the show. Not to mention you're already on private property, so get kicked out and see if a court will refund you your $50.

It has nothing to do with copyright, will probably not spread to the shows of musical performers, and I thought it was a great idea when I heard it, perfectly enforceable and intelligent. You keep your phone in a reasonably durable bag, and pay $300 damages if you don't return an intact bag at the end of the show.
Well done.

Re:Sigh...Please RTFS at least.

[Opportunist]

I may not be entitled to carry my phone in, but neither are they entitled to me accepting their rules. I can simply turn around and decide that treating me like a criminal is not a good way to start a business relationship with me.

Funnier with Samsung Note 7

[wasteoid]

Funnier with Samsung Note 7

Do cell recordings actually hurt sales?

[joe_frisch]

A poor quality cell recording of a concert is nothing like the experience of actually being there. I'm not at all convinced that such recordings hurt sales, they might actually help them by acting like advertising. If a friend shows you a bouncy video of an awesome concert isn't it more likely to make you want to go to the next one?

There are some people who can't afford to go to concerts and will watch the videos instead - but the artist was never going to get money from those people anyway because they didn't have it in the first place.

Give them the finger

[Anonymous Coward]

More Performers Are Demanding Audiences Lock Up Their Phones

More performers are getting the finger and ticket sales drop sharply.

Novice YT videos

[AnalogDiehard]

Have to pipe in with a pet peeve with YouTube. Too many times when surfing for videos of a band, I click on a novice phone or palm device video from a live concert. The quality of the audio from a palm device at a live concert is atrocious and the volume is WAY TOO LOUD in my headphones. The shaky fuzzy video makes them unbearable to watch. There are a humorous few that capture a goof in performance, they are the rare exceptions.

Re:Just tell them you don't have a mobile phone on

[I'm New Around Here]

They are going to tell you to walk through the metal detector, same as everyone else. When it beeps, you can either take the phone out of your ass, or go back to your car.

To all entitled jerk faces on planet earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this even an issue? If you don't like the performers policy, DON'T GO. Nobody is forcing you to go, YOU are CHOOSING to go and AGREE to the PERFORMERS POLICY by entering.

OMG WHAT IF THERE IS EMERGENCY?!?!?! Do what people did 30 years ago, use your brain and react.

Is there a doctor in the house?

[RogueWarrior65]

Sorry, but my safety overrules your greed. If terrorists start shooting up the place and I can't call for help (because I'm not allowed defend myself), don't be surprised that I don't spend my hard-earned money on your crappy show.

Re:Is there a doctor in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes. Please piss yourself outside.

Re:Is there a doctor in the house?

[BasilBrush]

Pathetic child. You're too young to know what life is like without being glued to a phone. Even just 20 years ago most people didn't have cellphones, and it wasn't a problem.

Re:Is there a doctor in the house?

[RogueWarrior65]

Actually, I'm old enough to remember rotary phones with cords that got tangled to the point of having to dangle the handset so it would unwind properly.
Hell, I even vacationed in a place that had a party line. Technology always has a light side and a dark side. In this case, the light side is the phone is a life-saving tool (as a member of search & rescue, I can attest to that). The dark side is some dumbass recording a concert with crappy audio and mediocre (though improving) video.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[Archangel Michael]

Rob Zombie feeds off his audience, as most live performers do. His audience shouldn't be 10,000 Cameras recording from every possible angle ... unless he is doing some new form 3D performance piece. The art pieces you named weren't performance pieces per se. Paintings and compositions are for display, and as you said are for the viewer's experience, not the artists. However LIVE performances are not static pieces audiences, but rather are interactive. Rob wasn't being interactive with cellphones and iPads.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a static piece of art (composition, painting) it is why you go see a play, and not just read the script.

improved experience for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

while the benefit for Chappelle is that his shows aren't recorded the benefit for the 99% of the audience that would prefer to experience the show without some asshat holding a bright screen up in front of them is enormous as well. I more and more only go to venues that enforce their no phone policies reasonably well because I am tired of having shows ruined by a couple of people who can't just stick it in their pocket and be there in the moment.

Also in the news

[Opportunist]

Second-hand cellphone sellers report a surge in the purchase of second hand phones. "The trend is clearly towards people wanting a second phone" they say, surprised themselves by the development.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Haha, you've never actually been outside, have you? You know, to an actual live show?

You're only ever getting your money back if the show gets cancelled in advance. Once you're in the door and your ticket is scanned, the ticket has been used, your money is forfeit, the artist is 100% free to stop the show after a single song.

Don't like it? You're welcome to moan and complain to the organizers, and say you're never going to another show. In turn, they will tell you to go piss up a rope and get lost. The ticket pays for entrance, it is not a guarantee of a full show being performed.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Fuck that. You've paid to see an artist perform their material. In return, the artist expects some sort of feedback from the audience, it's a two-way thing.

The very least you can do is to be mentally present and engaged in what is happening, not staring into a screen wondering whether you've got the best angle for your crappy Facebook video.

Doesn't work

[nospam007]

Now that people know what happens, they will bring one of their old phones to lock in and take pictures with their actual one.

Re:Doesn't work

[hyades1]

There will be large, aggressive gentlemen wearing "Security" t-shirts at the concert, and annoyed people surrounding the jackasses you describe who will enthusiastically point them out. :-)

Diabetic Glucose Monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

As a diabetic I am now using my phone to test and track my blood sugar readings by scanning an NFC enabled sensor I wear on my arm. I wonder if the people who make these policies consider that sort of (fairly legitimate) use case? Personally I would be in disbelief if someone attempted to lock away my phone at an event but I assume they make the policy clear up front so you at least have a choice on whether to attend.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you're not a performer. When you're performing, you're not thinking about the money. You're thinking about the show, and the energy of the crowd. At its best, you get a high better than anything else you will ever do in your life short of skydiving or (I assume) going into space. When the crowd sucks, it will piss you off and ruin your day, even if you've been paid.

Look at it this way: You're coding for two months on a project, and you're really proud of the work that you've put in and the way the project is going. When you show it to your boss, he barely looks up from his phone to see what you've been working on, sending a clear message of "Meh." Does the fact that you've been paid make you immune to being upset that your boss doesn't value the work you're doing?

Seriousy - WHY.

[Maritz]

I do not see how anyone is ever going to sell, or otherwise profit from, a shitty distortred recording from a fucking gig/concert.

Why doesn't this get mentioned? Who the fuck is going to watch a recording from a god damn iPhone, posted to YouTube, instead of buying a record? Can anyone explain how that is supposed to work?

I wouldn't even give Glassholes the pouch

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just snap them in half and point towards the parking lot.

Utter bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."

Just don't go. They have every right to demand this.

AR will likely make this situation better

[TheDarkener]

I see both sides of this argument. Performers don't want to stare at cell phone camera lenses, they want to see and connect with their fans. You can only do that when you see the whites of their eyes. Also, all that money bullshit for some more shallow performers comes into play I'm sure. But I think the core reason is that when you're a professional, performing live in front of a room of people, no matter how big or small, it's a very intimate experience. Seeing that very literal layer of abstraction with someone simply holding up their phones at you and looking at their screens just ruins it.

I also see the side that people want to be able to see and share the performance they paid for later. In a lot of ways it should be a given that you can record something like this. Not only does it make sense nostalgically but it makes sense in a sharing, exposure kind of way. Of course, if the video is shaky and the audio sucks ass, it really does do more harm than good. Maybe venues can offer a professional shot video of the concert and give it to you afterwards? That could rake in some additional revenue as well.

Anyway, I think augmented reality will help. I believe people won't be holding up phones in a few years. They'll be wearing camera lenses on their hats, their shirts, their glasses. This will free people up to experience performances the way they were intended - with their full attention on the performer that's working so hard to make the experience unforgettable.

Re:AR will likely make this situation better

[JustNiz]

> Performers don't want to stare at cell phone camera lenses, they want to see and connect with their fans.

Who cares what they want? They are being paid by the people with the phones (usually excessively well) to perform. They need to stop being prima-donnas and suck it up.

repeat comedy/music

[Anonymous Coward]

unlike music comedy is not funnier the second time you hear it.
so once you see _any_ version of it, the magic is gone.

Based on what faulty logic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck are you to tell anyone how much they are allowed to enjoy their job?

Locked with ringer on?

[Loconut1389]

Waiting for the person who pouches it with the ringer on max and then can't turn it off while it rings and they decide whether they have enough time before it stops ringing to even push past the 50 people in the row and get to the phone-zone.

Yeah, but no reason to be a dick about it

[Anonymous Coward]

First things first - thank you. Anyone who refuses to go to a concert for that reason, is probably some sort of pretentious asshole that I don't want around me.

And second, a few years ago, I saw David Byrne and St. Vincent.

At the start of the show they VERY POLITELY requested people not use cell phones during the show. Not because they cared about recordings, or photos of their art, but because they felt the sea of cell phones impeded on others' ability to enjoy it.

I didn't see one the entire show.

It is amazing how far a little respect can get you.

Fight back

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know my show is protected" ... Protected from what, free publicity!?
In the entertainment context, this is greed, plain and simple.

People have the power here, DON'T BUY TICKETS.
I have one word for anyone willing to pay the cost ticket, venue, and parking then willingly surrender their personal information communication device... SUCKER!

What about affect on our democracy?

What if politicians start requiring these bags at speaking events?
What about local town meetings?

Not a fan of this stuff ....

[King_TJ]

Personally? I support the right of musicians, comedians, and other performers to make these sorts of demands of their audience. As soon as you buy a ticket to any show, you've agreed to all sorts of contractual obligations (as printed in the fine print on the back that few people bother to read). So this is really just one more requirement to add to the list of things you can't do (like bringing in coolers).

BUT, I'd probably refuse to pay for a show with this rule in place. I know it drives some people crazy seeing others trying to take photos or video of a live performance with their phones. But in this day and age? That's a part of the experience people are paying for. I know when my wife and I went to see Van Halen last year, for example? We both grabbed video recordings of Eddie doing his guitar solo. As far as I'm concerned, that's one of those moments of "rock history" worth preserving. How many more years left of monster guitar playing does the guy have left in him? (And for that matter, how many more times will Van Halen perform live with David Lee Roth?) For what we paid to see it, I feel like getting to take home a little piece of the concert to replay later for friends isn't too much to ask.

Yes, it's stupid trying to record a whole show. All you're going to do is waste the money you spent to see it live so you have poor quality audio and relatively poor video of it that nobody will ever sit through and watch again. But making me put my phone in a locked bag until it's all over? That's a bit much.

Re:Not a fan of this stuff ....

[Moof123]

I'd rather see a tamper proof stickers on the camera with a $100 deposit as an option. Let people take calls if they need a baby sitter to be able to get in touch, but photos or videos will cost them royally. Sensitive locations will use these stickers to protect prototypes on a regular basis and such, why not camera shy artists?

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[BlueKitties]

Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[R3d M3rcury]

This is an excellent point.

If I'm performing in front of a bunch of cameras, I'm not going to give as good a show. Then people will say, "See? Why should I spend the money to go to a live show?"

What a fucking curmudgeon.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, do you think you're better than them? Should they get off your lawn now?

Dave Chappelle? Who 'dat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather he's some sort of comedian who was once popular? Had a hit show and suddenly quit or something?

Yeah, glad I have no desire to go see him live, I guess. And if this becomes popular, then glad I'm past the point where I enjoy going to concerts.

re: Rob Zombie

[King_TJ]

IMO, he gave a better answer/explanation for his request than many musicians do who have problems with phones.

Still? That whole attitude rubs me the wrong way. I'm from the generation who listened to White Zombie when it was new, and part of what gave that music its character was all the dubbing in of clips of sound f/x and people talking in old horror movies. In other words, he has re-recording pieces of other artist's work to thank for making his own music better.

But now, he takes issue with people recording his own performance.

Rock seems like it's dead to me, NOT because of people wanting to record parts of concerts they attend -- but because the core audience is older. I went to see Disturbed and Breaking Benjamin in concert recently. There just weren't that many of the energetic, partying college students and 20-somethings in the audience. You had far more middle-aged or older folks who got more excited about Disturbed's remake of Simon & Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" than anything else. As a 40-something myself, I'm not going to scream my lungs out and go crazy jumping around at a concert anymore. Not happening when it means it'll impact my ability to do my job the next morning or other commitments. I think many of the people going to ROCK concerts today are in a similar mindset. We still love the music and want to experience it live, but we're happy to sit on the lawn drinking a beer and maybe eating a slice of pizza or a burger from the concession stand while we take it all in. If you, as a performer, need the whole audience going crazy to validate what you're doing? I can understand that, but that's going to be an ongoing challenge for you when you perform a type of music that appeals to an audience that's maturing and aging.

IM OK with this

[JustNiz]

...as long as they make it VERY clear that this is a condition, BEFORE you buy the ticket.
If its not mentioned, or buried in some post-sales small print, then they can go fuck themselves.

More performers have their head up their arse

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt I want to listen to much of the formulaic music of those corporate scum *cough* "performers" anyway.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absurd. Just make a statement that it's not allowed and anyone violating the policy will be ejected. Quit treating your audience like they're children! Seriously, were paying for the show. The performer is there for our benefit, not the other way around. That said, people in the audience need to show a little common courtesy to the people around them. This really isn't hard people.

Weddings?

[CharlieG]

I get to a wedding, and the Bride/groom asks me to do this, I'll turn around, head home, and take my gift with me

Enjoy your wedding

Re:Weddings?

[ravrazor]

Lol...and they'll cancel their wedding in sadness...

Oh wait...they won't care, will save their food and other expenses, while you sit at home and sulk. Also, they'll never talk to you again because you skipped out on their wedding like a petulant child.

Re:Weddings?

[Moof123]

From personal experience, your weeding photos suck compared to the professional photographers ones. It is probably in the newly weds best interest not to have your bad photos make it into the Facebook borg hive mind.

Re:Weddings?

[CharlieG]

Won't save a dime, as this is usually sprung on you, so they have already paid for the meal, and frankly, they folks my age are already married, so it would be their kids, and guess what, Fuck'm. If they are going to disrespect me enough to do this, I don't WANT to ever talk to them again

Re:Weddings?

[CharlieG]

First of all, 1)I won't be taking photos with my cell phone and 2)Guess what? If I am taking your wedding photos, I'm not a guest, unless I really like you. I get PAID to do that
(Part time professional photographer)

Re:Weddings?

[CharlieG]

Oh, and by the way, they ASK nicely for me to not take photos, I won't, and my cell phone is on mute anyway. Ask me to lock it up? That means you don't trust me enough to not use the phone when you asked me to. I really don't stay friends with people who don't trust me to honor their wishes. I'll look at whomever is saying I need to lock up the phone and say "no" - they insist, like I said, I walk out, and at this age, my gift, which is usually in the high 3 to low 4 figure check gets ripped up, and I go home. I will also tell them exactly what I felt in a nice letter, and like I said, tell their parent (who is probably the reason I'm being invited) exactly how I felt. Like I said, ask me not to take out the cell phone, no issue - tell me to lock it up means you don't trust me, fuck off

Really, as I said, it is more likely that I'll be ASKED to bring my camera, and if I know the bride/groom well enough I will. There is more than one bride out there who, in addition to the check, got my bill, and a "Paid in Full" written across it, and they have MY album displayed, not some other photographers

Yeah... no

[firewrought]

My first thought was revulsion: people don't want to be treated like children. They will start bringing decoy phones or even box cutters.

Then I saw that they're also being marketed toward schools. Treating children like children makes more sense.

Also, it's better that we have technology like this instead of denial features getting baked into the phones (as has been proposed in the past) by law or by corporate collusion.

Phones/cameras ruin live performances

[gatkinso]

Just experience the performance. That is the reason you are there, not to make a crappy recording of it.

Better used at the dinner table

[Moof123]

Having recently had our teenage niece visit, I want these for the dinner table. Kids these days can't unhook from them, but really don't have the multitasking skills they seem to think they do. You can't listen to music in one ear, Instagram with your right hand, eat with your left and carry on a conversation with your other ear. You become a babbling pile of "Huh? What mom? Justa sec... Huh?".

My wife ended up realizing a couple months back that she had to leave her phone totally in silent and non-vibrate mode and out of reach or she could not help herself checking on it every time a text or alert came in. We had let things slide and let our 4 year old kid occasionally watch TV while eating dinner for a while, but we learned our lesson when it was clear he was tuning us and his dinner out and instituted a no-electronics policy at meal time. It is very cliche, but it has really made meals be enjoyable family time where we actually talk to each other. I really have turned into my parents...

how tear/cut proof are these things

[MadCow42]

Either I would refuse to participate in such an event, or I'd immediately tear/cut open the pouch upon entry, sorry. Phones are for a lot more than just videotaping concerts - including keeping an eye on my kids via texts from my babysitter, etc. I'm not going to be 100% unreachable due to the artists' paranoia.

Yes, I fully agree with their right to ban videotaping and photography. But - locking away my phone like that bans a LOT of other stuff they have no fucking right to even think about.

I hope this falls flat on it's face.

Re:how tear/cut proof are these things

[hyades1]

It's stated quite clearly that you only need to step out of the concert for a few seconds to deal with your insurmountable need to be perpetually in touch.

Just a guess: I bet you don't get laid a lot.

Re:how tear/cut proof are these things

[MadCow42]

Just a guess: you don't have young kids.

Re:how tear/cut proof are these things

[hyades1]

Not anymore. But during the relevant period, I didn't feel the need to be in touch 24-7. A quick step outside after an hour would be adequate to touch base with the babysitter, if I felt it was necessary. And amazingly, they've turned out just fine. Kids to be proud of.

My friends have similar experiences. Not even one of the many offspring still need daddy to wipe their bottoms for them...contrary to what's happening with so many of today's helicopter parents.

Strip searches?

[hackel]

So are they strip-searching everyone as they enter the venue? Seems like it would be rather trivial to conceal a device on your person, especially if you brought a decoy phone to put in their magic box. I was appalled at the huge number of rent-a-cop-types present at a recent comedy show I went to, yelling at anyone who had their phone out, even if they were clearly not using it to record the show.

I really want to support live performance--this is something performers really deserve to be paid well for (as opposed to royalties on recordings they already did the work for). This is not a viable solution, however. We've got to come up with a better way...and that may just be honestly. Fair use allows limited recordings of such events, and anything outside of that can and should be prosecuted. It seems to me like this isn't that much of an issue. No one's going to want to watch some shitty, low-light, phone cam version of an entire performance. These are usually just for oddball occurrences within shows and/or racist rants by performers.

Re:Strip searches?

[hyades1]

You feel free to smuggle your phone into a venue where you've been asked not to use it. If you're next to me and you actually do whip it out and start annoying me, I'll just call a security guard and have you removed from the concert.

If you're unlucky enough to be next to a couple of rather large guys I know, they probably wouldn't bother calling anybody over. They'll just take your phone off you and shove it so far up your ass they'll break a couple of your back teeth.

Re:Strip searches?

[hackel]

What the fuck is wrong with you? (or these mysterious "guys?") Resorting to physical violence because someone is using a phone? You have some serious problems...

Why you'd choose to take the side of these asshole capitalists is beyond me.

Re:Strip searches?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a pussy, do it yourself. Also it seems you have some problems if you're too fixated with "large guys" and things "up your ass" :v

Re:Strip searches?

[hyades1]

There's actually not a thing wrong with those guys. I've played various sports with them for years. What they don't appreciate is some self-entitled little prick who thinks rules are for everybody but him.

I sympathize with their view, though as I said, I would be more inclined to just call security and have you thrown out.

Re:Strip searches?

[hyades1]

I'm quite capable of doing it myself, actually. But why would I dirty my hands on somebody like you?

Better by far to watch security people doing their job, while I enjoy the rest of the concert.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[geekmux]

Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.

If Marchel Dechamp were to walk in and find someone shitting in the very toilet he created his art on, I promise you he would be irritated, in much the same way fellow artist Rob Zombie is rather irritated to look up at 10,000 camera lenses instead of true fans who clearly appreciate the moment.

Just wanted to clarify how different your examples are to the disrespect being served up to artists today.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[BlueKitties]

It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.

Rob Zombie, actor in 19 movies and TV series

[ffkom]

.... claims "not to be a tv guy" - yeah, sure: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm095...

Wasn't it the purpose of weddings to publish?

[ffkom]

I mean: If you don't want people to tell others about your festivity, why bother the efforts and expenses to celebrate a wedding in the first place? Just close the contract before either secular or religious authorities, go to bed early and enjoy your newly church-sanctioned conjugal intercourse.

TJ Miller did this in Denver

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

I was a little surprised when I walked into the show and they had a check at the door set up to accommodate this. Honestly, the only practical downside was that they should have a option to check the stupid thing at the door so I didn't have to lug the bag around with me.

Translation

[DarkOx]

"I know my show is protected, and it empowers me to be more honest and open with the audience"

translation:

I want to be able to speak my mind but I am terrified the outrage machine might latch on to one off hand comment I might make and crucify me.

Re: Rob Zombie

[suutar]

it sounded to me less like he was annoyed with people recording and more with not being able to see the people for all the devices. I wonder how he'd do with an audience with a bunch of google glasses?

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[geekmux]

It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps an entertainer should simply give up on the notion of actually entertaining their fans, and stop touring altogether. Sure seems like a rather pointless effort from the perspective of the one sweating for two hours on a stage every night.

I'm certain Rob Zombie, being an old-school kind of entertainer, would respect that rather obvious point, even when 10,000 ignorant "fans" don't. Because the point Rob is trying to make is that obvious, it also has support from fans today, unlike other spoiled artists of yesteryear.

And if anyone needs to get a check on their out-of-control ego, I'd say it's the over-entitled shithead who thinks they can ruin the experience for everyone around them with their cell phone addiction during a concert just because they paid for a ticket.

Just wait for the first mass killing

[Anonymous Coward]

We will see if they stick around after the first mass shooting where people can't call for help because of their bags.

People are complaining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, for those against using Yondr, what is wrong with you? You can't function 2 hours without your phone or you have to record your entire life? No one cares about you at the concert or Chappelle show. Stay home then it is that simple. Emergency can be dealt with without your phone. You know 15 - 20 years ago no one had phones and we all made it out okay. So stop with the dumb argument that your phone has rights. It doesn't. Just admit that you have a problem and you are addicted to your cell phone.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Have you ever been on stage, and tried to perform for a completely unresponsive audience? It's an extremely shitty experience.

If there wasn't a problem yondr wouldn't exist

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory,"

Spoken like a true moronial. As long as people can still dial 911 in an emergency I don't have a problem with this. I've been places where idiots with cell phones have simply ruined the event for everyone. I can still remember when cells first came out at prices that normal people could afford. These people would walk down the aisles in grocery stores holding their phone at arm's length SHOUTING into it. Basically saying "I have a cell phone, look at me. I'm important. Look at me, I have a cell phone." Even as recently as Avenger Civil War, the movie was interrupted by some inconsiderate dolt SHOUTING into his phone to overcome the theater noise. He was eventually ejected, but it ruined a good five minutes of the move for a large part of the audience. Yes, I carry a cell phone. It is a convenience not a necessity, and I never shout into it. If these inconsiderate pinheads did not exist there would be no reason for yondr.

I'm parting with my ability to use it

[zerofoo]

What if an emergency arises and now my mobile device is locked in a pouch? I have given up my ability to use the device.

Yes I still possess the device, but that is cold comfort if someone starts shooting up the place and I have to call 911....and can't.

Re:I'm parting with my ability to use it

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if a meteor hits the venue?

Yes, that COULD happen. However, the odds of an emergency happening that can't be handled by on-site security because their radios died, or because their cell phones - which they won't have to put in the pouch because they are staff - are not working, or that can't be handled by someone else who is close to the exit and can get their pouches unlocked, or that can't be handled by the emergency personnel that are on standby for the event, are astronomically small.

If you aren't willing to put up with those odds, you shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

Re:I'm parting with my ability to use it

[ChoGGi]

Pull out a knife or another sharp object? I would just say the staff will call on the land line if that happens, but I'm sure someone will ask "What if all the staff were shot?".

Are you stoned?

[zerofoo]

Did you even read my post?

My mobile device does lots of things. But as I stated in my post - I don't USE it for anything DURING a concert. Did I say I ONLY use it for safety and security? No - I said that was the PRIMARY reason for carrying the device.

You apparently have difficulty with reading comprehension maybe you should try reading stuff a few times before posting replies.

How does one call me on a landline?

[zerofoo]

So if my kids are trouble and they need to contact me, your suggestion is that they call me at the concert or venue.

Have you even put two braincells into your reply?

IF my kids could figure out what number to call - there is no guarantee that anyone there would take the call.

Then there is the problem of the helpful "staff" as you call them finding me in a sea of other people.

You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree now are you?

Re:How does one call me on a landline?

[Lost Race]

So if my kids are trouble and they need to contact me, your suggestion is that they call me at the concert or venue.

Yes, that's exactly how we did it in the old days before mobile phones. Name and phone number of the venue posted by the kitchen phone. If the kids aren't capable of making that call then they should have a babysitter.

Then there is the problem of the helpful "staff" as you call them finding me in a sea of other people.

Pause the show, make announcement over the PA system. Remember, this is in case of emergency.

I'm Less Concerned With the Recording

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm less concerned with the filming/recording, to be honest. Although even then, have you ever looked at one of these phone zombies during a movie let's say? And all they do the whole time is text this, Facebook that, Tweet something else. How on Earth do you enjoy the show? Why bother paying the money? Stay at home, or go to the mall or Starbucks or something.

No, what I really object to is the phone calls. It's intensely disrespectful of both the artists and the rest of the audience. Even if the offender immediately silences the phone and leaves, it's too late! You've already disrupted the performance!

And then there are the douches who insist upon talking, actually carrying on a one-sided conversation, with an entire theatre listening to them. Because, we rest of the audience cannot not listen to them.

This happens despite signage, despite announcements. Hell, it has been a quarter century now we've had cell phones. Every thinking, feeling, decent human being ought to be aware of the potential of such devices to interrupt proceedings that they have no business interrupting. No matter how important, self-satisfied, or even distracted the offender feels.

So yeah, I support the lockable bags. I support them because cell phone/smartphone users, as a group, have shown themselves unable to control themselves sufficiently, to just allow them to act on their own good behavior and manners. Even if it's an honest mistake, we all pay the price for your honest mistake. There are too many mistakes, if we want to be honest about it.

Well, that's one way.

[Anonymous Coward]

The list of things how we know a performer has gone too far up his/her britches continues to expand. Well, I suppose they're creative for a reason.

On the other hand, clever people will just toss their previous cellphone in the bag & photograph with the other one in their pocket. Problem solved, money spent not feeding the performer, everyone's happy.

But you don't..,

[Anonymous Coward]

...get to demand how they use their phone. Same thing here.

Re:But you don't..,

[91degrees]

That's because it would be an unreasonable demand in the circumstances. Nothing they can do with their phone in any way affects me, or any other customers I might have.

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[BlueKitties]

Have you ever spent $50 to see someone perform and try to capture the moment, only to have the jerk you spent $50 to see yell at you for not experiencing things how they see fit? I actually have several friends who have bands, and I can tell you they'd be more than happy to have 10,000 cameras flooding them onto social media. Further more, art and general aesthetic response is subjective. Art isn't even about the audience per se, though artist and audience can blend those lines. Of course, I don't think grumpy musicians are generally reveling in meta-art the moment they tiss fit about cameras from stage, though I'm sure at some point a clever artist will play those strings.

I am a god!
The audience in the palm of my hand,
Moved by my every word,
Swaying to the rhythms I command,
I am a god! ...

Wait, what are you doing with those cameras my worshipers!?
Put those up you plebeian scum, I am your god.
Put those up so you can worship me how I see fit!

Re:Case in point where this would have been great.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

It's a two-way respect kind of thing. Some artists love it, some don't. Similarly, some people just have to record literally everything, while some people prefer to live in the moment.

A quick snapshot? Sure.

Recording the whole damn show? You're an idiot. Your video is going to be utter shit, and you're missing the actual show to record it.

Would this be noted on ticket sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they'd list this on ticket sales. Because if I bought tickets and was told I couldn't keep my phone I'd want an instant refund.

It's bad enough good tickets are $200. If i was told I was then not allowed to remember it on my phone.. yeah get fucked haha I wouldn't buy tickets to something.

Although, the bands I go to watch don't seem to really care about piracy. We were told at Hilltop Hoods 'Yeah, Go for it. Share it. Maybe people will want to buy our Album?'

That's the right attitude, because if someone is so desperate to listen to an artist they want to watch a recording from a smartphone... well.

That's stupid.

Soon

[Anonymous Coward]

We will have tiny cameras in our eyeballs or everyone wearing glasses will have the option there's something really visceral and reassuring about having a physical memory that you can back up or share with someone else I think people should have a right to have a record of what they see and hear and this issue is just going to get more and more complicated until people accept that most of the time people would like to have a record outside their brains for multiple reasons.

Ticket refund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I get refund on my ticket if I choose not to give up my phone? If the phone storage requirement is not stated at the time of purchase, this seems like a legal issue.